Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: vorticon on March 04, 2005, 02:27:03 PM
-
to keep the other thread clean...
"
This isn't about if the drug in question is "harmless" or "non harmless".
If you want to get into that, then the only logical conclusion we can do here is that the prohibition of pot has led to the situation where the markets are controlled by criminals. This has nothing to do with the qualities of the drug, but it's legal status.
How many people were shot and killed in raids during the alcohol prohibition? This is same kind of waste of human life."
sure, but moonshiners havent stopped, and wont stop as long as theres taxes on alcohol. and legalizing pot would just cause the criminals to start producing worse drugs, so the meth problem would get even worse...
someone else was wondering about canads decriminalizing it, in small amounts...the point is that some 14 year old who gets caught doesnt get his life screwed over by a criminal record...
-
Originally posted by vorticon
someone else was wondering about canads decriminalizing it, in small amounts...the point is that some 14 year old who gets caught doesnt get his life screwed over by a criminal record...
Maybe he should, on account of the addictive properties of the drug, the mood-altering effects, and long-term damage to health.
-
what addictive properties?
oh... you were talking about *tobacco"
my bad.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by gofaster
Maybe he should, on account of the addictive properties of the drug, the mood-altering effects, and long-term damage to health.
you should get a criminal record because you make a stupid mistake? not to mention the punishment that went with said record doesnt do much good, or leaves the kid worse off?
-
Originally posted by Shane
what addictive properties?
oh... you were talking about *tobacco"
my bad.
:rolleyes:
Shane 1 - Dinosaurs 0
(not you gofaster :))
-
I think this is the part where the discussion breaks off into several concepts like why tobacco is ok and liquor is ok but daddy can't get a joint from a vending machine and how if weed were legalized then crime would disappear and lives would be saved and then there's some back and forth and someone mentions caffeine as an addictive drug and how coffee should be controlled and that Starbuck's is a purveyor of evil and entices children and someone replies that that's all different because caffeine is found in Coke and someone else says that Coca Cola used to have cocaine in it and how Pablo Escobar wasn't a coke head because he didn't get high from his own supply because he was a doper and only a doper and was falsely accused of being a criminal because he was a peasant patriot fighting to overthrow the ruling class and before you know it we're arguing about guns and how we need them to keep The Government from turning us all into sheep being led to slaughter and we need our own peasant patriots to keep The Government in check because nobody else can and then someone mentions school shootings and that bus driver in Tennessee and someone else says guns don't kill people people kill people and how the criminals would use rope and kung fu if they didn't have guns and then this gets pushed to the next page and people forget all about it because its on Page 2.
Or something like that.
-
Originally posted by gofaster
I think this is the part where the discussion breaks off into several concepts like why tobacco is ok and liquor is ok but daddy can't get a joint from a vending machine and how if weed were legalized then crime would disappear and lives would be saved and then there's some back and forth and someone mentions caffeine as an addictive drug and how coffee should be controlled and that Starbuck's is a purveyor of evil and entices children and someone replies that that's all different because caffeine is found in Coke and someone else says that Coca Cola used to have cocaine in it and how Pablo Escobar wasn't a coke head because he didn't get high from his own supply because he was a doper and only a doper and was falsely accused of being a criminal because he was a peasant patriot fighting to overthrow the ruling class and before you know it we're arguing about guns and how we need them to keep The Government from turning us all into sheep being led to slaughter and we need our own peasant patriots to keep The Government in check because nobody else can and then someone mentions school shootings and that bus driver in Tennessee and someone else says guns don't kill people people kill people and how the criminals would use rope and kung fu if they didn't have guns and then this gets pushed to the next page and people forget all about it because its on Page 2.
Or something like that.
i think you just saved everybody a couple digital trees. :aok
-
Originally posted by vorticon
sure, but moonshiners havent stopped, and wont stop as long as theres taxes on alcohol. and legalizing pot would just cause the criminals to start producing worse drugs, so the meth problem would get even worse...
Moonshining and large scale production are whole different things. Conserning other drugs, the markets are controlled by supply and demand. As long as there is demand, those drugs will be produced in large quatities, and legal status of MJ is not going to change that. The profits from chemical stuff are many times higher than from MJ so there's plenty of supply there too.
The Dutch experience has shown that legalization of MJ doesn't raise the levels of use of MJ or hard drugs. Infact the use of heroin for example is lower in Netherlands than in neighbouring countries, and so is death and crime associated with it.
I'm not saying that legalization of MJ itself is a rock of wisdom. It does break the connection of MJ users with pushers who also sell other stuff, and that contributes to lower use of hard drugs(there goes gateway theory).
If you want to tackle with stuff like meth it would have to start from education in schools. The most important thing in any education is to have the trust of the pupil. Nowdays there's no trust to begin with as they are given all out lies about MJ(meaning the "you'll get an instant psychosis if you take a toke" stuff. I'm not saying thath MJ is completely harmless). Only after you have their trust you can expect to believe the truth about harms of meth or whatever.
Then comes the question of treatment. I do not like the idea of providing free treatment for self inflicted problems. However it has been shown to be a good investment. The least that could be done in this matter is to remove all legal restrictions and let a free market develop in this area.
Then the punishments. Punishments haven't been shown to reduce the number of drug users. There's plenty of evidence about this in europe, where many neighbouring countries have different policies. There is no statitistical evidence that punishments would lower the levels drug use. Punishments only push the users out of society, and then they are more likely to do crimes to support their habits. Also the prices of drugs tend to be higher in this case, and it too contributes to higher levels of crime.
At the end comes the free supply of drugs to hopeless cases in a controlled enviroment. This lowers the level of demand and so the supply drops and so does the likelyhood of new people getting addicted. It also helps in reducing crime as the junkies don't need to make crimes to support their habits.
The above measures have been done in many european countries with good results.
-
Originally posted by gofaster
I think this is the part where the discussion breaks off into several concepts like why tobacco is ok and liquor is ok but daddy can't get a joint from a vending machine and how if weed were legalized then crime would disappear and lives would be saved and then there's some back and forth and someone mentions caffeine as an addictive drug and how coffee should be controlled and that Starbuck's is a purveyor of evil and entices children and someone replies that that's all different because caffeine is found in Coke and someone else says that Coca Cola used to have cocaine in it and how Pablo Escobar wasn't a coke head because he didn't get high from his own supply because he was a doper and only a doper and was falsely accused of being a criminal because he was a peasant patriot fighting to overthrow the ruling class and before you know it we're arguing about guns and how we need them to keep The Government from turning us all into sheep being led to slaughter and we need our own peasant patriots to keep The Government in check because nobody else can and then someone mentions school shootings and that bus driver in Tennessee and someone else says guns don't kill people people kill people and how the criminals would use rope and kung fu if they didn't have guns and then this gets pushed to the next page and people forget all about it because its on Page 2.
Or something like that.
Interesting debating style, you made a pre-emptive straw man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) argument in your first comment.;)
Yep, why debate or change anything? You seem to be doing just fine in your current path(the highest numbers of drug use, and the highest levels of crimes of all types in the western world).
-
Vort, I am all for prosecuting anyone for possesion, even in small amounts.
Here is why.
If you buy a bag of dope, and only intend to use it for your personal consumption, you are still supporting an illegal industry.
If people didn't buy the chit, there would be no market for it, and maybe 4 Mounties would be at home right now with thier loved ones.
I am not interested in getting into a debate about wether or not it should be legalized. The simple fact is, it is an illegal drug, and those who deal it or buy it should pay a hefty price when caught.
Those who don't get caught should know what thier money is really buying them. (in a broader scope, this includes partial responsibilty for deaths of other human beings as a result of the demand to support your 20 minutes of "high" time).
As for liquor or tobacco, as far as I can see these don't even enter into the equation here. Although they are wrought with consequences of thier own, they are a legal drug and the topic of an entirely different debate.
So Vort, in answer to your question " you should get a criminal record because you made a stupid mistake?"
Yes, yes, yes and unequivically, YES.
RTR
-
on account of the addictive properties of the drug
Says who? I smoked pot for years and was never addicted. You sure someone isn't pissing on your stash?
