(Close Window)
Topic: There was a big party at the Seatle space needle last night
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 6, 2012 07:12AM)
Washington state predicts a $500,000,000 increase in state tax revenue in 2013. Just watch the domino's fall now. LOL
Message: Posted by: Slide (Dec 6, 2012 07:20AM)
I agree. I don't think many people realize that we have a income tax as a result of lost revenue that occured during Prohibition. The repeal of the draconian Marijuna laws will a positive effect on state revenues.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 6, 2012 07:23AM)
With that kind of money to be had there will be lots of domino's fall in 2013, and the DEA will all have to go out and get real jobs. LOL
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 6, 2012 08:38AM)
What was it that Huxley said? "What's wrong with drugging the people?" Aldous Huxley, what's wrong with drugging them? It makes them more manageable.

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) may not be what you think it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJwjx16d0ew
Message: Posted by: Slide (Dec 6, 2012 09:18AM)
The same Aldous Huxley who wrote The Doors of Perception? :)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 6, 2012 09:34AM)
I would have thought Eyeless in Gaza would be more up your street, in which one of the central characters adopts a Buddhist-centred philosophy.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 6, 2012 09:59AM)
Tommy
Since you feel qualified to talk about American laws how many other states do you figure will cash in on this bonanza in 2013?
Message: Posted by: Payne (Dec 6, 2012 10:09AM)
I thought you were referring to the hundreds of gay people who lined up to get their marriage licenses last night.

I love living in a progressive state. Well, at least the progressive part of the State.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Dec 6, 2012 10:22AM)
"I would have thought Eyeless in Gaza would be more up your street, in which one of the central characters adopts a Buddhist-centred philosophy."

You don't know me very well.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Dec 6, 2012 11:23AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-06 11:09, Payne wrote:
I thought you were referring to the hundreds of gay people who lined up to get their marriage licenses last night.

I love living in a progressive state. Well, at least the progressive part of the State.
[/quote]

Payne-

I'm glad you added that last qualifier. I have lived near Seattle for just about twenty-five years now and it is indeed a great place to live. Eastern Washington is, however, like a completely different state. Fortunately, there are more voters in the western half.
Message: Posted by: Tom Jorgenson (Dec 6, 2012 11:32AM)
I think the DEA will still want the power to swoop in on Cartel stores without any pesky legal wrangling. It's an extrememly powerful tool to keep in the upcoming social revolution, to control the domesticity of the product. Keeping the farming in-country will do us much good, with illegal imports doing us much harm (such as beefing up the coffers of the cartels).

When farmers begin to realize they can get $7.50 for a bushel of corn, or $2000.00 for a bushel of weed, thangs gonna change, kids!

...and there's not a Parkinson's victim anywhere who would give up their Indica.

...and the latest on the home front, for your entertainment and edification:

Day workers are occasionally hired at $10 an hour, and 2 blocks from Home Depot, they are blindfolded, driven to the growhouse and spend the day trimming. Food, etc., is provided. (If they don't want to trim, they sit there until the day is done, not leaving.) They are then paid their $80, blindfolded and driven back to Home Depot.

A half billion in 'free' money for the state is incredible.
Message: Posted by: irossall (Dec 6, 2012 11:35AM)
As I've stated too many times here at the Café, Marijuana will NOT be legal to purchase or grow (except for Medical) here in Washington State. PERIOD!
With that said, I do agree that Washington has made a great step forward by no longer throwing the casual user in jail for less than an ounce. I don't see the sales of Marijuana being made anywhere except on the "Black Market".
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: Jim Sparx (Dec 6, 2012 11:47AM)
I love a parade....
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 6, 2012 11:51AM)
I feel that on October 19, 2009 Attorney General Eric Holder announced formal guidelines for federal prosecutors in states that have enacted laws authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes. The guidelines, as set forth in a memorandum from Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden, makes clear that the focus of federal resources should not be on individuals whose actions are in compliance with existing state laws, and underscores that the Department will continue to prosecute people whose claims of compliance with state and local law conceal operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of the law. He also reiterated that the Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all states and that this guidance does not “legalize” marijuana or provide for legal defense to a violation of federal law. While some people have interpreted these guidelines to mean that the federal government has relaxed its policy on “medical” marijuana, this in fact is not the case. Investigations and prosecutions of violations of state and federal law will continue. These are the guidelines DEA has and will continue to follow.

