"Legalize marijuana" ads protected by U.S. Constitution.

[mcfudd]

Marijuana policy ads protected as "free speech." (http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicy.cfm?ID=15894&c=19)

In a stinging rebuke, a federal judge strikes down a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems, saying the government’s attempt to censor ads was "illegitimate and constitutionally impermissible." The judge also issues a permanent injunction prohibiting its enforcement.

The law, known as the "Istook Amendment," cuts off more than $3 billion in federal funding from local transit authorities nationwide that accept advertisements critical of current marijuana laws.

The court ruled that Americans have a right to hear the message that marijuana prohibition has been a cruel and expensive failure.

[Neserk]

It seems like there are more important things to do in the world than worry about Marijuana being legalized. :rolleyes: Why do people get hung up on such stupid campaigns. Why not take that energy and use it somewhere useful.

[Dont Hurt Me]

We have a little thing or at least we would like to think we do called FREE SPEECH and our stinking govt is allways finding ways to take that away along with any thing else they can control. Police state big brother or whatever you want to call it we have more to fear from our own govt then we do from someone burning one.

[mcfudd]

It seems like there are more important things to do in the world than worry about Marijuana being legalized. :rolleyes: Why do people get hung up on such stupid campaigns. Why not take that energy and use it somewhere useful.

The whole point is we want to take the energy and money the government is spending on the war on drugs and use it somewhere more productive.

For example, spending money on education, healthcare, roads, etc.

There is also the deeper issue of whether or not the goverment should be telling me what I can and cannot do with my body.

If the police spent less time locking-up college students for smoking pot, they could spend more time catching terrorists who are trying to smuggle nukes into the counrty. Wake up!!

[Dont Hurt Me]

The whole point is we want to take the energy and money the government is spending on the war on drugs and use it somewhere more productive.

For example, spending money on education, healthcare, roads, etc.

There is also the deeper issue of whether or not the goverment should be telling me what I can and cannot do with my body.

If the police spent less time locking-up college students for smoking pot, they could spend more time catching terrorists who are trying to smuggle nukes into the counrty. Wake up!!isnt that the truth, the whole making of weed illegal was another lie and had nothing to do with marijuana but had everything to do with mexicans and politicians many years ago, its time to start being honest instead of the false war on Drugs so govt can build itself up in prisons,laws,police state and judges and coutrooms who want to suck every tax dollar they can out of us under the pretense of fighting drugs. This is another example of Govt going to far and if people want to voice their opinion( Free speech) then let them. way to go judge!

[Voltron]

It seems like there are more important things to do in the world than worry about Marijuana being legalized. :rolleyes: Why do people get hung up on such stupid campaigns. Why not take that energy and use it somewhere useful.
It is stupid to have cigarettes and alchohol legal but not marjuana.
Do you own your own body? Or does the goverment?

If all it does is harm yourself and you have been informed that it does in fact do so then there should be no law limiting your actions. Unless it harms others.

[Neserk]

Why do people get hung up on such stupid campaigns. Why not take that energy and use it somewhere useful.

Like I said...

[Voltron]

Like I said...
Some of us can multitask.

[Neserk]

Some of us can multitask.


So multitask to on an issues that are important...

[skunk]

So multitask to on an issues that are important...
I'm with Von Troll on this one, though on little else: the VAST sums you lot spend on the politically fraudulent War on Drugs are comparable to the VAST sums spent on the politically fraudulent War on Islam - whoops, Terror. Both need to be addressed.

[dopefiend]

fraudulent War on Islam - whoops, Terror. Both need to be addressed.

I really hope your not implying that the U.S. has a problem with Islam.....

[skunk]

I really hope your not implying that the U.S. has a problem with Islam.....
Perish the thought! :rolleyes:

[dopefiend]

Perish the thought! :rolleyes:

Good, becuase you would be dead wrong.

[skunk]

Good, becuase you would be dead wrong.
I'm biting my tongue as we speak.

[Desertrat]

"It seems like there are more important things to do in the world than worry about Marijuana being legalized."

Of course there are. That's the whole point.

The real issue is not the legalization of marijuana. It's a summation of many issues, such as freedom of speech, in this particular instance. The summation includes the waste of time, effort and money in the War On Some Drugs and the reductions of liberty that accompany: The impacts on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, among others. "No knock" raids; "Arrest the money"...Further, the majority of all violent crime has to do with acquiring the money to buy high-priced, black-market drugs, or to control the sale thereof. That's the primary source of the emotions about gun-control, a Second Amendment issue.

All these factors have contributed to the police-state atmosphere now extant in the U.S.

The last time I saw numbers (a few years back), the cost to the taxpayer for the WOSD was some $90 billion, and the expenditures for these high-priced black-market drugs ran about the same.

(Who but Gummint could take $20/ton cattle fodder and by some scribblings render it into a $500/pound controlled substance?)

And in 1973, the LA Times ran a lengthy analytical article pointing out how the WOSD had been lost.

'Rat

[mcfudd]

It seems like there are more important things to do in the world than worry about Marijuana being legalized. :rolleyes: Why do people get hung up on such stupid campaigns. Why not take that energy and use it somewhere useful.

I know, I could spend my time trolling forums looking for topics that I think are boring. Then, I could post condescending replys in an effor to stall the debate.

Sorry Neserk, this is a very important issue --- we do not need your stamp of approval to proceed.

[Neserk]

Sorry Neserk, this is a very important issue --- we do not need your stamp of approval to proceed.

A) since when does anyone care what I think? B) I have as much right to say this is a stupid discussion as you do to say it is an important one!

So there :p

[Neserk]

The real issue is not the legalization of marijuana. It's a summation of many issues, such as freedom of speech, in this particular instance. 'Rat

My comment was not on the freedom of speech part. It is on why people are so hung up on having a stupid drug legalized. Get over it already! Is there life going to missing something of great importance because they can't smoke something that makes it near impossible for them to function? I think not.

[benguru]

Hi,
You say Americans doesn't hate Islam, then why do some sell this? (http://www.cafeshops.com/rightwingstuff/301005) I'm not saying everyone does, I certainly don't. But some people are very racist.

[blue&whiteman]

My comment was not on the freedom of speech part. It is on why people are so hung up on having a stupid drug legalized. Get over it already! Is there life going to missing something of great importance because they can't smoke something that makes it near impossible for them to function? I think not.

wow. you really have no clue. the laws against pot are those laws that are the most meaningless. it hurts no one but the user and even then it doesn't hurt them really. its an altered state of mind that is harmless. this horrible world western society has created has been done because so many bend to the will of corporate or political (both are the same thing anyway) authority. if more people smoked weed the earth would be in better shape I can promise you.

rastas and hippies or whoever else is known for smoking weed are some of the most peaceful and moral humans alive.

[zimv20]

Good, becuase you would be dead wrong.
if it walks, looks and quacks like a duck...

...it's the Democritization of the Middle East!

[zimv20]

Is there life going to missing something of great importance because they can't smoke something that makes it near impossible for them to function? I think not.
what about the harm caused by minimum sentencing laws that lock up people who otherwise contribute to society and pushes out more violent criminals on the other side due to lack of space?

[Neserk]

what about the harm caused by minimum sentencing laws that lock up people who otherwise contribute to society and pushes out more violent criminals on the other side due to lack of space?

California sends drug abusers/users to rehabilitation, not jail :rolleyes:

[wowser]

Hi,
You say Americans don't hate islams, then why do some sell this? (http://www.cafeshops.com/rightwingstuff/301005) I'm not saying everyone does, I certainly don't. But some people are very racist.

