Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on July 31, 2002, 01:24:19 PM
-
Anyone see the show on ABC last night...
Yeah... I know, it's slanted to the left but there were many valid points...
http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/stossel_drugs_020730.html
-
Most people who read threads like these know my stance...
However, I can't get past the fact that the peeps in charge of this so-called "Drug War" don't understand that drugs and crime aren't necessarily related.
Of course, in this situation they can be linked... drugs harder to get = drug abusers going that extra distance to get their fix. Crime tends to be the result, so you'd think they'd realise that... but they are tards.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Most people who read threads like these know my stance...
However, I can't get past the fact that the peeps in charge of this so-called "Drug War" don't understand that drugs and crime aren't necessarily related.
Of course, in this situation they can be linked... drugs harder to get = drug abusers going that extra distance to get their fix. Crime tends to be the result, so you'd think they'd realise that... but they are tards.
-SW
Especially after that little experiment with prohibition of alcohol 80 years ago.
-
I think he was not thorough enough - saying that that number of users could admittedly go up once cheap clean regulated drugs are sold like tobacco and alcohol.
While no one knows what would really happen to the number of users, a really strong case can be made that it will go down as there will be no "forbidden fruit" attraction and most importantly there will be no highly motivated pushers coming individually after the children to hook them up.
miko
-
"We in America should have a different approach," explains Hutchinson. "You do not win in these efforts by giving in."
True, but sometimes you cause far less damage by giving in than by continuing the fight and still losing in the end. Imagine if the Japanese had still not surrendered even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
-
Originally posted by Nifty
True, but sometimes you cause far less damage by giving in than by continuing the fight and still losing in the end. Imagine if the Japanese had still not surrendered even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
it would have cost us two more A-bombs :rolleyes:
don't kid yourself, drugs do cause crime. Just because at the neighborhood level you don't see it, doesn't mean it ain't happening further up the chain...
-
The point of the article was that drug prohibition creates more crime than the drugs themselves.
-
define drugs
cafeine,
nicotine,
alchohol,
anti-depressants ?
all these cause crime eh?
and how about the guy that grows his own ?
-
don't kid yourself, drugs do cause crime. Just because at the neighborhood level you don't see it, doesn't mean it ain't happening further up the chain... [/QUOTE]
Drugs cause crime because the government lets 'em. By creating an environment where abusers have to use shady back door shenanigans to get their fix, this allows an easy money making form of revenue for organized crime.
You'll never cut the demand for drugs unless you brain wash people. Therefore you will never cut supply because where there's demand someone will find a way to supply it... and it's usually gonna be already hardened criminals.
-SW
-
Drugs don't cause crime, people cause crime.
And remember, "When you outlaw drugs, only outlaws will have drugs."
-
No way the USA will legalize drugs. Hell, we have damn near criminalized tobacco... next?...McDonald's
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
However, I can't get past the fact that the peeps in charge of this so-called "Drug War" don't understand that drugs and crime aren't necessarily related.
Is this the most ridiculous statement I have ever to read on this BBS? And thats saying something!
Enlighten me further please. (Self Edited) You must be living on a different planet than I am and you obviously have absolutely no clue as to what your talking about.
-
I have a much better clue than you do Spook, you just can't see it because you don't want to.
The current policy is what causes the so-called "drug related crimes", not the drugs or the abusers/users. If you allow a market place for drugs to exist, and it's a very lucrative form of revenue, then SOMEONE is going to play the part of the supplier. It ain't gonna be an honest businessman either- it's gonna be criminals. This is what the current policy on drugs, or "War on Drugs", does and has actually created.
You can't get rid of the demand, of course you can jail them all but then you make hardened criminals. It's simply avoiding the problem, the easiest solution is the best right? Not at all.
-SW
-
Where do you stop? Do you advocate a free market? Cause the black market will always undercut the trade market.
Do you propose Age restrictions enforceable by a law much similar to the laws you have now? Noone under the age of 18 or 21 allowed? Cause you have 12 year olds out there already in the thousands shooting Tawny port into their veins, sniffing glue and popping aspirins.
Will you increase the cost to an overburdened Health Care budget to support the increase in Drug related illnesses cause anyone can do it now, including the Cab driver who takes you to work each day and drops your kid off at school. Or will the new Law be enough to stop him?
Will the suppliers simply disappear and move out of a lucrative Gazillion dollar business cause its no fun anymore as its legal?
Where are they going to put all those resources now? Guns? White collar crime? Donations to the Girl Scout cookie raffle?
No SW. You have absolutely no clue. You pot heads think you know the Drug Culture. You think you know how these people think cause you smoke up a bowl of mull and you feel breezy and listen to your Bob Marley CD's.
Tell that to the 5 year old girl, who's mother Overdosed on pain killers last week. Who's father I arrested only yesterday in a drug induced state where he couldnt even tell me where his daughter currently was. (I found her 6 hours later in another Druggie home being looked after by a Zombie. She is now removed from that waste of space).
I've got 13 years of stories for you on why we should fight drugs at every turn. Hell I'll even renew my AH subscription for a year, not to fly but to simply ensure you and others hear the other side as often and as loudly as I can proclaim it. I may never convince you but I wont let you and others tell people who have no idea that what your advocating in any way shape or form can be a good thing.
You and others live in a fantasy world, you have ABSOLUTELY no clue and you are 100% WRONG.
-
According to the report last night. Holland allows recreational use of marijuana.
Funny thing is... drug use by teenagers in Holland is less than U.S. per capita, crime is lower than U.S. too.
SC-Spook you don't know what will happen if the U.S. changed the laws. Fact is, neither do we, but I'm willing to give it a try and see. I believe that the cure for drug use in this society is worse than the disease itself.
It's a belief. It's not fact. Hell... we might be wrong, but I'd bet not.
-
The west is full of drug use and drug related subjects. Its pathetic. If you go to Japan or Korea, you'll see how clean and beautiful its cities are. They can win the drug war if they really wanted to, they have the resources and the mite and power to, I dont think the polititions really want to or care to. They have their own agendas. My .02 cents.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
No SW. You have absolutely no clue. You pot heads think you know the Drug Culture. You think you know how these people think cause you smoke up a bowl of mull and you feel breezy and listen to your Bob Marley CD's.
I'm am getting extremely tired of you insinuating that because I smoke pot, I am a pothead, and thus what I say is wrong just because you can't stand what I'm saying. Here's a thought, go to the library, check out a few books. Drugs and the workplace and various other drug related books, then come to America and have the US government teach you about drugs. I don't listen to Bob Marley either, of course it's funny- I bet the music you listen to, those very same guys got all fugged up on drugs. Unless of course you don't listen to music.
Tell that to the 5 year old girl, who's mother Overdosed on pain killers last week.
Uhm, those are legal drugs. You know you don't need a drug runner to get you that stuff, don't you? Half the doctors in the US will prescribed them to you if you are convincing enough.
Who's father I arrested only yesterday in a drug induced state where he couldnt even tell me where his daughter currently was. (I found her 6 hours later in another Druggie home being looked after by a Zombie. She is now removed from that waste of space).
You deal with the bottom rung, they will always be the bottom rung whether the "War on Drugs" goes on or not.
I've got 13 years of stories for you on why we should fight drugs at every turn. Hell I'll even renew my AH subscription for a year, not to fly but to simply ensure you and others hear the other side as often and as loudly as I can proclaim it. I may never convince you but I wont let you and others tell people who have no idea that what your advocating in any way shape or form can be a good thing.
How do you know? You don't, so your 13 years of stories in no better than my education on the matter. You don't know what would happen at all if the "War on Drugs" ended, you only assume because you are a police officer. I got news for you, you will ALWAYS be dealing with the failures in life. The "War on Drugs" just gives you someone to look at, and go, "Wow man, drugs really screwed you up." When the real problem is, they screwed themselves up. They LET the drugs become addictive. "Just one more"... those people will always exist and they will always want their fix, "War on Drugs" or not... it won't get worse.
You and others live in a fantasy world, you have ABSOLUTELY no clue and you are 100% WRONG.
No, Sp00k, you are hopelessly uneducated on this subject. And I am, that's the problem. I'm not wrong.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
According to the report last night. Holland allows recreational use of marijuana.
Funny thing is... drug use by teenagers in Holland is less than U.S. per capita, crime is lower than U.S. too.
SC-Spook you don't know what will happen if the U.S. changed the laws. Fact is, neither do we, but I'm willing to give it a try and see. I believe that the cure for drug use in this society is worse than the disease itself.
It's a belief. It's not fact. Hell... we might be wrong, but I'd bet not.
then move to Holland :)
what works there would not work here.
sc-spook knows the criminal side of it much better than your light to medium dope user will ever know it.
-
God I hate quoting quoters...Ho hum, here we go...
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
[QUOTE
Here's a thought, go to the library, check out a few books. Drugs and the workplace and various other drug related books, then come to America and have the US government teach you about drugs.
Theres half your problem. Your reading the wrong Books. Drugs are the same ALL over the world. The people, the drugs, the opinions and the experts. No class structure, no colour, no religious barriers, no age limit and no race limitations. The ultimate equaliser. The US Government, as much as I like you guys can tell me nothing, I cant find here or anywhere else for that matter on Drugs.
I bet the music you listen to, those very same guys got all fugged up on drugs. Unless of course you don't listen to music.
All hail TRUE Country Music. Not many true blue Guitar smashing, black clothed wearing, skull and cross boned adorned, make up wearing pansy freakazoids there.
Uhm, those are legal drugs. You know you don't need a drug runner to get you that stuff, don't you? Half the doctors in the US will prescribed them to you if you are convincing enough.
Really? Why do you think she was taking prescription drugs? (amongst many other things) Did she wake up one day and determine she was addicted to the local GP's magical remedies?Give it some thought SW. The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind.
You deal with the bottom rung, they will always be the bottom rung whether the "War on Drugs" goes on or not.
I dealt with the bottom and the middle, including trans-national and international investigation. You are correct that there will always be a bottom rung. Whether Drugs are legalised or not.
They LET the drugs become addictive. "Just one more"... those people will always exist and they will always want their fix, "War on Drugs" or not... it won't get worse.
Young babies and those not yet born do not LET drugs become addictive. Young kids encouraged and given the opportunity do not LET themselves become addicted.
Drugs create chemical imbalances in the body. The brain creates andorphins (sp?) in response to the high. Sooner or later, the High isnt enough and the brain tells the body it wants more. To get more you gotta give it more. Cannabis, Caffeine, Alchohol etc. Give it a name. Its all the same. Theres no letting. Its all in the getting because 9 times outta 10, you no longer have the ability to choose without intervention.
No, Sp00k, you are hopelessly uneducated on this subject. And I am, that's the problem. I'm not wrong.
-SW
We can go round and round in circles about that with no result for the remainder of the decade.
-
Drug addicts spend all their money on drugs. When they are fired from their jobs due to poor performance, they resort to crime to pay for drugs. Most addicts dont want to work and live for their next fix. This is just an example of one of the relationships between crime and drug use.
The definition of addiction is -Compulsive physiological and psychological need for a habit-forming substance.
However, most doctors and psychologists add that addicitions "ALWAYS have negative consequences".
-
Theres half your problem. Your reading the wrong Books. Drugs are the same ALL over the world. The people, the drugs, the opinions and the experts. No class structure, no colour, no religious barriers, no age limit and no race limitations. The ultimate equaliser. The US Government, as much as I like you guys can tell me nothing, I cant find here or anywhere else for that matter on Drugs.
So basically, only what you think matters and no one else. I see, that's why you can't accept anything.
All hail TRUE Country Music. Not many true blue Guitar smashing, black clothed wearing, skull and cross boned adorned, make up wearing pansy freakazoids there.
Ah, so you associate wierdos with drugs too. Unfortunately for you, they tend to be sober. And yes, country music singers do drugs to. Alcohol and especially moonshine are drugs.
Really? Why do you think she was taking prescription drugs? (amongst many other things) Did she wake up one day and determine she was addicted to the local GP's magical remedies?Give it some thought SW. The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind.
She probably got them either from a friend, or got hooked on 'em due to an earlier use of pain killers. I got news for ya, they give you WAY more pain killers than you need when you get your wisdom teeth pulled. It ain't exactly hard to start enjoying them.
Young babies and those not yet born do not LET drugs become addictive. Young kids encouraged and given the opportunity do not LET themselves become addicted.
Been waitin' for this one.... who do you THINK the drug pushers target? It ain't adults, because unless they are already using or have used they will be less receptive. So you still think the "War on Drugs" is the best way? It's practically forcing drugs on our kids, until they can cut the supply (uhm- never), then the pushers will just keep on pushing.
Drugs create chemical imbalances in the body. The brain creates andorphins (sp?) in response to the high. Sooner or later, the High isnt enough and the brain tells the body it wants more. To get more you gotta give it more. Cannabis, Caffeine, Alchohol etc. Give it a name. Its all the same. Theres no letting. Its all in the getting because 9 times outta 10, you no longer have the ability to choose without intervention.
Drugs also create artificial chemicals that the brain receptor uses, you are telling me nothing new here. But there isn't a drug on the face of this planet that will make you addicted right there on the spot. It takes in upwards of 7 uses of the strongest illicit drug out there for you to become addicted. And illicit drugs aren't the only drugs you can become addicted to.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Eagler
then move to Holland :)
what works there would not work here.
sc-spook knows the criminal side of it much better than your light to medium dope user will ever know it.
There are plenty of people involved with law enforcement in this country that would also disagree with sc-spook.
-
Originally posted by fdiron
Drug addicts spend all their money on drugs. When they are fired from their jobs due to poor performance, they resort to crime to pay for drugs. Most addicts dont want to work and live for their next fix. This is just an example of one of the relationships between crime and drug use.
The definition of addiction is -Compulsive physiological and psychological need for a habit-forming substance.
However, most doctors and psychologists add that addicitions "ALWAYS have negative consequences".
Since you want to get materialistic:
I am a college graduate.
I own a home.
I have a job.
I have a child.
I pay my bills.
I have a positive balance in my bank.
I smoke pot and have for 20 years.
So much for the quoted theory above. Actually, due to having to buy pot at ridiculous prices, I have no money for government sanctioned alcohol. So, you got me there if you call that a negative consequence. American beer tastes like piss anyway so that's debatable.
I'd poke holes in SC-Sp00k's theory as well but AKSWulfe is already doing an good job.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
then move to Holland :)
what works there would not work here.
sc-spook knows the criminal side of it much better than your light to medium dope user will ever know it.
There are no light to medium dope smokers. We're all fiends that would kill our mothers and sell our children to get our next joint. Just ask fdiron. :rolleyes:
Also a bit curious as to where you've received your doctorates in psychology, criminal psychology, economics, and law to be certain that an experiment like Holland's wouldn't work in the US. Hell, the Dutch aren't even sure it's been a good thing in Holland.
Decriminalization of pot in the US isn't a question of if, it's a question of when. The ball is already rolling in several states. Hell, even close allies like the British are conceding it simply isn't fiscally realistic to continue to treat small time pot smokers like murderers and are moving towards decriminalization.
Lastly, regardless of the fact that I disagree w/ my country's idiotic pot laws, I love this place. If I want to see dikes, I'll tune into Queer As Folk. :D
-
when ur in the cloud, you don't see the smoke..
maybe one day you'll, maybe not ... ain't no difference to me :)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
when ur in the cloud, you don't see the smoke..
maybe one day you'll, maybe not ... ain't no difference to me :)
If it made no difference to you, why are you so set in having your will imposed on others via archaic drug laws? Why do you want to continue to see our country's revenue being flushed down a toilet for a program destined to fail?
I'm not angry nor am I trying to flame you; I'm just curious.
Why is it OK for people to drink themselves to death with the US' blessings but it is unacceptable to smoke pot?
Caveat: answering "because it's against the law" isn't a valid response.
-
My vision is crystal clear. My employer frowns on the use of controlled substances and I'm subject to random urinalysis.
-
War.... yea right. It aint a war...its more like a "police action". We cant goto the source thus we cant stop it. Its like fighting a defensive "police action" and hoping attrition will win out on our side aka Vietnam. Only the VC are the dealers,suppliers etc and we're hoping that they're motivation, money will go away.
I hate the hard stuff due to what it does... Pot, well Pot is like beer. Hell I bet less people get killed as a result of smoking pot or being around those that do than beer. I mean can you picture abunch of guys doing bong hits saying... hey man..lets go beat someones ass... but first lets stop at Micky D's cause I got the munchies!
Legalise it... make some money off it. Provide it cheap and in a manner that is controled. THEN make the laws for going the black market way simply horrendous.... THEN also allow health care to say,,, if you do the stuff... we aint gonna cover you. That'll make for more BBS material no doubt (Hey isnt that a band?)
Anyway... remember you loved guys... peace out...piss off or whatever.
xBAT
"Spouting more mindless drivel and still unable to spell"
P.S.S. I lost my frigggen frog.
-
Theres half your problem. Your reading the wrong Books. Drugs are the same ALL over the world. The people, the drugs, the opinions and the experts. No class structure, no colour, no religious barriers, no age limit and no race limitations. The ultimate equaliser. The US Government, as much as I like you guys can tell me nothing, I cant find here or anywhere else for that matter on Drugs.
Yeah Spook, what kind of crazy society would we have without class structure color and religious barriers, age limits and race limitations? I’m with you all the way bro.
All hail TRUE Country Music. Not many true blue Guitar smashing, black clothed wearing, skull and cross boned adorned, make up wearing pansy freakazoids there
There you go, hey I’m a big fan of Merl Haggard and Patsy Kline... Aw C’mon, don’t ya wanna give Johnnie Cash a pass?
-
Why is it OK for people to drink themselves to death with the US' blessings but it is unacceptable to smoke pot?
who said it was?
"because it's against the law" isn't a valid response
yep, that's about it in a nutshell. just wonder how those of you with kids explain that smoking dope is "ok" but not stealing or any other law breaking activity, how about speeding?
I'm tired of these half way attempts. if the battle against drugs is a "war" we should fight it as such. if we turned our military against the drug traffic, taking it into their countries, we would not have the issue as the oz of dope you can now afford would be so expense, many would have to quit.
try it sober for 6 months, if you can<-bet you can't, you may even like it :)
-
Amidst Batdog's jibberish, there is actually a bunch of good ideas. ;)
-SW
-
Originally posted by batdog
I hate the hard stuff due to what it does... Pot, well Pot is like beer. Hell I bet less people get killed as a result of smoking pot or being around those that do than beer. I mean can you picture abunch of guys doing bong hits saying... hey man..lets go beat someones ass... but first lets stop at Micky D's cause I got the munchies!
Actually... the death tolls for alcohol and cigarettes are higher than all of the illegal drugs combined.
-
CLUE!!! ... the bozo's in washington and their understudies in your states legislatures are already the worlds leading drug overlords.. anybody ever stop and look at the tax levy on a pack of butts?
A fediddlein war on drugs in my book oughta start with a seige on the big pharmacutical companys.. they commonly charge about 7,000 percent over cost for perscription AND over the counter drugs that are quality of life neccessities for millions of uninsured americans.
tell yah what, nationalise the health care industry, including the drug manufacturers, make tobacco illegal, legalize marijuana; install price caps on perscription medication and actually agressively TREAT alcholisim as the #1 abused substance that it is, and THEN you'll see a positive societal and social reform that improve the quality of ALL our lives.
..and untill such time our esteemed governemnt appoints me a personal political welfare officer and stations the heavily armed pinhead in my freakin living room to monitor my substance consumption... all you pissy lil anal retentive ultra conservative toejams that wanna dictate the terms and type of my private recreation are cordially invited to just SHUT THE FEK UP!!
thank you all, please carry on.
;)
-
We can go round and round in circles about that with no result for the remainder of the decade.
That is precisely what we have done since the inception of "The War on Drugs".
I contend that is precisely what will continue to happen until this so-called war is ended.
Only folks profiting from this war are the drug enforcement agencies and the illegal drug sellers. Neither wants to see this "war" end.
F.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Why is it OK for people to drink themselves to death with the US' blessings but it is unacceptable to smoke pot?
who said it was?
"because it's against the law" isn't a valid response
yep, that's about it in a nutshell. just wonder how those of you with kids explain that smoking dope is "ok" but not stealing or any other law breaking activity, how about speeding?
I'm tired of these half way attempts. if the battle against drugs is a "war" we should fight it as such. if we turned our military against the drug traffic, taking it into their countries, we would not have the issue as the oz of dope you can now afford would be so expense, many would have to quit.
try it sober for 6 months, if you can<-bet you can't, you may even like it :)
The government says it's OK about the drinking. That's why it's sold in stores. Same for cigarettes. One of these without the wisdom of moderation will kill you. The other just plain kills you. It's cool with the US as long as they get their fatass share of taxes on them tho.
My daughter's 2 so I don't have to worry about explaining the diffference between just and unjust laws (yet). And I'll flat out state to you that I'll be telling her drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, and doing drugs is unacceptable while she is living in my home. Parenting is my job, not the governments. Our elected officials can't keep their respective sexual organs in their pants or keep money that belongs to their constituents out of their pants so you'll pardon me if I question their competence at lucid and just legislation. (maybe we should have a war on pants and solve both problems)
Your comment on taking the battle to other countries regarding pot is ludicrous. Importing pot ceased to be financially viable for growers in the late 70s tho there's still ragweed coming in from Mexico. I'd wager 90% if not more is grown with stealthy pride in the US. You want to use the military to keep smack and coke from rolling in, go for it. No need to go abroad; tighten our borders. It's not like we don't know where the stuff's coming from.
Lastly, why don't you smoke weed for six months <-- bet you can. You might lighten up a bit ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
There are plenty of people involved with law enforcement in this country that would also disagree with sc-spook.
I dont doubt that Sandman. Fortunately for them, occupation alone does not mean compliant thinking. Everyone has a view on it. I simply state mine.
Originally posted by BatdogLegalise it... make some money off it. Provide it cheap and in a manner that is controled. THEN make the laws for going the black market way simply horrendous.... THEN also allow health care to say,,, if you do the stuff... we aint gonna cover you. That'll make for more BBS material no doubt (Hey isnt that a band?)
