Marijuana and our Government

[blueflame]

Well, in recent times, i have been noticing all the Anti-Drug adds that the government is putting on tv. you know the ones, " baby falls ina pool, just tell your parents your getting high"
Is it just me or does this seem like such blatent propaganda. I mean, i have no problem telling the truth about it, like the fact that it does contair tar, and the smoke still causes cancer, but they seem to be playing on people emotions with no real facts being portrayed, it instead seems like they are using scare tactics.
This seems remenicient of the 1950's when they made movies like reefer madness.
Now, i am not condoning the use of marijuana, but i would like our government not to be lieing to us, and having smoked before, i see it produce none of the horrible things that they seem to portray.
Another thing, if the government is spending 400 billion dollars a year to fight just marijuana, wouldnt it be more economically viable to just save our taxpayer dollars, and make it a legal product, like alcohol, regulate it.
not only will we save the 400 billion dollars, but imagine the amount of revenue we could make off of its sale.
I bring this up for a point of discussion, so i hope all you well educated mac users will take this in the direction you see fit.
thats my 2 cents
thanks all
Andreas

[mactastic]

My favorite is the ones that suggest that if you are buying pot you are supporting terrorism. Like pot comes from the middle east or columbia or something. Most of it is either grown domestically or comes from mexico or canada. Yet the same people that support those ads are offended that anyone would suggest the same thing about SUVs.:p

Remember during the '80's that famous ad that purported to show the brain waves of a normal kid, then one on pot? Turned out the one on pot was actually someone in a coma. The truth would be a refreshing change.

[leet1]

Originally posted by blueflame
Now, i am not condoning the use of marijuana, but i would like our government not to be lieing to us, and having smoked before, i see it produce none of the horrible things that they seem to portray.

You have not smoked the "good stuff"

It can mess you up like you wouldn't believe.

The ads I've seen, where the kid starts playing with the raft near the pool can happen when your high and babysitting.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by leet1
You have not smoked the "good stuff"

It can mess you up like you wouldn't believe.

The ads I've seen, where the kid starts playing with the raft near the pool can happen when your high and babysitting.

It can also happen when you are stupid and babysitting, or drunk and babysitting, or on the phone and babysitting. Be careful drawing causal relationships without proof.

[leet1]

Originally posted by mactastic
It can also happen when you are stupid and babysitting, or drunk and babysitting, or on the phone and babysitting. Be careful drawing causal relationships without proof.

Right, so you should not 1. smoke weed while babysitting 2. Drink 3. Be stupid

Nothing wrong with the ad, IMO

[mactastic]

Originally posted by leet1
Right, so you should not 1. smoke weed while babysitting 2. Drink 3. Be stupid

Nothing wrong with the ad, IMO

You forgot talk on the phone while babysitting.

'Cuz we all know talking on the phone kill babies.

[mactastic]

So I would also imagine you support the idea that driving cars, particularly gas guzzlers, causes terrorism right?

[leet1]

Originally posted by mactastic
You forgot talk on the phone while babysitting.

'Cuz we all know talking on the phone kill babies.

Right, you should be paying attention to a baby if your babysitting it at all times....

[mactastic]

Originally posted by leet1
Right, you should be paying attention to a baby if your babysitting it at all times....

But why do the ads not say that? Instead they say that smoking pot is the cause, not inattentive behavior.

[leet1]

Originally posted by mactastic
So I would also imagine you support the idea that driving cars, particularly gas guzzlers, causes terrorism right?

Nope, just supports more polution.

[mischief]

Essentially.... there's no good reason NOT to legalize and regulate all narcotics and vice crimes.

The bad (and plentiful) reasons for the status quo have mainly to do with how nicely all this "crime" creates jobs, keeps a national privatized prison industry in the chips, funds a whopping number of federal agencies and projects, creates "moral" issues for politicians to "solve" and generally guarentees a nice, safe "us-and-them" attitude for exploitation at poll time.

The same effect can be seen in the Insurance, Medical, Legal and Worker's Compensation fields where protecting the budget for next year and legally covering your ass outweigh the importance of the real issues.

[leet1]

Originally posted by mactastic
But why do the ads not say that? Instead they say that smoking pot is the cause, not inattentive behavior.

Because pot leads to inattentive behavoir.

[mactastic]

I mean, there really are enough bad things about using drugs that you don't have to make intellectually dishonest arguments to say they are bad. The gov't just uses scare tactics, which backfires once people realize they are being lied to.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by leet1
Because pot leads to inattentive behavoir.

Bullflops. Show me some proof of that.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by leet1
Nope, just supports more polution.

But we all know pollution leads to terrorism.

[mischief]

Originally posted by leet1
Nope, just supports more polution.

In fact 90%+ of the funds for international, fundamentalist-Islamist terrorism is generated from Oil money via the Saudi royal family.

The Bin Laden family.

[leet1]

Originally posted by mactastic
Bullflops. Show me some proof of that.


Give me your address. I'll send you a dime sack, some potato chips, and a book. Then you can tell me how long you pay attention to that book :D lol

[mactastic]

Originally posted by leet1
Give me your address. I'll send you a dime sack, some potato chips, and a book. Then you can tell me how long you pay attention to that book :D lol

You'd be waiting a while. Unless you handed me an Ayn Rand book.:D

[mischief]

Originally posted by leet1
Because pot leads to inattentive behavoir.

So do most prescription mood-stabilizers, Hystamine reactions, head colds, decent Pizzas and a really nice looking co-ed.

I can tell you from long experience that Pot smoking only exaggerates existing attentive patterns. It's still a matter of PRESENCE OF MIND. I've actually found (and I most certainly HAVE smoked "the good stuff") that Alcohol is worse for my presence of mind at an equivalent level of enibriation.

[Dros]

Originally posted by blueflame

Another thing, if the government is spending 400 billion dollars a year to fight just marijuana, wouldnt it be more economically viable to just save our taxpayer dollars, and make it a legal product, like alcohol, regulate it.
not only will we save the 400 billion dollars, but imagine the amount of revenue we could make off of its sale.
I bring this up for a point of discussion, so i hope all you well educated mac users will take this in the direction you see fit.
thats my 2 cents
thanks all
Andreas

Let's see... the entire Department of Defense budget for 2004 is 358 billion dollars. You are saying the cost of chasing down stoners is 400 billion a year? I'm for legalizing, but maybe accountants shouldn't be allowed to partake if this is the result!

[rueyeet]

It's hard to draw a conclusion from my own personal experiences, since I've only ever known two really dedicated potheads.

One of them was an honors student taking two languages, and was getting grades I envied--mostly A's. I don't think I ever saw him when he wasn't high! And today he has a decent job and is doing pretty well. Don't know if he still gets high, but it didn't ruin him.

The other pothead of my acquaintance is an unemployed drifter who's been in and out of trouble with the law on a regular basis. He also now suffers from memory and personality problems not present before his marijuana use, and is incapable of holding a job or living on his own. About all I can say about him is that he made the best coffee I ever had, poor guy.

I can't say that pot particularly damaged the first of these two cases, but I can say that the second would have been better off without it (assuming he didn't just find some other drug to use to destroy himself with).

[jxyama]

i've only smoked once (in Amsterdam) and it sure can make you inattentive. that said, i don't think those ads are very good. it's quite stupid and really dumbs down the audience.

if you've done it before, the ad will look stupid because marijuana is no more harmful than many other things like talking on the phone, being drunk, etc. as far as babysitting is concerned - as an example. if you've never done it before and already thinks marijuana is absolutely the most evil thing on earth, then the ad just looks patronizing. it's not very informative either way.

having done it, i consider it another form of entertainment and i see why marijuana should not be legal if tobacco is. however, that doesn't mean marijuana should be legalized. i think tobacco should be made illegal, in my opinion.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by jxyama
i think tobacco should be made illegal, in my opinion.

Now THAT would cause some serious riots! And a huge black market for smokes too.

[leet1]

Originally posted by jxyama
i think tobacco should be made illegal, in my opinion.

I think alcohol should be too<but you wouldn't see me vote for that until I get out of college >:p lol

[mactastic]

Originally posted by leet1
I think alcohol should be too<but you wouldn't see me vote for that until I get out of college >:p lol

Maybe before you get out of college you'll learn what happened the last time we outlawed alcohol.

[leet1]

Originally posted by mactastic
Maybe before you get out of college you'll learn what happened the last time we outlawed alcohol.

Learned that back in 7th or 8th grade(?)

Prohibition.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by leet1
Learned that back in 7th or 8th grade(?)

Prohibition.

And you want to go back to that?

[etoiles]

"if a pot smoker can become Governor, a pot smoker can do anything !"

http://www.forarnoldssake.com/

:p

[leet1]

Originally posted by mactastic
And you want to go back to that?

Nah, not really; I just think there would be less bad things in this world without alcohol.

Just my opinion.

It would be taking rights away that we deserve to outlaw alcohol and tobacco.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

[mactastic]

Originally posted by leet1
Nah, not really; I just think there would be less bad things in this world without alcohol.

Just my opinion.

It would be taking rights away that we deserve to outlaw alcohol and tobacco.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

So how are alcohol and tobacco rights, while pot, speed, heroin, X, and a host of other drugs aren't?

[jxyama]

i don't mind alcohol because you don't get the second smoke effect...

i know it's not very realistic but i can be idealistic, right? ;)

[leet1]

Originally posted by mactastic
So how are alcohol and tobacco rights, while pot, speed, heroin, X, and a host of other drugs aren't?

Well thats what people would argue if we tried to make tobacco/alcohol illegal.

Pot, speed, heroin, x, and that "host" of other drugs are in a totally different catagory, but in some ways can be compared to tobacco/alcohol. There is probably a good paper out there that someone wrote that could tell you why Tobacco/alcohol deserve to be legal and those others don't. Time to search www.oppapers.com :cool:

[g30ffr3y]

alcohol lends itself to much worse behavior... id rather see weed be legal and alcohol outlawed...