Yes (though the term is 'muslims') - The lesser US press (read, Fox) always seems to focus on the Islamic specifics of terrorism and its off shoots. For example, a section of the press seems to relentlessly refer to the "God is great" phrase heard during the Berg decapitation. There seems to be a clear anti-Islamic agenda going on. In the British press at least, the IRA were never referred to as 'Catholic terrorists', simply the 'IRA'.

[Neserk]

wow. you really have no clue. the laws against pot are those laws that are the most meaningless. it hurts no one but the user and even then it doesn't hurt them really. .

Wow you really have no clue. I guess when you've been smoking pot and get in your car and kill all your friends in the car it didn't hurt anyone, huh?

It impairs your memory and cognitive functioning for 28 days after you quit.

http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/story.php?article_id=309

And with that argument you do realize that using cocaine, heroine, and opium doesn't hurt anyone but the user either?

[wowser]

Wow you really have no clue. I guess when you've been smoking pot and get in your car and kill all your friends in the car it didn't hurt anyone, huh?

It impairs your memory and cognitive functioning for 28 days after you quit.



Oh come on - don't believe those ads! The last thing you'd want to do after a heavy smoking session is to drive a car!

[blue&whiteman]

Wow you really have no clue. I guess when you've been smoking pot and get in your car and kill all your friends in the car it didn't hurt anyone, huh?

It impairs your memory and cognitive functioning for 28 days after you quit.

http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/story.php?article_id=309

And with that argument you do realize that using cocaine, heroine, and opium doesn't hurt anyone but the user either?

I bet you're a bush person. you really seem like one.

[mcfudd]

I have as much right to say this is a stupid discussion as you do to say it is an important one!

Thank you for making my point for me.

You want the right to say something we all think is clueless. You want your voice to be heard. When I tell you to buzz-off it makes you mad. You want to resist it --- you want the right to speak your mind.

This is the whole point.

The government NEVER has the right to restrict the debate on policy issues --- just because they disagree with what is being said. First Amendment!!!!

As for the war on drugs .... we cannot reason with someone who is unreasonable.

[Voltron]

Yes (though the term is 'muslims') - The lesser US press (read, Fox) always seems to focus on the Islamic specifics of terrorism and its off shoots. For example, a section of the press seems to relentlessly refer to the "God is great" phrase heard during the Berg decapitation. There seems to be a clear anti-Islamic agenda going on. In the British press at least, the IRA were never referred to as 'Catholic terrorists', simply the 'IRA'.
I thought the IRA were protestants?

[Neserk]

Oh come on - don't believe those ads! The last thing you'd want to do after a heavy smoking session is to drive a car!

That wasn't an ad! That was reserach from Harvard!

Since you can't be bothered with clicking the link and reading it for yourself!

All the research subjects took batteries of intelligence, attention, learning, and memory tests on days zero, one, seven, and 28 after quitting the drug. On days zero, one and seven, current heavy smokers scored significantly lower than the other groups on memory tests.

[Neserk]

Thank you for making my point for me.

You want the right to say something we all think is clueless. You want your voice to be heard. When I tell you to buzz-off it makes you mad. You want to resist it --- you want the right to speak your mind.

This is the whole point.

The government NEVER has the right to restrict the debate on policy issues --- just because they disagree with what is being said. First Amendment!!!!

As for the war on drugs .... we cannot reason with someone who is unreasonable.


Good Heavens! Did you even read my posts????? Obviously not or else you didn't comprehend them! I said it isn't about the freedom speech I was commenting on.

And when I did I ever say *anything* about a war on drugs??? Ever? Ever once? NEVER! That was what you all brought up!!!!

Now you have seen me throughly pissed off!!!!!!!! Why don't you try to read and educate yourself instead of going off in a freaking rant about things which you know nothing about! I least did research before I posted!

[mcfudd]

Wow you really have no clue. I guess when you've been smoking pot and get in your car and kill all your friends in the car it didn't hurt anyone, huh?

Who said anything about smoking and driving. That will always be illegal.

[Neserk]

I bet you're a bush person. you really seem like one.


ROFLMAO! Actually you sound as unreasonable as the people who post in support of Bush. You refuse to look at the facts and don't care about what really happens. YOu close your eyes, speak your nonesense and are completely undeduated in the facts.

[Neserk]

Who said anything about smoking and driving. That will always be illegal.

So when you smoke pot you don't drive for 28 days, huh?

[mcfudd]

I least did research before I posted!

I know. You read some article posted by researchers at Harvard.

Did you stop to think that one of us might have been a former student at Harvard???

Did you stop to think that one of us might have taken classes in pharmacology from Harvard professors who do research at McLean Hospital, a Harvard-affiliated psychiatric facility in Belmont, Mass.???

I am not saying that is the case. But, you cannot know the background of who you are speaking with here.

You are the one who needs to do some research my friend.

You are way out there dude.

[mcfudd]

So when you smoke pot you don't drive for 28 days, huh?

You don't have to be a marijuana user to know the war on drugs is a lie.
Only brainwashed people think pot users are the only ones who want to see the drug legalized. You are missing the ball. Strike-three.

[Sayhey]

But, you cannot know the background of who you are speaking with here.

You are the one who needs to do some research my friend.

You are way out there dude.

LOL, she's not a dude. Doesn't say much for your own research.

[blue&whiteman]

don't hate neserk. he/she is simply a victim of conformity. 95% of people are.

[mcfudd]

LOL, she's not a dude. Doesn't say much for your own research.

Neither am I --- DUDE!!!!!

(or am I?????)

[Neserk]

You don't have to be a marijuana user to know the war on drugs is a lie.
Only brainwashed people think pot users are the only ones who want to see the drug legalized. You are missing the ball. Strike-three.

What is with you and the freakin war on drugs????????? This is not about a war on drugs. This is about people who think marijuana doesn't hurt anybody but the user. By that argument cocaine, etc. should all be legal too!

[Sayhey]

Neither am I --- DUDE!!!!!

(or am I?????)

I've got to admit, mcfudd, you're entertaining. By the way, love the Douglass quote.

[Neserk]

So answer my question: You don't drive for 28 days after smoking pot, right? Because you know it lingers in your system making your judgement imparied, right? And you know that 3 joints does as much damage to your lungs as 20 cigarettes, right? And suppressess your immune system, right? What other damage do you know about that marijuana does to your system? Tell me. Since you are so well educated on the matter.

[Neserk]

Only brainwashed people think pot users are the only ones who want to see the drug legalized.

WHen did I say or suggest that only pot useres want it legalized? Never. I've done my own research. I started my education on pot and how dangerous it is when I was in 10th grade. That would 18 years ago. I've seen no research whatsoever that says it is safe. Only propaganda.

[Sayhey]

So answer my question: You don't drive for 28 days after smoking pot, right? Because you know it lingers in your system making your judgement imparied, right? And you know that 3 joints does as much damage to your lungs as 20 cigarettes, right? And suppressess your immune system, right? What other damage do you know about that marijuana does to your system? Tell me. Since you are so well educated on the matter.

Neserk,

because marijuana can be detect in your system for many days after its use does not mean a persons driving is impaired for that period. The rest of your argument goes to the question of personal choice. Is it necessary for government to protect its citizens from the effects of a drug on their own bodies by an outright ban? I don't think so.

[3rdpath]

hooray for a judge who recognizes a constitutional right...i'm sure ashcroft will now have his tax records closely examined.

having grown up in pot's golden age, the smokers in my peer group are now very successful lawyers, "c" level executives and entrepreneurs. none succumbed into the cliched stereotypical drug-fiends portrayed in our government's 6th grade propaganda movies.

driving, i'm much more worried about sleep-deprived parents of a newborn child...which i am once again. now there's a study that needs to be done.