Firstly, Marijuana is a Drug that noone believes can be controlled. Why would I buy it, if I can buy Head (the dope kind) legally, knock off the seed and grow my own? Would I buy leaf only because thats legal? Average Jo Smo doesnt want to smoke leaf. He was Ganja, skunk and all the other hippy ki yah varieties. He's going to grow his own.
Only reason to legalise it is to make money off it. Only the stupid will or the curious in the beginning. Its a plant that grows damn near anywhere and its more readily available than liqour or cigarettes. A price war develops between the Government and the BlackMarket. Funding comes from the ever increasingly burdened tax payer to monitor and administrate and after a time, the freebie grow your own market wins. Black Marketeers wait out the storm and move back in and all you have is a new tax for a product noone no longer buys.
In the space of a week, already the legalised system is breaking down with gaps created by every pimply teenage that can stick a short length of hose into a plastic orange bottle. Why pay for it at all when your own lights up so much better. Slap harsher laws on them for cultivating their own in the face of a Government produced product? The Audacity of their hippy hides!
Back to square one.
Laws for the Black Market. Those laws are already in the system and some would say they indeed are horrendous, yet Ill bet everyone on this forum has a CD writer in their PC and have used it at least once. God forbid we have ruined the music industry with our blatant thefts of ripped Muzac.
Hippies, Dope heads, whatever you want to call them. Dont care about Health Care. Nor their old age pension, their Superannunation or much else. Cepting if their a Magistrate or a Lawyer and such. The average kid listening to music in a beanbag with a mull bowl at his side couldnt care less.
Furious (shortcut to quoting manually)
I agree. The alternative however is to give up. Unacceptable imho. Wars arent won that way.
SW God save me, there isnt enough room :) I'll answer your reply later.
-
Originally posted by Morgoth
Why is it OK for people to drink themselves to death with the US' blessings but it is unacceptable to smoke pot?
Caveat: answering "because it's against the law" isn't a valid response.
You do indeed have legalised drinking laws do you not?
Works doesnt it ;)
-
Sp00k, I realise you will answer my reply later.. however, I wanted to reply to this...
"Only reason to legalise it is to make money off it. Only the stupid will or the curious in the beginning. Its a plant that grows damn near anywhere and its more readily available than liqour or cigarettes. A price war develops between the Government and the BlackMarket. Funding comes from the ever increasingly burdened tax payer to monitor and administrate and after a time, the freebie grow your own market wins. Black Marketeers wait out the storm and move back in and all you have is a new tax for a product noone no longer buys."
(reminding you there ARE laws against manufacturing your own alcohol)
The current prices for marijuana are EXTREMELY high as opposed to what could be sold to you legally. It's such an easy product to grow, it's like tobacco in terms of growing. For higher quality stuff, it's gonna naturally cost you more. But it will still be MUCH cheaper in quantity than what is sold illegally. Not to mention, marijuana practically pays for itself (hemp- MANY, MANY uses) while you can only get a few things out of wheat germ and tobacco.
Basically, the black market could never compete with legalised marijuana.
-SW
-
If we were talking about Hemp as in Hemp rope, Hemp pie, hemp stew (<--insert Bubba from Forrest Gump here) then i'd agree.
Dope here is priced at $20-$25 a stick Aus and so on and so on up the scale of weight. Agreed, that is is expensive and ridiculous. But then we arent talking about Black Marketeers in the current market as there aren't any. Currently we have Dealers and Users. Dealers making the profit.
Imagine a Government giving away practically free dope. Imagine the market for such a thing. Bad-a-bing, the light bulbs grow hotly over the head of some Enterprising businessman or Politician one day and the tax on green vegtable matter is increased. Up and Up over the years in the same way, Alcohol and Cigarettes do now.
Will the Governments, yours and mine, care more about you in 10 years or the Dope Market bringing them X amount of dollars for schools, hospitals and mini wars. I dont think so. In the short term should such a venture prove successful (I bet it wont), the Government will save themselves Millions of dollars. Savings one would hope passed down to you and I. But sooner or later, Grass Enterprises PTY LTD has to turn a profit. Thats when it all folds back on itself and the Dealers (Now BlackMarketeers) move in.
Many Dope heads are anti-establishment. (Note I didnt say all. Yuppies need not necessarily apply) It doesnt take much to bring them back the way of the revolutionist. A fancy T-Shirt, an underground paper, a youth culture.
Brand X is no longer viable or popular for the majority. Brand Z is the new thing and the kid at school wont tax you!.
As for laws against manufacturing your own alcohol.
True. Good laws. The same principle applies for Dope.
-
.
-
All drugs should be made legal and available over the counter. Imagine how quickly the gene pool would be improved.
-
Originally posted by senna
The west is full of drug use and drug related subjects. Its pathetic. If you go to Japan or Korea, you'll see how clean and beautiful its cities are. They can win the drug war if they really wanted to, they have the resources and the mite and power to, I dont think the polititions really want to or care to. They have their own agendas. My .02 cents.
Clean & beautiful cities = drug free, eh? So presumably the DEA should spend less on guns and sting operations and more on cleaning products and urban renewal.
Lets test this entertaining hypothesis on google:
The Korea Times (2000/12/28) says:
"Drug abuse among Koreans is on a worrisome rise. The number of those arrested for trafficking or using illegal drugs is increasing at an alarming pace every year. ... The number of narcotics-related arrests in Korea as of the end of October was 8,737 and is expected to reach around 11,500 by the end of the year, according to authorities. The number of drug offenders which stood at 700 in 1980, jumped to 4,200 in 1990 and exceeded the 10,000 mark last year. "
http://www.hankooki.com/kt_plaza/200012/t200012281600364A11356.htm (http://www.hankooki.com/kt_plaza/200012/t200012281600364A11356.htm)
The Drug Abuse Prevention Center in Japan says:
"When we look at the drug abuse situation in 1994, the number of amphetamine cases continued at a high level with 19,000 amphetamine arrests involving 15,000 people, and the 270kg of drugs confiscated was there times higher than the year before. There were 121 people arrested in connection with cocaine cases, and 20kg were seized. With the south American drug cartels targeting Japan as an illicit drug market, the situation is said to be extremely critical. Recently, marijuana trends are also increasing. Arrestees increased by 1,700 people ( 8% ), and 180kg were confiscated. Psychotropic drug-related crimes have also widely increased in comparison to the 105 arrests involving 73 people in 1993. As for paint thinner, of the 9,800 people who were arrested, 73% were young people. Drug abuse has widely penetrated the adolescent population."
http://www.dapc.or.jp/english/info1.htm (http://www.dapc.or.jp/english/info1.htm)
Oh well maybe clean cities have drugs in them after all.
Let me posit my own hypothesis for testing: never send Senna out to score in Asia, he'll come back empty-handed. ;)
-
Well I wont argue with you on that ammo. The evidence that their social culture more closely mimicks western social cultures is quite obvious. Check out their puplar music and the hair dues on their World Cup Soccer players. Though its not really fair to judge two different things independantly and out of chronological context of each other its interesting to see the difference in the two cultures. Drugs has been a part of modern western culture for a longer period of time than in the younger modern Eastern cultures of today. Give them time and perhaps it will become a large fundamental flaw to their own society, its integrity, growth, and problems. Then again maybe not, who knows. It will be interesting to see what happens in the years to come. I was just trying to point out that there is less drugs over there and hey look and see how safe their streets are and how their crime rate is much lower. An interesting glimpse at two modern cultures at different stages of growth. I guess you cant have one without the other so the idea comes to mind...
-
>Let me posit my own hypothesis for testing: never send Senna
>out to score in Asia, he'll come back empty-handed.
LOL, I wouldnt even know what to say. We are talkin about girls right?
:confused:
-
Well I'm not sure about the assumption "Drugs has been a part of modern western culture for a longer period of time than in the younger modern Eastern cultures of today."
Take a gander at the history of my own fair city - founded entirely on drugs money, taken as a concession from China after a war paid for by drug pushers which was fought over the pushers' right to sell opium in China (who had made opium illegal).
I don't know enough about Korea's history to say anything either way, but Japan certainly had a hand in the drugs trade after they took over Taiwan in 1895, and this increased after the First World War, with the acquisition of German Colonies. In the 30s and 40s the Japanese grew opium in the north of Korea and sold it in China as part of government policy.
Opium also financed Malaysia, Singapore, India - basically the whole region from the 1830s to the 1930s. Opium and Heroin(TM)again funded a lot of the wars in Indochina after 1945 on all sides.
How's that for being a part of the culture?
The fact is drugs grow everywhere and humans like them. They always have, they probably always will. The history of "drug abuse" stretches back much further than most people assume, indeed it stretches back to before history.
No war on drugs will ever win. A war on drugs is a war on human nature, and people will always lose a fight against their own nature. You might as well have a war on greed, jealousy or stupidity. Just as futile, although probably money better spent, IMHO.
... And no, we weren't talking about girls. [I rest my case, your honour] :D
-
Morgoth, apparently you aren't educated enough to know the difference between an addict and a recreational drug user (whether it be alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, or cocaine).
-
Originally posted by miko2d
a really strong case can be made that it will go down as there will be no "forbidden fruit" attraction and most importantly there will be no highly motivated pushers coming individually after the children to hook them up.
Yeah, cigarettes and smoking sure proves that point. And after you have made it legal, will we start seeing cocain-commercials?
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
You'll never cut the demand for drugs unless you brain wash people. Therefore you will never cut supply because where there's demand someone will find a way to supply it... and it's usually gonna be already hardened criminals.
-SW
There is a way to cut demand for drugs, its called education. The current drug users are a lost cause, screw them. Best to target the kids and make sure they never try it in the first place.
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
Where do you stop? Do you advocate a free market? Cause the black market will always undercut the trade market.
Do you propose Age restrictions enforceable by a law much similar to the laws you have now? Noone under the age of 18 or 21 allowed? Cause you have 12 year olds out there already in the thousands shooting Tawny port into their veins, sniffing glue and popping aspirins.
Will you increase the cost to an overburdened Health Care budget to support the increase in Drug related illnesses cause anyone can do it now, including the Cab driver who takes you to work each day and drops your kid off at school. Or will the new Law be enough to stop him?
Will the suppliers simply disappear and move out of a lucrative Gazillion dollar business cause its no fun anymore as its legal?
Where are they going to put all those resources now? Guns? White collar crime? Donations to the Girl Scout cookie raffle?
No SW. You have absolutely no clue. You pot heads think you know the Drug Culture. You think you know how these people think cause you smoke up a bowl of mull and you feel breezy and listen to your Bob Marley CD's.
Tell that to the 5 year old girl, who's mother Overdosed on pain killers last week. Who's father I arrested only yesterday in a drug induced state where he couldnt even tell me where his daughter currently was. (I found her 6 hours later in another Druggie home being looked after by a Zombie. She is now removed from that waste of space).
I've got 13 years of stories for you on why we should fight drugs at every turn. Hell I'll even renew my AH subscription for a year, not to fly but to simply ensure you and others hear the other side as often and as loudly as I can proclaim it. I may never convince you but I wont let you and others tell people who have no idea that what your advocating in any way shape or form can be a good thing.
You and others live in a fantasy world, you have ABSOLUTELY no clue and you are 100% WRONG.
This is probably the best post I have ever read on these boards!
-
There is a war on drugs? Hmm.
Masher
-
Eagler your post has a little validity. As long as there is a price for smack, coke or whatever on the streets. They will buy it, prior to quitting. If it means breaking into stores, homes, robbing stores, muggings, etc, they will do it. They are addicts, they don't have "friends" to go to, and help them quit. For them, it is life. Getting high, that's it.
But recreational users are a different story. You will always have the low percentile from both categories that don't give a toejam and will do whatever it takes to get that next high.
Masher
-
:cool:
-
Originally posted by Morgoth
I'd wager 90% if not more is grown with stealthy pride in the US.
doubt it, consumption too high
Lastly, why don't you smoke weed for six months <-- bet you can. You might lighten up a bit ;)
hey baby face, I graduated in 77, spent more time in the surf than in class, cept wrestling season, my senior year - you figure it out
anyone read Huxley's Brave New World?
it'll be legal when the gov wants it to be, ie soma distribution for the numbed masses
simple question:
you think you control it or it controls you?
see if you can go just 6 weeks without, bet 95% of you screaming for its legalization can't. it controls you buckwheat, and that Cheech, ain't a good thing in the long haul
-
Holland - Legalized.
Belgium - Legalized.
Denmark - almost legalized, in some parts you can smoke it in the streets without any conflicts with police.
England - almost legalized, in some parts you can smoke it in the streets without any conflicts with police.
I wont name the obvious ones but wich have i missed?
-
Eagler, I don't smoke it. Only did it off and on for about a year and a half. Last time was July of 95. I had smoked it on no more than 20 occasions and not much when I did.
Masher
-
As long as our government is pocketing the cash from drug busts and seizures. It will be money "forgotten about" and the coke smokers in Washington will have more money in their pockets. I wonder where all of that seized dope goes...Hmm.. No-one ever asks that.
Masher
-
Did anyone see the movie Training Day?
:eek:
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Holland - Legalized.
Belgium - Legalized.
Denmark - almost legalized, in some parts you can smoke it in the streets without any conflicts with police.
England - almost legalized, in some parts you can smoke it in the streets without any conflicts with police.
I wont name the obvious ones but wich have i missed?
spain ?
I'm not sure at all
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Did anyone see the movie Training Day?
:eek:
That touching story of a good cop turned bad by the corruptive influence of drug profits? ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
That touching story of a good cop turned bad by the corruptive influence of drug profits? ;)
and legalizin pot would stop that? LOL
u think the $$ of the drug trade are made on reefer or maybe sumpin just alittle harder...
or should we legalize everything to prevent this corruption :rolleyes:
-
Swizerland has a pretty proactive (heavy)Drug program. Even if that's not the golden solution some here are waiting fore, it sure is a better option than trowing users out in jail...
oh yeah... I almost forgot :D
-
War makes the government more powerful. Citizens are willing to surrender their money and their liberties to fight a war. If there isn't a real war to fight, the government will invent one.
http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
-
Ok, where do I start..
All the people I ever knew who smoked pot on a daily basis were slackers, as was I for that 10 or so years I "partied". Now I'm sure there are some corporate CEO's who smoke weed occasionally as some have claimed on this board. Perhaps they were employed at Enron or Worldcom (sorry, had to do that:))
It's people who smoke weed when they have kids in the house that worry me. And the ones who try to justify it in some bassackwards way like explaining to their kids "The laws of this country are wrong therefore it's ok for me to break them in the privacy of my own home and risk going to jail because smoking this weed and feeling really funky is just THAT important to me" or whatever words they use. :)
As far as legalization of the drugs, I don't know. It may be a surprise to you guys that I think it might work to legalize marijuana (might! :)). I agree that alcohol almost surely wrecks more lives than weed, and it is legal. I'm not condoning the use of pot. I don't use it and I'll try to influence my kids in a way and teach them that they shouldn't need to get buzzed to enjoy themselves.
In closing I'd like to say...
Stoners!:cool:
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
There is a way to cut demand for drugs, its called education. The current drug users are a lost cause, screw them. Best to target the kids and make sure they never try it in the first place.
That only works when you don't use scare tactics, kids see right through that and ignore any good message that there could possibly be in that so called "education".
Kids are curious, and if a dealer is pushing their way... the current "education" ain't gonna make 'em stop and think twice.
I'm not calling for legalization of all drugs, but a far different way of dealing with drugs, dealers, and drug users/abuers is definitely called for right now.
-SW
-
This is from a BBC report on the Netherlands. It results from an analysis of Britains consideration of a similar Drug legalisation scheme.
Drug-related crime
The Netherlands' policy is aimed at providing a safe environment for cannabis users and breaking the link between drugs and crime.
But it has found drug-related crime in general - such as burglary to pay for drugs - stubbornly refuses to go away. Adults who have tried cannabis
Denmark 30%+
UK 20%+
Spain 20%+
Netherlands 15%+
France 15%+
Germany 10%+
Greece 10%+
Sweden 10%+
Finland 10%+
Belgium -10%
Germany -10%
source: EMCDDA
Moreover, the coffee shops themselves have brought "nuisances", such as litter, noise and falling prices for nearby property.
However, VWS says the latter problem is comparable to that caused by normal licensed bars, or areas where tourists congregate.
"Tourists are always noisy," says Mr Brugdink. "The coffee shops bring no extra trouble like that."
And he points out that local authorities can close down any shop as soon as they feel it is becoming undesirable.
Smuggling
Anti-drug campaigners argue that the Netherlands has become a major port and trade route through which international smugglers reach other European countries.
Amsterdam coffee shops: Magnets for tourists, but not problem-free
Dutch authorities admit that drug seizures in recent years have risen, especially for heroin - seizures of which doubled between 1997 and 1998, for example.
But Mr Brugdink says this is mainly because of the Netherlands' general trading and port status, not because of its drugs policy.
"We have no ambition to be a major port or exporter of drugs to Europe," he says.
"But if you are one of the main countries for trade, it is bound to happen. If you have the biggest port in the world, you are also going to have some of the worst drug smuggling."
The Dutch authorities are at pains to point out that the main part of their drugs policy is not, as many Britons would assume, its coffee shops.
To the Netherlands, most important are its prevention schemes, such as anti-drugs education projects, and medical care and rehabilitation schemes for addicts.
"If you compare our policies with those of countries at the other end of the spectrum, like Sweden for example, the results are more or less the same," says Mr Brugdink. "But the health of ours is better."
What do we note about the above. Many points. Some positive for both sides. If I may choose a couple for my side of the arguement...
1. A safe environment for Cannabis Users and a break away from the connection to Crime.
LOL. Government sponsored Heroin Injection Rooms argued the same points. Dismal failure. Now instead of druggies shooting up in their homes and falling unconscious to their floor, we find them cluttering up the pavements in front of kids and the general public. Strangely, they still seem pretty close to Crime when their straight and get picked up climbing through your windows.
Lesson: Making them safe, doesnt make YOU safe.
2. Drug related property crime, "strangely" refuses to go away.
Really? Now theres a revelation. LOL. Methadone was introduced to wean Heroin users and is distributed in a controlled environment. What happened? The junkies hid their "Done" and sold it out on the streets to young kids and junkies looking for an xtra high so they could support their own habits with Heroin again, often supplementing the Done with the Hammer for that little xtra buzz.
Lesson: Drugs= Property Crime. Giving it to them wont change a thing.
3. Benno Brugdink, a spokesman for the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS), which co-ordinates Dutch drugs policy, says that Tourists are to blame for the woes of their coffee shops and hence the reason they lowered the 30 gram sale limit to encourage local supply only.
How very convienant. Why were the Tourists there I wonder.
In my Country Australia, in Canberra, instead a prosecuting minor infractions of Marijuana offences like in the old days, we now have the option of giving $100.00. fines to those in possession of 25 grams or less or in possession of 5 plants under the same weight for personal use. What happened? Every drug crazy hippy in Australia wanted to move to Canberra because they were in the belief (many still are) that Cannabis was legalised here.
Lesson: Drugs bring Hippys. :(
-
hopefully some day some of you will know enough to know nothing ... if not try some weed it'll help you forget.
a good deal of weed US comes from canada... we outta send our armies there ..." takeing it into other countries"....
or wait did you mean a latin country? Eagler
guess it's ok as long as the country's brown/ or poor right?
Sooner you realize you don't know crap, the better .. maybe you'll stop trying to tell people how to live thier lives ... if you want to do that .. have kids.
-
Originally posted by Manedew
hopefully some day some of you will know enough to know nothing ... if not try some weed it'll help you forget.
a good deal of weed US comes from canada... we outta send our armies there ..." takeing it into other countries"....
or wait did you mean a latin country? Eagler
guess it's ok as long as the country's brown/ or poor right?
Sooner you realize you don't know crap, the better .. maybe you'll stop trying to tell people how to live thier lives ... if you want to do that .. have kids.
Canada is fair game as is the commie country of California :)
bong away boy, bong away ... you'll grow up one day
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Holland - Legalized.
Belgium - Legalized.
Denmark - almost legalized, in some parts you can smoke it in the streets without any conflicts with police.
England - almost legalized, in some parts you can smoke it in the streets without any conflicts with police.
I wont name the obvious ones but wich have i missed?
Well pot laws actually go like this in the EU:
Sweden
Finland
Greece
France
All criminalized
Everywhere else it's decriminalized or overlooked not legalized. In Holland selling small amounts in coffee shops is overlooked by police. Pot is also decriminalized in Swizerland and it is being sold in small shops for decoration purposes.:)
Btw. Holland has one of the lowest crime rates in Europe.
-
Canada - almost legalized, in some parts you can smoke it in the streets without any conflicts with police.
Apparently some of the best pot in the world comes from BC. And I've heard a hell of alot of it is exported to the US.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Yeah, cigarettes and smoking sure proves that point. And after you have made it legal, will we start seeing cocain-commercials?
There is no highly financially motivated professional pusher trying to personally hook our kids on tobacco or alcohol.
As far as I know, tobacco advertising is illegal in any form in US.
I am pretty sure that it is illegal to advertise any drink stronger than beer on TV though not in adult magazines.
miko
-
No dont leaglize POT. Sorry to the guys who's hobbies I'm standing in the way of. Still you will persist :D enjoy. I think we got enough people standing outside of Seven/11 on a daily and nightly basis. Do we also want a buncha pot smokers out there with them. For once I wanna see Met-RX made illegal. Lord forbid you will say NO to a MetRX user asking for change.
:D
-
Originally posted by senna
I think we got enough people standing outside of Seven/11 on a daily and nightly basis. Do we also want a buncha pot smokers out there with them.:D
I know that is sarcasm but I have to add that the US has a higher rate of pot smokers than any European country.
-
I'm one of the 5%, Eagler. I've had -a- joint in my life. Decided it wasn't worth it for me, same with cigarettes.
beer on the other hand... mmm, good stuff. I brew my own using grain/malt kits and it's fun and very tasty. :)
-
Drop the war on drugs huh.
So, controlled substances are such because, what, someone didn't like the color? They smell bad?
Could it be maybe that the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention Act has a more legitimate reason for it's existence than filling the coffers of law enforcement agencies as some of you think?
A most emphatic yes!