[mactastic]

Originally posted by leet1
Well thats what people would argue if we tried to make tobacco/alcohol illegal.

No they would argue it on moral grounds or something else. AFAIK the constitution does not give you the right to drugs. Heck if it did, we wouldn't be having this argument over perscription drug benefits!


Pot, speed, heroin, x, and that "host" of other drugs are in a totally different catagory, but in some ways can be compared to tobacco/alcohol. There is probably a good paper out there that someone wrote that could tell you why Tobacco/alcohol deserve to be legal and those others don't. Time to search www.oppapers.com :cool:

In other words, you don't have any idea why T and A (:D ) should be legal while other drugs should not, and you are now off to find the first bit of information that supports your pre-existing conclusion instead of informing yourself on the matter and coming to a decision based on your research.

Where's that Sherlock Holmes quote about twisting facts to suit theories?

[leet1]

Originally posted by mactastic
In other words, you don't have any idea why T and A (:D ) should be legal while other drugs should not, and you are now off to find the first bit of information that supports your pre-existing conclusion instead of informing yourself on the matter and coming to a decision based on your research.


That was just how I feel, I don't care about why tobacco/Alcohol are legal and the other drugs are not. I just felt that this world would be better without both. Less Cancer....liver problems......

[mactastic]

Originally posted by leet1
That was just how I feel, I don't care about why tobacco/Alcohol are legal and the other drugs are not. I just felt that this world would be better without both. Less Cancer....liver problems......

Well as long as you are willing to admit your views are based on a personal feeling rather than any rational reasoning...

And perhaps the world would be a much more stressful place with higher rates of stress related illness if alcohol or tobacco were not allowed. There are a whole lot of responsible users out there that hold normal jobs, pay taxes, raise families etc. Your personal feelings aren't a sound basis for policy.

[pseudobrit]

I have a drink occassionally. Perhaps twice or thrice a month. Infrequently, I will get totally wasted. Perhaps twice or thrice a year.

I don't drive drunk and I don't do anything other than fall down a lot when I'm ****faced. The other times I drink, I might get a slight buzz if I have more than one and drink them quickly.

I smoke a pipe (or have a cigar) about once or twice a month.

Studies show that my patterns for using tobacco and alcohol are as dangerous as not using them at all. My usage doesn't cause cancer, liver damage, bad breath, addiction or violence.

Using pot is like smoking three or four martinis without getting sick.

Now, tell me how and why these things are bad and shouldn't be available to me when I choose?

[rainman::|:|]

i don't know anyone in real life that believes in the BS these commercials present. in fact, i don't know anyone that doesn't support legalization. i won't go through the rhetoric here, because almost everyone agrees with me...

and to leet, one of my favorite things to do is read. makes the book come alive, you get way more into it (distractions are easier to ignore).

and, if you put pot and speed and heroin and so on in the same category, you're naive. plain and simple. you do not have enough knowledge or experience in the area to formulate a worthwhile conclusion. no offense, but that's the way it is. i'm glad you want the world to be a better place and all, but your ideals are unrealistic and would serve no good if they were inflicted on the masses.

pnw

[leet1]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
i'm glad you want the world to be a better place and all, but your ideals are unrealistic and would serve no good if they were inflicted on the masses.

pnw

Its unrealistic to think of a world without alcohol? You can't see how many lives would be saved from drunk driving?

How could that serve no good to the masses? lol


and, if you put pot and speed and heroin and so on in the same category, you're naive.

Thats right, they are different catagories apart from tobacco and alcohol.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by leet1
Its unrealistic to think of a world without alcohol?...

How could that serve no good to the masses? lol


Tell that to the masses that watch top-fuel funny car races!

Oh wait, alcohol causes you to drive very, very fast.:p

[Counterfit]

Originally posted by mactastic
Tell that to the masses that watch top-fuel funny car races!

Oh wait, alcohol causes you to drive very, very fast.:p Or at least makes you think you do :D

[g30ffr3y]

high levels of alcohol make you much more of an idiot than high levels of THC...

[Counterfit]

Evidence?

[g30ffr3y]

certainly more drunk driving accidents... alcohol destroys families... alcohol makes you sick in the morning... what do stoned people do? sit around and read books and play chess or other type video games and eat pizza... not too many reports of potheads beating their wives and children...

[blueflame]

I think i have had the good stuff, and conclusions i have come to are, like all mind altering substances, in can mess with you, i know that when i have nyquil, i am out for the count, no matter what i am doing, in fact, i feel pretty high.
I am just upset with the government for the blatent lies, at least if the adds were quasi informational, or even true, but like someone said, you could be talking on the phone and not paying attention, or watching a movie, either thing can be just as bad as marijuana. When i smoke, i do so responsibly, i smoke after my work is done, i smoke when i have nothing to do, i considter it like going to a movie, 2 hours are gone, and they wont come back, but i do not go a do things while i am intoxicated. Same as drinking, i drink at parties, and walk home or take a cab.
The fact the marijuana has tar like cigarettes, how much pot do you really smoke, i know for me, one joint, amongst 3 friends is perfect. i dont see anyone beiong able to smoke a pack a day, like cigarettes.
If the drugs truely are that bad for society, and if they really cause so much damage, it seems the gov. wouldnt need to resort to scare tactics.

[g30ffr3y]

they are just trying to scare people because its out of control... even parents today are more leanient on the subject or even smoke themselves... the goverment is just tugging at straws with their silly PSA"s....

[g30ffr3y]

btw... happy 4:20... hehehe...

[Sun Baked]

It doesn't matter if it's legal and/or illegal to me.

But the federal/state/local ordinances should make anybody that drives, pilots, or operates machinery responsible for the alcohol, drugs, herbs, medication, etc. they choose to consume when they put their life and/or anybody else's at risk.

To me it doesn't matter if the person had alcohol, heroin, THC, prescription medication, OTC meds, etc. in their blood stream.

If they are deemed incapable of operating anything by sobriety tests or have an accident (and the blood test come back with significant levels) -- they should all be treated the same. So yes, I'd lump them all in to the same pot -- and say they are all just as bad.

But there are of course some jobs that require far more attention than driving a car, and those jobs shouldn't tolerate anything. Though they should completely rule out false positives from the quickie urine tests (ie, if the poppy seed rolls get you in trouble -- stop eating them).

Remember that if you get fired for drugs on the job, don't expect a re-hire (the Supreme Court already ruled on it), if the company follows their own written rules.

[blueflame]

I agree, but it is the same with alcohol so shouldnt it be legal?
Andreas

[Taft]

Originally posted by leet1
Pot, speed, heroin, x, and that "host" of other drugs are in a totally different catagory, but in some ways can be compared to tobacco/alcohol.

That is absolutely bull. Completely untrue.

Go here: www.drugwarfacts.org

Marijuana:
1. Is less addictive than alcohol.
2. Is less addictive than caffeine
3. Effects sensory perception and reflexes less than alcohol.
4. Its active ingredient (THC) is not associated with any long-term health problems (ie. it could be made into a drug without the risks of lung cancer or liver damage associated with smoking and drinking).


There is probably a good paper out there that someone wrote that could tell you why Tobacco/alcohol deserve to be legal and those others don't. Time to search www.oppapers.com :cool:

I have yet to hear a logical argument in support of this.

Also, about your assertion that pot leads to inattentive behavior, and therefore its alright to run that ad. It isn't OK. As mactastic pointed out, there are uncountable ways in which a baby sitter could act irresponsibly.

Given that alcohol effects behavior more potently than marijuana, why wasn't the ad targeted at stopping babysitters from drinking while babysitting? How about herion? How about talking on the phone? How about having a party? All of those lead to inattentive behavior as well.

Basically, why was pot singled out? There are far more dangerous drugs and ways of behaving out there--including legal behaviors--so why was pot targetted?

Taft

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by blueflame
I agree, but it is the same with alcohol so shouldnt it be legal?
Andreas Something should be done to keep the casual users out of jail for it, stiff fines & community service.

Of course there are probably a lot of companies that would still want these fines/arrests to show up on people's criminal record... since pilots and nuclear plant engineers recent use may affect lots of lives.

But there were over 14,000# siezed (aka, found in the desert) in a single bust down by the border in the past couple months packed into 7 vehicles.

Now those 7 people were not going to a casual party.

[Taft]

Originally posted by leet1
Its unrealistic to think of a world without alcohol? You can't see how many lives would be saved from drunk driving?

How could that serve no good to the masses? lol

Because the reality would be much harsher. You said you learned about prohibition in the 7th or 8th grade. Go look at what happened when we outlawed it.

Prohibition didn't stop people from drinking alcohol. There was still a strong demand for it in the US. As a result, huge crime rings were set up to provide alcohol to the masses. This resulted in crime rates (murders, gang activity) going up, greater tax dollars spent on enforcement/encarceration, etc. And, since the use of alcohol didn't stop, the country didn't see any benifit from making alcohol illegal. It basically mirrors today's drug war.

You are right: if it were possible to eradicate alcohol, there would be far less drunk driving deaths. But it ain't going to happen; reality makes it impossible. Prohibition and the current drug war prove that out. Do you know that marijuana use hasn't declined since the war on drugs was instituted? Its a pretty harsh reality.

Considering the fact that we can't get rid of drugs and alcohol by making them illegal, don't you think we should try some other method of encouraging people to avoid drugs/alcohol or use them safely? How about stopping the war on drugs, then investing all of the money we were spending on futile enforcement and encarceration on rehab and education programs instead? How about creating reasonable transportation services for intoxicated individuals (to curb drunk driving)?

The money focused on bogus programs such as D.A.R.E. (which has been shown not to work) and these ludicrous ads could also be far better spent. Instead of distorting the truth and lying to our children, why not try giving them the real facts behind drug use. Don't tell them that pot is in the same class as herion and cocaine. As anyone who has ever tried them will tell you, it is simply not true. Research also shows this. How about encouraging kids to call home for a ride when they are drunk and encouraging parents to have healthy dialog with their kids about drugs and their use. Lying to our kids isn't working, the data proves that. Time to change our strategies.