[mcfudd]

WHen did I say or suggest that only pot useres want it legalized? Never. I've done my own research. I started my education on pot and how dangerous it is when I was in 10th grade. That would 18 years ago. I've seen no research whatsoever that says it is safe. Only propaganda.

I am glad to see you are well read. I am sure you are very familiar with the "Just Say No" propaganda and the DARE program the government uses to scare teenagers.

Nobody is arguing marijuana is "safe" as you put it. The larger issue is this:

Do we need to be locking-up individuals for 10-20-30 years for smoking a plant.

If tobacco is so "safe," why is it legal. Nicotine is infinitely more addictive than marijuana.

I am talking about the war on drugs because it is total hypocrisy. And, the government is trying to stop people from speaking their mind about it.

Should the government be allowed to stop me from placing ads that argue cigarettes should be banned? What about alcohol --- a very addictive drug (for some people).

[mcfudd]

And you know that 3 joints does as much damage to your lungs as 20 cigarettes, right? And suppressess your immune system, right? What other damage do you know about that marijuana does to your system? Tell me. Since you are so well educated on the matter.


Cigarettes kill thousands more people per year than marijuana.

Cigarettes are a drug delivery system for nicotine. That's all they are.

[mcfudd]

By that argument cocaine, etc. should all be legal too!

That would be a good start. :D

[Neserk]

I am glad to see you are well read. I am sure you are very familiar with the "Just Say No" propaganda and the DARE program the government uses to scare teenagers.


No. Never have been part of either program, either as a teacher or a student.



Nobody is arguing marijuana is "safe" as you put it. The larger issue is this:


Didn't you say it doesn't do any harm? Or was that someone else?



Do we need to be locking-up individuals for 10-20-30 years for smoking a plant.


In CA you don't go to jail. I said that once. Now, twice.


If tobacco is so "safe," why is it legal. Nicotine is infinitely more addictive than marijuana.


politics. It is what got the US as nation off its feet. And cigarette smoking doesn't affect your ability to think for 28 days after you stop smoking. It damages your lungs and the lungs of those around you. Doesn't impair your judgement, though.


I am talking about the war on drugs because it is total hypocrisy. And, the government is trying to stop people from speaking their mind about it.


I have no problem with the freedom of speech issue. Now (3 times) I've said that. I think it is a waste of time to try and legalize a harmful drug.


Should the government be allowed to stop me from placing ads that argue cigarettes should be banned? What about alcohol --- a very addictive drug (for some people).

Again (4 times) it isn't about the freedom of speech. It is about people wasting time trying to legalize a harmful drug. Not to mention the fact that they are full of myths. Marijuana *is* harmful. And it is more harmful than alcohol and smoking.

[Neserk]

That would be a good start. :D

If we tied this discussion in with the discussion on what happens to children who have parents who used drugs when they were in utero or before conception and the one with standardized testing and how important it is for children to get a good education (which drugs prevent from happening) I think we may find some interesting connections. Not to mention some inconsistencies in certain people's arguments....

[skunk]

So answer my question: You don't drive for 28 days after smoking pot, right? Because you know it lingers in your system making your judgement imparied, right? And you know that 3 joints does as much damage to your lungs as 20 cigarettes, right? And suppressess your immune system, right? What other damage do you know about that marijuana does to your system? Tell me. Since you are so well educated on the matter.
As for me, I guess I've just been really lucky, then. For thirty-five years. :o

[wowser]

Yeah, personally, i feel the effects of alcahol for far longer than i do marijuana. and you don't see many stoners beating each other up, do you?

[mcfudd]

Didn't you say it doesn't do any harm? Or was that someone else?

Harmful to the user. Yes. But use is a personal choice. Not one for my government to make for me.


CA you don't go to jail. I said that once. Now, twice.

CA is catching-on. I like the progress they are making. But, without the freedom to inform the electorate, by placing ads, this would NOT be the case.

I think it is a waste of time to try and legalize a harmful drug.

Your entitled to your opinion.

(4 times) it isn't about the freedom of speech.

It is about freedom of speech. The original post is about a federal judge protecting ads which say marijuana should be legal.


Marijuana *is* harmful. And it is more harmful than alcohol and smoking.

More harmful????? Whatever.

How many people died last year due to smoking-related illnesses?

How many people died last year due to alcohol-related traffic accidents?

How many children were abused because a parent came home pissed-off and drunk???

I think you are ignoring fact. Alcohol and tobacco are dangerous drugs. Why then are they legal and marijuana illegal????

Marijuana (based on per capita usage) is a benign social problem compared to the havoc alcohol and tobacco cause.

[mcfudd]

If we tied this discussion in with the discussion on what happens to children who have parents who used drugs when they were in utero or before conception and the one with standardized testing and how important it is for children to get a good education (which drugs prevent from happening) I think we may find some interesting connections. Not to mention some inconsistencies in certain people's arguments....

The same thing goes for alcohol and tobacco??? Why then are they legal??

[mcfudd]

standardized testing and how important it is for children to get a good education (which drugs prevent from happening)

You have no idea how many stoners and alcoholics there are graduating from Ivy League schools.

Al Gore's son (a Harvard undergraduate) was arrested for possession a few months back. So what? He gets stoned once in a while?

That cop who made the arrest should have been spending his time protecting the 18 yr. old woman who was raped in Boston/Cambridge that same night.

THIS IS THE POINT!!!!!

[Awimoway]

I disagree that marijuana use is more dangerous than smoking and drinking. Marijuana users don't beat their families like many alcoholics do. It doesn't alter your mental state as much as getting drunk does, and it doesn't make you angry or depressed (though, to be fair, paranoia is a possibility), so it's not as likely to lead to destructive behavior. And ingested, marijuana is also less harmful than smoking. There is no epidemic of people hurting others because they were driving cars or operating machinery under the influence of pot. Most pot-users still have their wits about them enough to know that they shouldn't drive. Many drunks don't.

Moreover, it is not physically addicting the way drinking can be and smoking always is (commercially-produced cigarettes are among the most addictive products in the world).

Finally, that little Harvard study doesn't mean as much as you think because it exaggerates that amount of memory loss people experience. You suggest that anyone who has used pot shouldn't drive for the next 28 days, which is utterly absurd. Whatever memory loss occurs has got to be pretty damn insignificant after the immediate high has worn off.

I'm not saying marijuana is harmless, but it's not nearly as dangerous as drinking and tobacco use have been. It should be legalized and that is an important issue for anyone who experiences chronic pain and seeks a non-addicting, natural means of relief.

As for the rest of us, I would be willing to concede that marijuana legalization isn't worth all the fuss compared to other problems in society if you'll concede that it isn't worth all the fuss the government makes to persecute — I mean, prosecute — pot users.

Note: Coincidentally, my wife used to babysit Congressman Istook's (the one responsible for the knee-jerk amendment that just got shot down) grandson.

[zimv20]

my observations:

as people get more stoned, they tend to want to stay where they are (on a nice couch, say). as people get more drunk, a good percentage of them tend to want to go somewhere else ('nother bar, e.g.).

i feel such effects of the drug alcohol tends to lead to more driving under influence.

also, alcohol often has the effect of making people belligerent. i don't see this tendency when people smoke pot.

question is: if pot were legalized, would we suddenly see an increase in the types of behavior i typically associate w/ alcohol users?

[Neserk]

The same thing goes for alcohol and tobacco??? Why then are they legal??

Politics, politics, politics...