-
Originally posted by miko2d
There is no highly financially motivated professional pusher trying to personally hook our kids on tobacco or alcohol.
You know, if you remive the "personally trying" part, that sounds awfully lot like the tobacco/liquor companies.
-
Originally posted by Apache
Could it be maybe that the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention Act has a more legitimate reason for it's existence than filling the coffers of law enforcement agencies as some of you think?
You would be surprised if you look up the history of how cocain that was freely sold and put in carbonated drinks became outlawed substance.
A lot of it has to do with the desegregation - when proponents of it tried to present blacks as sub-human who are barelly controlled and much more likely to revert to the animal state once under influence of drugs of alcohol.
Stories of "cocain-crazed" negroes killing and raping innocent white girls abounded...
The bigots did not succeed in stopping desegregation but the teetotalers who lost war on alcohol picked up the fight and got the drugs.
miko
-
"There is no highly financially motivated professional pusher trying to personally hook our kids on tobacco or alcohol."
Sure do read some funny stuff on this BBS....
-
Apache, this (http://resource.lawlinks.com/Content/Legal_Research/US_code/Title_21/title_21_18.htm) Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Act?
The only thing that bit of legislation does is make it possible to use public airwaves as a means to propogate their drug prevention programs that are aired all day, every day.
I see no problem with that, they could use, perhaps, some education on the matter.
For example, I saw a commercial the other day for Ecstasy... some awful toejame right there, I'll freely admit to that, but they show a girl dancing in a club, she then falls to the ground and next scene is her being rushed to the hospital.
Not only do they NOT tell you how to keep someone from dying in that situation, but they don't tell you what the cause is or how to prevent someone from getting into that situation. hey, drugs are here- educate people on how to prevent them from dying, atleast then you'll have one more person alive after a horrifying drug experience that can assist in talking about how bad drugs are.
I could go into how to keep someone from dying from ecstasy(the drug itself won't kill you, right then and there- maybe after doing it a hundred times or so... it's actually dehydration that kills the user), but I won't unless someone wants to know.
So basically, the only thing the Drug Prevention Act does is give free air time to let kids know of what drugs are out there with a little scene that depicts the worse case scenario. (which is also the rare one) They SHOULD be educating the kids on these drugs and what they do... not this "I did ecstasy, now I'm dead" stuff they pull.
It ain't a war on drugs, it's a war on american people. It stopped being the war on drugs when drug users were placed on the same level as murderers and other very hardened criminals.
-SW
-
Originally posted by popeye
"There is no highly financially motivated professional pusher trying to personally hook our kids on tobacco or alcohol."
Sure do read some funny stuff on this BBS....
Please explain what's so funny about it?
miko
-
I say lets send all the stoners over to that weird country in Indonesia and give 'em a good canin' !
That'll learn the sorry slackers! They'll think twicet 'fore they go lightin up a left handed tobaccy stick!
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Please explain what's so funny about it?
miko
The fact that the tobacco industry spends billions of dollars each year trying to get more kids to start smoking.
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Apache, this (http://resource.lawlinks.com/Content/Legal_Research/US_code/Title_21/title_21_18.htm) Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Act?
The only thing that bit of legislation does is make it possible to use public airwaves as a means to propogate their drug prevention programs that are aired all day, every day.
I see no problem with that, they could use, perhaps, some education on the matter.
For example, I saw a commercial the other day for Ecstasy... some awful toejame right there, I'll freely admit to that, but they show a girl dancing in a club, she then falls to the ground and next scene is her being rushed to the hospital.
Not only do they NOT tell you how to keep someone from dying in that situation, but they don't tell you what the cause is or how to prevent someone from getting into that situation. hey, drugs are here- educate people on how to prevent them from dying, atleast then you'll have one more person alive after a horrifying drug experience that can assist in talking about how bad drugs are.
I could go into how to keep someone from dying from ecstasy(the drug itself won't kill you, right then and there- maybe after doing it a hundred times or so... it's actually dehydration that kills the user), but I won't unless someone wants to know.
So basically, the only thing the Drug Prevention Act does is give free air time to let kids know of what drugs are out there with a little scene that depicts the worse case scenario. (which is also the rare one) They SHOULD be educating the kids on these drugs and what they do... not this "I did ecstasy, now I'm dead" stuff they pull.
It ain't a war on drugs, it's a war on american people. It stopped being the war on drugs when drug users were placed on the same level as murderers and other very hardened criminals.
-SW
No Wulfe, Title 21 Chapter 13. Specifically Subchapter I, Section 801.
-
Wow- now that is a whole helluva lot to read. ;)
Think I'll save that for a rainy day.
However, it's still rediculous to punish (ie: jail) a drug user/abuser. I'd rather pay(through taxes) for their rehab than for their space in jail which should be reserved for the REAL criminals.
And the current War on Drugs is a failure simply sucking up our hard earned money (taxes), and I personally do not like the fact that I am paying for a "war" that I do not want to fight.
-SW
-
miko,
The tobacco and liquor industries are motivated exclusively by profit, and they would be offended by characterizing their advertising as "unprofessional".
-
I see your point concerning the user and agree somewhat. However, as for the pushers, manufacturers, etc., off to jail I say.
I am one willing to fight the war and have no problem paying for it.
-
However, as for the pushers, manufacturers, etc., off to jail I say.
Agree.
I am one willing to fight the war and have no problem paying for it.
That's your choice and something you do everyday as part of your job. I wouldn't mind paying for this so-called war, if it was indeed going to prove successful and not a waste of money and resources. In other words- change the policy, I don't want all drugs legalized, marijuana, however, there isn't a single reason to keep it illegal that I've seen presented.
I just don't like the idea of paying for a war that ultimately fights the people it's supposed to be protecting and saving. The next person picked up by this "war" and thrown into jail for merely doing a drug (any) could just as easily be a very friendly neighbor you like, a close relative, a war vet, etc... I personally don't see the point of fighting a "war" like that.
-SW
-
miko: Please explain what's so funny about it?
Hortlund: The fact that the tobacco industry spends billions of dollars each year trying to get more kids to start smoking.
You are wrong here, Hortlund - for two reasons.
First, for a while now advertizing tobacco products is illegal - no more TV commercials, billboards, posters, etc. I think any place where you can see tobacco ads are magazines that are not targeted to teenagers. In fact tobacco companies spend a lot of money every year financing anti-smoking campaigns.
I am sure the narcotics advertising would be even more restricted - probably outlawed altogether.
If you cared to compare the percentage of smokers in US vs your country or Europe in general, you will see a huge difference in our favor.
Second, you are ridiculing a strawman of your own creation - not even close to what I said. I will repeat it here with accents and then expound:
"There is no highly financially motivated professional pusher trying to personally hook our kids on tobacco or alcohol."
I can explain to my kid a commercial or someone else smoking pot.
I will have much harder time when some one pretending to be his friend knowingly entices him into drugs because he will make enourmous profits from it - personally.
A generic ad campaign targeted on people with average IQ of <100 or a highly personalised one targeted on my kid by a dedicated professional agent who - unlike a faceless corporation - has his confidence, knows his buttons? I know which one will be more successfull.
I know that some regular friend will offer him pot as well as alcohol and a cigarette some day. But that friend will take "no" for an answer. If the same "friend" has thousands of dollars at stake - he will not give up easily.
So what is so funny about that?
miko
-
Originally posted by popeye
miko,
The tobacco and liquor industries are motivated exclusively by profit, and they would be offended by characterizing their advertising as "unprofessional".
As you can see from the previous post, not "professional" but "personal" is what I am concerned with. How much more likely are you to do/buy something on the advice/insistence of someone you know than just from seeing an ad?
miko
-
Originally posted by Eagler
and legalizin pot would stop that? LOL
Why not? Have any evidence to the contrary? The current policy certainly isn't doing it.
u think the $$ of the drug trade are made on reefer or maybe sumpin just alittle harder...
The drugs are expensive because their illegal.
or should we legalize everything to prevent this corruption :rolleyes: [/B]
I think all consensual crimes shoulb be "legal." Drug use is not a morality issue no matter how much the government wants to pitch it as one.
-
As a former user, I think there is another question unanswered.
First of all, I think drugs are bad for me. So I don't use them anymore.
The question is "Why are drugs illegal?"
Anyone have a good answer for that one? I mean, what benefit is gained by making them illegal?
-
Midnight, that's easy, drugs are illegal so the corrupted gov't officials can get the kickbacks from the druglords. That's the only reason. What happened to towd anyway? ;)
-
Originally posted by hblair
What happened to towd anyway? ;)
? huh?
-
For the record, I don't use drugs and have no wish too. If I wanted to I could go buy some right now, that is how ineffective the War on Drugs has been. Legal or illegal I won't use them.
I believe that drugs should be legalized for the good of my country. Most violent drug crime is about controling distribution. The ammount of crime caused by people who are actually high on drugs is not significant. Further, legalizing drugs would cause the prices to plumment which would mitigate the typical user crime of theft, which he does to pay for the massively overpriced drugs. Another benefit would be lowered taxes as the number of people we are keeping in prison would be tremendously reduced. Because of the War on Drugs we have the largest prison population of any nation in the world. This is a horribly expensive thing to maintain. Yet another benefit would be the ability to tax the sales of these drugs, further reducing our income tax levels.
The idea that drug use will skyrocket if leagalized is laughable and easily debunked.
[list=1]- Drugs are readily available now, criminalization is no barrier to drug use if somebody wants to use drugs.
- Alcohol consumption increased during Prohibition.[/list=1]
Prohibition actually provides a case study of the effects of the War on Drugs. The violence of turf wars, the inceased usage of the controlled substance, increased price of the controlled substance and the need for Government to obtain funding from other sources.
Further still, the War on Drugs has had a hugely negative impact on all of our civil rights.
Ever hear about the doctor who save his money for decades to buy a yacht? Finally got it and less than a year later the Coast Guard found a joint in the cabin of one of his crew members. Boom! His decades of work were undone as the cops confiscated the yacht under the accusation that it was being used in drug trafficing. Innocent until proven guilty? No siree, not here. The doctor wasn't being jailed, so no problem about not having a trial. What, the doctor wants his boat, or at least the value of the boat, back? Prove your innocence is the system here. Not provide reasonable doubt. PROVE your innocence.
That is just one example.
Another is the criminalization of African American males. That devastates whole communities. Strips fathers from the children and ends the economic possiblities of families. The War on Drugs is the single biggest reason why our inner cites are filled with hopless people that have no way to make a living but turn to the drug trade.
Calling the War on Drugs a failure is way to soft on it. It is an abject horror and disaster on our culture and our people.
We the people...
-
the 'war' on drugs isn't working.. they're just all moving up here ! bastages.
as for Pot being good/bad for you.. well it's bad. But only about as bad as ciggies and booze.
I agree with HB about kids and families. It's all fine and well if someone wants to pollute themselves, but when it crosses over to someone else.. especially young impressionable ones... BAD.
(slaps those types silly)
I also agree that putting pot users in jail of any type is a joke. We're letting rapists, murderers, etc out of prision because there isn't enough room.. c'mon.
What kills me is the addiction factor. I can't tell you how many losers flock to the ski resort, end up broke and can't pay rent or buy food, but end up paying for pot. Losers.
-
I'm not hearing a good arguement from the otherside. Like the pro-Cannabis sites ive been reading on the net the last couple of days to get a handle on your thinking, you excuse the use of Cannabis because of the availability of Alcohol and Cigarettes. Weird. This one single entity appears to be dominant in the Pro-Cannabis arguement. 3 different consumable items. 2 of which have nothing to do with the arguement of the 3rd. If you want to argue Pro Cannabis use then you have to do so with it standing up on its own. Noone has done that here yet.
Originally posted by Karnak
I believe that drugs should be legalized for the good of my country. Most violent drug crime is about controling distribution.
No. Most violent drug crime results from the User wanting the next hit. Be it a Home Invasion to steal from a dealer, a Domestic with the spouse who spent the last $20.00 feeding the kids or the addict who confronts you in your own house in the dead of night with a screwdriver in his/her hand.[/b]
The ammount of crime caused by people who are actually high on drugs is not significant.
Wrong. Tho I agree that Cannabis effected users are a lower percentage. However Drugs are the centrepiece in the majority of Property related Crime. That includes Cannabis users.
Further, legalizing drugs would cause the prices to plumment which would mitigate the typical user crime of theft, which he does to pay for the massively overpriced drugs. Another benefit would be lowered taxes as the number of people we are keeping in prison would be tremendously reduced. Because of the War on Drugs we have the largest prison population of any nation in the world. This is a horribly expensive thing to maintain. Yet another benefit would be the ability to tax the sales of these drugs, further reducing our income tax levels.
Here is a valid point and its good to see someone actually raising sensible arguement. (Yes im aware you dont advocate drug use).
This should be explored further. Its is however part of the aftermath. To win on education as SW has brought up, it needs to be done at Child level. Tho I disagree that we should be showing life saving procedures when exhibiting Drug information commercials. That is a life skill. Part of the school education on this subject matter, should always include symptoms and effects.
The idea that drug use will skyrocket if leagalized is laughable and easily debunked.
[list=1]- Drugs are readily available now, criminalization is no barrier to drug use if somebody wants to use drugs.
- Alcohol consumption increased during Prohibition.[/list=1][/b]
The Netherlands study has shown that Drug consumption DOES increase. Its is neither laughable, nor has it been debunked by anyone other that Pro-Cannabis groups in their disinformation articles.
Prohibition actually provides a case study of the effects of the War on Drugs. The violence of turf wars, the inceased usage of the controlled substance, increased price of the controlled substance and the need for Government to obtain funding from other sources.
Further still, the War on Drugs has had a hugely negative impact on all of our civil rights.
Those sources whatever name they give are, at the end of the day, narrowed down to Me and You.
Sacrifices are made and necessary to combat negative issues and save us from ourselves. This has always been the way of things. Without sacrifice, there is no victory. The war on Terrorism is in "Principle" a classic example of this.
Ever hear about the doctor who save his money for decades to buy a yacht? Finally got it and less than a year later the Coast Guard found a joint in the cabin of one of his crew members. Boom! His decades of work were undone as the cops confiscated the yacht under the accusation that it was being used in drug trafficing. Innocent until proven guilty? No siree, not here. The doctor wasn't being jailed, so no problem about not having a trial. What, the doctor wants his boat, or at least the value of the boat, back? Prove your innocence is the system here. Not provide reasonable doubt. PROVE your innocence.
The bonehead got what he deserves. The "poor" Doctor? LOL who saves for years for his little boat is a member of our society in a position of trust. His level of accountability is higher than average Jo-Smo. (Not that we ever see these miscreants held accountable to often :( ) He knew the rules. His boat goes to fighting the war. Its called Proceeds of Crime in this Country. Imho, it should be enforced far more strongly.
Another is the criminalization of African American males. That devastates whole communities. Strips fathers from the children and ends the economic possiblities of families. The War on Drugs is the single biggest reason why our inner cites are filled with hopless people that have no way to make a living but turn to the drug trade.
Imho, your inner cities are filled with hopeless people because they never bothered to get off their ar*es and do something for themselves. Victims of their own environment, family history and peer group pressure. Social issues much bigger than this thread could possibly touch on. At the end of the day tho, the majority of these people (note majority not all) are victims of themselves. Prove to me, how the War on Drugs has brought their worlds crashing down. (Hint: Be prepared for a long reply).
Calling the War on Drugs a failure is way to soft on it. It is an abject horror and disaster on our culture and our people.
Without offence, a touch of Hollywood dramatics here. Winning? No. Failing? Maybe. Give me an alternative that works and ill back it.
-
I didn't know Australia had a drug war...
-
We just dont advertise it nearly as well as you do and our borders are protected by sea. We live in Asia. You think you have drugs in your part of the world alone? Come to the Asiatic where the hippies come in all sizes and colours.
Drugs are a world wide problem. Your expenditure is higher, but then you have the money and resources we do not. Currently our Customs and border protection is the largest in our history. Our International Crime fighting budget is at an all time high. Liason officers in Asiatic countries are run off their feet handling intelligence information concerning Drug running that ultimately lends itself to off shore and international Water surveillance and arrest. Specially manned interdiction teams in newly made patrol boats, patrol our waters to the north for immigrants, illegal fishermen and drugs. Our intelligence branches work in combination with your intelligence branches as do many parts of the western world in these times when it comes to combating drugs.
Your intelligence groups influence Foriegn groups in your part of the world as do ours. Australia is as committed to the fight against Drugs as the US. We are not as Vocal about it, nor do we tend to be as arguementative about it. We have our Pro-Drug use and Civil Libertian fanatics working actively against the fight as well. Our resources are smaller. Our problem as large and our Commitment as Strong.
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
We just dont advertise it nearly as well as you do and our borders are protected by sea. We live in Asia. You think you have drugs in your part of the world alone?
Not at all. I know drugs are everywhere. Just wondering if Australia had the same silly policy we do. :)
We have our Pro-Drug use and Civil Libertian fanatics working actively against the fight as well.
Good for them. :)
-
I'm not hearing a good arguement from the otherside. Like the pro-Cannabis sites ive been reading on the net the last couple of days to get a handle on your thinking, you excuse the use of Cannabis because of the availability of Alcohol and Cigarettes. Weird. This one single entity appears to be dominant in the Pro-Cannabis arguement. 3 different consumable items. 2 of which have nothing to do with the arguement of the 3rd. If you want to argue Pro Cannabis use then you have to do so with it standing up on its own. Noone has done that here yet.
That's not what this thread is about, it's about the War on Drugs.
However, the purpose of comparing wacky tobacky to alcohol and cigarettes/cigars is to refute the argument that marijuana is more damaging than either of those two- it ain't.
You can't get addicted to marijuana, I don't care how many friends you have that smoke all the time, I don't care how many dope heads you've busted, I don't care if you can't put down that joint- it ain't a substance you can get addicted to. Ain't no way, no how scientifically. Mentally dependent, OTOH, yes... but then again, so is tobacky and alkeehall.
Basically, the point of comparing alcohol to tobacco is to give you peeps who have no clue a basis for you to come to understand the wacky green stuff to so you can understand the argument.
If you haven't tried it, what else could I compare it to so you can better understand where I'm coming from?
Then again, trying to tell you the reasons for legalizing marijuana is pretty much a waste of my time- no matter how much information I can put up here.
How's this- some people like to unwind after work with a beer, or maybe pop back some "legal" Over The Counter drug that'll relax their mind and muscles, or some people just steer clear of all that and sit around with their friends and have pillow talk. I dunno, whatever you like to do is up to you. So why the fek do you feel justified in telling me I can't go home and light up a joint after a bad day at work? You tell ME why I shouldn't be allowed to smoke marijuana, I shouldn't have to explain to you why I enjoy it.. I just do. I'm not killing anyone, I don't break into someone elses house to get $20 for a dub sack, I don't commit any crimes- the only crime I commit is getting high, it's no different than getting a buzz off of beer in terms of it's effects.
But because someone else told you it's wrong, it's gotta be wrong, right?
-SW
-
But AKSwulfe... marijuana smokers are morally reprehensible!
-
I resent your saying I have a prehensile tail.
Ooops, read that wrong. Must be stoned.
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
That's not what this thread is about, it's about the War on Drugs.
Then why is alcohol and smokes continually brought up as an excuse? To justify the War, you have the analyse its purpose. Why we have to fight it in the first place. Why it has a market. etc. Hence the broadening of the thread.
However, the purpose of comparing wacky tobacky to alcohol and cigarettes/cigars is to refute the argument that marijuana is more damaging than either of those two- it ain't.
In your humble opinion. I share a completely different humble opinion..
You can't get addicted to marijuana, I don't care how many friends you have that smoke all the time, I don't care how many dope heads you've busted, I don't care if you can't put down that joint- it ain't a substance you can get addicted to. Ain't no way, no how scientifically. Mentally dependent, OTOH, yes... but then again, so is tobacky and alkeehall.
Your drawing a line in the sand between Mental dependancy and addiction and telling me the marginal difference makes it alright?
Basically, the point of comparing alcohol to tobacco is to give you peeps who have no clue a basis for you to come to understand the wacky green stuff to so you can understand the argument.
I understand it perfectly.
If you haven't tried it, what else could I compare it to so you can better understand where I'm coming from?
Your assuming i've never tried it.
Then again, trying to tell you the reasons for legalizing marijuana is pretty much a waste of my time- no matter how much information I can put up here.
I can see why information is bad. But then again, wasnt the cry for information the purpose of your arguement, not so many posts ago? Selective information only appears acceptable. Truth vs BS.
How's this- some people like to unwind after work with a beer, or maybe pop back some "legal" Over The Counter drug that'll relax their mind and muscles, or some people just steer clear of all that and sit around with their friends and have pillow talk. I dunno, whatever you like to do is up to you. So why the fek do you feel justified in telling me I can't go home and light up a joint after a bad day at work? You tell ME why I shouldn't be allowed to smoke marijuana, I shouldn't have to explain to you why I enjoy it.. I just do. I'm not killing anyone, I don't break into someone elses house to get $20 for a dub sack, I don't commit any crimes- the only crime I commit is getting high, it's no different than getting a buzz off of beer in terms of it's effects.
I'm not telling you not to do anything. I'm telling you WHY you shouldnt. Its all overtime for me and no skin off my nose.
But because someone else told you it's wrong, it's gotta be wrong, right?
You know me well enough by now SW to know that I rarely listen to anybody and my own opinions are generally formed on my own and well entrenched, even in the face of overwhelming popular opinion. :) I am rarely wrong :D
-
i just wanna say drugs are ahh like youknow ahh like i mean yeah
-
Then why is alcohol and smokes continually brought up as an excuse? To justify the War, you have the analyse its purpose. Why we have to fight it in the first place. Why it has a market. etc. Hence the broadening of the thread.
As an excuse? You mean like "You drink and smoke cigarettes, why are you telling me I can't smoke marijuana?"
If that's the case, just look at that sentence. You (used figuratively) are telling me that I shouldn't smoke.. because... I assume it's because it's bad for me (no argument there).. so by that same token, how can you tell me that I can't do it? Alcohol and tobacco are equally as bad. If you don't believe me, read the next paragraph.
In your humble opinion. I share a completely different humble opinion..