I again encourage you to visit this site: www.drugwarfacts.org

It has a ton of information about various drugs, their real effects, upsides, and downsides and about current enforcement/legalization efforts domestically and abroad. It is very comprehensive and is careful to cite research and studies to back up each of their points.

Taft

[blueflame]

the more money that is spent on the war on drugs, the higher usage there is
this is from one of my school books called congressional quarterly
also, it is unfortunate, becasue as Taft said, the prohibition created all kinds of orgonized crime, thses people who create and distribute the marijuana also are the ones who would suffer if it were legal. We need t make it legal, and take it away from the drug lord, make it regulated, like gambling and drinking.
I have a large research paper, if anyeon would like it, feel free to PM me.
Andreas

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jxyama
i think tobacco should be made illegal, in my opinion.

there's been recent calls for that in the UK: link (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health/story.jsp?story=470212)

[Durandal7]

I say strike down the marijuana laws.

The Federal Government eliminates needless spending on anti-drug ads and the judicial system saves tons of money by freeing up the courts and prisons to deal with violent crimes.

Tax dollars from the legalized sale of marijuana ease the deficit.

Usage stays about steady as the current smokers keep on smoking. The fact is that outlawing marijuana has no bearing on whether or not someone will smoke it.

It's a shame the federal government can't get it's ass in gear. A great deal of the government's debt is due to useless programs like this. Strike this program down and not only do we save money but the government gets tax income to offset the cost of existing programs.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Durandul7 has it nailed but then again that would mean smaller Govt, now do you really think the Govt machine will allow that? if anything they are looking to make new laws so everyone of us can be a criminal. Politics and the Govt machine wont allow this to pass and with that said ill finish this roach;)

[ethernet76]

Originally posted by Durandal7
I say strike down the marijuana laws.

The Federal Government eliminates needless spending on anti-drug ads and the judicial system saves tons of money by freeing up the courts and prisons to deal with violent crimes.

Tax dollars from the legalized sale of marijuana ease the deficit.

Usage stays about steady as the current smokers keep on smoking. The fact is that outlawing marijuana has no bearing on whether or not someone will smoke it.

It's a shame the federal government can't get it's ass in gear. A great deal of the government's debt is due to useless programs like this. Strike this program down and not only do we save money but the government gets tax income to offset the cost of existing programs.

Why not legalize herion and coke too? I mean come on, I want to feel good i'm not going to go with pot.

Why are alcohol and tobacco not outlawed? Because America is a bunch of sad ****ing drunks that need a chemical release. Maybe if alcohol was outlawed we'd have fewer family killed every year by drunk drivers. And tobacco too. How many die from that?

You say isn't it my life? Well yes, but when billions of my tax dollars are spent on cleaning up the accident you caused because you didn't apoint a DD i tend to favor just getting rid of it. You realize how much would be saved? Or maybe the millions spent on providing care to those that have smoked themselves into so poor health they needed one of those holes cut in their throat. After all, medicare can't ignore dying cancer patients and someone has to pay for their mistakes, and apparently it's no longer them but me.

If you need pot for a release your a sad sad person and i recommend you go out and shoot yourself it's not going to get any better.

Last time i checked police did not actively go after small time uers. Here in college it's a fine and they'll take your bowl, bong, pipe, whatever.

Also I find it funny for those American college students who are receiving Fin Aid from the government. Apparently they don't realize that getting caught automatically disqualifies you from ever receiving aid again.

[tazo]

Originally posted by blueflame
Well, in recent times, i have been noticing all the Anti-Drug adds that the government is putting on tv. you know the ones, " baby falls ina pool, just tell your parents your getting high"
Is it just me or does this seem like such blatent propaganda. I mean, i have no problem telling the truth about it, like the fact that it does contair tar, and the smoke still causes cancer, but they seem to be playing on people emotions with no real facts being portrayed, it instead seems like they are using scare tactics.
This seems remenicient of the 1950's when they made movies like reefer madness.
Now, i am not condoning the use of marijuana, but i would like our government not to be lieing to us, and having smoked before, i see it produce none of the horrible things that they seem to portray.
Another thing, if the government is spending 400 billion dollars a year to fight just marijuana, wouldnt it be more economically viable to just save our taxpayer dollars, and make it a legal product, like alcohol, regulate it.
not only will we save the 400 billion dollars, but imagine the amount of revenue we could make off of its sale.
I bring this up for a point of discussion, so i hope all you well educated mac users will take this in the direction you see fit.
thats my 2 cents
thanks all
Andreas

Because legalizing yet another [possibly] deadly product is exactly the direction that the US needs.

[ethernet76]

Originally posted by tazo
Because legalizing yet another [possibly] deadly product is exactly the direction that the US needs.

Actually I don't think enough people drive when they're high/drunk these days. The few number of people dying is just unacceptable.

[leet1]

Whew, glad I'm not the only person that feels the way I do lol.

[Dont Hurt Me]

This country was founded on freedom but has become a quagmire of laws on top of laws and liberty and freedom are being squashed every generation. Big brother is watching and waiting for every chance to pass another law, to make our freedoms smaller and smaller until one day we are a frickin communist or socialist state. All i can say is the less Govt the better but our Govts wont let that happen,wether city, state,federal they are a force onto themself. Libertarians look better and better all the time.

[tazo]

What i meant by possibly had nothing to do with alcohol whatsoever. What I meant was that by legalizing marijuana, people will not be content with it anymore. After all, isnt half the reason people use drugs because they feel rebellious in doing so? Because in their eyes they are fighting "the man"? Should marijuana be legalized it would invariably lead to smalltime users of marijuana, wanting to obtain and use harsher, more addictive drugs. And we all know what a slippery slope that path is.

-tazo

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by ethernet76
Actually I don't think enough people drive when they're high/drunk these days. The few number of people dying is just unacceptable. It would be nice if it followed the Darwinian Model, but these idiots tend to drive like Homer Simpson and mow other people on the road down.

Of course I'm all for letting these people play with guns in an underground facility. (ie, Redneck Roulette)

[ethernet76]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
This country was founded on freedom but has become a quagmire of laws on top of laws and liberty and freedom are being squashed every generation. Big brother is watching and waiting for every chance to pass another law, to make our freedoms smaller and smaller until one day we are a frickin communist or socialist state. All i can say is the less Govt the better but our Govts wont let that happen,wether city, state,federal they are a force onto themself. Libertarians look better and better all the time.

Because the government's sole purpose is to pass laws to hinder us. By living in this country you enter into a contract with the government. This contract states that in order for the protection that the government provides it's citizens must give up some rights. (The ability to kill someone that angers you, selling coke, being able to piss on that tree when you're drunk). However, since America isn't a communist society all Americans can in some way influence the way laws are passed.(Electing different officials, protests, petitioning).

While all these methods may not be the most speedy, they are all forms of change.

All it requires is a couple thousand signatures to get something on the ballot, something that's not hard to do these days. So if you want to have pot legalized get up off your lazy arse, get a group together and start a petition. That way when your measure fails in a Nov. general election you can stop complaining the man keeps you down and realize it's something America doesn't want.

The man doesn't keep you down, you keep yourself down by not trying to change things.

[markjones05]

Originally posted by blueflame
I am just upset with the government for the blatent lies, at least if the adds were quasi informational, or even true,

Okay and on that note you should be speaking out about every other product or idea sold on television that you know is un-true. Why dont you talk about KFC or Subway claiming there food is healthy. The fact is that television is a powerful medium and people use it brain wash viewers. I think taht these commercials actually work, maybe not to me or you, but i bet it deters a high audience to never try it. And i really dont think thats a bad thing. So whether or not the commercials are completely truthfull is irrelevant.

[markjones05]

Originally posted by ethernet76
Because the government's sole purpose is to pass laws to hinder us. By living in this country you enter into a contract with the government. This contract states that in order for the protection that the government provides it's citizens must give up some rights.


umm... what?

[markjones05]

Originally posted by Taft
Because the reality would be much harsher. You said you learned about prohibition in the 7th or 8th grade. Go look at what happened when we outlawed it.

Prohibition didn't stop people from drinking alcohol. There was still a strong demand for it in the US. As a result, huge crime rings were set up to provide alcohol to the masses. This resulted in crime rates (murders, gang activity) going up, greater tax dollars spent on enforcement/encarceration, etc. And, since the use of alcohol didn't stop, the country didn't see any benifit from making alcohol illegal. It basically mirrors today's drug war.

You are right: if it were possible to eradicate alcohol, there would be far less drunk driving deaths. But it ain't going to happen; reality makes it impossible. Prohibition and the current drug war prove that out. Do you know that marijuana use hasn't declined since the war on drugs was instituted? Its a pretty harsh reality.

Considering the fact that we can't get rid of drugs and alcohol by making them illegal, don't you think we should try some other method of encouraging people to avoid drugs/alcohol or use them safely? How about stopping the war on drugs, then investing all of the money we were spending on futile enforcement and encarceration on rehab and education programs instead? How about creating reasonable transportation services for intoxicated individuals (to curb drunk driving)?

The money focused on bogus programs such as D.A.R.E. (which has been shown not to work) and these ludicrous ads could also be far better spent. Instead of distorting the truth and lying to our children, why not try giving them the real facts behind drug use. Don't tell them that pot is in the same class as herion and cocaine. As anyone who has ever tried them will tell you, it is simply not true. Research also shows this. How about encouraging kids to call home for a ride when they are drunk and encouraging parents to have healthy dialog with their kids about drugs and their use. Lying to our kids isn't working, the data proves that. Time to change our strategies.

I again encourage you to visit this site: www.drugwarfacts.org

It has a ton of information about various drugs, their real effects, upsides, and downsides and about current enforcement/legalization efforts domestically and abroad. It is very comprehensive and is careful to cite research and studies to back up each of their points.