:rolleyes:
-
marijuana is not addictive, i know this for a fact.
you should study what is known as "addictive personalties", some people can become addicted to anything , others not so.
on another note, i quit smoking 25 yrs ago, but when i dream, i still smoke cigarettes in the dream.
-
We aren't talking about drugs anymore. We're talking about guns now! Get with the program, people! I have people skills! I'm good with people!
Now I'm all worked up! I guess I'll just have to stop at Wal-Mart and pick up a tube of model glue and a can of silver spray paint. You know, just to take the edge off. I'm not addicted. I can quit anytime I want!
-
Originally posted by RTR
Vort, I am all for prosecuting anyone for possesion, even in small amounts.
Here is why.
If you buy a bag of dope, and only intend to use it for your personal consumption, you are still supporting an illegal industry.
If people didn't buy the chit, there would be no market for it, and maybe 4 Mounties would be at home right now with thier loved ones.
Yep, the best thing to do is to grow your own. If I'd get the urge to do pot I'd put up my own garden.
-
Its simply more justification for capital spending and "Make-work" activities.
It is clear in every clear mind that the banning of pot (By historical fact) was flawed.
That it is continued to be criminalized is not due to the effects of the drug, the real effects of the drug are the people who haven't used and continue to persue those who have by any means possible, death, imprisonment, or fine.
While I used when I was younger, I refrain because it is simply a drug. It is the same reason I am skeptical of ANY drug, whether FDA approved or not. Any drug has effects, harmless and positive the same, I have chosen to abstain from all drugs, and all that choose to abuse ANY drug. And I didn't need the government to help me learn this.
-
And I didn't need the government to help me learn this.
Exactly.
A bunch of inexperienced retards think they can decide what's best. Fund anti-drug campaigns! War on Drugs! BONSAI!!!!! The .gov thought process, much like funding... half is wasted and does a ****ty job with the rest.
-
(http://images.art.com/images/products/large/10000000/10000491.jpg)
:cool:
-
Originally posted by mora
Yep, the best thing to do is to grow your own. If I'd get the urge to do pot I'd put up my own garden.
Aeroponics gets better yield & saves money overall. Not as pretty to look at, but very, very effective. It's a technique of hydroponic growing where you mist the roots with a nutrient solution, runoff is collected & recycled.
To the rest of the thread, I think Chris Rock nailed it in Head of State in the debate scene, "How are you gonna make drug laws if you've never smoked the chronic?! Just a nickle bag!"
-
Texas is voting on a bill to decriminalize on Tuesday. They say it will save the state $14,000 per conviction.
-
Originally posted by RTR
Vort, I am all for prosecuting anyone for possesion, even in small amounts.
Here is why.
If you buy a bag of dope, and only intend to use it for your personal consumption, you are still supporting an illegal industry.
If people didn't buy the chit, there would be no market for it, and maybe 4 Mounties would be at home right now with thier loved ones.
I am not interested in getting into a debate about wether or not it should be legalized. The simple fact is, it is an illegal drug, and those who deal it or buy it should pay a hefty price when caught.
Those who don't get caught should know what thier money is really buying them. (in a broader scope, this includes partial responsibilty for deaths of other human beings as a result of the demand to support your 20 minutes of "high" time).
.
RTR
As I said in the other thread Its sad what happened to these guys but,
A very large percentage of the Pot sold and smoked in your everyday neiighborhood wasnt imported from Canada, or Mexico, Or columbia.
Thats not where the higher quality stuff comes from anymore But rather Grown right IN that neigborhood.
I'd be willing to bet that that in most urban and suburban neighborhoods there are at least 3 people within a 10 block radius growing high quality stuff.
The fact that sadly these guys were killed int he line of duty has more to do with the shooter being a criminal then it does the pot itself.
Dont blame the pot or the user. Blame the shooter.
Oh and BTW. Cocain gives you 20 Min of "high" time.
Pot lasts consideably longer.
-
without the pot or the user there would not have been "the shooter" guarding his illegal activity and thus no murders on this particular day by the grower and his thugs
but don't let the facts stand in your way, FIRE IT UP! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by indy007
Aeroponics gets better yield & saves money overall. Not as pretty to look at, but very, very effective. It's a technique of hydroponic growing where you mist the roots with a nutrient solution, runoff is collected & recycled.
See now here is the real reason why it wont be legallised.
Money. the big Co's cant make any REAL money on it because you can grow much higher quality stuff yourself for next to nothing.
And because of this the Gov cant tax it and get their cut.
And as we know anything the Gov cant get their sticky fingers on their cut they wont support.
-
Both are illegal.
Both lead to problems.
Dont blame the pot or the user. Blame the shooter.
Possibly without an illegal substance there , there wouldn't have been a "Shooter"?
-
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/03/04/rcmp-shooting050304.html
"Roszko, who was found dead at the scene, was known to police and had a violent past. "
"The RCMP said the ordeal began Wednesday, when two of their members went to Roszko's residence with a court order to seize property. While there, they discovered a marijuana grow operation.
Two officers remained overnight Wednesday to secure the area and wait for members of the Edmonton RCMP Auto Theft Unit to search the property for stolen goods.
"
-
Originally posted by Eagler
without the pot or the user there would not have been "the shooter" guarding his illegal activity and thus no murders on this particular day by the grower and his thugs
but don't let the facts stand in your way, FIRE IT UP! :rolleyes:
You smoked pot, Eagler, no?
So... Where is all your logic coming from? Like, if you smoked it on a day when no cops got killed over it, that's okay?
But if cops get killed over it a decade or whatever later, then that's bad and it's the fault of the guy smoking it on the day they got killed?
-
DREDIOK,
Actually, large amounts of high grade pot are smuggled into the US annually, especially from British Columbia. The pot is valuable enough in the States that straight across trades (weight for weight) are made for cocain.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Texas is voting on a bill to decriminalize on Tuesday.
You sure? I thought that was just a "medical marijuana" thingy.
culero
-
Originally posted by Eagler
without the pot or the user there would not have been "the shooter" guarding his illegal activity and thus no murders on this particular day by the grower and his thugs
but don't let the facts stand in your way, FIRE IT UP! :rolleyes:
So blame the users in that area not mine. I havent heard of any cops being shot at let alone shot over pot in mine.
And without the convieniance stores and money the storeowner would never have been robbed and shot either. Or the shootout with the cops afterwards
Convienance stoes and money may be legal but it makes as much sense as your arguement
If it wasnt illegal they wouldnt have gotten shot at at all now would they?
Dont let this fact stand in your way.
I feel bad for all cops about this.
They are loosing the war on drugs. And not by a slim margin either. they are loosing it miserably.
Its not even a close contest.
And they are about as likely to win it in this or any other lifetime as they are from stopping the sunrise tomorrow.
So now 4 cops are dead
and for what?
Over something that 95% of the people that have ever tried it would probably tell you shouldnt be illegal.
The money, resources and more importantly those lives could have been better served on something else
In any event Its the shooter that shot it isnt the pot it isnt the users. And a stupid shooter at that. I would like to know what he thought he was gonna accomplish by doing that.
Always a bad idea to shoot at cops His stuff was found and that gig was up.
he would have been better off just letting it go cutting his losses and setting up shop someplace else.
And just for the record.
As I have stated in other threads, While in my youth I've tried just about everything from Acid to coke to pot (with the exeption of heroin) Im not a user anymore and havent been in many years.
12 to be exact and that was when I was going through 6 months of chemotherapy (interesting experiance but dont suggest it be done by everyone)
And Im not for the legalisation of all drugs as some are here.
Only pot.
The chemicals, heroin, coke, meth etc are the real killers and the real enemy. the only thing that makes Pot dangerous is the fact it is illegal.
-
Originally posted by newguy
DREDIOK,
Actually, large amounts of high grade pot are smuggled into the US annually, especially from British Columbia. The pot is valuable enough in the States that straight across trades (weight for weight) are made for cocain.
Im not saying it isnt at all just that th bulk of stuff sold in your local neighborhood is grown locally.