Actually, not my opinion- straight up facts. But don't take it from me, take it from federally sanctioned tests. Here...
Cannabis (includes Marijuana, THC, Hashish and Hash Oil) Effects of Overdose: Anxiety, paranoia, loss of concentration, slower moevements, time distortion.
Uh.... that's dangerous?
Depressants (includes Alcohol, Barbituates, Methqalone, Tranquilizers) Effects of Overdose: Shallow respiration, cold and clammy skin, dialated pupils, weak and rapid pulse, coma, possible death
Errr...... I've actually seen that very last grouping of words happen to someone very close to me due to alcoholism. So don't ever tell me marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol "in my opinion"... it ain't my opinion, it's the straight up facts.
I can see why information is bad. But then again, wasnt the cry for information the purpose of your arguement, not so many posts ago? Selective information only appears acceptable. Truth vs BS.
What? I've got loads of information, but since you have already admitted that you won't take anyone's word, then I naturally assumed posting information from doctors and other government funded studies would be a waste of my time. Oh, and yeah, all of the information I have agrees with each other. Marijuana ain't good for you, but it's no worse than alcohol or cigarettes in terms of the damage done to your body or in terms of it's psychoactive effects on the human brain.
I'm not telling you not to do anything. I'm telling you WHY you shouldnt. Its all overtime for me and no skin off my nose.
I know perfectly well WHY I shouldn't do it. Hell man, if you really think about it- day to day life isn't exactly what you SHOULD do. I work in DC, the threat of another terrorist attack is very real. I could die anyday, does that mean I shouldn't go to work? Fatal traffic accidents happen daily, especially in the DC metro area- does that mean I shouldn't drive anymore? I could walk into a 7-Eleven at the wrong place at the wrong time and get a bullet into my chest due to a robbery taking place, does this mean I shouldn't go to 7-Eleven?
Everyday life can result in death or mysery, does this mean I should just give up on life because... well toejam, I'm gonna die anyway?
You know me well enough by now SW to know that I rarely listen to anybody and my own opinions are generally formed on my own and well entrenched despite overwhelming popular opinion.
True, but when your line of work is to defend laws, no matter how silly they are, you will more than likely gravitate towards the laws being right... no matter how well of an argument someone could put forth. I won't fault you for that, I just hope you'll realize what I'm saying isn't something I put together after 4 bong hits, a joint, a Bob Marley CD and watching "Half Baked"... what I have come to learn is through many sources, ranging from the government to rehab centers.. you'd think they would have nothing but lies and propoganda, but surprisingly this information isn't biased.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Then why is alcohol and smokes continually brought up as an excuse? To justify the War, you have the analyse its purpose. Why we have to fight it in the first place. Why it has a market. etc. Hence the broadening of the thread.
As an excuse? You mean like "You drink and smoke cigarettes, why are you telling me I can't smoke marijuana?"
Again, im not telling you you cant do anything. You make up your own mind there. Much the same as any Smoker or Drinker. At present Cannabis is against the law. You decide whether you obey it or not. Entirely your decision at the end of the day. Your risks are your own.
If that's the case, just look at that sentence. You (used figuratively) are telling me that I shouldn't smoke.. because... I assume it's because it's bad for me (no argument there).. so by that same token, how can you tell me that I can't do it? Alcohol and tobacco are equally as bad. If you don't believe me, read the next paragraph.
No arguement there either. A little open to interpretation tho. I read that and believe it actually supports my arguement
In your humble opinion. I share a completely different humble opinion..
Actually, not my opinion- straight up facts. But don't take it from me, take it from federally sanctioned tests. Here...
I openly invite you to present your facts for discussion. I shall enjoy it
Cannabis (includes Marijuana, THC, Hashish and Hash Oil) Effects of Overdose: Anxiety, paranoia, loss of concentration, slower moevements, time distortion.
Uh.... that's dangerous?
LOL. No. Thats good for you. SW, What do you think?
Depressants (includes Alcohol, Barbituates, Methqalone, Tranquilizers) Effects of Overdose: Shallow respiration, cold and clammy skin, dialated pupils, weak and rapid pulse, coma, possible death
Errr...... I've actually seen that very last grouping of words happen to someone very close to me due to alcoholism. So don't ever tell me marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol "in my opinion"... it ain't my opinion, it's the straight up facts.
Never have I said, "Cannabis is more dangerous than Alcohol". Never have I advocated Alcohol or Tobacco and presented any arguement that they are a lesser or greater evil than Marijuana. Its very simple to understand my arguement....
2 Wrongs dont make a Dope plant.
I can see why information is bad. But then again, wasnt the cry for information the purpose of your arguement, not so many posts ago? Selective information only appears acceptable. Truth vs BS.
What? I've got loads of information, but since you have already admitted that you won't take anyone's word, then I naturally assumed posting information from doctors and other government funded studies would be a waste of my time. Oh, and yeah, all of the information I have agrees with each other. Marijuana ain't good for you, but it's no worse than alcohol or cigarettes in terms of the damage done to your body or in terms of it's psychoactive effects on the human brain.
Facts vs Facts. Experts vs Experts. Who do we believe? Essentially tho, what you just posted above, supports everthing I have been saying. We apparently agree
I'm not telling you not to do anything. I'm telling you WHY you shouldnt. Its all overtime for me and no skin off my nose.
I know perfectly well WHY I shouldn't do it. Hell man, if you really think about it- day to day life isn't exactly what you SHOULD do. I work in DC, the threat of another terrorist attack is very real. I could die anyday, does that mean I shouldn't go to work? Fatal traffic accidents happen daily, especially in the DC metro area- does that mean I shouldn't drive anymore? I could walk into a 7-Eleven at the wrong place at the wrong time and get a bullet into my chest due to a robbery taking place, does this mean I shouldn't go to 7-Eleven?
Sounds like the Paranoia kicking in.
I know that stepping out front of the number 9 bus is bad for me also. I CHOOSE not to do it for health reasons.
Everyday life can result in death or mysery, does this mean I should just give up on life because... well toejam, I'm gonna die anyway?
Lets all light up a cone and shove needles in our arms.
You know me well enough by now SW to know that I rarely listen to anybody and my own opinions are generally formed on my own and well entrenched despite overwhelming popular opinion.
True, but when your line of work is to defend laws, no matter how silly they are, you will more than likely gravitate towards the laws being right... no matter how well of an argument someone could put forth. I won't fault you for that, I just hope you'll realize what I'm saying isn't something I put together after 4 bong hits, a joint, a Bob Marley CD and watching "Half Baked"... what I have come to learn is through many sources, ranging from the government to rehab centers.. you'd think they would have nothing but lies and propoganda, but surprisingly this information isn't biased.
Firstly, whilst biased toward your own arguement, most of your reasoning is sensible and well constructed. I dont think your spacey when you post, despite whatever I think of your reasoning.
Secondly, there are a vast many laws, I do not agree with and would champion the cause of change at the first opportunity. The legalisation of Cannabis however isnt one of them. :)
Thirdly, imho, some of those Rehab centres are run by greater Whacko's than the people who attend them for treatment. As for the information, they disseminate. Some of its good. Some of its bad. They have their own agendas and biased opinions like anyone else.
-
Again, im not telling you you cant do anything. You make up your own mind there. Much the same as any Smoker or Drinker. At present Cannabis is against the law. You decide whether you obey it or not. Entirely your decision at the end of the day. Your risks are your own.
True, so how is it any different than if instead of my bellybutton getting well over $2,000 in fines and court costs, 8 hours in lock down, 2 court appearences (arraignment and trial), a $300 Alcohol Safety Action Program class, and losing my license, I just get to smoke it as I wish in the confines of my own property?
Aside from me getting royally screwed, there is no difference between it being legal or illegal in this sense.
No arguement there either. A little open to interpretation tho. I read that and believe it actually supports my arguement
It supports what? That it should be illegal because it's a health risk? Seriously Sp00k, you called me out on living on a different planet. Where is your head at? Every day is a health risk, you can sit inside your own home's safety and hope you don't die... or you can enjoy yourself and have fun doing things that you enjoy. In my case, I enjoy smoking a joint with some friends at the end of the day... on what grounds do you believe that should be illegal?
I openly invite you to present your facts for discussion. I shall enjoy it
I just did present some facts. You want some other facts? Alcohol destroys your liver, kidney, stomach, skin, brain and bladder. Marijuana temporarily thickens the brain's cell walls and you also run the risk of lung cancer. Aside from the brain's cell walls (which, btw, only impairs you under the influence), you can just as easily get lung cancer from sucking in bus exhaust fumes or lighting up a cigarette. It's your choice how you get lung cancer, personally I'd prefer a high that will last a little while.
Cannabis (includes Marijuana, THC, Hashish and Hash Oil) Effects of Overdose: Anxiety, paranoia, loss of concentration, slower moevements, time distortion.
Uh.... that's dangerous?
LOL. No. Thats good for you. SW, What do you think?
What do I think? Well amongst that list of potential effects of an overdose I don't see coma or death.
Never have I said, "Cannabis is more dangerous than Alcohol". Never have I advocated Alcohol or Tobacco and presented any arguement that they are a lesser or greater evil than Marijuana. Its very simple to understand my arguement....
2 Wrongs dont make a Dope plant.
No, you didn't say it outright. You implied it with the following reply(last sentence) to what I said.(first paragraph)
"However, the purpose of comparing wacky tobacky to alcohol and cigarettes/cigars is to refute the argument that marijuana is more damaging than either of those two- it ain't.
In your humble opinion. I share a completely different humble opinion.."
But what I'm getting at isn't that because they are both damaging they should both be legal.. indeed it isn't... I'm trying to point out the fact that if you drink a beer, or smoke a cigarette, then who the hell are you to tell me that smoking marijuana should remain illegal? Because you don't like it? Because you don't do it? Neither of those? Because it's bad for you? I'll refer you to what I've been saying all along- a whole lot of things you do/can do legally are bad for you. What reason do you have for marijuana to remain illegal?
Facts vs Facts. Experts vs Experts. Who do we believe? Essentially tho, what you just posted above, supports everthing I have been saying. We apparently agree
Okay, I've presented facts. You've presented... well nothing but "I won't believe you". I've presented experts, again, this is a one way street here. You can begin to argue I don't have a point when you actually bring something to this argument other than, "I have 13 years of stories"... cuz it just don't work that way, you were prolly dealing with someone who smoked a bowl of marijuana... with PCP sprinkled on top. And it ain't the weed that made those people crazy..
I'm not telling you not to do anything. I'm telling you WHY you shouldnt. Its all overtime for me and no skin off my nose.
Sounds like the Paranoia kicking in.
I know that stepping out front of the number 9 bus is bad for me also. I CHOOSE not to do it for health reasons.
Of course it's paranoia... I mean, I sit at home all day with a glock tightly gripped between my ghostly white knuckles in preperation for the day that the aliens come back to steal my mojo... and weed. Or could it be that every day presents you with a new problem, and that problem could very well be death. When you die, do you want to know you experienced a lot of things and had fun... or do you want to know that you were an uptight salamander that told everyone else who to live their lives based on some moral high ground you took? I'm not implying you are a tight bellybutton salamander, but nevertheless, I don't want to die and not have had fun in life. And yes, like I've been saying, smoking a joint and relaxing with friends, or just playing video games is fun.
Lets all light up a cone and shove needles in our arms.
I agree with the first part, but I hate needles. Sorry, despite what you may think I do/am doing/am under the influence of... I'm not a crack head, a heroin addict, a coker, or any other hard core synthetic (or otherwise natural but much harder) druggie. I drink beer, and smoke a lil weed here and there. But you seem hell bent on making it out like I'm a hardened criminal, well atleast you support a system that makes it that way.
Firstly, whilst biased toward your own arguement, most of your reasoning is sensible and well constructed. I dont think your spacey when you post, despite whatever I think of your reasoning.
I'm very biased towards my own argument, of course. When you educate yourself (and I'm not talking about what you hear or what people tell you, I'm talking about going out on your own and researching this stuff like a scientist would), then you'd find it pretty hard to swallow the current laws and "War on Drugs" as the correct way to do things.
Secondly, there are a vast many laws, I do not agree with and would champion the cause of change at the first opportunity. The legalisation of Cannabis however isnt one of them. :)
I'd still like to hear ONE good reason as to why you don't think cannabis should be legalized. The benefits it would provide would be astounding. It can be used as a pharmaceutical drug for patients under going chemo or otherwise very painful procedures/operations. Hemp can be derived from it, a much cheaper and studier resource than cotton. And it'll mellow out a lot of the amazinhunk salamanders I deal with everyday. You're a police officer, I'm a PC hardware technician. We both got one thing in common: We deal with irate amazinhunks all day. You get the benefit of locking their bellybutton up, I get the benefit of saying "Yes SIR! Right away!"
Thirdly, imho, some of those Rehab centres are run by greater Whacko's than the people who attend them for treatment. As for the information, they disseminate. Some of its good. Some of its bad. They have their own agendas and biased opinions like anyone else.
Well ranging from the government to rehab encompasses a lot more than just those two I named. I took the information that agreed with each other from various sources as the truth, I took the information that was so off the wall and debunked by other sources as false. It's pretty easy to get the truth when you are looking for it.
"Your drawing a line in the sand between Mental dependancy and addiction and telling me the marginal difference makes it alright?"
This is from a previous post, but I missed it... There's a HUGE difference between mental dependancy and addiction. Well actually, it's not dependancy either... it's a habitual drug. Kind of like Aces High, or any other video game, you play it habitually. You don't get addicted to it, you don't NEED it to get by. You don't have to have it, otherwise your body will go into uncontrollable convulsions.
If you don't have it, you'll be mighty pissed off "damn, no weed" or you'll just carry on and know that on some point in the near future it will cross your path again.
Unlike other drugs which when you get addicted to, you can NOT get off of because your body and mind NEEDS this drug to continue working.
So basically, I've presented my case and despite how opinionated you might believe it is, that's the real deal.
I would like to now see why you don't believe marijuana should be legalized. And I don't want opinions, because that's not what I have presented you with.
-SW
-
I'll have to do battle with your "facts" tommorrow SW. Tonight I have to pretty myself up to go "legally" drinking and smoke my "legally" consumable cigarettes.
Then we can do battle over the "Why" question. These posts are getting far to long. Cheers.
-
Ever hear of Al Capone? Prohibition?
What about the Mafia in general?
The Columbian Cartel?
Why do you think all of these crime organizations exist? Do you know how long they've been around? Do you believe they're ever going to go away with our current set of laws?
Maybe the law enforcement officials here can "educate" us on all of this as well :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k:
Ever hear about the doctor who save his money for decades to buy a yacht? Finally got it and less than a year later the Coast Guard found a joint in the cabin of one of his crew members. Boom! His decades of work were undone as the cops confiscated the yacht under the accusation that it was being used in drug trafficing. Innocent until proven guilty? No siree, not here. The doctor wasn't being jailed, so no problem about not having a trial. What, the doctor wants his boat, or at least the value of the boat, back? Prove your innocence is the system here. Not provide reasonable doubt. PROVE your innocence.
The bonehead got what he deserves. The "poor" Doctor? LOL who saves for years for his little boat is a member of our society in a position of trust. His level of accountability is higher than average Jo-Smo. (Not that we ever see these miscreants held accountable to often ) He knew the rules. His boat goes to fighting the war. Its called Proceeds of Crime in this Country. Imho, it should be enforced far more strongly.
So you're saying that a person is capable of know everything that happens on their property? Not only are they capable of doing so, but they must at all times be so aware or have the Government yank it away?
This guy lost a multi-hundred thousand dollar yacht because one of his crewmen (not him and unknown to him) had a small ammount of marijuana for personal use. You truely believe that justice was served by taking away this doctor's yacht?
If that is so you're off your bleeding rocker. That passes so far beyond the tolerances of anything that can be called a free society. That punishment in no way can be justified by his "crime".
BTW, I was speaking about the USA, not Australia. In the US the dealer crime far, far outshines the user crime. Australia's gun laws would probably switch that around.
As to the Black Americans, well, studies have repeatedly shown that they use less drugs than White Americans, yet are arrested far, far more often for it. Studies have also repeatedly shown that Black Americans get longer sentences than White Americans for the same crime. It all comes down to focus. Because we spend so much money policing inner city environments, we catch more Black Americans. Because we catch more Black Americans it is percieved that the majority of the problem is in the inner cities. Because it is percieved thst the problem is in the inner cites, funding is increased for policing the inner cities. Repeat.
If you consistantly punish one group of people they will be at an economic disadvantage. This is furtherd by the gang dealers fighting over the rights to deal from the street corners. Legalize the damn stuff and the dealers go away, you get the streets back for the people. Shops can come in and operate again. The people stop being made into fellons and can be employed. Money comes into the system and it revitalizes itself.
-
I suppose I should ask this as its only fair and proper Koala and Karnak.
Do either of you want a blindfold or a last cigarette?
Koala first.
Al Kapone and Prohibition (Talking USA here)
Al Capone, a gangster in a long line of Gangsters. Alcohol, gambling and Prositutes. We legalised them all.
Yet slap me with a wet fish, all 3 live long and prosper to this day. Organised Crime being associated with them all. Bad examples.
The Columbian Cartels. The very people, Your people are fighting and you want to give it all up cause you believe they will play nice and just go away cause you say their product is nice now and we can all have some. :rolleyes:
The Mafia. The best of them all. Still going strong, wiser and as powerful as they ever were. They now own legitimate enterprises and make much more money than they ever did before whilst cutting the budget dramatically on bullet expenditure. Yes. Changing previous laws changed those boys alot. They probably own the building your in.
Do I believe they are going to go away with the current set of laws? No. Neither do I believe they are going to go away with ANY set of laws. Including those made by the bleeding heart liberals.
Karnak. (I'll try to keep this short as I'm trying to watch Full Metal Jacket.)
This guy lost a multi-hundred thousand dollar yacht God! I nearly wept fountains for his poor soul. Noone gets sympathy who spends money made off sick people on bloody fancy girl grabbing boats. Screw him and his boat. Are you trying to tell me, that a Doctor doesnt recognise the symptoms of one of his Dope smoking mates after a reefer or 2? Come on now. Is he the biggest moron ever to adorn himself with a Stethoscope?
Of course he knew. He also knows the law. He may be an idiot, but he's not stupid. He allegedly finished Medical school did he not?
Black Americans.
Im not even sure why you brought it up unless its to show some sort of racist minority conspiracy or something. Black, white, red, yellow. Drugs are Drugs. They dont discriminate.
I do agree strongly tho with something you mention on Gun Laws. Now I like Americans a Lot. But you guys are gun whacko's. And I thought we had a problem with our northern redneck brothers up the top end in Australia! You boys have children with Uzi's fighting Turf wars with a total disregard for the value of life.
Beat the down trodden black man issue all you like. I dont buy it. Those problems you suffer are no different to any other minority living in enclosed self supportive societies like any City in the world has. Asian, Lebonese, Arab, Italian, Black American. etc.
The whines are all the same. Its always someones elses fault.
In your country, you have Black Politicians, Black Police Officers, Black High ranking Military Officers, Black Doctors etc.
They didnt sit around on their a*ses crying about the colour of their skin. Not saying they did it easy either. But they did something for themselves. They looked past the colour and set goals.
A few people in Ghettos can lay claim to society (ie; the rest of us) being the cause of their woes. But not all. And Drugs (the topic) isnt the sole reason their children are starving and grow up meaner than dogs.
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
The Columbian Cartels. The very people, Your people are fighting and you want to give it all up cause you believe they will play nice and just go away cause you say their product is nice now and we can all have some. :rolleyes:
Of course - no question about it. And the beauty is that we do not have to hope they play nice - what they do is irrelevant.
Once the pound of drugs sold in US equals price of a pound of tea or tobacco, they will not be able to operate profitably. End of story.
Im not even sure why you brought it up unless its to show some sort of racist minority conspiracy or something. Black, white, red, yellow. Drugs are Drugs. They dont discriminate.
You are spewing general noncense while being completely ignorant about realities of life in US.
For your information the level of crime, murder rate and other social problems among the whites/asians in US is firmly in the middle of european countries - in many respects better then scandinavian countries or Australia.
At the same time levels of crime and murder among american blacks are rivaling those among third-world countries torn by civil wars (1/3 males 14-40 in jail or on probation).
Averaging them up gives you very distorted picture of America.
That is about no difference between races in respect to suceptability to social ills.
As for the drug availability - it could not be any higher and drug use any more widespread no matter what you do - legalize, advertise, etc. Drugs are cheaper now on the streets of US despite all the suppression and as easy to get.
We are discussing concrete problems here, in our country - US of A. Not your all-white toe-the-line socialist country where government decides whether you can have a child and people do not find it an intrusion.
We welcome all opinions here and anyone but if you want anyone value yours, you better get a clue what you are talking about.
miko
P.S. I may be wrong in those things - many americans would not agree with my opinion that drugs should be legalized. But that does not make it unnecessary for us to base our arguments on realities of this country - not abstract values but real dollars and cents and human lives.
-
I say we legalize coke first ...
put huge piles of it on every street corner, the finest, purest strongest stuff around. Put "Free" signs, must be over 18, could be hazardous to your helath, make them sign a waiver and hand them a straw
24 hours later, after we sweep up the bodies, the gene pool will be that much cleaner and those under 18 who watched the morons O.D. will be that much wiser.
If you are happy with life, you don't need it - any of it!
Get high on life
-
Al Capone, a gangster in a long line of Gangsters. Alcohol, gambling and Prositutes. We legalised them all.
Yet slap me with a wet fish, all 3 live long and prosper to this day. Organised Crime being associated with them all. Bad examples.
Huh?
The Mafia exists because gambling and prostitution are not legal in most areas of the country. What planet are you living on? There most likely never would have been an Al Capone if it wasn't for prohibition, and you know it.
-
SC-Sp00k,
I mention the black Americans not because they are black, but because they are Americans that have had their lives hugely and negatively affected by the War on Drugs.
The only reason that there is fighting over turf in their communities is because of the illegal drug market. You legalize drugs and the illegal drug market goes away. Funny how that works.
The last thing the cartels want is for their biggest market to legalize their product and rob them of the profits.