Taft


This is by far the best and well thought out argument in this entire thread. I completely agree Taft.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by markjones05
Okay and on that note you should be speaking out about every other product or idea sold on television that you know is un-true. Why dont you talk about KFC or Subway claiming there food is healthy.

the food ads are paid for by the companies. are the drug ads funded by public money? if so, there's a difference.

[Dont Hurt Me]

i say repeal all laws back to the constitution and start over, i dont want some dam politician,lawyer whatever telling me how i can only make love to the wife a certain way and a million other things like burning one. Govt get the heck out of our lives! you need this crap move to communist china

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
i say repeal all laws back to the constitution and start over

even if we _did_ do this, you really think we'd get _anywhere_?

[Dont Hurt Me]

i would like to thank so, i mean look we have a zillion silly ass laws on the books that make no sense at all and making pot a criminal offense is just another of the zillion. what it does is enforces the govt position to grow, more cops, more judges,more paper,more lawyers and more laws to support all this crap. then they send us the tax bill. sure we need laws but how about say a top 10 or 20? am i hurting someone so bad if i want to burn one after a hard days work? heck beer is more powerful then weed. its so politically incorrect they refuse to open it up even for medical purposes? just a bunch of crap and lies coming from the same politicians/lawyers/liars that said my tits would grow and i would go crazy after burning one,,,,well........didnt happen except the crazy part.

[leet1]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
i would like to thank so, i mean look we have a zillion silly ass laws on the books that make no sense at all and making pot a criminal offense is just another of the zillion.

We also have a zillion great laws that protect us every day.

am i hurting someone so bad if i want to burn one after a hard days work? heck beer is more powerful then weed.

Maybe not you, but the other people out there that choose to burn one and drive.

and how is beer more powerful than weed? lol

I remember that I could smoke a joint and get pretty high with 3-4 other people, but it takes me 4-5 beers to get a great buzz going with beer.

[Sayhey]

People who want to use any substance that will impair your ability to drive and then proceed to do so, should be locked up. That doesn't mean alcohol or marijuana should be illegal.

A sane drug policy based on the real ramifications for the use of each drug would be a hellva step forward. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to happen because few politicians see an upside to being perceived as "soft" on drugs.

[leet1]

Originally posted by Sayhey
People who want to use any substance that will impair your ability to drive and then proceed to do so, should be locked up. That doesn't mean alcohol or marijuana should be illegal.

Yes it does. If alcohol was illegal, there would be a lot less cases of drunk driving, because of the lack of avaliability to it.

Same with weed. If it was legal, there would be more access to it and more incidents involving it.

[Durandal7]

I would personally be more worried about someone under the influence of alcohol then marijuana driving.Then again I guess it seems like a bigger issue then it really is since the anti-drug ad with the stoners running a little girl on a bike down started running.

What you are all discussing is human stupidity, not the substance itself. Humans are pathetically stupid creatures for the most part and that will never change. Someone will always be inebriated on something and decide to take a spin in the family Volvo. If you really want to stop intoxicated driving I recommend taking cars out of the equation altogether.

"Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither" -Benjamin Franklin

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by leet1
Yes it does. If alcohol was illegal, there would be a lot less cases of drunk driving, because of the lack of avaliability to it.

Same with weed. If it was legal, there would be more access to it and more incidents involving it.

The fact that weed is illegal doesn't stop people who use it and want to drive under the influence from doing so. An effective educational campaign about the effect of being stoned and driving might do something, but it needs to be real not some "reefer madness" nonsense or people will pay no attention. That combined with stiff penalties for those caught doing so is entirely justified to me. Again that doesn't say anything about the use of weed in other kinds of situations. There is just not any evidence that the effects of its use justifies the criminalization of the drug.

[leet1]

Originally posted by Sayhey
The fact that weed is illegal doesn't stop people who use it and want to drive under the influence from doing so.
It effects the "number" of people who use it and drive under the influence.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by leet1
It effects the "number" of people who use it and drive under the influence.

Did you even read the bloody Cato piece you posted?

Everything in it would indicate the opposite.

To the few who are coming down and saying we should outlaw alcohol, tobacco and keep pot outlawed -- how old are you?

Old enough to smoke? Drink?

[leet1]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Did you even read the bloody Cato piece you posted?

Everything in it would indicate the opposite.


Yea, I said it wouldn't work. That was saying why it wouldn't.


To the few who are coming down and saying we should outlaw alcohol, tobacco and keep pot outlawed -- how old are you?

Old enough to smoke? Drink?

Im old enough to have a say in this, old enough to smoke<smart enough not to>

Not legally old enough to drink, but who hasn't by their freshman year in college? :rolleyes:

[pseudobrit]

It's funny how differently you start to view alcohol after you're able to go to a bar, club or restaurant and order whatever you like.

I don't smoke. I hate cigarettes. But I can deal with their smoke.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by tazo
After all, isnt half the reason people use drugs because they feel rebellious in doing so? Because in their eyes they are fighting "the man"?

Nope. Not at all.
People do drugs to get ****ed up.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by ethernet76
Why not legalize herion and coke too? I mean come on, I want to feel good i'm not going to go with pot.

Not the same. No one ever died from smoking pot.

Why are alcohol and tobacco not outlawed? Because America is a bunch of sad ****ing drunks that need a chemical release.

To deny that human beings need periodic chemical release from reality is to deny humanity.

My g/f of five years broke up with me last month. I drank a whole bottle of gin that night. In about 15 minutes. It was quite therapeutic. If I'd had a doobie I'd've smoked the **** out of it, too. I needed to get out of my head for one night, and Tanqueray did the job quite nicely.

Sad ****ing drunk indeed. What business is it of yours?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by pseudobrit

My g/f of five years broke up with me last month.

sorry to hear that

[rfenik]

Of course it should be legalized. That's a no brainer.

Marijuana doesn't cause car accidents. Bad driving causes car accidents. Ice on the road causes car accidents. Deer cause car accidents.

It's about money. Plain and simple. Tell a cop who's job is to put pot smokers in prison that marijuana should be legal... He'll tell any story he can to keep his job.

Pot is fun. I've done a lot of really cool flash animations and stuff while high, stuff I usually don't have the patience for.

Our government is lying to us, but there isn't anything we can do about it.

Move to Canada! They have thier heads on straight there.

-ryan

[Dont Hurt Me]

Canada sounds like a good idea but its a little to cold. recent studies have shown its easier for a minor to get weed then alcohol or ciggs. legalize, tax it and educate against it. i dont care what anyone says alcohol is a lot more dangerous simply because it makes you more and more sloppy. weed is more of a mellow relaxing buzz, doesnt make you aggressive like alcohol and has the opposite effect. our crazy politicians past this law in fear many years ago on some crazy movie shown to congress.

[markjones05]

Originally posted by pseudobrit

Sad ****ing drunk indeed. What business is it of yours?

Yea ethernet76, get off your soap box. Like your all high and mighty...

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
recent studies have shown its easier for a minor to get weed then alcohol or ciggs.

That was certainly the case when I was a kid.

[Counterfit]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
doesnt make you aggressive like alcohol Alcohol doesn't affect everyone the same way. Some people get violent, some become more outgoing ( that leads to making a fool out of yourself too :)) and then some people drink waaaay too much and pass out.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by tazo
Because legalizing yet another [possibly] deadly product is exactly the direction that the US needs.

How about industrial pollutants? Raising the limits for acceptable amounts of arsenic and other toxins in our water supply? Or is your concern soley limited to "possibly deadly products" that cause intoxication?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by ethernet76
Maybe if alcohol was outlawed we'd have fewer family killed every year by drunk drivers.


And maybe if guns were outlawed we'd have fewer people die from gun violence. But is that really the route you want to go?

Or are you a believer that guns actually do kill people, not that people kill people with guns?

Maybe if gasoline was outlawed we'd have fewer kids frying their brains from huffing it.

Maybe if fatty foods were outlawed we'd have fewer people die from diabetes, heart disease, etc.

Maybe instead of worrying about banning drugs, you should worry about banning cars if you are worried about driving under the influence. Driving while sleepy is just as dangerous as driving drunk. There's just no toxicology report to pin it on a lack of sleep, but it happens alot.

[Taft]

Originally posted by leet1
Yes it does. If alcohol was illegal, there would be a lot less cases of drunk driving, because of the lack of avaliability to it.

Same with weed. If it was legal, there would be more access to it and more incidents involving it.

Did you even read my posts? How about a well thought out response to my arguments?

I gave you many good reasons why prohibition of alcohol wouldn't work. I gave you many reasons why marijuana isn't as dangerous as alcohol. I gave you reading material so you could read for yourself about the truth behiind drug policy and the effect of drugs on people.

You ignored it and continue to make statements like the one quoted above.

Prohibition is a nice dream, but human nature and reality make it impossible! The fallout from prohibition (crime, expenses, ineffectiveness) makes it more costly to society than the drugs/alcohol it is trying to stop. There are more effective methods of keeping people off of drugs than banning the drug itself. Research shows this to be true.

Do some research before you make this statement again. I have refuted your point, and you ignored it. That isn't very respectful.