I feel though that all states, that the USA, will legalise marijuana in the future. I feel "The Ultimate Revolution" is afoot.

http://tribes.tribe.net/infobunker/thread/2cdea7ff-9397-49bd-9aa7-0950a9add86a
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 6, 2012 11:52AM)
I suggested this sort of thing happening last year on this forum and the nay sayers ganged up on me. Today those cynics are silent.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Dec 6, 2012 12:02PM)
At least now they can remove those ridiculous "For Use with Tobacco Only" signs from the bong and pipe displays in the local smoke shops.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 6, 2012 12:09PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-06 12:52, Al Angello wrote:
I suggested this sort of thing happening last year on this forum and the nay sayers ganged up on me. Today those cynics are silent.
[/quote]

Marijuana is still illegal in Washington per federal law, and the Obama administration has been quite unfriendly to medicinal marijuana users, let alone recreational ones. Betcha a dollar to your favorite charity that Washington isn't going to see $500,000,000 in new tax revenue out if this one. Or call it an extraordinary feat of mentalism on my part.

On the other hand, the state and local agencies will receive an economic boost from bit using resources to investigate and prosecute cases.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 6, 2012 12:31PM)
Lobo
The $500,000,000 figure is what the figure predicted by the Washington state officials that they expect to earn from taxing pot. If you disagree with them I guess you have better info than they do. When the DEA mounts the attack on pot use in Washington, and Colorado there won't be enough jail cells to hold the federal law breakers.

BTW
Both states are negotiating a hands off policy with the attorney generals office. Do you really want to go down with this ship?????
Message: Posted by: critter (Dec 6, 2012 12:55PM)
I haven't looked at data, but everything I'd heard suggested far fewer raids on medicinal marijuana dispensaries under Obama than Bush. Can't say for sure, but that was what I'd heard.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 6, 2012 01:05PM)
Critter
Did you by any chance hear that there was an election last month, and Marijuana was decriminalized in two states? So I fail to see any relevancy in your post.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Dec 6, 2012 01:18PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-06 12:23, mastermindreader wrote:

Payne-

I'm glad you added that last qualifier. I have lived near Seattle for just about twenty-five years now and it is indeed a great place to live. Eastern Washington is, however, like a completely different state. Fortunately, there are more voters in the western half.

[/quote]

I had to add the qualifier as I was born and grew up in Eastern Washington. So I know first hand what the unenlightened part of the state looks like :)
Message: Posted by: Slide (Dec 6, 2012 01:21PM)
"I haven't looked at data, but everything I'd heard suggested far fewer raids on medicinal marijuana dispensaries under Obama than Bush."

I'm not sure about that. Obama actually put a lot of "legal" medical marijuana businesses in California OUT of business about a year ago. I know a guy who consulted with these firms to help with their marketing and his customers literally went away over night.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 6, 2012 02:01PM)
I imagine the Seattle food trucks made good money in the early hours this morning.
Message: Posted by: critter (Dec 6, 2012 02:12PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-06 14:05, Al Angello wrote:
Critter
Did you by any chance hear that there was an election last month, and Marijuana was decriminalized in two states? So I fail to see any relevancy in your post.
[/quote]

1. My post was a direct response to something Lobo said about the current administration.

2. We've had medicinal marijuana legal in Washington (where I live- see it under my pic, one of those two states) for years, and we still sometimes get raids on the dispensaries by the Feds.

1+2= Relevancy.