[mcfudd]

hooray for a judge who recognizes a constitutional right...i'm sure ashcroft will now have his tax records closely examined.

having grown up in pot's golden age, the smokers in my peer group are now very successful lawyers, "c" level executives and entrepreneurs. none succumbed into the cliched stereotypical drug-fiends portrayed in our government's 6th grade propaganda movies.

driving, i'm much more worried about sleep-deprived parents of a newborn child...which i am once again. now there's a study that needs to be done.

Good point about Ashcroft going after the judge.

I also agree with your example about parents. Too many sleepless nights.

[Neserk]

I disagree that marijuana use is more dangerous than smoking and drinking.


Disagree away. That isn't what the studies say.


Marijuana users don't beat their families like many alcoholics do.


Apples and oranges.


It doesn't alter your mental state as much as getting drunk does, and it doesn't make you angry or depressed (though, to be fair, paranoia is a possibility),


Try again. It *does* make you depressed. And anxious, too. Must hit similar receptors as Serotonin does.



so it's not as likely to lead to destructive behavior. And ingested, marijuana is also less harmful than smoking.


I guess you missed the 3 joints = 20 cigarettes part.



There is no epidemic of people hurting others because they were driving cars or operating machinery under the influence of pot. Most pot-users still have their wits about them enough to know that they shouldn't drive. Many drunks don't.


Fine. Make it legal. But you have to surrender your car and license until tests show that you are no longer under the influence.


Moreover, it is not physically addicting the way drinking can be and smoking always is (commercially-produced cigarettes are among the most addictive products in the world).


It is psychologically addicting.


Finally, that little Harvard study doesn't mean as much as you think because it exaggerates that amount of memory loss people experience. You suggest that anyone who has used pot shouldn't drive for the next 28 days, which is utterly absurd. Whatever memory loss occurs has got to be pretty damn insignificant after the immediate high has worn off.


I disagree. I think you are seeing what you want to see.


I'm not saying marijuana is harmless, but it's not nearly as dangerous as drinking and tobacco use have been. It should be legalized and that is an important issue for anyone who experiences chronic pain and seeks a non-addicting, natural means of relief.


That is different. Medicinal purposes versus recreational purposes.


As for the rest of us, I would be willing to concede that marijuana legalization isn't worth all the fuss compared to other problems in society if you'll concede that it isn't worth all the fuss the government makes to persecute — I mean, prosecute — pot users.


Sigh (I think this is 5x now) In CA they don't prosecute drug users. They send them to rehab.

[Neserk]

my observations:

as people get more stoned, they tend to want to stay where they are

Yeah. and never leave. What a life :rolleyes:

[Neserk]

You have no idea how many stoners and alcoholics there are graduating from Ivy League schools.

Al Gore's son (a Harvard undergraduate) was arrested for possession a few months back. So what? He gets stoned once in a while?

That cop who made the arrest should have been spending his time protecting the 18 yr. old woman who was raped in Boston/Cambridge that same night.

THIS IS THE POINT!!!!!

Give me a break. Did the cop make a choice to bust GOre's son versus protecting the 18 year old? I think not.


The only point is you want something to be legal that is very bad for people and make ridiculous arguments in support of.

[Neserk]

Your entitled to your opinion.


Well, thank you. It is about time.



It is about freedom of speech. The original post is about a federal judge protecting ads which say marijuana should be legal.


But MY comments were not. Despite people trying to make it that way.

[mcfudd]

question is: if pot were legalized, would we suddenly see an increase in the types of behavior i typically associate w/ alcohol users?


If you look to Amsterdam as an example -- the answer is a resounding NO. :D

[mcfudd]

Give me a break. Did the cop make a choice to bust GOre's son versus protecting the 18 year old?



Most of the pot smokers are home, playing video games, and eating Taco Bell. (Also getting paranoid the cops are going to bust-down the door any second.)


Of course the cop did not choose to let a more violent crime happen. But, you cannot be in two places at once. Why not spend the time stopping more violent crimes.

The more time police spend busting drug users, the less time they spend protecting us from terrorism, rape, murder, and so on.

------ but i know you really want me to just admit i am a raving pot freak who is trying to sooth my own conscience. that would be a lie, but, i have a nice spot picked-out in my back yard that would make a nice marijuana patch... just waiting for it to become legal........ yea baby yea!!!!

[zimv20]

Yeah. and never leave. What a life :rolleyes:
to be fair, i know very few stoners like that. most i know are hard-working. same could be said of alcohol users, imo.

[Frohickey]

Hi,
You say Americans don't hate islams, then why do some sell this? (http://www.cafeshops.com/rightwingstuff/301005) I'm not saying everyone does, I certainly don't. But some people are very racist.

Um... Islam is not a race, its a religion.

[Frohickey]

What is with you and the freakin war on drugs????????? This is not about a war on drugs. This is about people who think marijuana doesn't hurt anybody but the user. By that argument cocaine, etc. should all be legal too!

Who died and made you drug cop? :eek:

Research has shown that ingesting large amounts of lead, a substance known in the state of California to cause birth defects and other ailments, can cause death and
Research has also shown that chocolate has lead in it.

Are you going to be the milk chocolate cop too? :p

If people own their own bodies, they should be allowed to do with it as they please.

[Frohickey]

I am talking about the war on drugs because it is total hypocrisy. And, the government is trying to stop people from speaking their mind about it.

War on Drugs is pointless. The only way you can win it is with a police state, as 'Rat has said the US is rapidly becoming. Police states are expensive to maintain.

[Desertrat]

Neserk, it seems to me you're looking at the problems of drugs as drugs separately from what's been happening in this country as a result of the way we've acted in the War on Drugs. Two different things.

We started out discussing the effects of the WOD on civil liberties; in this instance the First Amendment. I added the effects on the 4th, 5th and then the 2nd.

As far as drugs themselves, marijuana is a tranquilizer. A marijuana user is harmless, except, e.g., as a driver. But, a drunk is just as dangerous, and our laws deal with that; what's wrong with having the same penalties for "Driving while stoned"?

Health? We lose some 700,000 folks a year to the effects on health of alcohol and tobacco. Drugs? Around 30,000. The *importance* of the problem escapes me.

As with many other aspects of life, if we remove the "thrill of the illicit". the "lure of the forbidden", people tend to lose interest. (Anybody who's ever raised even just one kid learned that, early on.) If there is no profit in sales of illegal drugs, there will be a helluva lot fewer people interested in the growing and processing and smuggling; Economics 101.

:D, 'Rat

[Neserk]

As for me, I guess I've just been really lucky, then. For thirty-five years. :o

It happens. People who drink and drive will testify to the same thing.

How much driving do you actually do in England?

[Neserk]

------ but i know you really want me to just admit i am a raving pot freak who is trying to sooth my own conscience. that would be a lie, but, i have a nice spot picked-out in my back yard that would make a nice marijuana patch... just waiting for it to become legal........ yea baby yea!!!!


hardly... I guess that is the paranoia kicking in?

[Neserk]

to be fair, i know very few stoners like that. most i know are hard-working. same could be said of alcohol users, imo.

And how many do nothing or the minimum amount needed to get by? Pehaps you lack a representative sample.

[Neserk]

Research has shown that ingesting large amounts of lead, a substance known in the state of California to cause birth defects and other ailments, can cause death and
Research has also shown that chocolate has lead in it.

Are you going to be the milk chocolate cop too? :p


I believe the FDA has that under control


If people own their own bodies, they should be allowed to do with it as they please.

Then why not make the argument to legalize all drugs?

[Neserk]

Neserk, it seems to me you're looking at the problems of drugs as drugs separately from what's been happening in this country as a result of the way we've acted in the War on Drugs. Two different things.



We started out discussing the effects of the WOD on civil liberties; in this instance the First Amendment. I added the effects on the 4th, 5th and then the 2nd.