Taft

[Taft]

Since many here refuse to follow the links I provide, here are some tidbits from studies on Marijuana:
A Johns Hopkins study published in May 1999, examined marijuana's effects on cognition on 1,318 participants over a 15 year period. Researchers reported "no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis." They also found "no male-female differences in cognitive decline in relation to cannabis use." "These results ... seem to provide strong evidence of the absence of a long-term residual effect of cannabis use on cognition," they concluded.
Source: Constantine G. Lyketsos, Elizabeth Garrett, Kung-Yee Liang, and James C. Anthony. (1999). "Cannabis Use and Cognitive Decline in Persons under 65 Years of Age," American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 149, No. 9.When examining the relationship between marijuana use and violent crime, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded, "Rather than inducing violent or aggressive behavior through its purported effects of lowering inhibitions, weakening impulse control and heightening aggressive tendencies, marihuana was usually found to inhibit the expression of aggressive impulses by pacifying the user, interfering with muscular coordination, reducing psychomotor activities and generally producing states of drowsiness lethargy, timidity and passivity."
Source: Shafer, Raymond P., et al, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, Ch. III, (Washington DC: National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972).When examining the medical affects of marijuana use, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded, "A careful search of the literature and testimony of the nation's health officials has not revealed a single human fatality in the United States proven to have resulted solely from ingestion of marihuana. Experiments with the drug in monkeys demonstrated that the dose required for overdose death was enormous and for all practical purposes unachievable by humans smoking marihuana. This is in marked contrast to other substances in common use, most notably alcohol and barbiturate sleeping pills. The WHO reached the same conclusion in 1995.
Source: Shafer, Raymond P., et al, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, Ch. III, (Washington DC: National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972); Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28, 1995, (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, March 1998).The World Health Organization released a study in March 1998 that states: "there are good reasons for saying that [the risks from cannabis] would be unlikely to seriously [compare to] the public health risks of alcohol and tobacco even if as many people used cannabis as now drink alcohol or smoke tobacco."
Source: Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28, 1995, (contained in original version, but deleted from official version) (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, March 1998).Australian researchers found that regions giving on-the-spot fines to marijuana users rather than harsher criminal penalties did not cause marijuana use to increase.
Source: Ali, Robert, et al., The Social Impacts of the Cannabis Expiation Notice Scheme in South Australia: Summary Report (Canberra, Australia: Department of Health and Aged Care, 1999), p. 44.Since 1969, government-appointed commissions in the United States, Canada, England, Australia, and the Netherlands concluded, after reviewing the scientific evidence, that marijuana's dangers had previously been greatly exaggerated, and urged lawmakers to drastically reduce or eliminate penalties for marijuana possession.
Source: Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, Cannabis (London, England: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1969); Canadian Government Commission of Inquiry, The Non-Medical Use of Drugs (Ottawa, Canada: Information Canada, 1970); The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, (Nixon-Shafer Report) (Washington, DC: USGPO, 1972); Werkgroep Verdovende Middelen, Background and Risks of Drug Use (The Hague, The Netherlands: Staatsuigeverij, 1972); Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, Drug Problems in Australia-An Intoxicated Society (Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1977); Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, "The classification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971" (London, England, UK: Home Office, March 2002), available on the web from http://www.drugs.gov.uk/ReportsandPublications/Communities/HO_drugsadvice.pdf ; House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Third Report, "The Government's Drugs Policy: Is It Working?" (London, England, UK: Parliament, May 9, 2002), from the web at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/318/31802.htm and "Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy," report of the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs (Ottawa, Canada: Senate of Canada, September 2002). According to the federal Potency Monitoring Project, the average potency of marijuana has increased very little since the 1980s. The Project reports that in 1985, the average THC content of commercial-grade marijuana was 2.84%, and the average for high-grade sinsemilla in 1985 was 7.17%. In 1995, the potency of commercial-grade marijuana averaged 3.73%, while the potency of sinsemilla in 1995 averaged 7.51%. In 2001, commercial-grade marijuana averaged 4.72% THC, and the potency of sinsemilla in 2001 averaged 9.03%.
Source: Quarterly Report #76, Nov. 9, 2001-Feb. 8, 2002, Table 3, p. 8, University of Mississippi Potency Monitoring Project (Oxford, MS: National Center for the Development of Natural Products, Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2002), Mahmoud A. ElSohly, PhD, Director, NIDA Marijuana Project (NIDA Contract #N01DA-0-7707).
Since many of these points directly contradict the points anti-marijuana posters have been making on this board, I'd be interested in hearing their response to each individual item.

Taft

[leet1]

Originally posted by Taft
Since many of these points directly contradict the points anti-marijuana posters have been making on this board, I'd be interested in hearing their response to each individual item.

Taft


and yet...Im still anti-marijuana :rolleyes: and will always be.

[rfenik]

And always will be. Ha. You HAD to add that.

I think while the goverment is all about making plants they don't like illegal they should go ahead and make poison ivy illegal. I think that's more of a problem than pot.

-ryan

[zimv20]

Originally posted by leet1
and will always be.

is there any good reason why i shouldn't assume you're close-minded?

[leet1]

Originally posted by zimv20
is there any good reason why i shouldn't assume you're close-minded?

Could care less what you assume. If you think just because someone is anti-drugs they are close-minded, you've got some things to learn. :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

Originally posted by leet1
Could care less what you assume.

and what can i do to ensure what care remains be spoiled?

[Sayhey]

Taft, it would seem that little things like facts and reasoned argument don't make any difference with some posters. Not much point in paying attention to their posts, IMHO.

edit:

Could care less what you assume. If you think just because someone is anti-drugs they are close-minded, you've got some things to learn.


No, there are many people who are anti-drugs (including me in some cases) that are not close-minded. Your refusal to deal with any thing Taft or others have said would indicate that you are not one of the open minded anti-drug people.

[leet1]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Taft, it would seem that little things like facts and reasoned argument don't make any difference with some posters. Not much point in paying attention to their posts, IMHO.

Right, especially when they aren't going to change their opinion on something like drugs.

Good idea not to pay attention to the post, you keep doing that.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by leet1
Right, especially when they aren't going to change their opinion on something like drugs.

Good idea not to pay attention to the post, you keep doing that.

you could save us time and effort by just saying: "no, i cannot provide you a good reason to assume i'm open-minded"

[leet1]

Originally posted by zimv20
you could save us time and effort by just saying: "no, i cannot provide you a good reason to assume i'm open-minded"

Like I said, I could care less if you think I'm open-minded or not.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by leet1
Like I said, I could care less if you think I'm open-minded or not.

and the amount of care that still remains, is it more or less than the amount of care from a few posts ago, or is it about the same?

[amnesiac1984]

Arguing / debating is not about trying to change other peoples opinions. It is about improving your own. Putting forward your opinion allowing others to challenge it is why we debate in these forums, it allows us to consider possibilties we perhaps had not heard before. Thereby altering your idea on a subject to suit the new ideas and facts that have been made available to us. Simply ignoring these facts and sticking to your guns is not right for open-minded people. If you still have reasons for your opinion not to change then throw them into the debate, failure to do so leaves others unable to understand your opinions.

Originally posted by leet1
Right, especially when they aren't going to change their opinion on something like drugs.

Good idea not to pay attention to the post, you keep doing that.

It is perhaps the most naive thing you can do to say that you will never change your opinion on anything, be it drugs or wars or whatever.

And now you say you don't care if people think you are closed minded, if you don't care what we think, why are you here?

[leet1]

Originally posted by amnesiac1984
It is perhaps the most naive thing you can do to say that you will never change your opinion on anything, be it drugs or wars or whatever.

I had a friend die from some dumbass who got drunk one night and decided to drive home.

Its bad enough having to worry about running into drunks at night on the highway and ending up like my close friend did. With the legalization of weed, Id have to worry about pot heads? **** that! I don't care what facts you throw out, I will always, "ALWAYS" think that it should not be legalized.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by leet1
I had a friend die from some dumbass who got drunk one night and decided to drive home.


i'm sorry to hear that. that's really horrible.

[Counterfit]

Drinking and driving is illegal, and so is smoking and driving. You see far fewer reports now of driving while high (is the DWI?) than drunk driving. It all comes down to the people, not the laws, it seems more stupid people drink than smoke :rolleyes:. I don't think that use would raise too much if it is legalized, the people who want it legalized already smoke it anyway. I myself am not going to use it, I'm ****ed up enough while sober :p

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by leet1
Right, especially when they aren't going to change their opinion on something like drugs.

Good idea not to pay attention to the post, you keep doing that.

Why even argue here if the best you can come up with is that you're pro-prohibition and always will be without any supporting stance or reasons?

Unless you just come here to share your feelings instead of your reason.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by leet1
I had a friend die from some dumbass who got drunk one night and decided to drive home.

Its bad enough having to worry about running into drunks at night on the highway and ending up like my close friend did. With the legalization of weed, Id have to worry about pot heads? **** that! I don't care what facts you throw out, I will always, "ALWAYS" think that it should not be legalized.

And you think that by making alcohol illegal drunk driving will stop? And by making pot legal DUI will increase?

You have ignored empirical evidence to the contrary, and you have lost this debate because you refuse to argue anything but your own emotions.

[Sun Baked]

Legal or not, you're probably not going to be able to go to Mexico and Canada for "cheap" drugs anymore.

Which is a bigger problem than whether or not marijuana is legal/illegal.

When you get older and you need cheap Viagra, tough luck Mr. Limpy...Filling prescriptions in Mexico may break law (http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/KTVKLNews20031206.7731a74f.html)

05:00 PM MST on Saturday, December 6, 2003

By Carla McClain / Arizona Daily Star

Concerned Arizonans want to know if the massive $400 billion Medicare reform bill - to be signed into law by President Bush next week - really forbids us to cross into Mexico to buy prescription drugs at much cheaper prices.

The letter of the law says yes, it does.

But in the spirit of the law, probably not.

Tucked into the 1,200-page bill that provides a controversial first-ever Medicare prescription drug benefit is a section that bans "reimportation" of medical drugs into this country from Mexico, Canada or any other country - unless the secretary of Health and Human Services certifies the safety of those drugs...Sometimes there are times when recreation isn't as important as being able to afford the drugs you "really need."

[pseudobrit]

I'm sure there'll make sure there's plenty of Prozac for dad, Valium for mom and Ritalin for junior to keep us all off drugs.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Taft
Since many here refuse to follow the links I provide, here are some tidbits from studies on Marijuana:

Since many of these points directly contradict the points anti-marijuana posters have been making on this board, I'd be interested in hearing their response to each individual item.