Time for kippers!
Message: Posted by: critter (Dec 6, 2012 02:13PM)
Slide, I'm not sure either. I'd be interested in the data just out of curiousity. It's just what I've heard. Unfortunately I've no time to research it at the moment.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 6, 2012 03:14PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-06 13:31, Al Angello wrote:
Lobo
The $500,000,000 figure is what the figure predicted by the Washington state officials that they expect to earn from taxing pot. If you disagree with them I guess you have better info than they do. When the DEA mounts the attack on pot use in Washington, and Colorado there won't be enough jail cells to hold the federal law breakers.

BTW
Both states are negotiating a hands off policy with the attorney generals office. Do you really want to go down with this ship?????
[/quote]


I don't know about better info, but they're not releasing "info," are they? They're speculating, and I bet I speculate better than they do. You don't have to fill the prisons to step on a revenue stream; you just have to go after a few of the big sellers. I guess we'll see how that "hand off " thing goes, but I'll see you in a year on the 500 million.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 6, 2012 03:21PM)
A Washington state official said an estimated $500,000,000 in additional taxes in 2013 on CNN about 8:00 am this morning. I'm not stupid enough to try to bluff you.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 6, 2012 03:40PM)
I will see your half a billion and raise it a billion. :)
Message: Posted by: Slide (Dec 6, 2012 04:10PM)
"Washington's new law decriminalizes possession of up to an ounce for those over 21, but for now selling marijuana remains illegal. I-502 gives the state a year to come up with a system of state-licensed growers, processors and retail stores, with the marijuana taxed 25 percent at each stage. Analysts have estimated that a legal pot market could bring Washington hundreds of millions of dollars a year in new tax revenue for schools, health care and basic government functions.
"

From Huffingtonpost.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 6, 2012 04:43PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-06 16:21, Al Angello wrote:
A Washington state official said an estimated $500,000,000 in additional taxes in 2013 on CNN about 8:00 am this morning. I'm not stupid enough to try to bluff you.
[/quote]

I believe you, Al. I just don't believe the official.
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (Dec 6, 2012 05:37PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-06 08:23, Al Angello wrote:
With that kind of money to be had there will be lots of domino's fall in 2013, and the DEA will all have to go out and get real jobs. LOL
[/quote]
Was this written in jest? You realize the DEA does a lot more than bust people for weed, right?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Dec 6, 2012 05:48PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-06 15:01, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
I imagine the Seattle food trucks made good money in the early hours this morning.
[/quote]

I know I kept a couple of pizza drivers busy!
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 6, 2012 06:17PM)
What are you on, free range or Monsanto genetically engineered marijuana?
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 6, 2012 06:19PM)
Andrew
The DEA is a government agency looking for a reason to exist. The FBI was failing at the war on drugs just fine, but now we have DEA failing just as bad as the FBI failed but now failing is costing us a lot more money. Give federal investigating back to the FBI.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 6, 2012 06:28PM)
I used live to live next door to a cop and he liked a smoke and they say they get the best. I guess the DEA boys would make the best dealers if they leave and get real jobs, after all they should have all the expertise and connections.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 6, 2012 06:32PM)
Tommy
That is also an old line from a Chevy Chase movie.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 6, 2012 07:24PM)
I don't smoke it myself but the cop used to offer it to me over the garden fence. He was a nice fellow as it happens. Most people or least a lot I know have a smoke and I am an exception. Too much of anything can be bad for you and I would not encourage any one to start. I have seen kids get into debt with it and so on. There is a price to pay for every pleasure as they say. I have seen it alter many for the worse in there ways. I think only none smokers of it can see harm it does and there is telling people who smoke it that its doing them no good. I have seen it ruin peoples lives. However I would vote for it to be legal, I think, but I know it's not a good thing to take. So take my advise and do as you please. :)
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 6, 2012 09:50PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-06 19:19, Al Angello wrote:
Andrew
The DEA is a government agency looking for a reason to exist. The FBI was failing at the war on drugs just fine, but now we have DEA failing just as bad as the FBI failed but now failing is costing us a lot more money. Give federal investigating back to the FBI.
[/quote]