It is a tendency of far right conservatives that they like things to be simple. "A" leads to "B" and thats that. None of this "A" leads to "B" which leads to "C" which leads to "D" and affects "A" while also leading to "E" which....
The mistake I see liberals make is to think they can accurately read all the effects that changing "A" will have.
-
Legalize the drugs and treat it as a medical problem, not a criminal one. Release our overcrowded prisons of drug users and dealers to make way for the true criminals. The tremendous tax dollars brought in can fund ways to R & D to fight the addiction via counseling and perhaps finding a way to mek these drugs not as addictive. This War on Drugs (silly term actually) we are losing.
I find THC (delta 9) the safest of the drugs (I am including alcohol and nicotine in this group). The THC creates a chemical imbalance in your system that your body releases one's own endorphines to act on one's own central nervous system (akin to a distance runner's effect but more pronounced). All the other drugs enact on the central nervous system directly creating the opportunity for a strong addiction. Nicotine is a strong alkaloid poison.
Oops, gotta go for now.
Regards,
wSNPR
PS. I haven't read most posts in this thread, didn't have time.
-
wsnpr and Karnak. Whilst researching various opinions and facts on the net I came across this site from a group of Police Officers who do support your side of the debate.
I post it only because I find it interesting. Not because I agree with it. To me, it smacks of defeatism, but in all fairness to the debate as Sandman I think suggested earlier that not all Law Enforcement Officers share my opinion, I thought id include it.
To big to quote and paraphrase so Ill post the link. It does make for good reading. Im sure you will enjoy it to SW. Lotsa your kinda facts ;)
http://leap.cc/
karnak, I agree with your point on inner city areas to some extent. In fact, on the topic as you present it, it talks sense. However I do not believe that Drugs are the sole cause of concern in those areas. Apart from the obvious Social, Economic and Cultural aspects of those communities. Much of their problem is the continual desire of Governments to group these communities together. Pack them tightly in the name of supportive cultural tolerances and you segregate them from the surrounding societies. Hence you create gangs dedicated to their own ill concieved beliefs that either noone cares about them but themselves or that they are better than others due to a self imposed, at times fanatical bonding. Your country does it. Mine does it and So do many others. Asians tend to live with Asians, lebanese with lebenese etc etc. Whilst I can see the benefits of this and I am NOT against Multiculturilism, it also draws many negatives, particularly in inner city youth, bored and bred into a world of peer led, self segregation
Koala.....I'll get back to you when I have more time LOL.
-
Originally posted by wsnpr
Legalize the drugs and treat it as a medical problem, not a criminal one. Release our overcrowded prisons of drug users and dealers to make way for the true criminals. The tremendous tax dollars brought in can fund ways to R & D to fight the addiction via counseling and perhaps finding a way to mek these drugs not as addictive. This War on Drugs (silly term actually) we are losing.
I find THC (delta 9) the safest of the drugs (I am including alcohol and nicotine in this group). The THC creates a chemical imbalance in your system that your body releases one's own endorphines to act on one's own central nervous system (akin to a distance runner's effect but more pronounced). All the other drugs enact on the central nervous system directly creating the opportunity for a strong addiction. Nicotine is a strong alkaloid poison.
Oops, gotta go for now.
Regards,
wSNPR
PS. I haven't read most posts in this thread, didn't have time.
Just got back. To continue....
Remove the ability to profit from a product, one removes the motive of selling said product.
I think I recall learning that it was manditory to grow hemp plants on one's own property early in our history. It was actually for the strong hemp fibers used for making rope, clothing, etc. Although smoking marijuana was supposedly common for our founding fathers, the THC, CBN, etc content was much less than today. My guess is that they didn't get really STONED. Yes, they really inhaled as I'll bet Clinton did ;) . Plus the much taller Sativa variety had much less buds and leaves compared to the Indica variety available today.
Despite the present laws against drug trafficing, selling, and using illegal drugs, drug trafficing, selling, and using are still rampant. Even our school children can get crack or marijuana quite easily because there exists a hugely profitable supply of illegal drugs that are not monitored or controlled. Legalize it and that supply will no longer exist as it is today. No profit motive, no selling. No selling, no trafficing. Whether drugs are illegal or legal, there will always be drug usage. Always has been and always will be.
There is more to be said but I'll stop for now.
Regards,
wSNPR
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
wsnpr and Karnak. Whilst researching various opinions and facts on the net I came across this site from a group of Police Officers who do support your side of the debate.
I post it only because I find it interesting. Not because I agree with it. To me, it smacks of defeatism, but in all fairness to the debate as Sandman I think suggested earlier that not all Law Enforcement Officers share my opinion, I thought id include it.
To big to quote and paraphrase so Ill post the link. It does make for good reading. Im sure you will enjoy it to SW. Lotsa your kinda facts ;)
http://leap.cc/
SC-Sp00k,
I do understand you to strongly support your beliefs as you've stated. I Salute you for your reading information directly opposed to yours and making it available to all here. Thank you for the link for I didn't know it existed. Everyone here would like to see us win this war we're in. We just disagree on how to go about it.
Regards,
wSNPR
-
SC-Sp00k,
I will readily admit that there are other major problems in our inner cites than just drug crime. But because there are other major problems doesn't mean that this major problem should be ignored. There is no easy solution to the problem, nor can it come from soley outside of these communities.
Thanks for the link. Interesting reading. I've spoken with police officers who flet this way, but never seen this site before.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
You are wrong here, Hortlund - for two reasons.
First, for a while now advertizing tobacco products is illegal - no more TV commercials, billboards, posters, etc. I think any place where you can see tobacco ads are magazines that are not targeted to teenagers.
[/b]
Have you ever heard of strange concepts such as product placement? Have you ever seen someone smoke on film? Have you ever seen a pack of cigarettes on film? Do you think the director/producer/whoever just thought "yeah, and then we will put a pack of cigarettes there" or "I have an idea, in this scene we will have Bruce Willis light up a smoke". Product placement, and big $$-s my friend.
Have you ever noticed new brands on clothes? Have you for instance noticed that there are jeans and shirts and stuff with a "Marlboro"- lable? Do you think that Phillip Morris just decided one day "hey, I have an idea, lets make clothes too, clothes and cigarettes, thats perfect"? Now you tell me, is it legal or illegal to make commercials for Marlboro-Jeans in the US, yes or no? When someone sees a bigass "Marlboro"-sign, do you think that person instantly think "Marlboro, yeah, I could use a new shirt"?
Ever been to a sporting event? Ever seen bigass "Marlboro"-signs on racecars for example? Ever watch Formula 1? Those cars race all over the world. Have you noticed how the commercial on the cars switch from country to country? That is because tobacco commercial is legal in some places and illegal in others. Funny thing is you can still watch every race on tv.
In fact tobacco companies spend a lot of money every year financing anti-smoking campaigns.
[/b]
And exactly why is that? Because the tobacco companies care? It is because they made a deal with the insurance companies. Tobacco companies pays something like $ 5 billion a year to a special fund for people with lung cancer, they also run lots of anti-smoking campaigns, because that is part of their deal with the insurance companies.
I am sure the narcotics advertising would be even more restricted - probably outlawed altogether.
[/b]
As I have been trying to show, such laws are completely toothless, because it is *very* easy to go around them. See above.
If you cared to compare the percentage of smokers in US vs your country or Europe in general, you will see a huge difference in our favor.
[/b]What is that favor? I'm not sure I understand? Are you saying that a larger percentage of American smoke compared to Europeans?
I can explain to my kid a commercial or someone else smoking pot.
I will have much harder time when some one pretending to be his friend knowingly entices him into drugs because he will make enourmous profits from it - personally.
A generic ad campaign targeted on people with average IQ of <100 or a highly personalised one targeted on my kid by a dedicated professional agent who - unlike a faceless corporation - has his confidence, knows his buttons? I know which one will be more successfull.
[/b]
You may know your kid, but you sure as he** dont know anything about how and why kids start smoking. Do you think its the generic ad campaigns that gets them hooked? Kids have heroes, these days those heroes are more likely to be movie stars or rock stars...see product placement above.
I know that some regular friend will offer him pot as well as alcohol and a cigarette some day. But that friend will take "no" for an answer. If the same "friend" has thousands of dollars at stake - he will not give up easily.
So what is so funny about that?
Nothing is funny about that, its rather sad actually.
Have you ever smoked? Have you ever tried alcohol? Did it start that way for you? One of your friends came up and said "want to try some alcohol and cigarettes"? I dunno, maybe it was that way for you, but I think that sounds rather odd actually. As I said, kids have heroes, and when they see those heroes smoke and drink, that might just influence them a bit?
So you tell me, after we have legalized drugs, do you think we will see more moviestars and rockstars having a joint now and then?
-
The Netherlands experience already shows that the legalisation of Cannabis, increases Cannabis usage and does NOT effect Crime rate.
What message do you give to your kids in support of its legislation. You mention Alcohol and Cigarettes but their doing it now. Despite it being more harmful according to both sides of the arguement. Legalisation will do nothing in preventing their induction to its use. Instead of 2 evils, you willingly grant them 3.
You mention money spent on the War against Drugs. The officers in that Pro-legislation page, also bring it up. Better used in social reform and health. You take away the Criminal elements market by undercutting them in cost.
The Criminal element will adapt. They always do. Drug Crime is the Siamese twin of Property Crime. Dealers sell their drugs to Users who commit Property Crimes to pay for their Drugs. Well we cracked down on dealers by chasing the Recievers through Pawn Shops, Markets, Private sales. The dealers adapted. Instead of Cash for Drugs they now want Property. Now its a swap meet. Drugs for Property and the Dealers offload interstate to make it harder for Investigators to identify goods. Investigators adapt with trans-National Crime Policies and better co-operation between Police Forces and it goes on.
The big boys arent hoodlums with Metallica T-Shirts, Nike Shoes and a Hip Hop CD in hand. These guys are businessmen. Smart Business men who adapt to changing markets to stay ahead of the Law or to Circle around it. They have an Army of minions to sacrifice to the Cause. They do not fear Drug Legislation, let alone for a drug like Cannabis which is readily available on the Free Market in bountiful quantities. They will always have a Market and they can afford to sell it a lot cheaper for a lot longer than the Government can who sooner or later will charge you to maintain that legislation in the same way they charge you to fight the War on Drugs.
The Law does not win Wars. It wins battles. We win some, we lose some. We never give up. Thats why ill never agree to Cannabis legislation. Despite the Officers on that Pro-Cannabis page and their plea to the rest of us for support and Common Sense. You cannot afford to give in.
For those of you who smoke it or dont smoke it and think you know what your kids are up to everytime they walk out your door.
That is nothing more than a parental dream, no different to when the tables were reversed and you were a kid.
SW points out that life is about experimentation and living life to the full with new things. We have all thought that at sometime or another. If your kids are to young, their time will come to.
And out there, there is a Drug Dealer or a User, waiting to show them. The kids concern about legislation is not who gives it to them. They do not have the experience or wisdom of age to make lifes choices as you and I do. There are somethings in life where having a high intelligence Just isnt enough. Allow them access to that world with your permission and all they will care about, is that they can get it. A generation of Ozzy Osbournes.
How many will be there to feed you your mush in your old age and wipe your ar$e. If you open this door, it will open others that you will never be able to close.
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
The Netherlands experience already shows that the legalisation of Cannabis, increases Cannabis usage and does NOT effect Crime rate.
AFAIK crime rate and cannabis use haven't dropped there but both of them have been growing much slower than anywhere else in Europe.
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
define drugs
cafeine,
nicotine,
alchohol,
anti-depressants ?
all these cause crime eh?
and how about the guy that grows his own ?
Young girls don't sell their bodies for coffee.
Young girls don't sell their bodies for a Pall Mall.
Young girls don't sell their bodies for a Budweiser.
Young girls don't sell their bodies for over-the-counter drugs.
The only people who want to see controlled substances legallized are those that have deluded themselves into thinking that they aren't addicted.
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
The Netherlands experience already shows that the legalisation of Cannabis, increases Cannabis usage and does NOT effect Crime rate.
Well I would reckon it certainly lowers the cannabis possession/use crime rate - or did they never catch anyone smoking/dealing dope in the Netherlands prior to partial legalisation? :D
Originally posted by gofaster
Young girls don't sell their bodies for coffee.
Young girls don't sell their bodies for a Pall Mall.
Young girls don't sell their bodies for a Budweiser.
Young girls don't sell their bodies for over-the-counter drugs.
The only people who want to see controlled substances legallized are those that have deluded themselves into thinking that they aren't addicted.
Hmm so legal drugs - no matter how addictive - don't lead to young girls selling their bodies. Is this an argument for or against legalisation?
Remember kids: drugs don't cause crime, only laws cause crime. :D
-
hey Wulfe... 'ere :cool:
----
gofaster I beg to differ.
girls/women will seel their bodes for anything given a certain circumstance.
I know of cases where they've sold their bodies for less than a cigarette.
I don't like drugs and many are deadly, but pot doesn't seem to be in the same 'league' as coke, heroin, etc.
it certainly causes a lot of people (especially around here) to be lazy and unproductive.
-
So... what we're after is a state-sponsored drug addiction program, where addictive drugs can be sold over-the-counter at prices low enough all citizens can buy them.
Some of you say you don't know if it will work, but you are willing to give it a try. Why don't you eat a mouthful of glass? I don't know if you will be able to digest it, but I'd be willing to watch you try... point is, if you want to conduct an experiment, try one that doesn't include the whole country. I have enough trouble every day without these "grand experiments" adding to it. :rolleyes:
A socialized drug addiction program... just what we need. Almost Orwellian in its implications...
-
Originally posted by Kieran
A socialized drug addiction program...
Not much different than what we currently have.
Oh, but you meant illicit, right?
-SW
-
Hortlund: You may know your kid, but you sure as he** dont know anything about how and why kids start smoking. Do you think its the generic ad campaigns that gets them hooked? Kids have heroes, these days those heroes are more likely to be movie stars or rock stars...see product placement above.
I was a kid and played with smoking myself, but you sure as he** dont know much about american culture with regard to smoking. Before you qote abstract nonsense into discussion that specifically concerns our country, you may want to find out a bit about us.
Unlike european TV, our TV almost never shows smoking on screen where kids can see it (and same goes for porn as well and a certain list of words). A show would not be caught dead doing a product placement for tobacco products - even if it did not violate ban on advertising. It may be political correctness but it's a fact of life here.
There are some tricky ways that companies use like labels on clothes, but the fact is still that our kids and adults smoke much less than most europeans - even discounting drastic differences among various groups in US.
So you tell me, after we have legalized drugs, do you think we will see more moviestars and rockstars having a joint now and then?
I doubt we can possibly see more of that than goes on now.
miko
-
Originally posted by Kieran
So... what we're after is a state-sponsored drug addiction program, where addictive drugs can be sold over-the-counter at prices low enough all citizens can buy them.
Who said anything about sponsoring them? They are dirt cheap to make as it is.
miko
-
Snipped from another thread...
"You have to be kidding me!
Do you really think in a free market society, where an addictive product such as cocaine is available, it would be CHEAP!? That is, unless, the government puts a price cap so that it is available to all citizens at fair prices. *cough*socialized drug addiction*cough*.
Do you really think with a product such as cocaine maintaining "standards" would come without government intervention?
Do you really think the government should go into the business of dealing drugs over-the-counter to its people? (I can see the rebuttal now: "Iran/Contra") "
-
I guess to be fair, this is the context in which I placed those last comments...
As I see it, he is a victim - of the war on drugs. But for war of drugs he could have bought cheap safe coke of regulated purity in convenient dozage at the pharmacy. No need to dip into kids' college savings or risk overdose/poisoning.
-
.
So... what we're after is a state-sponsored drug addiction program, where addictive drugs can be sold over-the-counter at prices low enough all citizens can buy them.
no doubt we already have the situation described.
I live in a ski resort community where many of the wealthier people are addicted to 'legal' drugs. Where's the diff ?
btw I'm not trying to be fatetious (sp). I know you're referring to pot, cocaine, heroin, etc..
but how much more addictive are they than alcohol, anti-depressants, etc ?
-
First, you know these people are abusing the law, if not outright breaking it.
Second, you know the same thing would happen if all drugs were legalized.
Third, you know I am correct when I state the government would have to be into it up to its eyeballs to make drugs legal- the government would in essence have to be the dealer.
Fourth, there are many here in complete denial about the fallout- especially where its effect on people and there desire to do anything else is concerned. Sorry, I look it in the face too often to share that denial.
No way legalizing drugs will make things better. Comparisons to prohibition are moot for this reason- alcohol had been present and legal forever in American society. Suddenly, the government clamps down. Of course people quite accustomed to getting the daily drink were going to find it wherever. The fact is, once it was started and ingrained, it wasn't going to stop. Same goes for the "grand experiment" proposal for legal drugs. Once that door is opened, there will be no closing it. Me, I'm not for experiments that can't be reversed, thank you very much.
Look, we are already a society that is growing fatter and lazier by the day- let's add drugged to it, eh?
-
Originally posted by miko2d
I was a kid and played with smoking myself, but you sure as he** dont know much about american culture with regard to smoking. Before you qote abstract nonsense into discussion that specifically concerns our country, you may want to find out a bit about us.
Unlike european TV, our TV almost never shows smoking on screen where kids can see it (and same goes for porn as well and a certain list of words). A show would not be caught dead doing a product placement for tobacco products - even if it did not violate ban on advertising. It may be political correctness but it's a fact of life here. miko [/B]
Are you telling me the Malbouro man was really a French Pastry maker with a Tall hat and a fetish for leather tassled chaps?
That Clint Eastwood as a Cowboy had a thick piece of dried Cow doo doo hanging out of his mouth that only smoked as a result of methane exudation?
That Charlie Bronson was sucking burnt lollipop sticks to emulate Tele Savalas so as not to upset the the children while he blew the badguys away left and right and splattered whole neighbourhoods with badguy guts?
That WoodStock was really an elaborate Western Powers Plot to delude the old world Soviet regime and lead them into a false sense of security whilst they secretely planned the very first moon landing?
Cause I think James Dean, the World wide Girl fantasy, blond, leather loving cigarette smoking American Dream idol would have something to say about that.
-
Young girls don't sell their bodies for coffee.
ok and not for pot to
maybe for coke
but i hate the hard drugs including over usage of alcohol
a young girl would sell her body if she is addicted to alcohol
and that could happen
u can place pot in the same category as coffee
I'm already smokin pot more than 15 years come here look at me and u will see i'm not a junk
and a i work like all the rest of the normal people
alcohol also has the side effect that many die in traffic accidents or worser make other people invalid or death
I can tell i made my drivers licence while i smoked one an hour before the test
and yes it helps make it legal it works here in holland it does
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
Are you telling me the Malbouro man was really a French Pastry maker with a Tall hat and a fetish for leather tassled chaps?
That Clint Eastwood as a Cowboy had a thick piece of dried Cow doo doo hanging out of his mouth that only smoked as a result of methane exudation?
That Charlie Bronson was sucking burnt lollipop sticks to emulate Tele Savalas so as not to upset the the children while he blew the badguys away left and right and splattered whole neighbourhoods with badguy guts?
An ignorant aussie shows his complete cluelessness of american life again.
We are talking about current advertisment campaigns by tobacco companies. They would not spend billions on those if some ancient movied did the work for them.
Things changed a lot here over the last twenty years. How many kids still see those old movies in a theater? None - old stuff is not shown there. Neither would they rent that crap on video.
Do kids even know who James Dean was, do they care about Woodstook of 70s?
The only place where kids can see those old flicks is on TV - where they are shown prety often.
Do you know that when such movies a shown on TV in America, they are severely edited? That the scenes of nudity, some foul language, blood, gore, splattered guts, bullets striking the bodies are removed? Obviously you do not now that.
They may still show a hero shooting a gun with a cigarette forgotten in a corner of his mouth where nobody notices it, but that closeup shot where he slowly and demonstratively enjoyes a pull on a cigarette and then blows circles - that scene is gone!
A though I was pretty explicit when I said "Unlike european TV, our TV almost never shows smoking on screen where kids can see it". Did I make any exception about Bronson, Eastwood and James Dean? No - because there is none.
So get a clue. We are fighting smoking in thjis country and it is pretty successfull. Among educated people the rate is around 8%. The total rate is closing on 20%.
Here is a little secret - with the recent tobacco settlement our governmnent is now interested in well-being of our tobacco companies. We never stopped subcidising tbacco growing. We never took those stocks from our retirement funds. We are perfectly fine with tobacco companies poisoning stupid clueless dolts - as long as they do it outside of this country.
So the ads, the movies the brainwashing you see - it's not what we see here!
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
An ignorant aussie shows his complete cluelessness of american life again.
This has happened before? It was Mel wasnt it. I knew we should never have sent him over there. I told them it would only lead to trouble but Nooooo, they wouldnt listen!
Things changed a lot here over the last twenty years. How many kids still see those old movies in a theater? None - old stuff is not shown there. Neither would they rent that crap on video.
Do kids even know who James Dean was, do they care about Woodstook of 70s?
A good 20 years ought to totally obliterate all knowledge of the past. These new wave hippys and long hair wannabees must be immigrants. Aussie Immigrants i'll bet.
Thank god for Sony Playstations is all I can say. That'll keep them out of the movie theatres where the oldies congregate and where their young minds cant be corrupted by experimentation and peer group pressure.
The only place where kids can see those old flicks is on TV - where they are shown prety often.
Do you know that when such movies a shown on TV in America, they are severely edited? That the scenes of nudity, some foul language, blood, gore, splattered guts, bullets striking the bodies are removed? Obviously you do not now that.
Obviously they sent us ignorant Aussies the wrong "Once we Soldiers, Blackhawk Down and Saving Private Ryan" Movies
They may still show a hero shooting a gun with a cigarette forgotten in a corner of his mouth where nobody notices it, but that closeup shot where he slowly and demonstratively enjoyes a pull on a cigarette and then blows circles - that scene is gone!
That must be how Beavis and Butthead cornered the market in it then eh? Now they keep them for the Cartoons
So get a clue.
Give me a vowel and 3 constantants instead. Im the ignorant one remember.
So the ads, the movies the brainwashing you see - it's not what we see here!