Least here on the east coast it is
Pardon me if I've phrased it incorrectly
-
Nash
you sound like a raider/bush thread
I have no say on it now huh?
or maybe I have even more say eh?
-
What separates an industry that provided you with what you wanted then and an industry that provides other people with what they want now?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Nash
you sound like a raider/bush thread
I have no say on it now huh?
or maybe I have even more say eh?
Nash never has an argument. He just injects jabs and ad homs.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Nash never has an argument. He just injects jabs and ad homs.
Ya know....
Yer just a goof, Martlet.
Whoah yer right. That was an ad hom.
Ya know....
Yer just a god, Martlet.
-
Originally posted by RTR
(in a broader scope, this includes partial responsibilty for deaths of other human beings as a result of the demand to support your 20 minutes of "high" time).
I'm sorry, but the text I've highlighted shows that you have absolutely no personal experience, whatsoever with marijuana.
You are either:
A - A person who's never tried it; or
B- Were one of those people who took a few hits, said "wow I'm so high, man, I really feel it" while the "dealer" who just sold you oregano snickers in the background.
-
The effects are a joke compared acohol or tabacoo....... both have serious health problems ...
acohol kills brain cells! lots of them ....... and impairs you far beyond what cannibis is capable of......
Leaglize everything within reason.... look at the Dutch ... they are all potheads right? ::rollseyes::
Forstering a black market is about the stupidist thing a govement can do .. and thats what an illegal drug trade does helps with ..... makeing a huge florishing black market. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad ....
Do you know how much money we waste on this BS ... HA! .....
Leaglize it, tax it, and there's a social security fix!
it's effects are a amoung the most mild of any drug I've ever encountered.....
its addictive level is mild and is only mental; zero physical dependance (some potheads have sleep problems when they kick it [so do acoholics])
Only reason I can think of is that the govement wants a big florishing black market ....... that's the effect... ::shrugs::
It's called reality ..... some of these anti-drug people should get off thier opiate pain pills and check it out some time ...... or maybe just herbicide some more poppy fields and think they are doing a service.......
-
Heh, actually Vudak the "20 minutes" was just number plucked at random.
I was pretty heavy into pot when I was younger, in fact I was one of the guys you went to buy it from. I am pretty confident in my knowledge of what it does for you, as well as what it will not do for you.
But, like most, I figured out a long time ago that it wasn't such a geat thing.
What I said still stands. By supporting the industry an individual has to accept the fact that they are partially responsible for the deaths that happen because of it.
Bottom line is, it is an illegal drug. Go have a beer.
RTR
-
What I said still stands. By supporting the industry an individual has to accept the fact that they are partially responsible for the deaths that happen because of it.
Bottom line is, it is an illegal drug. Go have a beer.
Then you support an industry, a legal one, that has directly caused the death of three of my friends. Two ended up drinking themselves to death and one hit a tree DWI. By extension, you (and any other drinkers, myself included) are partially responsible for these and many other alcohol related deaths. We should be fighting tooth and nail to bring back prohabition.
The hyprocracy is what's the most irritating with this debate. Drugs are always bad, just not the ones I happen to do.
[edit: And your earlier argument, as has been touched on, does not address someone who would grow their own pot strictly for personal use. Or, the comparison between prohabition and the current war on drugs, and the lessons learned that eventually saw prohabition repealed as a bad, counterproductive and destructive law.]
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
Then you support an industry, a legal one, that has directly caused the death of three of my friends. Two ended up drinking themselves to death and one hit a tree DWI. By extension, you (and any other drinkers, myself included) are partially responsible for these and many other alcohol related deaths. We should be fighting tooth and nail to bring back prohabition.
The hyprocracy is what's the most irritating with this debate. Drugs are always bad, just not the ones I happen to do.
Charon
I didn't get that from his comment at all.
What I got was:
If you want to argue the legality of pot, and push to get it legalized, that's a legitimate discussion.
However, as it stands now, one is legal and the other isn't. Any discussion comparing the dangers of each is a sidebar and irrelevant conversation.
-
Understand Martlet, added a new piece while you were posting.
Charon
-
don't like it, good...
more for me :D
you bible thumpers out there should give thx to the almighty for creating something as wonderful as weed...
-
Originally posted by SLO
don't like it, good...
more for me :D
you bible thumpers out there should give thx to the almighty for creating something as wonderful as weed...
I do, and also thank Him for making liberals stupid enough to stay stoned all the time.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I do, and also thank Him for making liberals stupid enough to stay stoned all the time.
:D
rather stoned then totally ignorant conservative...
-
Charon you misunderstand what I am saying here.
Alcohol is a different set of circumtances. It is a legal drug and what we don't have is people being hurt or killed as a direct result of trying to produce or sell it, because of a demand for it.
In truth I think that criminal acts carried out while under the influence of alcohol should be dealt with harshly as well. The difference is glaring between the two however.
Thanks Martlet, you put it better than I did.
As for the leglaization, or decriminalization of pot, that is a different debate all together.
By definition, we are not responsible for the death of other individuals because we drink. We procured the drug legally.
What we do while under the influence is what we are responsible for.
Lastly, I purposefully didn't touch on people growing pot for thier own use for the simple reason that at the present, it is illegal and a topic of a different discussion.
I am however willing to debate the pro's and con's of legalization or decriminalization.
(who knows?...maybe I will be able to get a better understanding of my oldest daughters position on this, or she mine)
Cheers,
RTR
-
Originally posted by vorticon
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/03/04/rcmp-shooting050304.html
"Roszko, who was found dead at the scene, was known to police and had a violent past. "
"
Looks like this may have happened at some point even without the pot or the people that use it.
If it wasnt this it could very well have been something else.
Like I said.
blame the shooter.
the pot or the customers didnt make the guy shoot at the cop any more then a video game makes a kid go out and steal cars.
the shooter decided to pull the trigger all on his own
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Any discussion comparing the dangers of each is a sidebar and irrelevant conversation.
Forgive Martlet. He got splashed on during the last Witch Dunking. He's still a little cranky.
-
Originally posted by newguy
DREDIOK,
Actually, large amounts of high grade pot are smuggled into the US annually, especially from British Columbia. The pot is valuable enough in the States that straight across trades (weight for weight) are made for cocain.
While I'll agree with you that large amounts of high grade pot are smuggled into the U.S., I'm not so sure I believe that it is traded weight for weight with cocaine.
Now, I have never been "in" the cocaine deal, so who knows if some kids I know are getting ripped off, but currently, in CT, a gram of cocaine goes for $60. A gram of marijuana goes for $20 or less.
From what I've seen, cocaine is by far the more expensive drug, and therefore, the more profitable to take risks of smuggling. People really do get killed/shot at over it ALL the time.
Many of the marijuana dealers I've ever known eventually gave up selling it simply because unless you grow your own, it's near impossible to turn a substantial profit. So, they decided to start selling harder stuff (in this respect, it can be a gateway, though it's hardly because it made you "want" to do something else after smoking it).
Also, any discussion on the pros and cons of legalizing it must include arguments over its comparative safety and effects compared to other drugs, including alcohol and tobacco.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Forgive Martlet. He got splashed on during the last Witch Dunking. He's still a little cranky.
Of course you wouldn't want to refute that statement, just quote it and set the stage for another off topic jab.
-
Originally posted by SLO
:D
rather stoned then totally ignorant conservative...
another enlightened SLO comment
LOL LOL LOL
-
criminal acts carried out while under the influence of alcohol should be dealt with harshly as well.
should be,,but isnt so thats for sure
my mother was shot to death while i was sleeping by a drunk alcoholic under the influence when i was 5 years old..you know how much time he served in jail? 5 years
my cousin was killed by a drunk..you know how much time the guy served? 1 day in jail..because he was drunk and didnt know what he was doing was his excuse and they couldnt prove he intended to kill him,,no witnesses
a guy name ben from a party my brother was at..hit 2 old people that were out for there early morning walk..killed them both..drove all the way home and went to sleep..woke up and didnt realise what he did till there were cops all around him in his bed room and blood all over his car..he got 3 years in jail..and is still driving around town to this day
a guy down the street was growing pot got caught with quite a bit..he is serving a 7year term i hear..does this sound right? the guy never killed anyone
these all true stories just from my experiance in my tiny town of 2,000 people,,never have i seen anyone killed over pot,,or anyone shot over it......in my opinion its plain backwords..alcohall is the BIGGEST KILLER!! anyone who tries to convince me that there are harsh penetlies for killing some one under the influance..hasnt seen the real world yet thats for sure..just make sure when you kill some one that you are drunk..you will get a slap on the hand..thats the real world
got way mor true alcohall stories than this..just dont feal like typing everyone of them out:( from heads ons to suicides.. all over alcohall...only thing i seen pot lead people to is the fridge..i dont smoke..but even i can see whats the worst of the 2 hands down!!