That makes as much sense as having metropolitan police departments get rid of their narcotics departments and turn everything they do over to another department.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 6, 2012 10:06PM)
When we no longer smuggle pot into our country the DEA will have lots of agents standing around with their hands in their pockets.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 6, 2012 10:21PM)
So, all DEA agents do is bust pot smgglers, street level dealers and the mediocre citizens puffing away. Interesting. I had it wrong all these years.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: randirain (Dec 6, 2012 10:28PM)
Umm... I don't know all, or exact, information on who was coming down on the California dispensaries....

But... There were some TV shows awhile back on the whole thing, and according to them it wasn't necessarily Obama or the DEA, it was the IRS closing them down.
But then again, that was a TV show... and a reality TV show.
You can't trust any of those any more.

Randi
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Dec 6, 2012 10:33PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-06 23:06, Al Angello wrote:
When we no longer smuggle pot into our country the DEA will have lots of agents standing around with their hands in their pockets.
[/quote]

Not really. They'll just have more agents available to focus on meth and designer drug manufacturers and distributors, along with cocaine and heroin smugglers.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 6, 2012 11:56PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-06 23:28, randirain wrote:
Umm... I don't know all, or exact, information on who was coming down on the California dispensaries....

But... There were some TV shows awhile back on the whole thing, and according to them it wasn't necessarily Obama or the DEA, it was the IRS closing them down.
But then again, that was a TV show... and a reality TV show.
You can't trust any of those any more.

Randi
[/quote]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/obamas-war-on-weed-in-california_n_1835290.html
Message: Posted by: irossall (Dec 7, 2012 05:38AM)
The real facts are:

1. People will always smoke pot as long as it is available.

2. No matter what penalty is put upon the user's of pot, people will still smoke pot (death penalty would probably be the exception).

3. The law of supply and demand will always be with us. So the question is, who should make the profit from sales? The Government or the "Black Market"?

4. If pot is so bad a drug (worse than tobbaco or alcohol) does jail cure the problem? or is it better to treat it as a medical problem and render medical help instead of incarceration.

5. The "War on Drugs" has not and is not working!!! Maybe it is time to try something else. What do we have to lose that we are not already losing?
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 7, 2012 08:44AM)
Bob
Even though pot is a very large part of the DEA's duties, it is good to know that they will be forced to spend our tax money going after real criminals in the future instead of preying on the low hanging fruit.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 08:53AM)
So, Al you assumed that pot is only drug out there that the DEA was worried about?

Peace and Godspeed
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 09:10AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 06:38, irossall wrote:
The real facts are:

1. People will always smoke pot as long as it is available.

2. No matter what penalty is put upon the user's of pot, people will still smoke pot (death penalty would probably be the exception).

3. The law of supply and demand will always be with us. So the question is, who should make the profit from sales? The Government or the "Black Market"?

4. If pot is so bad a drug (worse than tobbaco or alcohol) does jail cure the problem? or is it better to treat it as a medical problem and render medical help instead of incarceration.

5. The "War on Drugs" has not and is not working!!! Maybe it is time to try something else. What do we have to lose that we are not already losing?
Iven :patty:
[/quote]

The black market makes money off of cocaine in its various forms as well crank and heroin. So, should we just legalize them as well? Why stop at narcotics? Why not completely legalize prostitution? I mean after all every body likes to get a lil bit, so why stop at prostitution, why not just legalize rape? Afterall, everybody has sex? Why just let the blackmarket make a profit off of the sex trade, we'll just tax it. Why not just take the 2nd amendment to its full potential and allow everyone to own anything that can be fired from the shoulder? Why should the balck market arms dealers make a profit off of stinger missile systems? Let's allow anyone at a gun show to sell them and just tax them. Why should only contract killers make money off of murder for hire? Let's legalize it and tax them.