*I* have only been discussing the harm of marijuana. I can't speak for others.


As far as drugs themselves, marijuana is a tranquilizer. A marijuana user is harmless, except, e.g., as a driver. But, a drunk is just as dangerous, and our laws deal with that; what's wrong with having the same penalties for "Driving while stoned"?


Well, alcohol effects wear off at the rate of 1 hour per beer. Marijuana takes 4 weeks.


Health? We lose some 700,000 folks a year to the effects on health of alcohol and tobacco. Drugs? Around 30,000. The *importance* of the problem escapes me.

As with many other aspects of life, if we remove the "thrill of the illicit". the "lure of the forbidden", people tend to lose interest. (Anybody who's ever raised even just one kid learned that, early on.) If there is no profit in sales of illegal drugs, there will be a helluva lot fewer people interested in the growing and processing and smuggling; Economics 101.

:D, 'Rat

Doesn't your first paragraph completely contradict your second paragraph?

[Frohickey]

And how many do nothing or the minimum amount needed to get by? Pehaps you lack a representative sample.

But is it your duty to have people do something or more than the minimum amount needed to get by?

Are you putting yourself in the place of taskmaster, urging people to do what they do not want to do?

[Frohickey]

Well, alcohol effects wear off at the rate of 1 hour per beer. Marijuana takes 4 weeks.


Thats only because beer (http://www.alabev.com/history.htm) has had a 6000 year R&D cycle with which to filter and concentrate the inebriating effects of alcohol. Maybe its also that 6000 years is ample time to see the effects of selective breeding of human (everyone knows that ugly people look sexy when you are drunk. :p ).

Who knows what 6000 years of marijuana tinkering could do. It might turn us into munchie-junkies :eek: :p :D

[zimv20]

And how many do nothing or the minimum amount needed to get by?
a couple. i know quite a few who work several jobs. one, who smokes daily, is someone you've probably seen on TV. three are at the top of their fields. there are many who i'd known for a while before i found out they smoked daily; nothing in their personality, social skills or work habits would lead me to think they're "daily drug users."

some people smoke responsibly, some don't. i don't think there's really a good reason why alcohol is legal and pot isn't.

[blackfox]

Um... Islam is not a race, its a religion.
Well, imo it is more than that...it is a culture and a civilization...
...as far as the subject of this thread...I would like to see marijuana de-criminalized (which is different than legalization)...a route taken by Holland, Canada and I believe to some degree, the UK...as someone who has some empirical knowledge of the subject*ahem*, I know it is probably not the most productive use of time, or necessarily very healthy for you. To what degree, I can only speculate. But it is enjoyable, it is fun...and many fun things are not good for you, and so what...it is about fun, not rationality...I think people need to light(en) up...

On a more serious note, I agree with the de-criminalization route because of the reasons stated by most countries who have adopted this policy...that it frees their police and court-systems of unnecessary strain and burden (prisons also), which makes them more efficient, and saves alot of money...posession is a ticketable offense, and licensing is required for growing and possession of larger amounts, which also generate (some) revenue...

There is also the issue of medicinal value(s) of marijuana, where it has been seen to increase the quality-of-life for many patients...with initiatives in CA and OR that reflect this...

I find it Ironic that the US feels it necessary to demonize marijuana usage (esp. for teens), but has no qualms about shoving powerful pharmaceuticals down their throats...interesting to contemplate motives...

On a related note, although my history is fuzzy on this matter, I believe when marijuana was re-classified as a narcotic in the early 20th Century (along with some others), it was actually an immigration/descrimination issue related to or synonomous with the crackdown on opium being tied to chinese immigration...if anyone knows about this, clue me in...anyway, again the point is that the motives seem suspect.

[mcfudd]

hardly... I guess that is the paranoia kicking in?

No. That is the whole point of only smoking in Amsterdam. The cops don't care. They have more important stuff to do.

[mcfudd]

And how many do nothing or the minimum amount needed to get by? Pehaps you lack a representative sample.

You sound like a parrot --- spewing the anti-drug propaganda. Can't you move beyond these stereotypes, myths, and lies.

Two pot smokers (one a former cocaine user) have been past and the current President of the United States. Clinton and Bush.

Clinton's education:

Georgetown undergrad
Rhodes Scholar
Yale Law School

Bush's education:

Elite prep school
Yale undergrad
Harvard MBA

This does not sound like doing the minimum to get by. It sounds like your arguments falling apart. :eek:

[blackfox]

McFudd and Neserk, chances are you are both right...and wrong.
The sheer number of people who do or have smoked pot, coupled with it being one factor among many in peoples' lives, preclude any definitive statements...you cannot isolate one factor out of context...and it is easy to find statistics for anything...tendencies are about the best anyone can expect to prove. We humans are just a pain in the a** to figure out...

[mcfudd]

We humans are just a pain in the a** to figure out...

Not me. I am easy to figure out. I am a stubborn know-it-all. :D

[skunk]

But it is enjoyable, it is fun...and many fun things are not good for you, and so what...it is about fun, not rationality...I think people need to light(en) up...
DBTJ, MF, PIOTM!:D

On a related note, although my history is fuzzy on this matter,
Well, it would be, wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

I believe when marijuana was re-classified as a narcotic in the early 20th Century (along with some others), it was actually an immigration/descrimination issue related to or synonomous with the crackdown on opium being tied to chinese immigration...if anyone knows about this, clue me in...anyway, again the point is that the motives seem suspect.
There's a whole load of interesting conspiratorial possibilities there.
Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.

-- Attributed to Abraham Lincoln: Dec 18, 1840.

You may have come across this before, but it's a fun read:
http://www.sumeria.net/politics/shadv3.html

Here's a sample:
Previous investigations by hemp researchers have been limited to the suppression of free-market competition from the hemp industry, and focused on the activities of three prominent members of America's corporate, industrial and banking establishment during the mid- to late-1930s:

WILLIAM RANDOLPH HEARST, the newspaper and magazine tycoon.
The expected rebirth of cannabis hemp as a less expensive source of pulp for paper meant his millions of acres of prime timberland, and investment in wood pulp papermaking equipment, would soon be worth much less. In the 1920s, about the same time as the equipment was developed to economically mass-produce raw hemp into pulp and fiber for paper, he began the "Reefer Madness" hoax in his newspaper and magazine publications.

ANDREW MELLON, founder of the Gulf Oil Corporation.
He knew that cannabis hemp was an alternative industrial raw material for the production of thousands of products, including fuel and plastics, which, if allowed to compete in the free-market, would threaten the future profits of the oil companies. As Secretary of the Treasury he created the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, and appointed his own future nephew-in-law, Harry Anslinger, as director. Anslinger would later use the sensational, and totally fabricated, articles published by Hearst, to push the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 through Congress, which successfully destroyed the rebirth of the cannabis hemp industry.

A prominent member of one Congressional subcommittee who voted in favor of this bill was Joseph Guffey of Pennsylvania, an oil tycoon and former business partner of Andrew Mellon in the Spindletop oil fields in Texas.

THE DU PONT CHEMICAL CORPORATION,
which owned the patents on synthetic petrochemicals and industrial processes that promised billions of dollars in future profits from the sale of wood pulp paper, lead additives for gasoline, synthetic fibers and plastics, if hemp could be suppressed. At the time, du Pont family influence in both government and the private sector was unmatched, according to historians and journalists.