-
amazing...some of you can justify anything.
-
Originally posted by RTR
Alcohol is a different set of circumtances. It is a legal drug and what we don't have is people being hurt or killed as a direct result of trying to produce or sell it, because of a demand for it.
there's your argument for the legalization of weed right there.
This is exactly what occurred during prohibition, no?
-
dont care what anyone else thinks
smoking abit now and then doesnt bother me at all.
i can feel the difference between having smoked abit and been drunk the following day. there is no question about it... the drink makes my body work hard to get back in shape and thats enough "evidence" for me.
enjoy whatever you enjoy.
famous grouse for me tonight. nothing like recovering the follwoing day to formula1 and breakfast in bed
:)
-edit- dont make a habbit of any of them and you should be fine
-
Originally posted by Shane
there's your argument for the legalization of weed right there.
This is exactly what occurred during prohibition, no?
That's not an argument for legalization. Difficulty of enforcement or to prevent further crime isn't justification.
I don't do drugs. I'm anti-drug. That being said, the government has absolutely zero business telling me what drugs I can or can't take.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
That being said, the government has absolutely zero business telling me what drugs I can or can't take.
wow.. i agree with marty! :)
(crosses the calendar)
-
*why* is marijuana illegal?
one can, and many do, make the case that there's no valid reason other than hysterical, err i mean historical bias. it makes the negros lustful and teenagers murderous. :rolleyes:
the harm marijuana does to society can in no way justify the expenditures enforcing misguided laws.
legalize it, tax it, let the market forces work and go after those who allow use of it to impact society at large ala DUI, etc.
and yes, it is a valid argument for legalization. Prohibition was repealed in large part due to the negative consequences of making booze illegal.
-
Originally posted by Shane
*why* is marijuana illegal?
one can, and many do, make the case that there's no valid reason other than hysterical, err i mean historical bias. it makes the negros lustful and teenagers murderous. :rolleyes:
the harm marijuana does to society can in no way justify the expenditures enforcing misguided laws.
legalize it, tax it, let the market forces work and go after those who allow use of it to impact society at large ala DUI, etc.
and yes, it is a valid argument for legalization. Prohibition was repealed in large part due to the negative consequences of making booze illegal.
Well written, to the point and loaded with common sense (Yet doesnt seem to be enough for people to understand).
Grow up with a couple of parents on the drink, watch your brother destroy his mind with booze, see your other brother be able to chill his manic nature out with pot and its quite clear.
Those mounties died for one reason, a lack of common sense by those making the laws.
-
Originally posted by spothq
...Those mounties died for one reason, a lack of common sense by those making the laws.
They did? Wow and here I thought it was because they found some Illegal drugs and the person that had em didn't want to go to jail...so he shot em.
dang.....glad things are all clear now:rolleyes:
-
I'm enjoying this show while i make one of the nr 3 coffeeshop in holland.
:cool:
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
I'm enjoying this show while i make one of the nr 3 coffeeshop in holland.
:cool:
i envy you right now bug
-
I used to smoke pot recreationally. Now I do so for medicinal purposes. I have a prescription for it in fact. I take 2 or 3 hits just before I go lay down for bed each night. Even though I have a prescription I cant go to the local drug store to buy it. I have to buy it on the black market. I could grow it, but my wife is opposed to that for some reason.
I get chronic, severe muscle spasms in my lower back. I have been to the doctor many times over the past 5 or so years for this. I've tryed physical therapy, exercises, and hard core muscle relaxers. The muscle relaxers DO make the spasms go away after 2 - 4 days. However, during the time I am on them I am a total basket case. The muscle relaxers do absolutely nothing to reduce the amount of pain I feel. They do however make me not care about it heh.
MJ otoh, actually helps reduce the pain, and makes the spasms less severe. I almost always have some degree of muscle spasm going on in my lower back. For me, MJ has made this issue alot more bearable.
-
One thing I don't get about this whole topic, is why the government refuses to face up to the fact that their current tactics in the "War on Drugs" are ineffective, at best. And I really don't care what statistics someone can come up with to show that we are seizing more drugs these days, it really isn't making a dent, at least not from what I can see.
I'm just saying this from my own personal experience, but take it for what it's worth:
Maybe a year and a half ago, the DEA and various other agencies did a few raids on some well known dealers in my town and surrounding ones. They ended up putting out of action the four most prominent.
Would you like to know the result?
Getting weed went from taking ten minutes, to half an hour. And that was only for a few weeks until new dealers sprung up.
I can't imagine how much money it cost the government, in terms of paying the various agency officers, stakeouts, investigations, and red tape, to only slightly inconvenience people for two weeks.
It doesn't make much sense to continue fighting this war the way we're going... I basically see three options:
1. Continue as-is, and continue to fail.
2. Make stronger sentences for those convicted, and have it thrown out in court (20+ years for getting caught with a joint most certainly falls under "cruel and unusual punishment" and will be fought vigorously by various groups)
3. Legalize pot, tax it, and either take the money saved from trying to ban it to either:
A) Continue as-is, with more resources, for other drugs, and hope it works out better; or
B) Spend the money on TRUTHFULL drug-education, and treatment programs. (or, you know, after-school programs that have been proven to reduce drug use, yet are being cut away from school budgets in many areas)
I feel this "War on Drugs" CAN be "won"... But not if we try to hammer away at everything at once. Cut losses, accept you can't stop everything, and go after the ones that are actually seriously dangerous (cocaine, heroine, ecstasy, etc.)
-
no one's ever od'd on marijuana, either.
not saying that marijuana has *no* potentially negative effects and should be unrestricted in useage. i'd mostly put it on par with booze in terms of restriction, if only for the security blanket effect it would have for the masses.
people who truly want to self-destruct will always find one way or another.
-
Originally posted by Shane
no one's ever od'd on marijuana, either.
very true
i have lost a few hours tho
but i do that every night anyway so nevermind
-
Originally posted by Shane
people who truly want to self-destruct will always find one way or another.
Exactly.
-
(http://www.onion.com/images/427/article3137.jpg)
-
The Mounties died because that a-hole ambushed them. He was a convicted pedophile, with a record of extreme violence and a menace to his community.
spothq you dont know anything about the situation so stfu. Dont make it sound like they deserved to die due to laws that YOU percieve as being stupid.
-
Originally posted by newguy
The Mounties died because that a-hole ambushed them. He was a convicted pedophile, with a record of extreme violence and a menace to his community.
I too, know nothing of the situation, but if he was all those things, what's pot got to do with it?
-
For everyone asking why pot is illegal, watch the movie "Grass". It tells you all you need to know. Names, dates and the insane dollar amounts spent.
-
pot is a drug.
drugs are bad M'kay?
but hey, do what you gotta do, you only live once.
i dont view this tragedy as caused by 'pot'
the tragedy could have been over money, diamonds, property.....women...whatever!
drugs are the bain of society, and drug dealers are certainly criminals.
but smoking a joint quietly in your back garden with your best bud and laughing your arse off for a few hours never hurt nobody.
sure you can say this guy had to buy it off someone, therefore supporting criminal activity.
how about the rent you pay your landlord that he uses to fund a terrorist network?
how about the money you give to a homeless guy who goes and spends it on a bottle of jack and then procedes to jump infront of a train killing hundreds?