But, in all honesty, I do see your point. Legalize drugs, or at least marijuana, and the murder rate, burglary rate, assault, and theft rate will magically drop. WOW all it took was a few magicians sitting in front of their computers, typing and toking away, to figure out and solve all the world's problems.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Dec 7, 2012 09:12AM)
The real facts are:

1. People will always do heroin as long as it is available.

2. No matter what penalty is put upon the user's of heroin, people will still use heroin (death penalty would probably be the exception).

3. The law of supply and demand will always be with us. So the question is, who should make the profit from sales? The Government or the "Black Market"?

4. If heroin is so bad a drug (worse than tobbaco or alcohol) does jail cure the problem? or is it better to treat it as a medical problem and render medical help instead of incarceration.

5. The "War on Drugs" has not and is not working!!! Maybe it is time to try something else. What do we have to lose that we are not already losing?

..

I guess we won't really be progressive until we legalize all drugs. Wouldn't you agree?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Dec 7, 2012 09:13AM)
Dang! Dreadnought beat me to it!
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 7, 2012 09:16AM)
When the DEA has to choose between arresting a crack dealer who carries a gun, or arresting a couple college students smoking pot, and playing bongo's in the park they always go after the bongo players over the gun toting heroine dealers. The DEA is more interested in getting publicity, and safe arrests than they are in cleaning up the drug problem. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 09:26AM)
Brother you need to get out more.

The DEA does not bother with some hippie in the park banging on the bongos and toking on some happy weed. Chances are that was campus police or some local LEA. If the DEA was involved it is because said happy weed toking hippie was part of the bigger picture.

All the DEA agents I knew were involved with outlaw biker gangs, who control the meth trade, or looking into the cartels, not some snot nosed, 18 year old punk or washed up 60 year old hippie reliving the good old days.

Put the happy weed down and breath the fresh air.

Peace and Godspeed
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 7, 2012 09:35AM)
My friend
This thread is about the decriminalization of pot in Washington state, and changing the subject to crack, heroine, speed is just your attempt to steal the thread. God has nothing to do with this subject.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 09:48AM)
I'm not thread jacking anything. I'm just responding to you, saying that you are wrong in your assumption on how the DEA works. And I never mentioned God in my argument.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 7, 2012 11:10AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 06:38, irossall wrote:
The real facts are:

1. People will always smoke pot as long as it is available.

2. No matter what penalty is put upon the user's of pot, people will still smoke pot (death penalty would probably be the exception).

3. The law of supply and demand will always be with us. So the question is, who should make the profit from sales? The Government or the "Black Market"?

4. If pot is so bad a drug (worse than tobbaco or alcohol) does jail cure the problem? or is it better to treat it as a medical problem and render medical help instead of incarceration.

5. The "War on Drugs" has not and is not working!!! Maybe it is time to try something else. What do we have to lose that we are not already losing?
Iven :patty:
[/quote]

People will always commit murder, too, but it's probably a good idea that it remain illegal.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 7, 2012 11:12AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 10:10, Dreadnought wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 06:38, irossall wrote:
The real facts are:

1. People will always smoke pot as long as it is available.

2. No matter what penalty is put upon the user's of pot, people will still smoke pot (death penalty would probably be the exception).

3. The law of supply and demand will always be with us. So the question is, who should make the profit from sales? The Government or the "Black Market"?

4. If pot is so bad a drug (worse than tobbaco or alcohol) does jail cure the problem? or is it better to treat it as a medical problem and render medical help instead of incarceration.

5. The "War on Drugs" has not and is not working!!! Maybe it is time to try something else. What do we have to lose that we are not already losing?
Iven :patty:
[/quote]

The black market makes money off of cocaine in its various forms as well crank and heroin. So, should we just legalize them as well? Why stop at narcotics? Why not completely legalize prostitution? I mean after all every body likes to get a lil bit, so why stop at prostitution, why not just legalize rape? Afterall, everybody has sex? Why just let the blackmarket make a profit off of the sex trade, we'll just tax it. Why not just take the 2nd amendment to its full potential and allow everyone to own anything that can be fired from the shoulder? Why should the balck market arms dealers make a profit off of stinger missile systems? Let's allow anyone at a gun show to sell them and just tax them. Why should only contract killers make money off of murder for hire? Let's legalize it and tax them.