Taft

I'll respond to a few

quote 1: A Johns Hopkins study published in May 1999, examined marijuana's effects on cognition on 1,318 participants over a 15 year period. Researchers reported "no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis."

my response:
Studies go both ways. Here is a quote from a counter-example:
1. Pope HG Jr, Yurgelun-Todd D. The residual cognitive effects of heavy marijuana use in college students. JAMA. 1996;275:521-527.

In this issue of JAMA, Pope and Yurgelun-Todd (1) report that frequent marijuana users, relative to less frequent users, show impairments in mental flexibility and abstraction, as well as some aspects of learning. Many studies have examined cognitive effects of chronic marijuana use, with mixed results. Both studies reporting adverse effects and those observing few or no effects have frequently suffered from methodological flaws.

quote 2:
When examining the medical affects of marijuana use, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded, "A careful search of the literature and testimony of the nation's health officials has not revealed a single human fatality in the United States proven to have resulted solely from ingestion of marihuana.

my response:
Are the anti-legalizing posters concerned with people overdosing on pot or secondary causes of death (increased accidents, smoking side effects, etc)? I presume mostly the latter. Are you saying that no one has died as a result of marijuana?

quote:
According to the federal Potency Monitoring Project, the average potency of marijuana has increased very little since the 1980s. The Project reports that in 1985, the average THC content of commercial-grade marijuana was 2.84%, and the average for high-grade sinsemilla in 1985 was 7.17%. In 1995, the potency of commercial-grade marijuana averaged 3.73%, while the potency of sinsemilla in 1995 averaged 7.51%. In 2001, commercial-grade marijuana averaged 4.72% THC, and the potency of sinsemilla in 2001 averaged 9.03%.

my response:
I'm not sure for the reason of this quote either. I read it as saying marijuana potency has nearly doubled since 1985. Is that a pro-legalization concern or anti?

Here are some quotes from http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/10.11/marijuana.html. Sorry, don't have the orginal studies:

A number of investigations have linked marijuana to an increased risk of lung cancer. A recent Harvard study concluded that a middle-age person's chance of having a heart attack increases nearly five times during the first hour after smoking pot.

Although researchers found no irreversible cognitive defects from a lifetime of marijuana consumption, pot users are not a happy lot. In a separate study, most heavy users admitted that the drug has a negative impact on all aspects of their lives from job performance and physical health to mental well being and satisfactory socializing.

Heavy smokers also have substantially smaller incomes and lower levels of education than nonusers or light users, despite the fact that the education and income levels of their families are the same. However, there's no way to determine if marijuana is the cause or if these people naturally have less ambition.

addendum:
I'm pro-legalization

[Counterfit]

Originally posted by Dros
quote:
According to the federal Potency Monitoring Project, the average potency of marijuana has increased very little since the 1980s. The Project reports that in 1985, the average THC content of commercial-grade marijuana was 2.84%, and the average for high-grade sinsemilla in 1985 was 7.17%. In 1995, the potency of commercial-grade marijuana averaged 3.73%, while the potency of sinsemilla in 1995 averaged 7.51%. In 2001, commercial-grade marijuana averaged 4.72% THC, and the potency of sinsemilla in 2001 averaged 9.03%.

my response:
I'm not sure for the reason of this quote either. I read it as saying marijuana potency has nearly doubled since 1985. Is that a pro-legalization concern or anti?
I was wondering about that one myself. Doubling in potency doesn't seem as "very little" to me.

[Sayhey]

Dros,

a very good post. I too am pro legalization, but would not recommend its use to anyone. Any type of smoking is hazardous to your health and weed certainly has a pronounced effect on people - not always for the best. I stopped smoking marijuana in the '70s because I didn't like the effect it had on me. All that of course doesn't mean I want to spend billions of dollars busting and imprisoning others who make the decision to get high in a way that hurts no one else.

[jojosphish]

Yea, a lot of stuff being said. I guess I should get a word in. I really didn't think too much into this sort of thing until I got into college. Yea, I was a philosophy major. Were not all stoners, I swear. So I've had a few years to form a pretty good opinion of my own. So here it is. First, it doesen't surprise me at all that are government uses scare tactics to fight the "drug war", it seems that it's the only tactic they know how to use on the public nowadays anyway. It really bothers me that our government continues to scare us into giving up more and more of our rights *cough cough*patriot acts*cough (for our own protection of course). Funny thing is after a little while people forget, and I do mean a little while. Just throw some other crisis at us to be deathly afraid of so that ol' george w can so bravely rescue us from it. Thats right he doesen't even deserve a capital letter or a .. Its kind of fun, way better than any of the other reality shows on television. Anyway, back to the weed:D . Someone mentioned earlier about what happened last time they outlawed alcohol. It's true, history has shown that prohibition doesen't work. It spawns more crime than it prevents. Also the amazing amount of money spent on the "drug war" every year that was mentioned earlier is frightfully correct. At the same time money is taken out of education every year while "drug war" funding goes up. Underpaid, unmotivated teachers without any funding for materials and libraries where the newest books are a decade old are not what childeren deserve. Then again maybe when the kids grow up without a proper education it will be easier to scare them out of some more of their souls. You've just got to ask yourself where the real problem is here. Another fun fact is how crowded our prison systems are, keep in mind that we pay for these people to be there. More than half of these people are in prison for drug related crimes and most of those for pot. Some would say that they sholdn't have done the crime. But in a country where it becomes increasingly harder for a person in poverty to make his/her way out there has to be somewhere to turn. No matter how you look at it it's good money. Even if the alternative is prison, on the other end of the spectrum you've got starvation and God knows what else. With the money we spend to keep these people in jail and on keeping pot off the streets it seems we could create more jobs, fund education, and help us all to chill out every once in a while. And yes more jobs does equal better economy george. Scare tactics do not. Oh well, he won't care until the guy working his strings up above him does. Anyway, I'm done. Whew, I don't even know where I started there. Sorry for any spelling errors, I really got into that one. Maybe "the pot" has gotten to me. And yes pot does kill babies.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Counterfit
I was wondering about that one myself. Doubling in potency doesn't seem as "very little" to me.

What that means in real world terms is that a user can smoke less substance to obtain the same effect.
Since most users stop smoking it after it's taken effect, this simply means people are getting the same drug with less of the side effects from the delivery method.

[Counterfit]

You have a point there. But I still dispute the assertion that a near-doubling should be classified as a "very little" increase.

[pseudobrit]

It depends which way you look at it. As an increase percentage in potency it's nearly 100% That sounds like a high number.

But when looked at in the bigger picture, it's only a 2% increase on a 2% potency, which does not sound like a high number.

If you went from 2 to 4% interest on a savings account, you wouldn't go around telling people you were doubling your money, would you?

[Taft]

Originally posted by Dros
I'll respond to a few

quote 1: A Johns Hopkins study published in May 1999, examined marijuana's effects on cognition on 1,318 participants over a 15 year period. Researchers reported "no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis."

my response:
Studies go both ways. Here is a quote from a counter-example:
1. Pope HG Jr, Yurgelun-Todd D. The residual cognitive effects of heavy marijuana use in college students. JAMA. 1996;275:521-527.

In this issue of JAMA, Pope and Yurgelun-Todd (1) report that frequent marijuana users, relative to less frequent users, show impairments in mental flexibility and abstraction, as well as some aspects of learning. Many studies have examined cognitive effects of chronic marijuana use, with mixed results. Both studies reporting adverse effects and those observing few or no effects have frequently suffered from methodological flaws.


Yes but...

"Nevertheless, when considering all 15 studies (i.e., those that met both strict and more relaxed criteria) we only noted that regular cannabis users performed worse on memory tests, but that the magnitude of the effect was very small. The small magnitude of effect sizes from observations of chronic users of cannabis suggests that cannabis compounds, if found to have therapeutic value, should have a good margin of safety from a neurocognitive standpoint under the more limited conditions of exposure that would likely obtain in a medical setting."Source:_ Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press: July 2003), 9, pp. 687-8.

Most studies finding that marijuana impacts cognition in the long term conclude that the effect is relatively small, even in chronic users.

This argument, as well as some of the others, don't prove marijuana to be perfectly safe, or without dangers. Rather they are meant to show a contrast between marijuana and other drugs available.

my response:
Are the anti-legalizing posters concerned with people overdosing on pot or secondary causes of death (increased accidents, smoking side effects, etc)? I presume mostly the latter. Are you saying that no one has died as a result of marijuana?

Thats not what I'm saying.

This argument is again showing the relative safety of marijuana. Many anti-marijuana advocates liken marijuana with drugs such as cocaine and herion. In truth, marijuana is much safer than those drugs and alcohol, both in terms of addiction and the effects of the drug on your body.

You are correct that there is "collateral damage" from smoking pot. People go out and do stupid things, on drugs or not. Also, there are ill effects of smoking pot relating to heart disease and lung damage/cancer. These are real problems.

However this is again a comparative argument. THC isn't dangerous to your health on its own. The same can't be said of alcohol, cocaine or herion. If I can show people concerned with the "collateral damage" aspect of marijuana that it is, relative to alcohol, pretty good in that department, it might help them understand the real effects of marijuana. Unless they do, legalization won't be a achievable goal in my lifetime.

my response:
I'm not sure for the reason of this quote either. I read it as saying marijuana potency has nearly doubled since 1985. Is that a pro-legalization concern or anti?

Again, compared to cocaine and herion, this is not significant.

I fully understand these arguments don't make marijuana "safe" or recommendable for use, but rather it is comparatively not as bad as other drugs.

A number of investigations have linked marijuana to an increased risk of lung cancer. A recent Harvard study concluded that a middle-age person's chance of having a heart attack increases nearly five times during the first hour after smoking pot.

This is to be expected as most people smoke the pot. The dangerous would be similar to smoking cigarettes, as the studies show.

However, THC can be introduced to your body in other ways than smoking. Doctors have created inhalers that provide THC to your system without any carcinogens. This method of delivery lowers the dangers of THC significantly; far below cigarettes and alcohol.