Pot is not the problem, human nature is.
unfortunately this means illegal drugs must STAY illegal and hard penalties must be payed for abuse of these laws.
blame human nature, dont blame a friggin plant that grows, and has grown naturally and been used peacefully by humans for thousands of years......
-
Originally posted by newguy
The Mounties died because that a-hole ambushed them. He was a convicted pedophile, with a record of extreme violence and a menace to his community.
spothq you dont know anything about the situation so stfu. Dont make it sound like they deserved to die due to laws that YOU percieve as being stupid.
So they were "pwned" is what you're saying.
The pot smoking pedophile was "One up" on em?
Sounds like top-notch police work their pre-constable.
-
Like I said, you dont have a clue what went on. I'll leave you to your stupidity. I'm done wasting my time with the likes of you, on a BBS.
-
In truth, this actually started when the Bailif showed up to reposses a truck. He was threatened, and the police were brought in to execute the warrant. While there, stolen property was discovered as well as a grow operation.
This guy had a pretty long criminal record and was known to be dangerous. Not a policing problem, rather a problem with the laws and how the courts apply them.
I think I grabbed onto the Pot aspect of all this because it touched a nerve with me. I am going through this very discussion with my oldest daughter right now.
Should pot be legalized? I don't know for sure what that answer is, but my gut instinct tells me it should not.
I stand by the statement that those who buy, hold at least partial responsibilty for the harm caused indirectly because of that action.
Bottom line is it is illegal right now.
That being said, I smoke cigarettes. If they were a "new" thing they would probably be illegal.
So, I don't know the answer, but there is at least some pretty constructive debates going on here (if you can weed out the BS that trickles through).
Cheers,
RTR
-
Originally posted by newguy
Like I said, you dont have a clue what went on. I'll leave you to your stupidity. I'm done wasting my time with the likes of you, on a BBS.
Your lack of patience and tolerance will make you a fine constable. Having a limited view will take you far in life, alone, but far.
-
Why tax it?
I think it should be legal to grow and consume, but illegal to sell.
-
Originally posted by spothq
Your lack of patience and tolerance will make you a fine constable. Having a limited view will take you far in life, alone, but far.
You insult him with a non-arguement and expect him to stick around and play your silly games?
How sandboxish.
-
Originally posted by spothq
So they were "pwned" is what you're saying.
The pot smoking pedophile was "One up" on em?
Sounds like top-notch police work their pre-constable.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/03/05/rcmp-shooting050305.html
read it, and the related stuff, it always helps to know the facts before you make statements like that.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You insult him with a non-arguement and expect him to stick around and play your silly games?
How sandboxish.
It is, what it is.
With my opinion I got "STUF", so... welcome to the sandbox.
-
Originally posted by Shane:
it makes the negros lustful and teenagers murderous.
You must have seen the movie "Reefer Madness". Now that was a funny movie. I saw it at the "midnight movie" along with "Cocaine Fiends".
:rofl
-
yeah, and sadly stuff like that was the basis for making it illegal in the first place.
-
Some people just like to justify why they should be allowed to break the law.
These people have no repsect for the law and they lash out like children, calling people names just because they agree with the laws.
What other laws do they blantantly ignore and somehow justify in doing so? I guess they are above the rest of us and are able to decide which laws are made to be broken.
Funny stuff.
-
Without saying what for Nuke, have you ever broke the law? If so, did you feel guilty about doing it?
-
yeah, how many hummers has nuke rec'd over the years? how many times has be driven over the speed limit?
some laws have no business being passed in the first place. just because a law exists, doesn't mean it's 100% valid. I mean jeez, shall we delve into civil disobediance and the civil rights movement?
-
jaywalking comes to mind alot in my tiny town..good thing in big cities..bad thing for little towns,,no one uses the cross walks here..heck i jaywalk right in front of cops here..they dont care..even know im breaking the law right in front of them..they know its stupid in a small towns..because we only got 2 cross walks in the hole town..lol..i dont feal a bit guilty breaking that law..lol
-
I got no problem with making it legal even though potheads are annoying to be around.
When I smoked pot it just made pain more intense.
and... smoke all you want.. I don't mind competing with potheads at all but... I won't be on the same roads with em.. If you have pot in your system then don't drive.
If you work with me in a job where you could injure me by being careless then don't smoke pot or stay home.
lazs
-
how many hummers has nuke rec'd over the years
I believe that is illegal in some states.
My wife and I took a trip in the car one year and covered six states. I got RH in all six states and probably broke some sort of law.
:p
-
the problem/benifiet of bad laws is that it makes everyone that more at ease about breaking all laws.
lazs
-
"blame human nature, dont blame a friggin plant that grows, and has grown naturally and been used peacefully by humans for thousands of years......"
said it before and i would say it again if this thread makes it to page 3.
-
i have to agree with the "grow your own" folks here.
its a natural plant, has medicinal and oft times psychological relief.. it shows no real harmful effects that you wont find in your average micropop kitchen appliance, cancery cellphone or the black dioxide soup of automobile emission.
unfortunately, the debate often comes down to a character issue rather than an issue of freedom. all too often there is a public perception about those who would serve as the advocates for legalization as being the ones in dreadlocks, living the unshowered life and following phish around the world.
im pretty sure that legalization wont occur until some real weight gets put behind the issue.
we also have to consider that before it really became a national passtime like booze, it was already outlawed. unlike prohibition, it would not have the same "you took this away from us" effect.
for me it IS an issue concerned with freedom, but its not a freedom that any of us have ever had.
we allow for violence in our living rooms, a bourgening fat cow of a pharmacutical industry and wars. yet we can't quite seem to let go of the reigns in this day and age to add a freedom rather than subtract it. to strike a law rather than write one.
as many of us agree, there are places that the government seems to be comfortable acting as a daddy when it only serves to make the problem worse.
i just dont happen to agree that it is fundementally good for the government to tell me what i can or can not ingest. rather, i think that it should be allowed but talked about openly...i dont neccessarilly think that we should manufacture it, at least not immediately, but i am not oppossed to it in a future scene either. grow your own for now...like a spice...treat it as such.
imagine if we did that for thirty years...and that when they actually did manufacture it we may have enough of a grip on it that we could absorb it. it might even appear with little fanfare if the experiment goes well.
if we spent more time talking with our kids...educating them...saying ya, i did some drugs, i got over. do your thing if you must...take the coyote path to the desert...but be careful. this is what can happen....and show them. everyone has the right to determine how to be an adult for themselves as long as they arent hurting anybody but i think that as adults we have the responsibility to communicate truthfully to our youth and allow them to make decisions on thier own.
i supose im a bit extreme in that way sometimes...i think that kids should be required to take field trips to methadone clinics or halfway houses to show them what the consequances of thier actions might be.
then, let them be.
americans, for all of thier purported freedoms can really be one big gigantic tightass.
i think that the aggregate result of this is actually the opposite of the intended effect. like catholic shool girls who got put in the box on day one...man when they got out of that box! WOOOHOO!
of all people, i think that government is the worst teacher. it deals in its own form of speak that runs so counter to reality sometimes that i have to laugh.
the founding fathers must have felt that way too. social law is much more powerful in my opinion that government law.
it always wins in the end.
-
It's not a case of the government deciding that something is illegal, it's the law. We live in a republic, so really it's the people making the laws.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
We live in a republic, so really it's the people making the laws.
Not in this case.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Not in this case.
-SW
Sure it is. Don't like it? Start collecting signatures and get it on the ballot.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Sure it is.
No, it isn't. The government made it illegal, it was not passed before the people as a vote.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
No, it isn't. The government made it illegal, it was not passed before the people as a vote.
-SW
Collect the signatures and put it on the ballot.
-
Oh god JB88... that.. *sniffle*... was... *sniff* BEAUTIFUL! *SOB*
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Collect the signatures and put it on the ballot.
The government made the law, it was not the people. You seem to have a problem following the progression of what someone is refuting.
-SW
-
NUKE.
my point exacty.
"in the end, social law wins over governmental law."
we need to nurture our society to rely less on government and more on its people to take the initiative to self regulate.
i may have expressed it poorly but hey...
i am stoned.
j/k.