But, in all honesty, I do see your point. Legalize drugs, or at least marijuana, and the murder rate, burglary rate, assault, and theft rate will magically drop. WOW all it took was a few magicians sitting in front of their computers, typing and toking away, to figure out and solve all the world's problems.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

Personally, I think legal prostitution is a no-brainer. The distinctions between it and rape & murder are too obvious to warrant elaboration.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 11:24AM)
If we are going to legalize one vice, and murder, for some is a vice or a way of life, then we should just legalize it and collect the tax from it, it's not that big of a leap, people are going to do it anyway. And again, if we legalize pot then let's legalize all drugs. Might as people are going to do them anyway. Then that way we don't have to worry about lawyers.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: irossall (Dec 7, 2012 11:27AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 10:10, Dreadnought wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 06:38, irossall wrote:
The real facts are:

1. People will always smoke pot as long as it is available.

2. No matter what penalty is put upon the user's of pot, people will still smoke pot (death penalty would probably be the exception).

3. The law of supply and demand will always be with us. So the question is, who should make the profit from sales? The Government or the "Black Market"?

4. If pot is so bad a drug (worse than tobbaco or alcohol) does jail cure the problem? or is it better to treat it as a medical problem and render medical help instead of incarceration.

5. The "War on Drugs" has not and is not working!!! Maybe it is time to try something else. What do we have to lose that we are not already losing?
Iven :patty:
[/quote]

The black market makes money off of cocaine in its various forms as well crank and heroin. So, should we just legalize them as well? Why stop at narcotics? Why not completely legalize prostitution? I mean after all every body likes to get a lil bit, so why stop at prostitution, why not just legalize rape? Afterall, everybody has sex? Why just let the blackmarket make a profit off of the sex trade, we'll just tax it. Why not just take the 2nd amendment to its full potential and allow everyone to own anything that can be fired from the shoulder? Why should the balck market arms dealers make a profit off of stinger missile systems? Let's allow anyone at a gun show to sell them and just tax them. Why should only contract killers make money off of murder for hire? Let's legalize it and tax them.

But, in all honesty, I do see your point. Legalize drugs, or at least marijuana, and the murder rate, burglary rate, assault, and theft rate will magically drop. WOW all it took was a few magicians sitting in front of their computers, typing and toking away, to figure out and solve all the world's problems.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

Legalize Marijuana since it is no more dangerous than the now legal drugs (alcohol & tobbaco) and decriminalize ALL drugs and treat it as a medical problem AND take the profit out of the black market.

Prostitution should be legal and taxed and regular medical exams for all prostitutes. Making it safer and take the profit away from the black market.

Rape is a violent crime against individuals (deprives them of their freedoms) and should be illegal and heavy penalty.

Guns, Yes but not fully automatic weapons and heavy equipment ie: flamethrower's, grenade launcher's etc... Guns for hunting game and target practice and self protection.

Your argument is very radical and silly. Apples & Oranges.
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 7, 2012 11:28AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 12:24, Dreadnought wrote:
If we are going to legalize one vice, and murder, for some is a vice or a way of life, then we should just legalize it and collect the tax from it, it's not that big of a leap, people are going to do it anyway. And again, if we legalize pot then let's legalize all drugs. Might as people are going to do them anyway. Then that way we don't have to worry about lawyers.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

I agree that "people are going to do it anyway" is a poor justification for legalization. However, insufficiently justifying why something should be legal doesn't demonstrate that it should be illegal.