Although researchers found no irreversible cognitive defects from a lifetime of marijuana consumption, pot users are not a happy lot. In a separate study, most heavy users admitted that the drug has a negative impact on all aspects of their lives from job performance and physical health to mental well being and satisfactory socializing.

Heavy smokers also have substantially smaller incomes and lower levels of education than nonusers or light users, despite the fact that the education and income levels of their families are the same. However, there's no way to determine if marijuana is the cause or if these people naturally have less ambition.

Same could be said about heavy smokers, heavy drinkers, people addicted to sex with anonymous partners, etc.

People who abuse drugs often have mental health problems which can often lead to a lack of success in other areas of their life. Similarly to the "gateway effect" theory, this study can't show a direct link between marijuana use and negative effects in your life. It is only a casual relationship which could easily be explained away with a dozen other theories.


addendum:
I'm pro-legalization

Even if you weren't, I appreciate the fact that you took the time to respond to arguments that have been posed. I admit marijuana has its problems, but prohibition is not the way to solve those problems.

Taft

[Counterfit]

that's a 2% increase in interest wouldn't double your money, it would double your interest. :D

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Counterfit
that's a 2% increase in interest wouldn't double your money, it would double your interest. :D

Exactly.

[Dros]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
But when looked at in the bigger picture, it's only a 2% increase on a 2% potency, which does not sound like a high number.

If you went from 2 to 4% interest on a savings account, you wouldn't go around telling people you were doubling your money, would you?

If you had a beer with 6% alcohol and then a glass of wine at 12%, wouldn't you say you're doubling your alcohol intake? If THC levels are enough to get you high when at 2%, that doesn't make 2% insignificant.

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
...If you went from 2 to 4% interest on a savings account, you wouldn't go around telling people you were doubling your money, would you? If you were living off the interest in a trust fund, yes you would be doubling the money you can spend (aka doubling your money). ;)

All depends on how you look at it.

Doubling the milligrams of active ingredient for some medications can also kill you even though the fraction of medication is quite small compared to the buffers and inactive ingredients.

---

Questions...

Do people who smoke the more powerful stuff, smoke half as much?

Do people who switch to Jolt Cola drink less cola?

etc.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Dros
If you had a beer with 6% alcohol and then a glass of wine at 12%, wouldn't you say you're doubling your alcohol intake? If THC levels are enough to get you high when at 2%, that doesn't make 2% insignificant.

If all you're having is one drink, then you'd be drinking 12 oz of beer vs. 6 oz of wine.

Is that doubling the intake?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Dros
If you had a beer with 6% alcohol and then a glass of wine at 12%, wouldn't you say you're doubling your alcohol intake?


at equal volumes, i'd say you're tripling it.


If THC levels are enough to get you high when at 2%, that doesn't make 2% insignificant.

at equal volumes, yes, it's more (though the numbers weren't 2 & 4, they were 2.84 and 4.72 -- not exactly double).

the people i know who smoke pot will smoke until they're as stoned as they want to be. then they stop.

there's something about alcohol, imo, that causes people to keep drinking when they know they should stop. i don't think pot has that same property.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Sun Baked

Do people who smoke the more powerful stuff, smoke half as much?

Do people who switch to Jolt Cola drink less cola?

etc.

Doesn't matter. Weed gets people high. They smoke until they're high, no matter what they think the potency is.

That's the main difference between casual use of alcohol and marijuana. Alcohol can be and is consumed without causing intoxication. Marijuana is not typically consumed without causing a high.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Marijuana is not typically consumed without causing a high.

Unless, of course, you don't inhale it!:D

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by zimv20
there's something about alcohol, imo, that causes people to keep drinking when they know they should stop. i don't think pot has that same property.

That's because when someone's already high, smoking more doesn't get them higher.

That's not the case with alcohol.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
That's because when someone's already high, smoking more doesn't get them higher.

why not?

(excuse my ignorance, i'm not a smoker)

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by zimv20
why not?

(excuse my ignorance, i'm not a smoker)

Neither am I (my rebellious youth is behind me).

You get a little high after using certain amount. Say five minutes after inhaling five big hits or so. If you take a bit more, you'll get completely high.

If you continue to smoke after it's taken effect, you don't really get much higher. It's an extreme case of diminishing returns.

As I said, alcohol will **** you up more and more until you're dead from it. Pot just doesn't do that.
But then again, you can't just have a joint without getting stoned, but you can have a cocktail without getting drunk (provided it's not a martini ;) )

[Sun Baked]

See it keeps coming back to casual user, and the casual users aren't the problem.

It's the idiots apt to be DUI candidates -- no matter their drug of choice. For them sobriety is a major problem.

[mactastic]

A joint isn't exactly equal to a cocktail though. I would equate a joint more with drinking a 6 pack. You can take a couple tokes off a joint, put it out, and be about the same off as if you'd had a beer. It's not like you are blotto from a couple puffs. Unless you got some of that good government weed....

[Dros]

Frankly, I'm not even sure what the argument is about here. Pot has gotten more potent, almost twice as potent. That could eb a good thing for smokers, as they inhale less crap along with the THC. Or it could be a bad thing, as people get more high than they would have before. I think people are just as susceptible to over-doing pot as anything else, for similar reasons, ie it is a social activity and many people will partake as long as others partake.

And I don't think there is a single level of highness. Just as jocks go on and on about how drunk they got over the week-end, potheads tend to ruminate over how stoned they got. Sometimes it is lightly buzzed, sometimes it is "Dude, I got totally baked!".

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Dros
Frankly, I'm not even sure what the argument is about here. Pot has gotten more potent, almost twice as potent... it could be a bad thing, as people get more high than they would have before.

So by that logic beer is good but wine is bad because it's twice as potent?

I don't buy that.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Dros
Sometimes it is lightly buzzed, sometimes it is "Dude, I got totally baked!".

In my experience, potheads don't tend to smoke to unconsiousness.
Mainly because marijuana won't make you lose consciousness. Or die of THC poisoning.

Some people will overdo it, but they will reach a point where they don't get any higher by smoking more.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by pseudobrit

If you continue to smoke after it's taken effect, you don't really get much higher. It's an extreme case of diminishing returns.


yeah, now that i think about it, there's only so many THC receptors in the brain. once they're all engaged, more drug isn't going to have an effect.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Sun Baked

It's the idiots apt to be DUI candidates -- no matter their drug of choice. For them sobriety is a major problem.

but how many of these people would stop drinking alcohol and start smoking pot?

i think it's important to consider the effect each kind of drug has. as discussed, alcohol and pot produce different kinds of 'further consumption' behavior.

to say that an alcholic would behave the same way w/ pot, though it may have some merit from an addictive behavior standpoint, ignores the properties of the drugs themselves.

personally, i find alcohol to be a very bad drug. the good effect is easily eclipsed by bad, recovery time is long, product is expensive, and it's wildly inconsistent in its effect on social behavior.

other drugs, e.g. pot and ecstacy, i've noticed make people some combination of more social and less offensive/confrontational.

ooh -- there's a key difference. consider drugs in terms of how they affect people being confrontational. perhaps that contributes to drunk driving accidents and barroom brawls.

[Sun Baked]

>zimv20

I meant Driving Under the Influence of ANYTHING, those idiots are the problem.

It doesn't matter what you smoke, snort, swallow, inject, or inhale (OTC, prescription, legal or not) -- if you're driving you're an idiot.

A casual user who has the brains to stay off the road isn't a problem.

If you're a DUI candidate, you're a problem.

---

People say the war on drugs seems like a bust, so it seems with DUIs.

There are people who want to start dropping the mandatory jail time for 1st/2nd alcohol DUI and make it VERY expen$ive (ie, pay big dollars to stay out of jail).

Of course with the high fines they are talking about and the attorney fees, a DUI would become as expensive as a new car.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
>zimv20

I meant Driving Under the Influence of ANYTHING, those idiots are the problem.

It doesn't matter what you smoke, snort, swallow, inject, or inhale (OTC, prescription, legal or not) -- if you're driving you're an idiot.


i see what you're saying, and i agree. i'm still wondering if a person who'd normally drive after drinking would not want to drive after getting stoned.

[Dros]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
So by that logic beer is good but wine is bad because it's twice as potent?

I don't buy that.

Well, as I said in that post, I don't know why potency is being discussed in regards to legalizing or not. I was tossing out some reasons pro and con how potency may affect pot smoking.

That being said, I don't buy your analogy either. Some people drink a light beer at parties because they know they want to have something in their hand, and they'll sip it if they do, so they go for the decreased alcohol. So at a party where people are smoking pot, more potent joints may make people high.

Originally posted by zimv20

yeah, now that i think about it, there's only so many THC receptors in the brain. once they're all engaged, more drug isn't going to have an effect.

Yeah, but you'll get high before you hit 100% of the receptors, so people can get less high or more high. Again, now I'm just arguing... I have no idea how this will change anyone's mind about legalization!


Originally posted by pseudobrit

In my experience, potheads don't tend to smoke to unconsiousness.
Mainly because marijuana won't make you lose consciousness. Or die of THC poisoning.


I agree. However, I'm not worried about people ODing on pot, I'm worried about train engineers smoking it and crashing the train.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Dros

I'm not worried about people ODing on pot, I'm worried about train engineers smoking it and crashing the train.

there's already such restrictions on the use of alcohol.