:cool:
-
lol engine.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
The government made the law, it was not the people. You seem to have a problem following the progression of what someone is refuting.
-SW
Not at all. He was correct. Politicians are representatives of the people. If they continue to get elected, obviously they are representing appropriately. They are an extension of their constituents.
Even so, if ALL the representatives go rogue and pass legislation before you can remove them, then you still have options.
collect signatures. If that measure fails, then it looks like it was the will of the people after all.
-
Originally posted by Engine
Oh god JB88... that.. *sniffle*... was... *sniff* BEAUTIFUL! *SOB*
You read it all?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You read it all?
don't pretend you weren't licking your screen when you read it martlette.
i know better.
;)
-
It's actually the will of the government, they had a very pro-active campaign in educating on drugs that are now illicit these days to make them illicit. The people were given information through scare tactics to form opinions that would align with the government's.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
It's actually the will of the government, they had a very pro-active campaign in educating on drugs that are now illicit these days to make them illicit. The people were given information through scare tactics to form opinions that would align with the government's.
-SW
Heh. Ok. ;)
Are people still brainwashed? Why don't they legalize it now?
-
well... it's not a "spice" and shouldn't be treated as such..
That being said, I have no problem with people getting stoned on whatever drug they choose no matter what harm it brings to them.
I simply don't want to be on the same road with them or work beside them or... even have to listen to em.
Fact is.. the image of the pot smoker fits the actual people who are the "advocates" of legal pot... they are stoner losers who you wouldn't want on the same road with you. Their tie dyed red eyed advocacy on "medical" grounds makes them look like dishonest losers to boot.
lazs
-
They are. Have you missed the 'This is my anti-drug' media? It's on all the time.
I don't think it should be legalised anyway, just decriminalised. For "saving" lives by making it illegal and carrying a stiff penalty, the laws effectively destroy anyone's future who gets caught with marijuana now-a-days.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I don't think it should be legalised anyway, just decriminalised. For "saving" lives by making it illegal and carrying a stiff penalty, the laws effectively destroy anyone's future who gets caught with marijuana now-a-days.
-SW
The punishments aren't all that bad. Most people I know have ended up with 1 year probation, deferred so it drops off their record if they don't screw it up. Best friend got nailed with 20 pills (X) & 2 ounces of pot in his car (the pills weren't even his, but the owner was with him). They both got 5 years probation + fines + a few thousand community service hours. The pot charges were dropped completely, even after those 2 ounces weighed in at 3 1/2.
-
As far as I know it's still on my record, I had less than a nickel. It never "drops off" either, its still there. Apply for a top secret clearance, they'll see it.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
As far as I know it's still on my record, I had less than a nickel. It never "drops off" either, its still there. Apply for a top secret clearance, they'll see it.
-SW
That's the consequence for intentionally breaking the law.
-
Ok.
-SW
-
My 1/4 lasted for a few hours.:cool:
Time to head back into town.:cool:
-
let's keep this doper thread going!!!
party on dudes!
you still have a few more brain cells to fry!!
-
lol
I think I may have a spare cell to fry somewhere in my house.:lol
-
well... it's not a "spice" and shouldn't be treated as such..
Sure it is! Haven't you ever had marijiuana brownies?
:p
-
Originally posted by Eagler
let's keep this doper thread going!!!
party on dudes!
you still have a few more brain cells to fry!!
better self induced than brainwashed and angry.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by JB88
better self induced than brainwashed and angry.
:rolleyes:
What's brainwashed about admitting dope is bad for you?
-
never said it did.
it's just another condition.
much worse in my opinion. people die of someone else's volition when that ball gets rolling.
-
Originally posted by JB88
never said it did.
it's just another condition.
much worse in my opinion. people die of someone else's volition when that ball gets rolling.
Can I get a translation?
-
only if you say please.
;)
-
nice avatar 88 :)
for flips sake, lets just keep it illegal, then all the 'i am a good citizen who never breaks the law' types can stay the hell away from a culture that i believe to be nothing but full of humour and enjoyment.
do we really want these goody goodies to get in on our little secret?
;)
-
thanks bat. ;) im pretty sure that is my plane getting smashed into little bits in yours.
let them in? hmmm.
well, only if they can hang without puking miller lite all over the sofa or driving themselves into a family while reading the bible drunk.
:aok ;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well... it's not a "spice" and shouldn't be treated as such..
That being said, I have no problem with people getting stoned on whatever drug they choose no matter what harm it brings to them.
I simply don't want to be on the same road with them or work beside them or... even have to listen to em.
Fact is.. the image of the pot smoker fits the actual people who are the "advocates" of legal pot... they are stoner losers who you wouldn't want on the same road with you. Their tie dyed red eyed advocacy on "medical" grounds makes them look like dishonest losers to boot.
lazs
You're speaking the truth here, but isn't that exactly the same thing for boozers? I don't want them on the roads (no one does), I wouldn't want them working next to me where we could get hurt (no one does) and, personally, if I'm not drunk at the time, I really don't want to have to listen to them all night either (unless, of course, through AH2... That's always fun :) )
Not saying you weren't saying this or you were, just adding it in.
-
Since we are slowly outlawing tobacco, perhaps we should keep this in mind:
Marijuana use also has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. It also produces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form—levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco.
nih (http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/marijuana.html)
-
holden are you for it or against it?
banning things.
-
Who on earth smokes 20 joints a day? Even if the smoke would be 10 times as harmful it wouldn't really be as bad as smoking tobacco. Besides, MJ can be ingested by eating or by vaporizing without the dangers of smoking. The comparison to tobacco is invalid.
The danger of MJ smoke is true and people should be made aware of alternative ways on ingestion.
-
Mostly I'm for consistancy.
Banning tobacco and holding RJ Reynolds at fault because Aunt Sue hacked up a lung after smoking 3 packs a day for 30 years while also talking of decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana is at best inconsistant.
I am for a libertine viewpoint as long as those who choose to smoke, drink, or walk down RR tracks naked take responsibility for their own actions.
and Mora, you should read all the NIH web... a lot more than smoke happens. You dont have to light up tobacco either. Want some chew?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
and Mora, you should read all the NIH web... a lot more than smoke happens. You dont have to light up tobacco either. Want some chew?
There absolutely no research showing that marijuana itself is carsinogenic. The idea of vaporizing is to heat it MJ to a temperature where only the THC and other cannabinoids are released, it's a widely researched subject and that's also what the doctors recommend.
-
Was I specific on cancer or did I say that other stuff is of concern? It's on the site I linked.
-
I know guys that started smoking pot more than 30 years ago and don't smoke anything else... they have terrible smokers hack... cough all the time. At 50-70 times the carcenigen rate they would only have to smoke like half a joint a day to get their couple pack a day camel smoker dose.
I don't really care thos so long as they are aware of the risk.
vudak.. I don't want to work or drive with drunks either. I am in the DOT program as are the people I am around. If they test dirty for either pot or booze they are gone and that is fine for me. I am around heavy equipment. I don't want pot heads to be running it.
mechanic... Your little secret? are you kidding? Most people have tried pot and don't get what you get out of it. It is a really wimpy drug to me. Easiest drug I ever took for me to quit.
lazs
-
Lazs, I don't think anyone's arguing that someone high on weed should be legally permitted to operate steamrollers.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Was I specific on cancer or did I say that other stuff is of concern? It's on the site I linked.
I'm well aware of other possible harmful effects. Cancer is not one of them unless you smoke alot of it on daily basis.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
vudak.. I don't want to work or drive with drunks either. I am in the DOT program as are the people I am around. If they test dirty for either pot or booze they are gone and that is fine for me. I am around heavy equipment. I don't want pot heads to be running it.
Those tests have nothing to do whether the person is high on the moment he's operating the machinery. It's equally unfair to fire a person who occasionally get's drunk on his freetime than one who occasionally get's high. Both activies don't affect your ability to operate machinery, except if you go to work the next day after heavy drinking.
Do you really think the persons you work with shouldn't be allowed to have a beer on their own time?