Basically, it was ALL the usual suspects, and then some! :eek: :D

[benguru]

Hi,
You forgot even more people who smoked pot:
Howard Dean
John Kerry

[skunk]

Hi,
You forgot even more people who smoked pot:
Howard Dean
John Kerry
Does Clinton count? :rolleyes:

[Voltron]

What is with you and the freakin war on drugs????????? This is not about a war on drugs. This is about people who think marijuana doesn't hurt anybody but the user. By that argument cocaine, etc. should all be legal too!
By your argument we should outlaw alchohol, fat, and porn.

[Voltron]

Does Clinton count? :rolleyes:
I think he has to inhale for it to count?

[Frohickey]

On a more serious note, I agree with the de-criminalization route because of the reasons stated by most countries who have adopted this policy...that it frees their police and court-systems of unnecessary strain and burden (prisons also), which makes them more efficient, and saves alot of money...posession is a ticketable offense, and licensing is required for growing and possession of larger amounts, which also generate (some) revenue...

On a related note, although my history is fuzzy on this matter, I believe when marijuana was re-classified as a narcotic in the early 20th Century (along with some others), it was actually an immigration/descrimination issue related to or synonomous with the crackdown on opium being tied to chinese immigration...if anyone knows about this, clue me in...anyway, again the point is that the motives seem suspect.

I agree.

I think that it should be legalized... then taxed. :eek:
Alcohol is taxed if its made for commercial sale.
Tobacco is taxed too.
Why not tax recreational drugs?

[skunk]

I think he has to inhale for it to count?
Just checking ;)

[Taft]

It seems like there are more important things to do in the world than worry about Marijuana being legalized. :rolleyes: Why do people get hung up on such stupid campaigns. Why not take that energy and use it somewhere useful.

Here are two good reasons:

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/racepris.htm
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/prison.htm

Nearly a third of our nations prisoners are drug offenders, with users making up a large portion of that group. These are non-violent offenders. Further, the drug war disproportionately targets minorities. Even though all statistics show that white people use and deal as many drugs as blacks and latinos, they represent a tiny fraction of those incarcerated for drug violations.

The drug war doesn't work. It is also expensive (making it a waste of money that could be used for your "other causes"), it costs the lives of law enforcement officers and innocents, it creates a black market for drugs which fosters crime, etc., etc., etc.

This campaign is not some "save the potheads!" smoke-party. These are serious issues. The drug war is costly, ineffective and ruins lives. Fighting against such injustices in this world should be viewed as a noble deed.

Taft

[dopefiend]

Further, the drug war disproportionately targets minorities. Even though all statistics show that white people use and deal as many drugs as blacks and latinos, they represent a tiny fraction of those incarcerated for drug violations.


ok, this is bs.

I did a research project on this a while back.
You will find that more minorities are found in the areas of these drugs.(through crime statistics+populus reports)

You can not prove that blacks and latinos deal as many drugs as black and latinos, mainly due to the fact that no one keeps track of all the drug dealers. Statistical guesses, bleh!

[Taft]

So when you smoke pot you don't drive for 28 days, huh?

Let me don your indignant cap to answer this post...

Get a freakin' clue! You should read your own research. The research cited heavy marijuana users as having significant impairment for up to 7 days after quitting. They go on to say, "This suggests that withdrawal, rather than a residue of drug in the brain, accounts for the bulk of lingering impairments."

They do not say that a casual user is significantly impaired the day after using marijuana. Rather they say that withdrawal symptoms were the likely cause of impaired aptitude for heavy smokers who give up the drug.

Were you ever a heavy coffee drinker? Did you ever give up coffee? Did you drive within 28 days of quitting? If so, you might be in the same spot as a heavy marijuana user. Probably worse, actually, as marijuana is far less addictive than caffeine.

Any more research you'd like to bend to your outlook? I'll be here debunking all day.

Taft

[Taft]

ok, this is bs.

I did a research project on this a while back.
You will find that more minorities are found in the areas of these drugs.(through crime statistics+populus reports)

You can not prove that blacks and latinos deal as many drugs as black and latinos, mainly due to the fact that no one keeps track of all the drug dealers. Statistical guesses, bleh!

You are correct, but through statistics, polling, and data collection from initial arrests (ie, people who were arrested for a drug charge, but not necessarily convicted of it) you can accurately predict the approximate population of drug users for each group. Nailing down the number of dealers is harder, as they are a smaller population.

You can't just say "statistics doesn't work!" Statistics is a mathematical art with a lot of validity. You can't ever know something like this with absolute certainty, but you can give a good ball park figure.

Would you agree with this statement: "Proportionately, white people do as many drugs as minorities." If so, how do you account for this:

Of the 246,100 state prison inmates serving time for drug offenses in 2001, 139,700 (56.7%) were black, 47,000 (19%) were Hispanic, and 57,300 (23.2%) were white.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/racepris.htm

Taft

[Taft]

So answer my question: You don't drive for 28 days after smoking pot, right? Because you know it lingers in your system making your judgement imparied, right?

This is completely dependent on the level of use and your level of mental dependence. A person who uses marijunaa casually will not be significantly impaired a day after using the drug.

Also, how does the effect of heavy marijuana use compare to the effect of heavy alcohol use? Would a severe alcoholic be cognitively impaired after quitting? Of course they would! Even worse, actually. Ever hear of the DTs?

And you know that 3 joints does as much damage to your lungs as 20 cigarettes, right?

BS! Complete crap!

Doing a quick goole search for "study marijuana lung cancer", I get this as the first link:

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/23/1728_57309

It says, in part:

Marijuana, unlike tobacco and alcohol, does not appear to cause head, neck, or lung cancer, says a researcher from Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore...

And suppressess your immune system, right? What other damage do you know about that marijuana does to your system? Tell me. Since you are so well educated on the matter.

I am so well educated on the matter. I know you weren't talking to me, but get off your high horse. You got a study, I probably have two. Lets have a quote-fest, see who wins, eh?

Taft

[Taft]

Disagree away. That isn't what the studies say.
Like these studies:

"Tetrahydrocannabinol is a very safe drug. Laboratory animals (rats, mice, dogs, monkeys) can tolerate doses of up to 1,000 mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram). This would be equivalent to a 70 kg person swallowing 70 grams of the drug -- about 5,000 times more than is required to produce a high. Despite the widespread illicit use of cannabis there are very few if any instances of people dying from an overdose. In Britain, official government statistics listed five deaths from cannabis in the period 1993-1995 but on closer examination these proved to have been deaths due to inhalation of vomit that could not be directly attributed to cannabis (House of Lords Report, 1998). By comparison with other commonly used recreational drugs these statistics are impressive."
Source: Iversen, Leslie L., PhD, FRS, "The Science of Marijuana" (London, England: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 178, citing House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology, "Cannabis -- The Scientific and Medical Evidence" (London, England: The Stationery Office, Parliament, 1998).

"The results of our meta-analytic study failed to reveal a substantial, systematic effect of long-term, regular cannabis consumption on the neurocognitive functioning of users who were not acutely intoxicated. For six of the eight neurocognitive ability areas that were surveyed. the confidence intervals for the average effect sizes across studies overlapped zero in each instance, indicating that the effect size could not be distinguished from zero. The two exceptions were in the domains of learning and forgetting."
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, p. 685.

"In conclusion, our meta-analysis of studies that have attempted to address the question of longer term neurocognitive disturbance in moderate and heavy cannabis users has failed to demonstrate a substantial, systematic, and detrimental effect of cannabis use on neuropsychological performance. It was surprising to find such few and small effects given that most of the potential biases inherent in our analyses actually increased the likelihood of finding a cannabis effect."
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, p. 687.

"Current marijuana use had a negative effect on global IQ score only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per week. A negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence. Whether the absence of a residual marijuana effect would also be evident in more specific cognitive domains such as memory and attention remains to be ascertained."
Source: Fried, Peter, Barbara Watkinson, Deborah James, and Robert Gray, "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults," Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2, 2002, 166(7), p. 887.