Well thats a relief. How did you get rid of all those annoying Info-mercials?
miko [/B]
-
If you guys advocating the legalization of crank, coke, heroin, PCP, inhalants or whatever get your way then I'm moving to Montana and moving in next door to Ripsnort- and I'll but a few thousand rounds for my M-1 too.
Sorry, but can someone tell me just one good thing that's been accomplished by a tweaker high on Meth? Or heroin? Look, I don't agree with the way we handle drug offenders as criminals rather than people who are ill either- but suddenly providing addicts with a cheap and plentiful supply of dope is as logical as providing drunks with free booze.
The arguement for legalization that we'll rid our prisons of non-violent drug offenders is weak. Nothing pisses me off more than someone who knows the risk they take yet cry foul when they get caught, and don't tell me about drug dealers being non-violent because I know better. You owe a dealer five grand or so for Coke he's fronted you and THEN see how non-violent your buddy is. Ya know, it sounds like some of you have never even seen a junkie by your description of drug abusers being normal middle class citizens. Sure, they might start out as normal middle class citizens but eventually the addiction overpowers them and the all too often wind up in the streets.
I can't agree with the idea that legalizing drugs will make our drug abusers suddenly docile and non-violent. In fact I feel legalizing drugs will only generate more drug abusers than we already have and create larger welfare roles and a larger Government beaucracy to deal with them. Sorry, but I have to judge this issue by my own experiences and the opinions of people like Maverick who've spent a career sweeping these dregs off our streets.
-
'zactly right, Elf. :)
-
Sorry, but can someone tell me just one good thing that's been accomplished by a tweaker high on Meth? Or heroin?
How about the "Father of American Surgery," Dr. William Stewart-Halstead (1852-1922)?
Introduced antiseptic procedures, and became the first surgeon-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital.
He became addicted to cocaine after experimenting with it as an anesthetic in the 1880s, and then moved on to Morphine which he stayed on for the rest of his life. Not quite Heroin (TM) but close enough...
"In 1889 Halsted described the radical mastectomy to which he gave his name. This involved resection of not only the entire breast, but also all the surrounding tissue and lymph nodes. This was in tune with the prevailing concept of the day that removal of the breast and all possible draining lymphatic tissue would provide a cure for breast cancer. This remained the ‘gold standard’ operation for much of the following century, and it is only relatively recently, over the past few decades, that it has become evident that such radical operations have not effected the hoped-for cure rate. The picture of pathogenesis of breast cancer has emerged as a more complex issue and, along with current thinking, more conservative surgery has developed, leaving the radical mastectomy as indicated in only those cases of very locally advanced tumours.
Halsted’s far-reaching research interests then led him to develop many more surgical techniques and procedures. In 1890 he developed an operation to cure hernias, previously regarded as unfortunate, but largely incurable. Then in 1891 he went on to perform the first successful ligation of the subclavian artery and the first excision of a subclavian aneurysm. In 1892 he was made professor of surgery at John Hopkins Hospital School of Medicine. His interest in vascular surgery continued and in 1905 he devised methods of partial or complete occlusion of arteries by the use of metal bands, techniques that he was later able to use to cure an iliofemoral aneurysm by partial occlusion of the common iliac artery. Furthermore, he demonstrated autotransplantation of the parathyroid gland in dogs, and developed techniques for manipulation of the bile ducts and anastomosis of the GI tract. "
http://www.freevas.demon.co.uk/students/Halstead.htm (http://www.freevas.demon.co.uk/students/Halstead.htm)
-
Dead, what's your point? Many people of that era became addicted to LEGAL Cocaine at the time. Or opium, or whatever. Basil Rathborne, for instance. So what's the lesson? That we began to realize just how addictive Cocaine is and we banned its use? We also banned the recreational use of Meth, Opium, PCP, LSD and Estacy, just to name a few. Or are you trying to make the point that the good Doctor was somehow inspired to greatness through his drug addictions? Sorry, but I think he achieved greatness in spite of his drug addictions.
-
most of you aginst drugs are totaly uneducated and think you know it all .. like a damn 16 year old
I know I don't know crap .. when you gonna figure out you don't know anything ethir.
Sc-Spook: I've had 'pigs' throw my
rights out the window .. does this make me think all cops are bad? ... make me think that unless I make being a cop outlawd; or start jailing and killing enough of them that noone would want to be a cop? No i don't think this way .. not all Cops are 'pigs'; not all drug user's are 'junkies'. You deal with the trash junkies, it's your job and obviously what you seem to be baseing things on ... I've been to Holland, seen the crapholes of Amesterdam .. reminded me of New Orleans(so i don't think amesterdams drugs made it any bit nastier than NO). Where have you been that applies?
you don't know crap , I don't know crap...
but i guess you cop types always think you know best eh? have you even been to america/ or holland?
Kieran: Pot was outlawed in US after prohibtion .. if i have my facts right: 1930's-pot was put under tax.. to get tax stamp you had to show them the weed.. if you had the weed you haven't pay'd taxes on it .. 'under arrest' i think in the 60's Tim Leary challenged this and won ... pot was made illegal shortly after.
words are generalizations ... if you don't understand this you'll use them very incorrectly
Elfen editing this so i don't have to post agin:... 'OVERDOSE'... handsomehunk, hope i don't have to say more.
bet it was from lack of h2o anyway unless it wasn't MDMA as many drugs are called "X","rolls",etc but are not always MDMA 'Molly'
educate your handsomehunkes before you stand aginst something
-
Dead If you're making the point that people can function as drug addicts provided they have access to pure and plentiful drugs then I agree, depending on the drug. My reservations are that I don't wish my Government involved in the recreational drug disbursement business.
A 17 year old girl in the Sacramento area died of an Ecstacy overdose a couple of days ago. I wonder what the civil liability would have been had she acquired the drugs through a Government-sponsored drug disbursement program? :rolleyes:
-
Aldous Huxley reached greatness on LSD, psylocybin(sp?) and peyote......
-SW
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
A 17 year old girl in the Sacramento area died of an Ecstacy overdose a couple of days ago. I wonder what the civil liability would have been had she acquired the drugs through a Government-sponsored drug disbursement program? :rolleyes:
Fact is Elfenwolf, with a government sponsored program- the facts would all be right there on the table about drug abuse and the potential for overdose and how to prevent someone from dying if they do OD.
I did the aforementioned drug for close to a year straight, and here I am talking to you... because I knew the limits.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Fact is Elfenwolf, with a government sponsored program- the facts would all be right there on the table about drug abuse and the potential for overdose and how to prevent someone from dying if they do OD.
-SW
SW So the problem was that we didn't educate the OTHER 17 year old kids she was tripping with in how to revive OD victims? I'm sure while stoned on Ecstacy the other users would know how to react- or maybe we could start a Government media blitz touting a "designated straight" person to administer first aid to any high friends who might OD.
SW, as much as your personal experiences have somehow convinced you that drugs are harmless respect the fact that my conclusions concerning drug abuse are also based upon personal experience. And for every example you can site of a functional drug abuser I can show you a hundred crack heads, meth or heroin addicts sitting on a curb somewherte, holding up a cardboard sign or begging for spare change.
-
educate your handsomehunkes before you stand aginst something
Maybe you should have to educate the handsomehunkes that are stoned- I do.
Further, Man, marijuana never enjoyed the mainstream popularity in the U.S. that alcohol did in the thirties. Banning weed therefore did not have the effect it would have today.
Educate yourself. Your body is designed to run with the proper balance of chemicals, and is inborn for the most part with this balance and a mechanism for controlling it. Introducing changes to that balance for recreational purposes is foolish and harmful, period.
Alcohol as bad? Yup. But it is legal. And no, making even more harmful materials available to the public legally isn't the answer.
Listen, trying to convince someone that enjoys drugs they are bad for them is a total waste of time, I know that. It does not change the fact you are harming your body. It does not change the fact society is burdoned by those that abuse the drugs that can be had now. You are convinced you are enlightened and deep, fine.
-
Originally posted by Manedew
most of you aginst drugs are totaly uneducated and think you know it all .. like a damn 16 year old
I know I don't know crap .. when you gonna figure out you don't know anything ethir.
Sc-Spook: I've had 'pigs' throw my
rights out the window .. does this make me think all cops are bad? ... make me think that unless I make being a cop outlawd; or start jailing and killing enough of them that noone would want to be a cop? No i don't think this way .. not all Cops are 'pigs'; not all drug user's are 'junkies'. You deal with the trash junkies, it's your job and obviously what you seem to be baseing things on ... I've been to Holland, seen the crapholes of Amesterdam .. reminded me of New Orleans(so i don't think amesterdams drugs made it any bit nastier than NO). Where have you been that applies?
you don't know crap , I don't know crap...
but i guess you cop types always think you know best eh? have you even been to america/ or holland?
Kieran: Pot was outlawed in US after prohibtion .. if i have my facts right: 1930's-pot was put under tax.. to get tax stamp you had to show them the weed.. if you had the weed you haven't pay'd taxes on it .. 'under arrest' i think in the 60's Tim Leary challenged this and won ... pot was made illegal shortly after.
words are generalizations ... if you don't understand this you'll use them very incorrectly
Elfen editing this so i don't have to post agin:... 'OVERDOSE'... handsomehunk, hope i don't have to say more.
bet it was from lack of h2o anyway unless it wasn't MDMA as many drugs are called "X","rolls",etc but are not always MDMA 'Molly'
educate your handsomehunkes before you stand aginst something
Manadew, do you know what you sound like? You sound like my daughter did when she was three years old. I had asked her what she wanted for lunch one time and she said "Ice cream." I very patiently explained to her how important it was to eat properly for good health, and how eating ice cream for a meal wasn't very healthy. I explained to her all about getting the proper vitamins and minerals and about how if all you ever ate was ice cream you didn't get any nutrition and you wouldn't grow up strong and healthy.
The whole time she was nodding her head, agreeing with the fact that eating ice cream for a meal might be harmful. I asked her if she understood. She responded "Yes, Daddy." I said "Good. Now what would you like for lunch?" "Ice cream," she responded.
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
SW So the problem was that we didn't educate the OTHER 17 year old kids she was tripping with in how to revive OD victims? I'm sure while stoned on Ecstacy the other users would know how to react- or maybe we could start a Government media blitz touting a "designated straight" person to administer first aid to any high friends who might OD.
What other 17 year old kids? The fact that the girl ODd is because she took too many pills. One is enough, she took too many. That's how you OD. And yes, chances are, that young girls life would of been saved if the people she was with knew what they were getting into. A couple glasses of water, put her in a tub and cover her in ice. That'll atleast keep her alive until an ambulance gets there. Signs to look for, no sweat, clamy skin, dry mouth, eyes bouncing all over the place, unable to keep a steady train of thought. This would of resulted in a saved life, not a death. Drugs are here, they are a HUGE black market business in the US. What makes more sense to you, telling kids not to do it... or telling them not to do it, but at the same time telling them how they can prevent their best friend from dying if they were to do it?
SW, as much as your personal experiences have somehow convinced you that drugs are harmless respect the fact that my conclusions concerning drug abuse are also based upon personal experience. And for every example you can site of a functional drug abuser I can show you a hundred crack heads, meth or heroin addicts sitting on a curb somewherte, holding up a cardboard sign or begging for spare change.
I never said they were harmless, you are simply pulling stuff out of your bellybutton because I said that there are ways to prevent people from dying on drugs. People have been keeping themselves from dying on drugs for hundreds of years. It isn't a recent epidemic, the fact is- you OD because you did too much.
You assume that every bum on the street is a crack head or some kind of drug abuser. That's where you just went down "dumb ass" street Elfenwolf. Guess what? Most of those bums are alcoholics, or mentally ill. Sure, quite a few of 'em were drug addicts- but not all of 'em.
Now, if you wanna argue with me because of my so-called drug experiences proving to me that if you tell someone a limit otherwise they die, they won't push that limit- fine. But these aren't simply based around my experiences.
The fact is, we live in society where talking about drugs is wrong. It's bad, naughty, immoral... whatever. Therefore kids don't know how much is too much. Yes, any is too much, but for toejam's sakes they are f'in kids and a lot of 'em will do it despite being told not to. Open up your eyes and f'in pay attention, the majority of druggies in this country are youngins!
So instead of telling them how much is too much, resulting in ODing and possibly death, and doing it how many times will result in an addiction- you just show 'em a commercial where someone is in a club, dancing, then the next thing you know- they're dead.
Wow, you are gonna reach someone with that commercial, err no.... It's better to educate someone than just say "they're bad and will kill you" and leave it at that.
Atleast then you'll have someone who ODed and will be able to live and tell about it at your anti-drug rallies.
So argue with me all you want, atleast I am doing something pro-active to prevent people from dying on drugs. And I won't stop doing that until drugs are COMPLETELY GONE FROM SOCIETY. It's time to face the music, drugs are here... lets focus on ways to prevent people from dying/becomming addicted to them.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
What other 17 year old kids? The fact that the girl ODd is because she took too many pills. One is enough, she took too many. That's how you OD. And yes, chances are, that young girls life would of been saved if the people she was with knew what they were getting into.
No SW, that is generally not how you OD. 90% of all ODs are old drug users who have been off drugs for a while, and then take a dose of the size they used to take.
The most common one is the drug user who has spent some time in jail. Say he has been in there for 6 months and when he gets out, the first thing he wants to do is get a hit. So he finds his old friends, and they set him up with whatever substance he used to take. Problem is, when he was in prison, his body started to heal, and it is not prepared to recieve a hit the size it is about to get. Bam. OD.
Or the guy who spent a week doing drugs a couple of months ago. Back then he did amfetamine. He started with 0.2 per night back then, and it worked pretty good. He had to smoke some pot to be able to get to sleep around 7am each morning, but that was ok for him. After a week though, he needed 3 of those 0.2 hits to get the high he wanted. Now its been a couple of months, but he figures he needs 3 x 0.2, so why not take it all in one swoop. Bam. OD.
And that girl would be alive now had she decided to just say no. But because of people like you, people who claim drugs are harmless or people who claim that alcohol is much more dangerous..because of people like you, people like her will just keep on trying, some will die, some will become drug addicts, some might walk away from it.
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
A couple glasses of water, put her in a tub and cover her in ice. That'll atleast keep her alive until an ambulance gets there. Signs to look for, no sweat, clamy skin, dry mouth, eyes bouncing all over the place, unable to keep a steady train of thought. This would of resulted in a saved life, not a death. Drugs are here, they are a HUGE black market business in the US. What makes more sense to you, telling kids not to do it... or telling them not to do it, but at the same time telling them how they can prevent their best friend from dying if they were to do it?
-SW [/B]
Wolfe, now THAT convinces me Ecstacy is harmless. Maybe we should hire you to dispense the drug and explain to the kids just how harmless it is- but just in case ya might wanna pick up a couple of dozen bags of ice on your way to the party- and make sure someone writes down the number for 911 just in case someone ODs.
You're right, though, alcohol abuse is a more serious problem than drug abuse is, and the majority of derelects are alcoholics. I guess the arguement that since we already have alcohol we might as well legalize it all makes sense to some of you, but I wonder why we need to add to our sociatial woes by legalizing drugs- in the intrests of fairness???
Wolfie, What exactly is your solution to our drug problem in America? You mentioned education, but we already do that. Please, do you think narcotics should be legalized or not? I'd scroll back to find a clue what your stances are, but I'm too much of a dumb bellybutton to figure it out.
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Wolfe, now THAT convinces me Ecstacy is harmless. Maybe we should hire you to dispense the drug and explain to the kids just how harmless it is- but just in case ya might wanna pick up a couple of dozen bags of ice on your way to the party- and make sure someone writes down the number for 911 just in case someone ODs.
I swear, are you trolling, or just that stupid?
Maybe I should put it in bold this time?
I never said they were harmless, you are simply pulling stuff out of your bellybutton because I said that there are ways to prevent people from dying on drugs.
"You're right, though, alcohol abuse is a more serious problem than drug abuse is, and the majority of derelects are alcoholics. I guess the arguement that since we already have alcohol we might as well legalize it all makes sense to some of you, but I wonder why we need to add to our sociatial woes by legalizing drugs- in the intrests of fairness???"
Did I say legalize all drugs? No, only cannabis. But a new policy needs to be put into effect, so we can address the drug problem with open minds and not look at drug users as aliens, but as people who need help. As is, toss 'em in jail and that'll fix 'em right up!
Wolfie, What exactly is your solution to our drug problem in America? You mentioned education, but we already do that. Please, do you think narcotics should be legalized or not? I'd scroll back to find a clue what your stances are, but I'm too much of a dumb bellybutton to figure it out.
The only "education" offered is DARE... and if you pay attention in those classes, it's actually a brain washing propoganda filled tirade of people who had someone die because they took drugs.
Some real education would be needed... but I digress, any time someone who runs for office attempts to address the current "War on Drugs" and it's policies, they are quickly shunned and ignored.
It's blatant hypocrisy by the American people. They want drugs to go away, and the drug problem, but any time someone proposes a change they are either ignored or not voted into office because of their new views.
Hortlund-
"No SW, that is generally not how you OD. 90% of all ODs are old drug users who have been off drugs for a while, and then take a dose of the size they used to take. "
I know, but a first time user will OD on these hard drugs because their body isn't acclimated to the amount of chemicals being induced into the body. If you take 2 lines of coke your first time, damn right you will OD and prolly die.
"And that girl would be alive now had she decided to just say no. But because of people like you, people who claim drugs are harmless or people who claim that alcohol is much more dangerous..because of people like you, people like her will just keep on trying, some will die, some will become drug addicts, some might walk away from it."
And for diddlying toejam's sakes. Tell me where, just one place, I said drugs are harmless..... do it now, or shut the f*ck up. I never said drugs were harmless. Not once, you and Elfenwolf are making this up.
I don't advocate drug use, I advocate safe use. If someone's doing it, I didn't give it to them... I am, however, going to tell them not to do that second pill, or that third line, or that 5th shot in the vein.
So give it a f'in rest. No where do I advocate use of hard drugs. The only drug I advocate is marijuana, and compared to alcohol, it IS harmless.
-SW
-
mmmmkay?
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Did I say legalize all drugs? No, only cannabis.
So give it a f'in rest. No where do I advocate use of hard drugs. The only drug I advocate is marijuana, and compared to alcohol, it IS harmless.
-SW [/B]
Wolfe, you stated your own experiences with Ecstacy had absolutely no detremental effect on you at all. You further cited an example of a "brilliant" user of Shrooms, acid and peyote, one Aldous Huxley, as an example of a properly functioning drug addict. Now I realize you didn't actually state these substances were harmless, but you damn sure implied they were especially concerning your own use of Ecstacy.
I have only one question for you, Wolfe. If the only substance you advocate legalizing is cannabis, then why did you link cannabis usage to peyote, acid, shrooms and Ecstacy? Why did you call marijuana a drug at all if you feel it's so harmless? Oh, and what "drug" did YOU first use? Pot- or Ecstacy?
Personally I believe with the accessment that the "war on drugs" has been less than stellar, as has been our "war on poverty, war on illiteracy" and "war on teenage pregnancy." I agree with you we need a better tac- but seriously, capitulation in the face of crooked cops, pushers, smugglers or whatever will make the situation much worse than it is presently. And if you feel strongly that marijuana should be a personal choice then I suggest you vote your concience. I'll vote mine.
-
Wolfe, you stated your own experiences with Ecstacy had absolutely no detremental effect on you at all. You further cited an example of a "brilliant" user of Shrooms, acid and peyote, one Aldous Huxley, as an example of a properly functioning drug addict. Now I realize you didn't actually state these substances were harmless, but you damn sure implied they were especially concerning your own use of Ecstacy.
Well, the truth of the matter is- peyote and shrooms are neither deadly nor harmful. They WILL put you on another planet if you OD on them, but eventually you'll come down. They are harmful if you are let out into public under the influence.
Did I imply that ecstasy is harmless, or did I imply that it wasn't always deadly? There's a difference... has it harmed me? Well, it did in the short term. I was in an awful bout of depression for a while there, and... well basically if I quit doing the drug because of what it was doing to me... it's obvious it's harmful. It doesn't have to be DEADLY though, and that's what I'm trying to convey here. You know just as well as I do, that people will do drugs no matter what you tell them. I'd rather it not be their last experience on this planet.
I have only one question for you, Wolfe. If the only substance you advocate legalizing is cannabis, then why did you link cannabis usage to peyote, acid, shrooms and Ecstacy? Why did you call marijuana a drug at all if you feel it's so harmless? Oh, and what "drug" did YOU first use? Pot- or Ecstacy?
I never linked cannabis usage to peyote, acid, shrooms or ecstasy, you did. Marijuana is a drug. Aspirin is a drug. Anotesten is a drug. Nyquil is a drug. Why do you think they are sold in drug stores? I never made the distinction between illicit and licit drugs.
As far as what did I do first.... alcohol. So if you wanna start with the gateway drug BS, you got something already legal to blame.
Personally I believe with the accessment that the "war on drugs" has been less than stellar, as has been our "war on poverty, war on illiteracy" and "war on teenage pregnancy." I agree with you we need a better tac- but seriously, capitulation in the face of crooked cops, pushers, smugglers or whatever will make the situation much worse than it is presently. And if you feel strongly that marijuana should be a personal choice then I suggest you vote your concience. I'll vote mine.
I never said, give up. I never said just stop the "war on drugs". I have, however, repeatedly stated that the current "war on drugs" is an abysmal failure. The current policies that are being enforced simply do not work. As is, despite 40-60% of drugs being siezed and a million or so druggies/dealers being busted... the drug world is still the most lucrative financial market in the US. Where else could you make a couple thousand a day by only saying, "hey, you lookin' for somein'?"
The fact is, people who are in the right place to make the changes... or atleast got their chance to be in the right place, immediately get shot down for making any suggestions in regards to the war on drugs. A change is what is needed, the current one just isn't effective at all.
And just to be clear, I do not advocate using drugs. But if someone is doing them, I want to be the person that keeps 'em from ODing or keeps 'em from dying- and I'd expect other people to want to do that too.
-SW
-
legalize pot.
it's a joke that it isn't already.
either that or make coffee, cigarettes and booze illegal.
and we all know how THAT went !