-
Like I said... I think the drug makes people wimpy and stupid and I don't like being around the self involved little wussy tools but... They should be able to buy or grow and smoke all of the crap they want...
so long as they don't share the road with me or work around me.
If you test positive for pot your boss should have the right to fire you or the cops aresset you for DUI if you were driving.
but... smoke all you want. There should be no law against doing something stupid or harming yourself.
lazs
-
No.... mora.. those tests do have everything to do with a person being high. Booze wears off. none in your system... you aren't drunk or affected. Pot... who knows? I am not gonna take a chance. If the pot head kills someone and tests positive are you gonna tell me that it wasn't the post fault?
Every pot head I knew was a zombie no matter if he had just smoked it or was about to. I don't want to share the road with any of em...
If you test positive for meth... you get a DUI... what is the difference? meth stays in the system a long time. I don't want someone testing positive for pot or meth or whatever mind altering substance... on the road with me or on the job with me.
It would be up to the employer... if you were a valuable employee... an "artist" say... he wouldn't fire you anyway so what's the problem?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Like I said... I think the drug makes people wimpy and stupid and I don't like being around the self involved little wussy tools
Generalizing a bit eh? Don't you think it really depends on the person and the the amounts consumed and the frequency of use. I know people who get drunk every day and people who get high every day. Some of them can function like any other persons at work, but majority doesn't.
Majority of people of using both substances do it much less frequently and in most cases it's not reflected in their job performance at all.
I however agree with of your "pot head" assesment, but I also realize that it's just a minority.
Originally posted by lazs2
so long as they don't share the road with me or work around me.
If you test positive for pot your boss should have the right to fire you or the cops aresset you for DUI if you were driving.
Are you saying that people who use MJ shouldn't be allowed to drive? How about people who use alcohol?
Should you employer be allowed to have access to your bank accounts? Should the cops be allowed to put a speed recorder in your car? If you agree with those, then I have no problem with understanding your stance on drug and alcohol testing.
-
mora... like I said... if you test positive for any drug including booze you will be arrested for DUI. That is the way it is and that is the way it should be. Some drugs stay in your system longer than others... that just means you are high longer.
employers have the right to fire anyone who tests positive for any drug... they also can fire you for extreme finacial irresponsibility in some cases.. If you are worth a lot to them tho... they overlook these things... if you are a total loser they most likely jump at the chance to get rid of your dope smoking, bankrupt, disruptive butt.
If you smoke pot then no... you shouldn't drive. You are most likely the worst judge on the planet of your abilities.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
No.... mora.. those tests do have everything to do with a person being high. Booze wears off. none in your system... you aren't drunk or affected. Pot... who knows? I am not gonna take a chance. If the pot head kills someone and tests positive are you gonna tell me that it wasn't the post fault?
Pot does wear off and it does so much faster than alcohol. The urine test measure the metabolites(sp?) of THC, they are not psychoactive at all. Once the active ingredients are off your blood stream you are no longer high.
Every pot head I knew was a zombie no matter if he had just smoked it or was about to. I don't want to share the road with any of em...
I believe about half of the US population have used MJ. Is every other person a "zombie" over there?
-
mora... I said pot head. Personality changes occur with regular use.
sorry about there not being a good test for pot or meth but... till there is.. zero tollerance is the prudent way to work it.
You test postitve? that means you have been smoking pot or doing meth or whatever... you are driving... sorry bud... best evidence is that you are impaired.
Come up with a better test for impairment and we will revisit the subject.
For now... not worth taking a chance.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
mora... I said pot head. Personality changes occur with regular use.
sorry about there not being a good test for pot or meth but... till there is.. zero tollerance is the prudent way to work it.
You test postitve? that means you have been smoking pot or doing meth or whatever... you are driving... sorry bud... best evidence is that you are impaired.
Come up with a better test for impairment and we will revisit the subject.
For now... not worth taking a chance.
lazs
The way it works here... In case of alcohol, if a police officer believes you are impaired they will do a breathalyzer test, if you fail or refuse you are taken to a blood test by force if necessary, if you are still positive it's a DWI. With the case a drugs a saliva test is performed or you are taken straight to blood test by force if necessary. If you are positive it's a DWI. Some specially trained officers are allowed to take a blood sample on the spot.
I do not see problem with that. Urine tests OTOH have nothing to do with current impairement and they don't even detect all drugs. Blood test do detect all drugs in your system that may cause impairement.
-
On the bright side, actually getting convicted for a DUI with pot in your system (but not being high, aka passing all tests but urine or blood), is about as difficult as winning the lottery. At least with a lawyer that has a clue.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well... it's not a "spice" and shouldn't be treated as such..
That being said, I have no problem with people getting stoned on whatever drug they choose no matter what harm it brings to them.
I simply don't want to be on the same road with them or work beside them or... even have to listen to em.
Fact is.. the image of the pot smoker fits the actual people who are the "advocates" of legal pot... they are stoner losers who you wouldn't want on the same road with you. Their tie dyed red eyed advocacy on "medical" grounds makes them look like dishonest losers to boot.
lazs
I used to say the same about roid heads, but now I see the light
-
Originally posted by Vudak
On the bright side, actually getting convicted for a DUI with pot in your system (but not being high, aka passing all tests but urine or blood), is about as difficult as winning the lottery. At least with a lawyer that has a clue.
I think that's stupid. There should be a treshold level of THC in you blood as there is in the case of alcohol. If you are over it's a DUI. BTW if you have 0.08% of alcohol in your blood you are impaired, but for some odd that's the DUI limit in the US.
-
The way it works here... In case of alcohol, if a police officer believes you are impaired they will do a breathalyzer test, if you fail or refuse you are taken to a blood test by force if necessary,
you can refuse to take a breathalyzer here in the states..but!! they will take away your drivers license for over a year and your car..and give you a huge fine..so even if your drunk its allmost best to take your dui
Blood test do detect all drugs in your system that may cause impairement.
blood test does not detect all the drugs in your system that may cause impairment ..acid impairs your thinking and thoughts and is only picked up with a spinal tap and hair..spinal is very illegal to make anyone have because it could make you disabled if they mess it up...only other way is testing hair...this again is not a good way either..most shampoos will remove traces of the drugs they are lookin for and most people cutt there hair all the time anyways
-
If there is a way to determine the presence of recent pot or meth use as oppossed to the night before and one that will determine level of intoxication... fine...all for it.
If not... then test for any presence and have zero tolerance. The boozers may have the advantage there.
six.. so far as steroids.. your stated opinion is not the same in a previous post as it is now. In a previous post you seem to feel that steroids should be illegal but that anyone who ever used em should have no say on if they should be illegal or not.
I have smoked plenty of pot in the past and don't think that driving on it is a good idea. I do not want to share the road or the jobplace with a person high on pot. Hell... I don' even want to have to be around em but... It's a free country (or should be).
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I have smoked plenty of pot in the past
lazs
that explains why you're such a tard.
:aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I have smoked plenty of pot in the past and don't think that driving on it is a good idea. I do not want to share the road or the jobplace with a person high on pot. Hell... I don' even want to have to be around em but... It's a free country (or should be).
lazs
The point I was trying to make is that a roid head going on a roid rage behind the wheel is just as bad....if not worse.
-
shane... I resent that... former pot use is not the only reason that I am such a tard.
six... Who is advocating letting people high on anything share the road? Legal or illegal.
lazs
-
Once again, I'll invite those of you who think marijuana is victimless to come on up to Mendocino County in August-September and you can see just how detremental sanctioned marijuana cultivation can be to a community.
One can legally grow 25 plants up here- 50 if you register as a "caregiver." That means between you and your wife you can grow 100 plants in your backyard- and the only people it's benefited up here are the nurseries and people who sell fence boards.
The crime rate for home invasions and burgeleries (sp) went through the roof last year- the police officers' lament was that they didn't have time for police work because they were too busy answering pot related calls.
Also there were several murders, attempted murders and assaults, all related to pot.
We've attracted a culture of low lifes who rent a home, grow a crop, maybe cook up some meth.... and steal anything they can get their hands on to support them til their crop comes in.