I guess you missed the 3 joints = 20 cigarettes part.

No, I caught it. Then, I called shenanagins. There is conflicting evidence as to whether marijuana even causes lung cancer, let alone has the same level of effects as tobacco smoking. I've already cited evidence to support my views. Where is your link for the 3=20 assertion? Is it from a medical study?

Fine. Make it legal. But you have to surrender your car and license until tests show that you are no longer under the influence.

OK, how do you propose we do that? THC levels are hard to accurately measure. Further, just because THC is in your blood (more accurately in your fat) doesn't mean you have an impaired ability. There are way too many qualifications on current research to be able to make those bold statements. In short, you haven't shown that marijuana significantly impairs a normal user for a period longer than the "accute symptoms" phase of the drug (an hour or two after use).

It is psychologically addicting.

True, but compare it to alcohol or tobacco in terms of the effect of addiction on the mind and body:

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm

Hmmmm, less addictive than coffee? No wonder its illegal!

Sigh (I think this is 5x now) In CA they don't prosecute drug users. They send them to rehab.

Just because you say something, doesn't make it true.

While its true California has made some good progress on drug reform, the rest of the country is not nearly so progressive. Many states still carry a prison sentence to first time drug-use offenders.

Further, even California has a large drug offender population. According to this study (http://www.drugreform.org/news.tpl?action=2&newsid=102022115660424), there were still almost 16000 people in prison in California whose most serious offense was a drug-offense at the end of 2001.

Try again.

Taft

[dopefiend]

Whew, your on a roll.

Im getting myself outta this thread :p

[Taft]

To clarify my position on the subject, let me make this series of statements.

Drug use, in general, is a bad thing.

Many people will use drugs, whether or not they are legal, and whether or not those drugs are good for them or society. It is inevitable.

As a result, the war on drugs has been a horrible failure. It hasn't lowered drug use rate and it has cost tons of money and lives.

Given that, the government should legalize, then strictly control (for safety of the drug and to lower crime) and tax the drug supply in this country.

I believe the best way to reduce the drug use rate is to educate people. Preferrably, when they are younger. This should be done in an open and honest way. The real effects and dangers of the drugs should be openly discussed and realistic methods of avoidance should be offered.

Taft

[mactastic]

So a woman has a right to choose what happens with her body in terms of child birth, but rights to your body extend no further? Is that what the argument against marijuana is Neserk? How can you support the right to an abortion yet be against the right to smoke some weed?

Further you seem to be saying that you would defer to the government to tell you what is good and what isn't.

Would you advocate repealing the 21st amendment to the constitution, since alcohol is at least as bad as marijuana?

Should we have the right to drink coffee?

Should red meat be outlawed? How about deep fried Snickers bars?

Should we ban driving after less than 8 hours of sleep within the previous 24 hours?

I mean if it's all about protecting people from themselves and others, why not go after unsafe drivers in general. I'm sure most of them aren't stoned, but there are still plenty of crappy drivers and tons and tons of highway deaths each year. Where is the line between individual rights and the good of society?

[Desertrat]

Amen, Taft! :)

Neserk, my apologies. I thought it was obvious that a 700K deaths per year problem warranted more attention than a 30K deaths per year problem.

I'm sure not trying to say that "Drugs are good for you!" What I've been saying for some forty years is that the way we're dealing with the drug problem is just flat-out dumber'n'dirt.

One of the ways businessfolks become successful is by calling the public's attention to their products. Last I recall, they pay money for "advertising". I note that the War On Some Drugs is heavily advertised, with the government calling attention to it. So, folks naturally want to know what the fuss is all about. Some find no short-term harmful effects, and are therefore thankful for what's perceived as an enhanced mental condition.

Yeah, it's sarcastic and cynical, I guess, but that's what's been happening all over the country for a bunch of decades, now. Over four, anyhow...That's part of why I brought up the bit about the thrill of the illicit and forbidden and all that psychological stuff.

Folks were a lot smarter, back in the 1930s. They got rid of Prohibition. Too many modern folks aren't wise enough to know that prohibitions won't work--or that they certainly will have unintended consequences.

'Rat

[Frohickey]

Should red meat be outlawed? How about deep fried Snickers bars?

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!

Deep fried Snickers bars? Where do they sell those? :eek: :D :D

[Frohickey]

Actually, Taft missed another reason for ending the Drug War.

It also encourages police corruption.

[mactastic]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!

Deep fried Snickers bars? Where do they sell those? :eek: :D :D

Link (http://www.thesandiegochannel.com/food/2573318/detail.html)

Get 'em before the nanny crowd outlaws these tasty treats.... :D

[iMeowbot]

I really hope your not implying that the U.S. has a problem with Islam.....
Well of course everyone knows the US govt. would never persecute people for their religious beliefs! Just ask Brandon Mayfield.

[dopefiend]

Well of course everyone knows the US govt. would never persecute people for their religious beliefs! Just ask Brandon Mayfield.

So I looked this guy up....

An American lawyer who was arrested two weeks ago in connection with the terror attacks in Spain was set free Thursday after evidence pointed to another suspect in the deadly train bombings.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120530,00.html

what the hell does that have to do with the government persecuting people for there religious beliefs?

[blackfox]

Hmmm...a thread on marijuana and discussion of deep-fried snickers bars...coincidence?

Seriously, although there has been a debate about the wisdom of drug-law reform (poor Neserk), I think that everyone can agree that allowing the public display (or at least the opportunity to) of alternate viewpoints on this issue is a victory against censorship, which should be applauded no matter what your feelings are about the benefits/costs of marijuana usage...as we are not there yet, in terms of legislation. Although abortion is also a highly-charged, perhaps intractable issue, I believe most people appreciate (though may not agree with) the fact that both sides of the issue are able to advertise their positions. This is no different.
Living in Oregon, I find that although this is a primarily conservative state, the citezenry is remarkably progressive on issues pertaining to health-care, environment, and marijuana usage (among others)...perhaps people are reasonable here, or it could be economics...marijuana is (unofficially) Oregons' largest cash crop...and it is so beautiful here, you can't help but try to protect it...
As far as 'Rats comments about people in the 30's, perhaps he is right, but I believe societal memory is short-lived, without the effects of an issue impacting people personally on a large-scale level. On the other hand, maybe people were never smart, I have seen some Government anti-marijuana posters from that era and their claims are outrageous to the point of laughability...whether the people of the times bought into them (or to what degree) is unknown to me.

[iMeowbot]

So I looked this guy up....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120530,00.html

what the hell does that have to do with the government persecuting people for there religious beliefs?

Did you see what the government's supposed evidence against him was? They arrested and detained this guy, even informed the Spanish govt. that they didn't need to keep looking.

1. Muslim convert

2. Once represented a Muslim in a child custody case (and not before or since) who years later was arrested on terrorism-related charges.

3. Partial fingerprint match -- the number of matching points was inconclusive, even before the quality of the reference print came into question.

4. Oh yeah, and had never visited Spain.

[dopefiend]

Did you see what the government's supposed evidence against him was? They arrested and detained this guy, even informed the Spanish govt. that they didn't need to keep looking.

1. Muslim convert

2. Once represented a Muslim in a child custody case (and not before or since) who years later was arrested on terrorism-related charges.

3. Partial fingerprint match -- the number of matching points was inconclusive, even before the quality of the reference print came into question.

4. Oh yeah, and had never visited Spain.

And they let him go after figuring out the stuff didn't match up.

Whats your point?