[blueflame]

Leet, i am sorry for your tradgedy. It is unfortunate that thee are people out there that do not know how to keep themselves safe, for the most part, if you can keep yourself saf, those around you will aslo be safe.
That being said, i dont exactly see why people have such an affliction to force their opinions on others. If i want to be at home, out of your sight, smell and house, and i want to smoke a joint, i dont ee why anyone should stop me, even if i died from it.
now, i dont think i should be putting other people into danger, so of course things like driving and needing to be responsible should be out while under the influence of anyhting.
I think people should be reponsible with whatever they do, and that comes from education. I think mactastic was saying something about taking the amount of money for antidrug anything and putitng it into schools, education is the key, not restriction.
about the amount of THC in todays marijuana, someone said people smoke to get high, more THC means less smoking, which mean less carconigens, you cant relate it to beer at a party becuase people often also drink beer for taste.
I know that great weed tastes great, but i would say from experiance, that the majority of people do not smoke weed for the taste, in that respect, it is like wine, there is bad wine, people drink it to get drunk, and becuase it resembles wine, but good wine, also gets you drunk, but it is enjoyed, same goes for marijuana, people wil smoke the crap to get stoned, but its not something you binge smoke, if you enjoy weed, you seek out the better stuff and enjoy it, the flavor, the smell, and the taste, you dont go giving pounds out at parties, and you dont just smoke till you puke, i think it is more elegant.
from what i ahev experianced, bad weed gets made into brownies, which get eaten, or get rolled into blunts, kinda the smoking equivilant of funneling. God weed, such as G-13, which i have recently come into contact with, is deliciously savoured, it is smoked out of good clean glass, or rolled into a nice small joint, the way it is meant to be smoked to enjoy the smell taste, and high that it gives you.
in conclusion for my rant,
Marijuana should be lokoed upon lik wine, not like beer that is consumed in mass quantities, wine and weed are enjoyed as a relaxant and something meant and used in calm situations, with small groups of friends who enjoy each others company,
thank you everyone for your time
Andreas

[Dros]

Originally posted by zimv20
there's already such restrictions on the use of alcohol.

Which is why I'm pro-legalization. I just recognize that stoned people can be a danger to themselves and others, and wanted to point that out.

I think there should be legislation against dangerous acts. Smoking a joint or drinking is not dangerous. Doing so while driving is. So put the hammer down on the drivers.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Dros
I think there should be legislation against dangerous acts. Smoking a joint or drinking is not dangerous. Doing so while driving is. So put the hammer down on the drivers.

Such legislation is already in place.

Enforcement is already in place.

I think we agree on the solution to the problem, and I think we can agree that legalisation of marijuana and stopping DUI are two separate and unrelated issues.

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Such legislation is already in place.

Enforcement is already in place.

I think we agree on the solution to the problem, and I think we can agree that legalisation of marijuana and stopping DUI are two separate and unrelated issues. Does it have to be legalized, or can it just be taxed when the police catch you -- when they trip over somebody's stupid ass.

I'm not sure if the system wants to give up the money from the seizure of cars, houses, etc. from the dealers.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
Does it have to be legalized, or can it just be taxed when the police catch you -- when they trip over somebody's stupid ass.

It has to be decriminalised at least.

Legalisation would open the supply chain to taxation.

Propoerty seizures/auctions are conducted against more than just dealers.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by blueflame
Marijuana should be lokoed upon lik wine, not like beer that is consumed in mass quantities, wine and weed are enjoyed as a relaxant and something meant and used in calm situations, with small groups of friends who enjoy each others company,


While I agree with the sentiments of your post, I must say you are giving good beer short shrift here. Not all beer tastes like Rocky Mountain Horse Pee. While not quite as elegant (or expensive) as a $20 bottle of wine, a 6-pack of some good dark outmeal stout with it's coffee and chocolate finish is an elegant and tasty conclusion for just about any meal in a frosty mug. In fact I have a glass of Mendocino Brewing Company's Black Hawk Stout handy at this very moment. :) (Don't worry all, I'm not going anywhere anymore tonight!) Stick to the quality microbrews, and look for the darkest beer you can find. Salute!

[rfenik]

I think once its legalized the roads will be safer - here is why.

Many people don't have a place to smoke. It's cold outside and often they can't smoke in the place where they live. So what do they do? They go in thier car and drive around and get high!

When it's legal we won't have that problem as much as we do now.

[Counterfit]

Originally posted by blueflame
If i want to be at home, out of your sight, smell and house, and i want to smoke a joint, i dont ee why anyone should stop me, even if i died from it. As long as you keep the windows closed. Someone on my street would smoke something (tobacco I think) and I could smell it every night this summer when I had my window open. ****in' annoying, I don't want my parents suspecting me of smoking (It's legal and all, but still) inside their house.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Sun Baked

I'm not sure if the system wants to give up the money from the seizure of cars, houses, etc. from the dealers.

like alcohol and tobacco, there would still be illegal transport and selling.

[Counterfit]

But the illegal stuff tastes better!

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by Counterfit
But the illegal stuff tastes better! It's that essence of body cavity flavoring.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
Does it have to be legalized, or can it just be taxed when the police catch you -- when they trip over somebody's stupid ass.

I'm not sure if the system wants to give up the money from the seizure of cars, houses, etc. from the dealers.

Well, the original poster said that the war on marijuana specifically costs 400 billion dollars. You'd need to seize a lot of cars and houses to make that back!

:D

I think stoners must lose some part of their brain function to do with simple math. That 400 billion is exactly the kind of number that some pro-hemp guy will throw out at you about how much money big oil spends a year keeping it illegal. :)

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Dros
Well, the original poster said that the war on marijuana specifically costs 400 billion dollars.

i'm a bit skeptical about that number. anyone got a source on it? it seems like a 10-yr number.

[Counterfit]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
It's that essence of body cavity flavoring. *shudders*

[blueflame]

This is taken from a journal, i believe you will need to have access to a public library or a school library system to look it up, but here is the link to the 400 billion dollar quote
“Workplace Substance Abuse Advisor,” Voters defeat initiatives to reform drug laws, Vol. 17, No. 2 (2002)

peace all

[zimv20]

Originally posted by blueflame
This is taken from a journal, i believe you will need to have access to a public library or a school library system to look it up, but here is the link to the 400 billion dollar quote
“Workplace Substance Abuse Advisor,” Voters defeat initiatives to reform drug laws, Vol. 17, No. 2 (2002)


i need the instant gratification of the web.

i am now calling shenanigans on that $400 billion. i reread your first post:


if the government is spending 400 billion dollars a year to fight just marijuana, wouldnt it be more economically viable to just save our taxpayer dollars


when this thread started, i thought you were just being hyperbolic. but if you're asserting that's what the government is spending per year, and just on one drug, i just can't believe it. that's about the same as the defense budget.

what is this $400 billion supposed to include? anti-drug operations? treatment? costs of prosecuting CA doctors? one year's worth of incarceration for all drug offenders?

i need data.

[rfenik]

Imagine the bold impact if our next president said that the 400 billion dollars spent on the war on drugs would go to schools instead....

[blueflame]

400 billion is on the drug war, not just agasint marijuana
peace
Andreas

[Taft]

Originally posted by blueflame
400 billion is on the drug war, not just agasint marijuana
peace
Andreas

OK, I found some figures. They aren't as high as 400 billion but they are pretty high.

In 1969, $65 million was spent by the Nixon administration on the drug war; in 1982 the Reagan administration spent $1.65 billion; in 2000 the Clinton administration spent more than $17.9 billion; and in 2002, the Bush administration spent more than $18.822 billion.Sources: U.S. Congress, Hearings on Federal Drug Enforcement before the Senate Committee on Investigations, 1975 and 1976 (1976); Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Strategy, 1992: Budget Summary (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1992), p. 214; Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Budget Executive Summary, Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington DC: Executive Office of the President, April 9, 2001), p. 2, Table 1: Office of National Drug Control Policy, "National Drug Control Strategy: FY 2003 Budget Summary" (Washington, DC: Office of the President, February 2002), Table 2, p. 6.

I'm trying to verify the information absolutely, but it looks like the allotted 18.7 billion dollars spent last year reflects only federal spending on anti-drug ads/programs and budgets for departments like the DEA. This doesn't include state dollars spent on such programs, nor does it take into account enforcement and incarceration costs.

For incarceration costs, look here:

It costs approximately $8.6 billion a year to keep drug law violators behind bars.
Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Profile of Jail Inmates 1996 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, April 1996), pp. 1 & 4; Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1996 (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1997), pp. 10-11; Criminal Justice Institute, Inc., The Corrections Yearbook 1997 (South Salem, NY: Criminal Justice Institute, Inc., 1997) [estimating cost of a day in jail on average to be $55.41 a day, or $20,237 a year, and the cost of prison to be on average to be about $64.49 a day, or $23,554 a year].

So total federal spending on anti-drug efforts is around 19 billion. Total incarceration costs are around 8 billion. Thats around 27 billion on these two items alone. However, some of that money is toward things like education, which is a positive whether you are for or against legalization. But also consider that many people do have objections with the type of education being presented by the federal government (ie. concerns with misrepresentations, lies, and hyperbole in the ads and programs).

I'd say 27 billion reflects that spending level well.

Also, you still have to factor in local and state spending on enforcement and incarceration. That really is the big unknown. Added up over all of the state and local budgets this number could be quite significant. As a complete guess, I'd say that total local and state spending on anti-drug activities might add up to three times the federal level. So around 55 billion dollars. I did some seraching and couldn't come up with a good idea of the spending at that level.

Anyway, the amount spent on the drug war is quite significant. Probably either approaching 100 billion or higher. And to me, the question isn't "how much are we spending?" Rather, the question should be, "could we be spending the money better?" To back that up, I offer these tidbits:

A study by the RAND Corporation found that every additional dollar invested in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers $7.46 in societal costs.
Source: Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., Controlling Cocaine, Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the United States Army (Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center, RAND Corporation, 1994), p. xvi.
The RAND Corporation study found that additional domestic law enforcement efforts cost 15 times as much as treatment to achieve the same reduction in societal costs.
Source: Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., Controlling Cocaine, Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the United States Army (Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center, RAND Corporation, 1994), p. xvi.

All the evidence points to education and rehab programs being far better for our society than enforcement and incarceration. But, much like leet1, our government doesn't seem to be listening. :rolleyes:

Taft

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Taft
OK, I found some figures. They aren't as high as 400 billion but they are pretty high.

nice finds, thank you. i could believe a figure like $400 billion if it reflected everything that was spent since the nixon administration, but certainly not if it's supposed to be per year.

good info on preventative vs. reactionary costs, too.