*edit* spelling
-
Wulfe, OK, thanks for tying yourself down. For a while there you were twitchier than a tweaker waiting for the mailman on welfare check day. So you advocate the legalization of marijuana for personal consumption, right? OK, then how much is allowable for personal consumption? An ounce? LOL Dude, an ounce is a lot of pot, even for daily smokers. But for arguement's sake then let's say an ounce or less is considered to be for personal use. (California law)
Now you agree with me that driving under the influence of alcohol, pot or ANY consciousness altering substance is a bad idea, right? So therefore we can assume you keep an ounce or less of pot in your house for your own personal consumption AT HOME. This being the case, then what's your problem??? In California I hardly doubt law enforcement will break down your door to confiscate your dope, but even if they did all they could do is issue you an infraction ticket to appear in court for posession of less than an ounce. Uh... as far as I know this doesn't happen often.
OK, so you agree the prohibition for personal use has been relaxed, right? And you ALSO agree that you have basically no fear of the police busting down your door to bust you for personal posession of less than an ounce of pot, right? OK, this being your reality as a pot user, then what is your problem? Buy your bag of pot, sit at home and smoke your brains out. I don't care, the cops are too busy to care so what's your point? That you are considered a criminal or is it that you have to hide your pot smoking from your kids just like you used to have to hide your pot smoking from your parents?
-
Gee what a long Post a big
to all the open minded AHers
My hero
AKSWulfe
:D
I agree with you on many points I my self just put down the Herb cause of drug testing , which i have no problem with since my job now involves the saftey of others ,
I have smoked for about 5 years at least a joint a day
I should be in prison for my bad morals
ROLF :D
What a joke
Anyhows Ive done it all X shroom acid , I never thought about robbing or stealing for anything i only did these durgs in College but i have enjoyed pot for a long time :D
SC-Sp00k you are a closed minded person like the christians that try to teach Jesus to Muslums or other religous people come on. I have no respect for people that try to impose there views on others
Anyone want to know the truth READ ON
The drug war is about other people wanting to impose there belives or morals on others. Money grapping Politicians and Religion
Guess im going to hell, and jail for not going along with the RIGHT side
So keep telling yourselfs your right and were wrong, good people go to heaven and bad to hell
SC-Sp00k hope to see you in the sky soon Pack your chute !!!!
:D
-
Keeler I hope you arent in the sky at the same time I am. Im sure that there wont be enough room for both of us. You know. Me and your head and all.
Thankfully, the deeply entrenched need and dependance upon my obtaining your respect and my abject utter and despairing failure to retain so much as a nano ounce of it, will not keep me up at night with the cold sweaty shakes.
It would appear that your involvement in this thread consists of a paranoid delusionary fear entrenched within your pubescent Sunday School subconscious and the very mention of anti-Drug campaigners brings visions of wicked black and white nuns with switch sticks in hand and the good book in the other.
Im not sure what dark twisted corner of your mind gave phoenix like birth to the religious diatribe, nor its purpose in this thread, but I do agree with you on one thing.
i have enjoyed pot for a long time
Judging from your post. I cant argue with that!
Im not sure what side of this debate you think you are helping my friend, but I assure you. I appreciate the assistance, you are giving mine.
:)
-
To those not suffering a drug induced psychosis, its once more into the breach...
The biggest arguement I can see against the liberalisation of Cannabis and allowing legislation granting it public access to the masses is that it will be the catalyst for much more to follow.
SW is correct when he states that light Cannabis use will not cause overwhelming harmful effects to the majority. I agree with statements such as these.
I agree that Tobacco and Alcohol are substances that are as, if not more, dangerous to a persons health. What I do not excuse is using either of them as an arguement to legalised Cannabis use.
Currently in Australia an idea (and if I remember correctly, it started in one of those "blond blue eyed" countries as well) there is a push for the legalisation of Heroin injection rooms.
Areas set aside for addicts to inject under supervision. Areas nominate for these proposed sites are generally in the heart of Commercial Shopping centres and the like where dealers prey and the users congregate. Great opposition stands in their way, yet they continually chip away and refuse to go away. A couple of Church groups support these establishments. Social Aid agencies are divided over them and the general public is equally seperated over the issues. Another drug issue of equally important and dangerous discussion with the potential to cause great harm in the guise of the greater good.
I have heard Magistrates call for the legalisation of Heroin and it identified as a drug as socially acceptable as Marijuana. The problem appears to be its far reaching scope, the loss of control and the financial burden its prosecution, management and monitoring places upon the system.
Marijuana in my opinion is a door. Despite whatever I think of it and its dangers which many like SW can refute with counter medical opinion, once you allow the legalisation of Marijuana you allow the next drug a chance to have its day. Heroin will be next and we can start a thread on how good it was the the Opium heads of the Chinese dynasties and it never did them any harm.
Meth-Amphetamines which in my opinion is the greatest threat of all to our youth culture due to its availabilty, undercuts Heroin and currently is the most prolific danger for our youth. Where the Big "H" was once the bad boy on the block. Changing public opinion and the ability of the Drug Community to recognise and adapt to a more product much easier to produce with less risk to themselves, presents a problem that allows Meth-Amphets to be every bit as available as Cannabis is today. Quite a tidy business for the Hells Angels and similar freedom loving groups throughout the world.
Here is another side of the arguement tho. A little more bizarre and harder to swallow than all those before it. But one I believe and one you will have trouble with.
Picture this. The Rent a Crowd mobs that we see at Demonstrations causing trouble. The Socialist underground papers that we often hear about but rarely see, less accosted on a street corner or present on a university campus. The every numerous Internet sites in support of Drug Legislation with anti-Government tirades and free the people slogans....are...
funded by organisations in the world which actively support and finance subversive Anti-Government issues, programs and campaigns. The Same groups that you now associate with Terrorism. Socialist Groups such as the Legalisation of Cannabis Movements are specifically target by such Subversive groups who seek a voice in an area conducive to their cause by its very nature. Where working to create change is minimal as the desire for change already exists. Where the people themselves wait to hear a voice which supports their own imagined wants and where the possibility of discovery in such a group is scarce as they blend in with a common theme that serves a much greater purpose to those with a will and a want to use it.
Fact or fiction? Well its fact but you may never believe it to be anything other than fiction.
Another Fact.. I've no evidence to present to you to prove my belief. You can argue with me quite easily on the subject as I cannot counter argue. But then, they know that to. Sounds Paranoid doesnt it :)
Now Im not saying that they are soley responsible or even a major player in the movement to legalise Cannabis or any other illegal substance. They dont have to be. Small deeds accomplish Large tasks in these communities. I am saying that they are there, playing their part covertly, alongside you.
Puts a different spin on it if you think your inadvertently working alongside a Terrorist organisation and unconsciously assisting them in its cause eh? Most will not care tho. Some may even ignorantly support such a proposal. Until the Group achieves a purpose, wins a minor victory and the friend at your shoulder is now the devil at your door.
I dont believe for a moment that having said that you will put down your smoko, or that you believe any small fraction of what I have said. It matters little.
Unfortunately those doors to the harder drugs will opened. Give up the fight against the lesser drugs and the harder drugs become the lesser drugs as we move up the line. There will always be someone argueing for de-legislation. Always someone holding a banner in support of a free'er better world regardless of cost.
Not so many willing to fight to ensure you have it.
-
Hi spook, good post, i respect all your oppinions (sp?). but this :
granting it public access to the masses
Its to late, its everywhere, its really really easy to get anhold of... or grow yourself even...
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Dead, what's your point? Many people of that era became addicted to LEGAL Cocaine at the time. Or opium, or whatever. Basil Rathborne, for instance. So what's the lesson? That we began to realize just how addictive Cocaine is and we banned its use? We also banned the recreational use of Meth, Opium, PCP, LSD and Estacy, just to name a few. Or are you trying to make the point that the good Doctor was somehow inspired to greatness through his drug addictions? Sorry, but I think he achieved greatness in spite of his drug addictions.
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Dead If you're making the point that people can function as drug addicts provided they have access to pure and plentiful drugs then I agree, depending on the drug. My reservations are that I don't wish my Government involved in the recreational drug disbursement business.
A 17 year old girl in the Sacramento area died of an Ecstacy overdose a couple of days ago. I wonder what the civil liability would have been had she acquired the drugs through a Government-sponsored drug disbursement program?
Sheesh, Elfenwolf - you asked for an example of someone doing something good while on hard drugs, I gave ya one. Now you want to know what the point is? How on Earth should I know what the point is!?! Honestly, there's no pleasing some people! :)
Still, I forgive ya, because getting 2 posts for the price of 1 out of His Royal Highness, the Troll King kinda made my day. :D
-
Elfenwolf- you first. ;)
What do I consider a "personal" amount? An ounce- well that's actually quite a good amount of marijuana. Now, if you mean personal use for a day or for a week- an ounce is way too much. Over the period of a month- that's about right. If you buy it in bulk (cheaper in more quantity for a reduction in price), then you could have a "personal" amount that will last you for up to 6 months.. if you are so inclined. It can keep, just buy that lil' food sealer that they have on those informercials at 3 in the morning. I forget what it's called, but it sucks all the air out and seals a bag. Throw that in the freezer and that stuff will last you a long time.
So you get into a big problem of how much is personal use when it could vary. If someone has 3 ounces, and they smoke that in 3 days- yeah that's pretty damn extreme.
But then you look at people who drink. I'm not using this to justify marijuana use or anything, but to give a comparison.
There's varying strengths of alcohol- from the toejamtiest of beers (~2.x% alcohol) to the strongest of liqours (everclear- 190 something). Most liqours come in large bottles (well the STRONG ones.. you can get vodka and other less strong drinks in the range of 60-80 proof in single serving sizes up to a gallon), while beers come in anywhere from a 6 pack to a 32 case. Then there's also the 22s, 32s(I think), and 40s. Would you consider 3 40s "personal" use? That would be about equivelant to a little less than a half ounce in weed. You are drinking 3 40s with the intent of getting beligerently f'ed up. You will smoke that lil' less than a half ounce in a day with the intent of getting extremely stoned. This is just for comparison purposes. So personal use is really subjective and depends in how much you want to save in weight- just the same as it is with alcohol. If I just want to go home and drink to get myself a nice buzz, I'll buy myself a 6pack. If I want to get completely toejamfaced, I'll buy a case of 24... won't finish it all, but I'll be completely belligerent. Just the same as if I bought a half ounce of weed with the intent of getting extremely stoned. At some point, however, smoking it is doing nothing more than just filling your lungs with garbage. You can only get so high, so then you just start wasting weed at that point.
I also agree that driving under the influence of anything is irresponsible and shouldn't be done. You'll get no argument from me there. Doing anything that could have repercussions on yourself or another person(s) while you are under the influence is simply wrong and should not be done. People still do it, hence drunk driving accidents. But they get super f'ed in fines and jail time for being stupid.
But, how would you like it if you could only drink in your own home. I don't mean to say, open up weed bars, but why should I have to worry about possibly getting jail time because I'm getting high in my own home while someone who is getting drunk can happily do it without no worries. The latter can (and does) result in domestic/spousal abuse and other problems which can be viewed every saturday night on Cops. Does the former have crime associated with it? Sure, but mostly because smoking weed is currently a criminal activity which skews the stats.
It's like going back 80 years to prohibition of alcohol. A lot more people drank, and were being picked up for doing it, and then there was a huge uproar because of it. Now people can freely drink, and that is a cause of many of societies problems. Not all, but alcohol can definitely be linked to a LOT of arrests, deaths (car accidents, arguments turning into gun fights, etc).. but someone who smokes weed has to constantly watch his back.
I just want it to be legal so that if I'm sitting on my back porch, I can light up a joint and not have to worry about a cop rolling up and putting me in hand cuffs.
Sp00k- whatever those organizations do is their own thing. I neither support nor subscribe to them. I do my own thing.
The problem with someone like me trying to get marijuana legalized is that there are people like you who will associate me with some nutball organization or a bunch of hippies. I am no different than you in terms of a functioning person in society. I don't cause trouble, I don't buy my weed from drug houses or somewhere shady, I know where it's coming from.
But the thing is, you expect me to stop smoking weed because I may or may not be supporting terrorists... while at the same time you ignore the fact that by keeping marijuana illicit and thus banned, the government is actually allowing terrorists and other crime syndicates to use marijuana as an avenue to gain profits or other benefits. You can't stop people from smoking weed, despite the scare tactics employed and the asinine attempt of associating it with terrorists. Yeah, I buy weed... but face it, it's no more detrimental to society if it were legalized than what is currently out there. Whether it be alcohol, pain killers, prescription drugs (mood enhancers), or any of the other legalized drugs that are currently the source of addiction for MILLIONS of people. The fact that you take what could be a very lucrative form of revenue for the government and place it into sheisty criminal's hands and then try to play the blame game (you support terrorists, you kill babies, you'll beat up your parents for a dub sack) just shows the blatant ignorance and utter hypocrisy of people who simply don't understand the benefits of making it legal.
And to say it could open up doors to harder drugs is just another example of utter hypocrisy. If anything, what opened up the door for people trying to get marijuana legalized (despite the fact that it was made criminal based on lies and misconceptions in the 30s, go watch the movie reefer madness- THAT's so full of BS, yet it's why it's illegal right now) was that we have equally as damaging and detrimental drugs that are currently legal. Alcohol and cigarettes. Then, you look around today.
What's the biggest money making market today? Not alcohol, not tobacco, not even tennis shoes... pharmacueticals. They can push out drugs faster than you can take a dump after drinking 2 gallons of ex-lax, and the side effects... WHEW! Chronic diarhea, nausia, headaches, bowel aches, indigestion, clamy skin, dry mouth, dry eyes, hell you name it, and you can have it as a side effect.
A society where people can freely acquire these drugs, whether they need them or not, and people love 'em... but marijuana? That's just immoral and evil!
It's perfectly acceptable to dope your kid up on ritalin, prozac, whatever the synthetic drug of the day is- which may be gone tommorrow because of new found horribly detrimental side effects- but a naturally occuring plant that will get you high for 2-4 hours on your own time and may or may not give you the same lung cancer as cigarettes is shunned and the people who do it are looked upon as criminals.
So in conclusion, if I got this straight... I can take as much prozac, xanax, ritalin, pain killers, alcohol and/or smoke as many cigarettes as I want... but marijuana is the evil one?
Drug addiction? toejam man, it exists around cubicle in every office building in the US... and that's without the illicit drugs.
-SW
-
spook.. how is marijuana a 'door' when alcohol isn't.
you say alcohol is probably more dangerous than marijuana but it isn't a 'door'.
how do you figure ?
-
AKS....great post man. right now i am nursing a hang over because i drank alcohol last night after getting dissed by my favorite female co-worker...now...i certainly wish pot were legal, then i could probably have afforded to spring for a sack and been able to drown my sorrows without all the miserable side effects of alcohol consumption.
Alcohol is so obviously more dangerous and harmful than marijuana, that they should either make it illegal or legalize pot.
Btw---when is the last time you heard of a person getting stoned and beating someone, or running over a pedestrian...sure it might occasionally happen, but lets face it...pot simply does not impair your ability as much as alcohol. that is a fact. dont believe me....fly stoned...then fly drunk...i bet you get more kills high than drunk.
anyway...im blabbering so i will go
-
this thread is getting kinda funny ...
burn outs, please continue with your justifications :)
-
Nevermind, I have no intention of insulting the majority of people who browse the internet.
-SW
-
couple of thoughts...
the girl that OD'd on X. umm, the current War on Drugs saved/helped her how?
Next, someone said somewhere in the thread (too many posts to go look for it, sorry) something about "when do you give your kid that first toke, that first injection..." Well, when do you give your kid that first puff on a cigarette or that first swig of alcohol? When do you first encourage your child to have unprotected sex? Lemme guess, you don't. You try your best to teach them the dangers of smoking, drinking and unprotected sex. You definitely don't encourage your children to smoke, even though smoking after 18 is legal. At least I would hope you don't encourage your children to smoke. Just because an act is legal doesn't mean you as a parent would encourage or condone that activity by your child. Laws don't parent the children. You do.
The heart of the issue comes down to choice. A person has a choice to do drugs or not do drugs, regardless of the legality of it. Some people choose not to based on the legality, while some do it just to spite the legality. The current "War on Drugs" goal is to remove that choice. I don't think it's possible. You're never going to remove the choice. Illicit drugs will always be there for those who want them. The best you will ever hope to accomplish is to educate to get as many possible people to choose "No" when given the choice or at least to use responsibly when they choose "Yes."
I believe the current WoD isn't working, and won't work. However, I can't offer you a solution. Analogy... I can tell my car isn't working, but I sure as hell can't fix it.
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
spook.. how is marijuana a 'door' when alcohol isn't.
you say alcohol is probably more dangerous than marijuana but it isn't a 'door'.
how do you figure ?
Alcohol is a "wall".
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Alcohol is a "wall".
How so? I have a beer with dinner just about every night. Some people have a glass of wine every night with their dinner. How is that a wall? Maybe some choose to climb over that wall (or dig under if you want to look at the analogy that way) to get to the harder stuff, while I choose to lean on the wall every once in awhile before going back the way I came?
-
(http://www.netwalk.com/~truegger/ftrh/inside-van.jpg)
-
(http://www.netwalk.com/~truegger/ftrh/buds.jpg)
Dewd! Score me some weed!
-
soft drugs (marihuana and such) should be legalized imo.
Here (Holland) we have that system where softdrugs are legalized and you can even grow a little weed-tree on your balcony for your own needs and it works great, you dont see much of drugs related criminality and people (especially students) are sooo relaxed :D
I have never seen ppl beeing agressive after smoking a joint, I heve seen them after drinking alcochol :P
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Alcohol is a "wall".
Dude.... That IS deep!
I always saw alcohol as more of a transom window, but thats just me.
-
You guys still on this subject. So another drugy ODs or ruins his life. Not news to me. Pick up his own pieces, lets move on.
:D
-
That's the best part about drug use.
It's soo Darwinian.
-
LOL OK, Wulfe, you first-
An ounce or less of cannabis is an infraction in California. In fact the ticket you'll get for posession of an open container of alcohol will cost you as much as the ticket you get for posessing a small quantity of pot- if you get ticketed at all. Really, you aren't the focus of the WoD. In fact the police in my area don't have time to bust casual users of pot, or in fact to even bust many of the indoor operations growing pot.
Now let's take your wish to go out and smoke pot as readily as I can stop at a bar and drink a beer. You agree neither of us should drive under the influence of ANY subject. OK, so I have my customary two beers after work and I drive home- still sober, my impairment from two beers is negligable. You, OTOH, drop into the corner bar, light up a joint- and, you'll agree, you get stoned, right? Well, what condition are YOU in to drive on home? Is this safe? Personally I'm glad you're confined to your home to safely smoke pot.
Comparing Cannabis to Alcohol is comparing apples and oranges. In fact law enforcement realizes the concequences of drunk driving and it's a certainty you will do some jail time if you get caught driving while drunk. By your own example- you standing on your back porch getting stoned- the most that might happen to you is you get your pot taken away and issued a citation. Most likely a cop will tell you to confine your smoking to indoors. OTOH, stand out on your back porch swigging Jack Daniels and guess what? You are going to jail for being drunk in public. Due to liability that's simply SOP nowadays.
Wolfe, I appreciate your arguements for decriminalization and I agree we have substances currently legal whose effects on individuals and society are much worse than cannabis. But the penalties now against the casual user are so mild that I'm sure you'll agree that the risk of getting busted for smoking a joint in the privacy of your own home is pretty remote.
Nifty, concerning the girl who OD'd on Ecstacy- How could she have been saved by capitulating to the War on Drugs? We also have a War on Illiteracy. We also have a War on Teenage Pregnacy. We also have a War on Hunger. And you know what? We still have pregnant teens, illiteracy and hunger. Should we just give up?
I agree with you that education is tantamount, but doesn't it seem hypocritical to preach the ills of a substance (Ecstacy) while at the same time decriminializing a similar substance (Cannabis) that are linked together not only by the opponets of cannabis but also by its proponents? Ah yes- a political football kicked back and forth by both sides.
N1kpaz, how much did you spend on booze last night? Please, pot is pretty cheap. To imply you could go drinking for less than you can buy pot for is wrong.
Dead, actually i appreciated the post. In no way does it diminish the problems drug addiction has on society, so I was responding to the downplaying of that aspect of drugs. However, "Troll King?" LOL Please, this is no troll. This is a serious issue that one side sees as a hurdle to overcome for personal freedom and the other side sees as a gate that if opened will allow the further erosion of our society.
-
have to agree with Elf a bit..
and disagree...
Pot smokers should not drive while intoxicated...
but neither should alcohol drinkers.
you say you're ok to drive after two beers..
they say it's ok to drink after a joint...
same same IMO
both leave you less than optimum.
---
on a slightly related topic:
some people on pot or booze are still more alert and coordinated than some that don't.
How about the soccer-mom in the suv that's upset and yelling at her kids to shut up while she talks on the cell phone,
or the guy eating his whole lunch from a plate in the passenger compartment,
or the turons that come the mountain and drink and smoke cigarettes before the go to the high country .. helps them succumb to hypothermia and injury,
etc
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
have to agree with Elf a bit..
and disagree...
Pot smokers should not drive while intoxicated...
but neither should alcohol drinkers.
you say you're ok to drive after two beers..
they say it's ok to drink after a joint...
same same IMO
both leave you less than optimum.
Big difference. People can have one or two drinks to be "social." Two beers isn't going to effect me noticably at all. I know my limits, and the limits for the allowable amount of alcohol in my system is .08. I feel even at .08 I'm not really feeling the effects, but I'm willing to accept .08 as the legal limit because it's the established standard.
The guy that smokes a joint is smoking it with one objective in mind- he wants to get high. Let's not argue the puffs on the joint one must take to get stoned because it's so different from person to person. What should be the standard for smoking pot and driving?
Now, a few questions for you. Who would you rather have pilot your plane- someone who had a drink with his lunch or someone who'd just smoked a joint? Who would you rather have perform your brain surgery- someone who'd had a drink earlier or someone who'd smoked a joint? How about your child's math teacher? Would you wanting her smoking pot at lunchtime or having a drink?