[iMeowbot]

And they let him go after figuring out the stuff didn't match up.

Whats your point?

Deprived of liberty without due process of law; arrested without probable cause (well, there was "probable cause" listed on his arrest affidavit, the case mentioned above and the fact that he had been seen visiting a mosque -- in other words, blatant religious profiling); held in confinement without charges (the Patriot Act material witness thing).

Mayfield was released quickly and got a public apology because he's an attorney and knows what the system is. Numerous others still being detained aren't so lucky (http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-05/11/article07.shtml).

[Dont Hurt Me]

Deprived of liberty without due process of law; arrested without probable cause (well, there was "probable cause" listed on his arrest affidavit, the case mentioned above and the fact that he had been seen visiting a mosque -- in other words, blatant religious profiling); held in confinement without charges (the Patriot Act material witness thing).

Mayfield was released quickly and got a public apology because he's an attorney and knows what the system is. Numerous others still being detained aren't so lucky (http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-05/11/article07.shtml).This is why the garbage known as the Patriot act has to be undone along with about everything else George has done.

[Taft]

Seriously, although there has been a debate about the wisdom of drug-law reform (poor Neserk), I think that everyone can agree that allowing the public display (or at least the opportunity to) of alternate viewpoints on this issue is a victory against censorship, which should be applauded no matter what your feelings are about the benefits/costs of marijuana usage...as we are not there yet, in terms of legislation. Although abortion is also a highly-charged, perhaps intractable issue, I believe most people appreciate (though may not agree with) the fact that both sides of the issue are able to advertise their positions. This is no different.


I definitely agree with that. This is a clear cut case of free speech being suppressed. Both sides should get a chance to make their case, Feds be darned.

I don't, however, share your sympathy for Neserk. She showed up with one study which she didn't bother to understand and proceeded to spew pot-head stereotypes and myths. Anyone who was the least bit objective about the subject would have sought out information on the internet from multiple sources.

Not that I can blame a person for having misconceptions about marijuana, though. Most anti-drug campaigns and ads are filled with misleading quotes and imagery. I do, however, have a big problem with a person who agressively asserts those myths without looking at the enormous amount of research on marijuana available. Google is just a few clicks away...

Taft

[Frohickey]

Well of course everyone knows the US govt. would never persecute people for their religious beliefs! Just ask Brandon Mayfield.

Sheesh. There has been long standing evidence of religious persecution by the US government. Just ask anyone in Utah what they did to Joseph Smith. :eek:

Or any of the Indians when they were forbidden to do the Sun Dance.

[zimv20]

Or any of the Indians when they were forbidden to do the Sun Dance.
<monty burns>
since the beginning of time man has yearned to extinguish the sun!
</monty burns>

[carbonmotion]

I think as with all drugs, there will come a point when it becomes so socially accepted that despite it's biological detriments, people will still use it. Alcohol and Tobacco-based drugs are some examples, marajuana is beginning to fall in to the same catagory. Cocaine and opium fell out of this catagory when it's rapid ability to addict and incapacitate a healthy human being became evident. As long as it is used in a responsible manner, marajuana is no more or less detrimental than a few shots of vodka. If you want to take the moral high road of banning all abusable substances, than you should first start with alcohol and tobacco.

[Desertrat]

Hey, Dont Hurt Me, don't forget the (?) 498 Congressgoons who voted in favor of the Patriot Act.

Harking back to the idea of First Amendment issues and drugs, is "High Times" magazine still being published? I know the DEA (I started to type KKK) tried for years to find an excuse to shut them down...

Their chart of current world prices for various types of Sweet Smoke was quite useful.

The Sensimilla from those guys at Bolinas was something special...

:), 'Rat

[skunk]

Harking back to the idea of First Amendment issues and drugs, is "High Times" magazine still being published? I know the DEA (I started to type KKK) tried for years to find an excuse to shut them down...

Their chart of current world prices for various types of Sweet Smoke was quite useful.
I believe HT is still operational. Incidentally, I have the honour of having been the first UK subscriber to that august organ. :cool:

Check out:http://www.hightimes.com/mainsite/home/

[Desertrat]

Ah, memories!

Thanx, skunk.

:), 'Rat

[Frohickey]

Hey, Dont Hurt Me, don't forget the (?) 498 Congressgoons who voted in favor of the Patriot Act.


Congresscritters
357 voted YEA
66 voted NAY
9 did not vote

Senaticks
98 voted YEA
1 voted NAY
1 did not vote

Here (http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2001&rollnumber=398) are the Congresscritters that voted for and against the USA PATRIOT Act (HR3162).
Here (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313) are the Senaticks that voted for and against the USA PATRIOT Act (HR3162).

[Desertrat]

I said at the time of the passage by Congress of the Patriot Act that they thought Flt 93 was aimed at the Capitol, not the White House. The Capitol is a much more visible target. Plus, they know in their hearts that they're more important than a mere President...

Scared people do scary things, and I think the PA does more to protect the high muckety-mucks than it does us mere mortals. Besides, we're expendable.

And it's the Great Electees and High Appointees who keep coming up with ever more Draconian penalties for disagreeing with them about such things as marijuana...

'Rat

[amnesiac1984]

What is with you and the freakin war on drugs????????? This is not about a war on drugs. This is about people who think marijuana doesn't hurt anybody but the user. By that argument cocaine, etc. should all be legal too!

Why not???


I think a lot of societies problems would be solved if all drugs were legal. Taxed heavily to pay for the health service. We should be free to do whatever we want, and we should be trusted to do it responsibly.

Sky diving holds a risk of fatality but that is legal. I am an Adult don't try and protect me!


LET THE STUPID DIE!

[Voltron]

ENGLAND fans will be allowed to smoke dope before Sunday’s crunch clash with France — to keep them calm.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004270693,00.html

:eek:


Cops in Lisbon plan to crack down on drunk supporters while turning a blind eye to those spotted puffing on a spliff.

Alcohol makes fans fight. But cannabis smokers will be shaking hands and singing along together.”

Dutch police used a similar policy in Euro 2000 and England’s hooligan element were too stoned to fight.

[mactastic]

:eek:

Makes sense to me...

[wwworry]

Hey, Dont Hurt Me, don't forget the (?) 498 Congressgoons who voted in favor of the Patriot Act.

Wasn't the Patriot Act thousand page bill that was given to congress the day before it was scheduled to vote? I heard that hardly any, if not none, of them had time to actually read it. It's their own fault really and our fault for having a system like this.

[Desertrat]

wwworry, I've always figured the reason that sort of thing is done is so that nobody really knows what's going on. Crime bills, Budget bills, you name it.

And the writing is deliberately obfuscatory in order that the speed-readers won't have time to even begin to understand...

Hey, who can be against, "This is to Protect The Children! Vote for it"?

'Rat

[numediaman]

Well, alcohol effects wear off at the rate of 1 hour per beer. Marijuana takes 4 weeks.

Wow! Talk about the munchies! No wonder there are so many overweight people in America.

(I take it that Neserk has very little personal experience on this subject.)

I love this thread. Makes me want to return to Amsterdam -- great city.

[Desertrat]

Yeah, ounce of alcohol an hour burnoff rate for the average-metabolism 150-pound person.

Grass? Depends on how many tokes, how stoned I got. "Plumb blithered", about four or five hours. A polite, social "good-hit"? An hour or so, mas o menos.

Never got the munchies. Got the uncontrollable giggles a couple of times.

But, grass just never was my thing. I was and am mostly a beer-guy. I figured out that a lot of folks were spending too much money to try to get their heads where mine is when I wake up in the morning.

:), 'Rat

[krimson]

4 weeks? that's a load of... well you know.