Our children grow up seeing this general disdain for society's rules and conclude they don't have to live within the rules of society, so they're more apt to violate other laws also.
Personally I don't care what anyone smokes, drinks, shoots or snorts...just don't fool yourself and say it's a victimless crime cause it's not.... not for those of us who live in the middle of sanctioned pot growing.
-
sshhh Airhead
pot is the love drug!
no violence EVER associated with this little weed - EVER!!
and if there is a fist fight or two, it is the big bad gov's fault as they made it illegal
not to mention what it does to the user's motivation, make's them real go getters I tell ya....to go and get their next sack & maybe a pizza
FIRE IT UP BOYS, it ain't just the bowl that's a sizzlin, it's just your brain!!
LOL LOL LOL
-
FIRE IT UP BOYS, it ain't just the bowl that's a sizzlin, it's just your brain!!
Eagler Joined BBS Mar 2001.....
@365 x 4 years = 1460 posts at one post per day.. (leap year non conclusive)
Now eaglers 8634+ post divided by 1460 = 5.91 posts per day on average. WTF....
That will cook your brain also...
:cool:
DoctorYo
-
since when did posting on the BBS *ever* require having a brain to begin with?
:confused:
-
exactly.... shane and I are perfect examples.
lazs
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
Eagler Joined BBS Mar 2001.....
..
That will cook your brain also...
:cool:
DoctorYo
true
but legally and reversable :)
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Once again, I'll invite those of you who think marijuana is victimless to come on up to Mendocino County in August-September and you can see just how detremental sanctioned marijuana cultivation can be to a community.
One can legally grow 25 plants up here- 50 if you register as a "caregiver." That means between you and your wife you can grow 100 plants in your backyard- and the only people it's benefited up here are the nurseries and people who sell fence boards.
The crime rate for home invasions and burgeleries (sp) went through the roof last year- the police officers' lament was that they didn't have time for police work because they were too busy answering pot related calls.
Also there were several murders, attempted murders and assaults, all related to pot.
We've attracted a culture of low lifes who rent a home, grow a crop, maybe cook up some meth.... and steal anything they can get their hands on to support them til their crop comes in.
Our children grow up seeing this general disdain for society's rules and conclude they don't have to live within the rules of society, so they're more apt to violate other laws also.
Personally I don't care what anyone smokes, drinks, shoots or snorts...just don't fool yourself and say it's a victimless crime cause it's not.... not for those of us who live in the middle of sanctioned pot growing.
That is an extreme though =) you can find one in every case. Mendocino is an example of what happens when people wait too long to come to their senses.
Yes they are more proactive when it comes to common sense, but you know that the last 20 years people have seen that area as a magnet, and eventually people will see it as a "job", then the competition drives the evil side into the mix and you have the mess up there that is mendocino. Unfortunately its still related to the lack of real control over the issue, criminalizing it hasn't helped anyone except the speech writers and law enforcement budgets.
-
Airhead, you can only blame prohibition of pot for that. Because it's illegal the markets are in the hands of criminals. Just look back some 70 years and you'll see how prohibition of alcohol affected crime rates. Of course there's always crime associated if the business is illegal. The sex industry is another example.
-
Originally posted by mora
Airhead, you can only blame prohibition of pot for that. Because it's illegal the markets are in the hands of criminals. Just look back some 70 years and you'll see how prohibition of alcohol affected crime rates. Of course there's always crime associated if the business is illegal. The sex industry is another example.
Read again- it's the legality that has caused my community its problems, not the illegality. Hey, I'm just posting my observations about what happens when a community decides to sanction a previouslly criminal enterprise- it's not your brain that rots on pot, it's your community.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Read again- it's the legality that has caused my community its problems, not the illegality.
That is 180* backwards. The illegality is causing those criminals to behave in the manner you describe.
I can't think of one instance where freedom of choice to do as you please and not restrict the freedom of others is a bad thing. That's all this argument boils down to.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
That is 180* backwards. The illegality is causing those criminals to behave in the manner you describe.
I can't think of one instance where freedom of choice to do as you please and not restrict the freedom of others is a bad thing. That's all this argument boils down to.
These are two independant arguments. You can't really argue the justness of the crime because of the injustness of the law.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Read again- it's the legality that has caused my community its problems, not the illegality. Hey, I'm just posting my observations about what happens when a community decides to sanction a previouslly criminal enterprise- it's not your brain that rots on pot, it's your community.
Agree except it's the illegality in the surrounding communities that contributes to the problem.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
These are two independant arguments. You can't really argue the justness of the crime because of the injustness of the law.
The crimes are unjust. I was making no attempt to make excuses for the criminals, only pointing out the fallacy of his logic.
They are two independant points. Am I allowed only one per post??
Actually, they are interdependant. Freedom to excercise personal choice in matters that do not effect others is the point. The choice to grow MJ has no effect on anyone. The choice to steal and vandalize others property has nothing to do with it.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Read again- it's the legality that has caused my community its problems, not the illegality. Hey, I'm just posting my observations about what happens when a community decides to sanction a previouslly criminal enterprise- it's not your brain that rots on pot, it's your community.
If you create a safe haven in a middle of a place where it's verboten this is what surely happens. I believe 100% of what you are saying. A legalization has to be nation wide to avoid these problems and the growing and distribution should be goverment controlled.
-
mora... I have never bought that arguement... It is like saying that gun control doesn't work because the "safe" places are surrounded by places where people have rights... It is like saying that communism fails because the whole world isn't commie.
What should happen is that those who want the feedom to smoke pot will gravitate to the place and drive up the property values so high that the lowlifes won't be able to afford to live there except the real organized ones (of which airhead is not talking about).
That is not what happens... the "freedom" to have potheads and their behavior in an area drives property values down and attracts even more bottom of the barrel criminals. Pot heads don't even make good criminals.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
The crimes are unjust. I was making no attempt to make excuses for the criminals, only pointing out the fallacy of his logic.
They are two independant points. Am I allowed only one per post??
Actually, they are interdependant. Freedom to excercise personal choice in matters that do not effect others is the point. The choice to grow MJ has no effect on anyone. The choice to steal and vandalize others property has nothing to do with it.
I agree. I must have misunderstood your post. I thought you were condoning criminal behavior because the law was unjust.
-
I don't consider anyone who grows, buys or smokes pot or any other drug a criminal... the laws are against human rights. If you sell illegal drugs I consider you a criminal or one who causes criminal activity and therefore affects me.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't consider anyone who grows, buys or smokes pot or any other drug a criminal... the laws are against human rights. If you sell illegal drugs I consider you a criminal or one who causes criminal activity and therefore affects me.
lazs
I consider anyone who lacks enough respect for our nations laws to obey them while working to change them a criminal. You don't have to like the law, but you should respect the system.
-
two different things.. If he gets caught then he is a criminal no problem with that. I consider the law to be wrong tho. If all a person does is smoke pot so far as criminality goes... well... He ain't gonna cause me to get all rightious and asking for blood.. I would even lie to keep him from being punished... just like people lie about speeding and seatbelts.
Bad laws make us all less respectful of the law.
lazs
-
I don't care if people want to smoke pot or not as long as they realize it's not a victimless crime.
-
It is a victimless crime.
Except this one time when I got high, I went to Wendy's and wanted 5 Jr Bacons. A Mexican worker at the door said they were closing, I said they couldn't be closing because their door was still open and people were inside. He said they turned off the grill. Man, I had the munchies so bad, I had no other choice. I ate that Mexican right there.
Mexicans are delicious.
-SW
-
I was going to go into work...
but then I got high
but then I got high
but then I got high.....
-
Originally posted by Suave
Why tax it?
That's what I thought. It seems as if people have become conditioned to think that their purpose and purpose of goods and services is to provide the goverment with income. Pretty wierd reaction, as we are all taxed to much as it is.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
I don't care if people want to smoke pot or not as long as they realize it's not a victimless crime.
It's like buying toothpaste from a checkout girl that slapped a bunny. Somehow you just know you are responsible, if only you didn't buy that toothpaste...and that my friends is worst analogy in the history of man.
-
You can't really tax MJ because it's so easy to grow yourself.