I don't care if you smoke pot or not. In fact I'm glad its decriminalized to the point you can safely smoke pot in your living room without fear of a police attack because police are too overworked to bust guys for smoking pot in their living rooms.. And honestly, now- Are you guys that paranoid the police might bust you for smoking pot? I feel because pot is so wrapped up with dangerous drugs like ecstacy, meth or coke or whatever I feel it would be hypocritical to preach against drugs yet start legalizing them. It would send the wrong message to our kids, IMO. Sorry.
-
Im glad I have my hip waders on to wade through this
Shiiet :D
Here is the CNN pole for today
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/wolf.blitzer.reports/
Nuff said
-
I agree that it's such a minor matter legally that it doesn't need to be changed.
As to answering your question about which type of 'user' I'd rather have fly my airliner, operate on me, etc...
and in the vein of this
"same same IMO
both leave you less than optimum. "
I would prefer neither.
Your point is well taken about not getting into a debate about how many puffs vs. how many drinks, swallows, whatever...
I don't have a clue how one would go about comparing or trying to come up with a number for level of impairment. I don't really know how the number for legal impairment for alcohol consumption was arrived at either.
My contention is that if X pot smoker and Y alcohol drinker had fairly even levels of 'impairment' that it would be a tossup.
One could say that one, I don't know, 2 hits of pot compared to one martini that the pot smoker is more impaired.
One could also say that 6 joints would be equal to say, 12 martinis that the martini drinker is more impaired.
Either way doesn't matter to me because I'd prefer neither and think that both are 'impaired' and have less than full use of their brains and bodies.
Drink, smoke, party, whatever... but be responsible and don't drive. or operate.. or fly...
so all you pot smoking, beer guzzling AcesHigh players.. put down the joystick...:eek:
-
Marijuana in my opinion is a door. Despite whatever I think of it and its dangers which many like SW can refute with counter medical opinion, once you allow the legalisation of Marijuana you allow the next drug a chance to have its day. Heroin will be next and we can start a thread on how good it was the the Opium heads of the Chinese dynasties and it never did them any harm.
This is big roadkill i had many ocasions that i could use hard drugs
i always was against it
Kicked some "friends" out of my house coz they used coke
It's not a door to bad things the only door is urself
Again i'm using it 16 years and never got in to the harder thing
Come to holland and see it for urself before u make any opinion.
Many women come to coffee shops coz they know people are not agressive like alcohol drinking people.
:D (facts)
-
When i drink alcohol
- my brain cells fade away
- i get headaches
- i have no control of my body
- sex sux
- my liver dies
- i'm sick the day after
- my breath stinks
- my my sweat stinks
- i gotta toejam the toilet
- i get thin blood wich can be dangerous
- i can get agressive
- i'm just doing plain stupid
and when i drink to much i can get addicted and DIE on delirium
When i smoke a joint
- i get stoned
- my brain still work and don't get effected
- i wake up the next morning having a good sleep
- i still have control off my body
- sex is great
- i'm basicly relaxed
and when i smoke to much this could give a bit headache
it's not fun
Ur not getting stoner
and the taste is gone to,so it doesn't happen
anyway ur not dieing from it
hmmm
(not many side effect after that)
Huh what should be illegal ??
to be short with alcohol the are more doors to encounter trouble in life than weed.
THINK THINK THINK
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
have to agree with Elf a bit..
and disagree...
snip
you say you're ok to drive after two beers..
they say it's ok to drink after a joint...
same same IMO
both leave you less than optimum.
snip---
Is this a fruedian slip or what?
-
To many up there to quote to actually quote them.
Every aspect of the Pro-drug arguement so far in this thread is based on alcohol and Tobacco. Their legal so Cannabis should be also.
When you put all that rubbish above into that one simple sentance, does it make sense to anyone? Certainly not to me.
The Pro-Drug Hollander who says I have no idea what im talking about and I should live there before I open my mouth on the subject. Show me the evidence that says it works there? I can only find it to the contrary. Cannabis is Cannabis. Its may come in different forms and strengths but its still shares the same qualities. No different to Horses. Your women arent going to coffee shops cause the bars have drunks. Who do you expect to believe that? What a complete load of Codswallop. Their going to get stoned. No less so than any other hop head walking in their for their daily dose.
Bug is telling you that he has done it for 16 years and nothings happened to him. He wasnt tempted by harder drugs. Well, Good for you Bug. Unfortunately your story isnt shared by all who smoke dope. Children walking about like Zombies in Shopping Centres today may well be alive and mentally well in 16 years to. Would you want your child to spend their formative years bent out of shape and stoned like a moronic idiot?
Keeler wants you to read an article from CNN. CNN doesnt state in any way shape or form that they advocate drug use mind you. But because CNN report a statistical report, it must be righteous.
On that article... Tell me there isnt something a little more than bizarre about this group that thinks 3 ounces! is for personal use.
LOL. The Group NORML is a college spawned newspaper pushing their own agenda on Cannabis. I'll be blowed ! A College newspaper pushing for the legalisation of Cannabis! Now theres NEWS. Its a media spin Keeler. Dont get to excited unless the entire state of Nevada has completely lost its mind. I doubt it.
Wlfgng. There are many Pro-Drug reform groups out there pushing for the legalisation of Heroin. These groups contain good and bad elements. The mindless want it cause they like it and be damned with everyone else and the others who quite rightly perceive a need for change as the current system isnt working. The 2 groups are often intertwined and the message of the sensible workers for the cause can be blurred with the morons who fight against a system they never seemed to fit in with anyway.
The Government. Yours, mine and theirs, are always willing to throw some amount of money at Universities, Colleges, Social Welfare Groups and working committees to find answers. Give a project a name. Forecast a Report and tell them its new and someone desperate for an answer will rally to your cause.
Meth Amphet Labs can be created out in the middle of nowhere, far away from prying eyes in a section of Woodland where trespassers are rare. Meth Amphetamines are a HUGE problem.
How long before it becomes to much of a problem. How long before the cost of fighting it outweighs the stigma of social well being? Not long. Heroin is experiencing its turn at the legislation plate now. Already the wheels are in motion with certain Drug Reform groups pushing the legalised and supervised barrow.
Cannabis Reform is a process no different in form. It will be the benchmark of all the rest to follow and the EXCUSE some desire to push their own Pro-Reform agendas.
You are seeing an example of it right now. Pro-Cannabis supporters using the Alcohol Prohibition to support their arguement in almost every post. All people need is the opportunity.
SW. Man are you missing the point. Your justification against my arguement is as ludicrous as your yourself believe my arguement to be.
You mention Pharmacutical (sp?) drugs and put them alongside Cannabis stating that they are as freely available as each other.
They are when your ILLEGALLY using Pharmacutical Drugs LOL. They are for the most part prescription based. Druggies use them to bolster their own such as Methadone. One of Drug Reforms great failures in many respects. But it is a tool being abused by Addicts. Those who abuse legally prescribed and supposedly monitor Pharmacutical drug doses in prescribed medicinal quantities are Drug Addicts. Are you using them in your Legalise Cannabis agenda?
Again with Ritalin, Prozac, and the rest. Abuse them. Take them in quantities not prescribed and use them for purposes alterior to their design and YES. That is wrong. If your child requires Prescription drugs, the sane sensible and responsible Parent will ensure that they follow the instructions so their child is not placed in danger. You make it sound as if they are being handed out by Responsible parents to children like lollies or something.
Children who are addicts are no different in need than Adults who are addicts. Its a little sadder, but not different.
No you cannot take as much prozac, xanax, ritalin and pain killers, as you want it will kill you.
The most agonising Overdose death of them all can be something as simple as abusing Paracetemol. You take 40-50 tablets one day. (Thats not an overstated number by ANY means). You wake up the next morning feeling great. 2-3 days pass without any problems. You dont give a thought to the event 2-3 days ago. Next thing the intense severe abdominal cramps start and by then its to late. Complete Renal failure and death.
An example of a domestic drug in every day use which doesnt require presription that will kill you as well as any of the big boys.
Paracetamol used to be kept in the First Aid stations of workplaces of this Country for the Headache sufferers and pain relief. Now its against the law for the reason described above. The workers in blissful ignorance still argue the point cause people have no idea what is good for them half the time and what is not.
Same with the Dope User. It looks good. Its smells Good. Its everywhere so it must be good. Lets all have some.
Drug addictionexists around cubicle in every office building in the US... and that's without the illicit drugs.
And that SW. Is why I am argueing against you.
-
Unfortunately your story isnt shared by all who smoke dope. Children walking about like Zombies in Shopping Centres today may well be alive and mentally well in 16 years to. Would you want your child to spend their formative years bent out of shape and stoned like a moronic idiot?
those kids just have to give something to blame
actualy they begin with alcohol who says not huh ? THINK
yeah in holland there less drug crimes
and less drug deaths
btw weed is not really legal but coffee shops and self use is allowed
u drink ur beer i smoke my joint to relax so what's the point
kids do get cigarettes kids can get alcoholics and so the can get get weed to but i more worrie when they going for harder stuff
u always have these types around who u can't stop
but most kids do now better when educated well
Children walking about like Zombies in Shopping Centres today may well be alive and mentally well in 16 years to. Would you want your child to spend their formative years bent out of shape and stoned like a moronic idiot?
aren't those kids a bit drop outs . No my kid should get on any drug IMHO
But what makes u think those kids wouldn't use
alcohol instead
and there nothing more irritating than drunk people (REAL IDIOTIC MORONS WITHOUT SELF CONTROL)
-
Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
And that SW. Is why I am argueing against you.
and I will repeat this one more time, perhaps it will sink in.
There is absolutely no scientific/biological way for someone to become addicted to marijuana. Period. End of story.
Elfenwolf- cannabis is only linked to ecstasy and other synthetic drugs because of the presidential executive order in 1983. Before then they were never linked... marijuana has absolutely nothing to do with the other illicit drugs other than being illegal.
Read up on it's history, it might surprise you why it's illegal in the first place.
-SW
-
BS that marijuana use is a 'door' or leads to harder drugs.
It's just like the statement that listening to rock and roll will make you a killer.. BS.
The fact of the matter is that some people are prone to doing certain things and acting certain ways. Some people have addictive personalities. These people will find the harder stuff, abuse themselves, abuse others, etc no matter what... don't use the marijuana excuse. It just doesn't hold water.
I can't tell you how many people have 'launched' their drug intake by starting with booze.
It's also BS to lump Pot into the mix with harder drugs like heroin.
Simply ludicrous.
If we follow that line of reasoning why not lump asprin into the same bin as heroin.
Pssss.. there's HUGE difference.
My point is simply that using ANY drug impairs you. Period.
The Important variable is how much.
and yeah.. that was a typo earlier:)
-
Marijuana was not made illegal due to health reasons. In fact, the National Institute for Drug Abuse released a pamphlet that stated, ''There is little evidence that the drug is physically addicting. There is nothing in marijuana itself that causes people to use other drugs. No definite neurological study of humans has turned up evidence of marijuana related brain damage. There is no direct evidence that marijuana causes cancer in humans.'' (Rosenthal and Kelly, 1996)
So why is marijuana illegal? In the 1930's the US Department of Agriculture proposed making paper from hemp-based fiber but it was put on hold until the government could find a way to separate hemp pulp from the fiber cheaply. When a machine was invented, tree paper companies invested massive amounts of money in advertisements to make cannabis-hemp illegal so all paper would be made of trees and they would continue to profitable.
from
THIS (http://www.jacksonville.com/community/cc/neasevertical/stories/021202/02070254742.shtml) Site.
-
elf is correct in all his points.
I would add... I would love to see pot completely legalized for comercial sale but... not for use. You could not drive while under the influence. Several hits on a joint of good weed would be too much. You also could not work at certain jobs that required public safety and being a pot smoker would be enough reason to deny advancement in most proffessions.
life for me is hard... I would love to have it filled with a bunch of pot smokers using public transportation. The competition at work and socialy would be easier and the roads would be less crowded. Perhaps the large tax on pot would appease the liberal tax and spend guys for a couple of weeks and give me a little more of my money to spend. As I get older I get slower and if I have to get into a fight it would be great to do it to some slack jawed pot smoker. Practical jokes are more fun when played on pot heads. The best a pot smoker can do is fake being alert. Even I can beat that.
All in all... win/win
lazs
-
Lazs, when it gets to the point you agree with Elfenwolf, you should realise your grasp of the subject at hand is extremely limited.
Elf- to answer how much impairs me- I can drive home after 3 blunts (bigger than joints).. I can also drive home after 12 beers.
Either way- I shouldn't, but I can and won't get into an accident.
-SW
-
As I get older I get slower and if I have to get into a fight it would be great to do it to some slack jawed pot smoker. Practical jokes are more fun when played on pot heads. The best a pot smoker can do is fake being alert.
lol
hey lazs.. you tend to quote the 'get in a fight' thing. You into 'contact' sports or something ?
Or is it a 'life in Dixon' thing ?
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
and I will repeat this one more time, perhaps it will sink in.
There is absolutely no scientific/biological way for someone to become addicted to marijuana. Period. End of story.
Posted by AKSWulfe a bit earlier in the same thread
Mentally dependent, OTOH, yes...
[/b]
I think we are all still waiting for you to explain the difference between a "normal" addiction and a "mental" addiction.
Is this where you are going to tell us all that someone with a "mental" addiction is less likely to commit a crime to support his drug habit than someone who is "biologically addicted"?
-
Well first Hortlund, I will ask you to read more carefully.
Dependent means you think you need it. Addiction means you NEED it.
One you can stop doing if you want to with no regrets. The latter is almost impossible without a very strong will.
-SW
-
"Marijuana could help save the enviroment by preventing deforestation." MT, how is that? Are people so desperate to get stoned they're smoking our forests? Or is the author talking about deforestation to manufacture paper?? LOL OK, since I started out the week semi-serious I'll end the week semi-serious.
We currently grow more timber in the USA than we harvest. And, in fact, we have since the 1970s or thereabouts. The idea that hemp paper will save us from enviromental ruin caused by deforestation is laughable. That article was obviously written by someone under the influence of something.
There's no point in arguing the relative effects of alcohol, marijuana, peyote, acid or asprin. I have been telling my kid for 17 years that drugs are bad for you. I have been telling my child this because I don't feel pot, even conceding its relative harmlessness, would be in her best interests to smoke during her formative years. Believe me, she has enough of a problem getting through homework without her getting stoned being thrown into the mix. Rather cannabis deserves the same legal status as Ecstacy, Meth, crack or whatever is irrevelant- it HAS the same legal status, and to turn around now and legalize pot sends the wrong message to our kids.
Pot is already decriminalized to the point the recreational user has little to fear from criminal prosecution, and personally I don't care rather you smoke pot, get drunk, cross dress or whatever in the privacy of your own home. I don't care, the police don't care and the courts don't care. Do what you want, but remember, your kids will emulate your behavior. Do you want them smoking pot?
BTW all for the relative civility on this thread. wSnpr called me on the phone yesterday and told me I was lucky he had to leave town for the weekend, but when he gets back he'll shoot my stance full of holes. LOL I can't wait :)
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Rather cannabis deserves the same legal status as Ecstacy, Meth, crack or whatever is irrevelant- it HAS the same legal status, and to turn around now and legalize pot sends the wrong message to our kids.
Tell me WHY Elfenwolf.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Tell me WHY
Because its WRONG
...there
-
I have to agree that it sends the wrong message to our kids.
Being single and having none, I tend to overlook the 'kid' factor.
Still, thinking about it this way: "would I want my kids doing x"
makes me think more conservatively.
-
If that's the only thing the drug war is good for... it sends a message to the kids... it's not worth it.
-
Keep on letting someone else decide what's right and wrong for you Hortlund, it prevents you from using your own mind.
-SW
-
Sandman, I agree the war on drugs is failing, but I feel it's the good fight to at least partially stem the flow of drugs onto our streets. The intended target of the WoD isn't against the recreational pot smoker anyway.
Wulfe, cannabis is under the same federal list of banned substances that cocaine heroin LSD PCP and many other hard narcotics are. How can I tell my child that the Government now says it's OK to smoke pot after pot, in her mind, is in the same category as so many truly dangerous drugs?
FYI I was a different person with a different attitude on this subject until I had a child. Would I want her doing some of the crap I did as a teen? Hell no.
-
Ahh, the Kid angle!
First of all, I don't do drugs. I used to do drugs. I quit because I didn't like what they did to or for me.
That being said. The message we send our kids should come from us, not some wacko conservative lawmaker who thinks a joint will lead to depraved sex and debauchery.
Tell them WHY its bad. It ain't bad because it's illegal! Its bad because it does not allow you to be you! It stops you from becoming the full fruition of yourself.
People who define themselves by their latest high, or the great toejam they got from Humboldt County, are just sad shells of who they could become. Tell your kids the truth. Then it won't matter what the government says.
And BTW I've smoked plenty in my day and debauchery only happens about every 4th joint.
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Wulfe, cannabis is under the same federal list of banned substances that cocaine heroin LSD PCP and many other hard narcotics are. How can I tell my child that the Government now says it's OK to smoke pot after pot, in her mind, is in the same category as so many truly dangerous drugs?
There have been things in our history that existed for far longer than cannabis as a banned substance... but they were changed for the better.
How did people tell their children it's okay to drink alcohol after prohibition was repealed? How did people tell their kids it's not okay to drink coca-cola because it has cocaine in it, but they've been doing it all their life?
How do you tell your child anything?
You explain it to them, it's not that hard- they can understand.
You could explain it to your child with just a few words- marijuana is not nearly as damaging a substance as any other schedule 1 drug, nor is it addictive. It also has medicinal benefits, and could be used as a very strong, and cheaper, replacement for cotton.
How did parents explain to their child that in some states it was okay to drink at the age of 18, while in other states not until 21, then it was quickly repealed and a federally sanctioned age of 21 was enforced nation wide?
It's easy to tell kids anything, kids listen and they aren't as dumb as you think.
-SW
-
Agree completely MT and in fact I'd like my kid to read your post. You and I agree it prevents a child from realizing their full potential. We agree it creates sad shells of wasted potential who would have been much better off had they never smoked pot. We agree it stymies mental development, affects attitude and is detremental to our children's health. We agree it's harmful not because of what some extremist politician says but rather because of what it does to you. Thank you for enforcing my position.
:)
-
I think we all agree that teaching children right from wrong is the parent's job.. not the gov't, schools, nanny, etc.
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Sandman, I agree the war on drugs is failing, but I feel it's the good fight to at least partially stem the flow of drugs onto our streets.
BTW Elf- it's easier for a middle school/high school student to get their hands on illicit drugs than it is on alcohol.
And yes, kids shouldn't be doing weed.. but then again, they shouldn't be doing any drugs (including alcohol), it all stunts their mental growth and will harm their futures.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
And yes, kids shouldn't be doing weed.. but then again, they shouldn't be doing any drugs (including alcohol), it all stunts their mental growth and will harm their futures.
-SW
And neither should you SW.
Weed ain't doing you any favors either.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And neither should you SW.
Weed ain't doing you any favors either.
Then again... used in moderation, it's probably not hurting him enough to worry about.
-
BTW if anyone in N. California wants to see a marijuana eradication operation in Mendocino County let me know. They stage across the street from my parents' business. It's kewl seeing helicopters with nets full of dope and dump trucks heading out to the sawmill to burn another load. Unfortunately the growers can hear the helicopters coming and they usually escape but every once in awhile they catch the perps. The games begin for real in a couple of weeks.
-
send us video man, c'mon :)
Sacremento eh... old stompin' grounds. Was at Travis AFB for a while.
-
True MT, and Sandman is right too.
It's not doing me any good, naturally, but it's better than it was in the past. :)
I can tell you for certain, when you get into that "stage" of smoking everyday, all day, without fail- it can ruin you easy.
Luckily I learned my lesson early...
Anyways, you fellas take it easy- I'm out for the weekend, have fun and shoot each other down repeatedly for me. ;)
S!
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Lazs, when it gets to the point you agree with Elfenwolf, you should realise your grasp of the subject at hand is extremely limited.
Elf- to answer how much impairs me- I can drive home after 3 blunts (bigger than joints).. I can also drive home after 12 beers.
Either way- I shouldn't, but I can and won't get into an accident.-SW
Heheheheh. SW, SW, SW, Its not that you "Won't". Its that you have been so damn lucky, or rather, everyone else has, and you haven't "Yet."
If (god forbid) you kill a small child who chased a ball out in front of your car, or an old man who saw you and thought he could shuffle faster than your car can travel. Will you stand in front of the Parents, the GrandChildren, the Brother or Sister and say,
"I doesnt effect me. Its not like I was drinking Alcohol or something!"
I doubt it. If your smoking joints and you drive. (Im not saying YOU do.)In my opinion if something happens and an innocent is killed, maimed or injured, you belong in the big house for a very loooong time. At least in there, you wont find many who will argue your rights.
It's easy to tell kids anything, kids listen and they aren't as dumb as you think.
[/b]
You dont have a teenage child do you SW. When you do. I double dip dare ya, to say that again LOL.
Midnight Target.
I was curious to know about Jacksonville and the Hemp Market which appears on the link you provided and was curious as to why a page when presenting the picture of a young child and with stories of school projects, in the same breath, expels publically its support for Marijuana. (Of course, surrounding it in a Commercial Hemp promotion. I have no arguement with Commercially produced Hemp.) So I delved a little further into Jacksonville.
http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-1334.html
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jph13/JPHSpeeches.html
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/list/hemp.shtml
Sensing a pattern here? A little Moola productive cash cow for Jacksonville perhaps?
The URLS's go on and on. Jacksonville appears obsessed with Marijuana and the justification for its use. To the point of putting it on display with pictures of young pre-teen children.
Theres something a little more than broken with Jacksonville if you ask me.
-
Delving even deeper into the mysteries of Jacksonville, in amongst the many bizarre threads which eminate from this corner of the world and I find a link (Not one ill provide for obvious reasons) which on one hand (the small hand) champions the cause of Medicinal Marijuana use and one the other (The big hand) tells you how to get around drug testing and methods used to come out clean, even when your dirty. (Their words not mine).
Theres no user control on the site. Its open to anyone and everyone, the good the bad and the ugly.
I think Jacksonville Florida has more than its share of weirdo's :)