On the other hand, we could be just as silly as this post in the other direction. Heroin is bad for you; so is table salt. If we're going to put people in prison for heroin, why not out them in prison for salt?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 7, 2012 11:31AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 12:27, irossall wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 10:10, Dreadnought wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 06:38, irossall wrote:
The real facts are:

1. People will always smoke pot as long as it is available.

2. No matter what penalty is put upon the user's of pot, people will still smoke pot (death penalty would probably be the exception).

3. The law of supply and demand will always be with us. So the question is, who should make the profit from sales? The Government or the "Black Market"?

4. If pot is so bad a drug (worse than tobbaco or alcohol) does jail cure the problem? or is it better to treat it as a medical problem and render medical help instead of incarceration.

5. The "War on Drugs" has not and is not working!!! Maybe it is time to try something else. What do we have to lose that we are not already losing?
Iven :patty:
[/quote]

The black market makes money off of cocaine in its various forms as well crank and heroin. So, should we just legalize them as well? Why stop at narcotics? Why not completely legalize prostitution? I mean after all every body likes to get a lil bit, so why stop at prostitution, why not just legalize rape? Afterall, everybody has sex? Why just let the blackmarket make a profit off of the sex trade, we'll just tax it. Why not just take the 2nd amendment to its full potential and allow everyone to own anything that can be fired from the shoulder? Why should the balck market arms dealers make a profit off of stinger missile systems? Let's allow anyone at a gun show to sell them and just tax them. Why should only contract killers make money off of murder for hire? Let's legalize it and tax them.

But, in all honesty, I do see your point. Legalize drugs, or at least marijuana, and the murder rate, burglary rate, assault, and theft rate will magically drop. WOW all it took was a few magicians sitting in front of their computers, typing and toking away, to figure out and solve all the world's problems.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

Legalize Marijuana since it is no more dangerous than the now legal drugs (alcohol & tobbaco) and decriminalize ALL drugs and treat it as a medical problem AND take the profit out of the black market.

Prostitution should be legal and taxed and regular medical exams for all prostitutes. Making it safer and take the profit away from the black market.

Rape is a violent crime against individuals (deprives them of their freedoms) and should be illegal and heavy penalty.

Guns, Yes but not fully automatic weapons and heavy equipment ie: flamethrower's, grenade launcher's etc... Guns for hunting game and target practice and self protection.

Your argument is very radical and silly. Apples & Oranges.
Iven :patty:
[/quote]


Apples and lawn furniture, I think. Of course, it's not a real argument that Dreadnaught believes in. On thhe other hand, nor are the comparisons reasonable enough to marginalize others' points by way of analogy.
Message: Posted by: irossall (Dec 7, 2012 11:33AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 10:26, Dreadnought wrote:

All the DEA agents I knew were involved with outlaw biker gangs, who control the meth trade, or looking into the cartels, not some snot nosed, 18 year old punk or washed up 60 year old hippie reliving the good old days.

Put the happy weed down and breath the fresh air.

Peace and Godspeed
[/quote]

"Washed up 60 year old hippie"

You truly are a peacful and tolerant person aren't you. We need more people who think the way you do. America would be a real nice place to live :righton: .
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 7, 2012 11:35AM)
So when is Obama going to pardon all the pot heads in prison?
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 11:45AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 12:27, irossall wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 10:10, Dreadnought wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 06:38, irossall wrote:
The real facts are:

1. People will always smoke pot as long as it is available.

2. No matter what penalty is put upon the user's of pot, people will still smoke pot (death penalty would probably be the exception).

3. The law of supply and demand will always be with us. So the question is, who should make the profit from sales? The Government or the "Black Market"?

4. If pot is so bad a drug (worse than tobbaco or alcohol) does jail cure the problem? or is it better to treat it as a medical problem and render medical help instead of incarceration.

5. The "War on Drugs" has not and is not working!!! Maybe it is time to try something else. What do we have to lose that we are not already losing?
Iven :patty:
[/quote]

The black market makes money off of cocaine in its various forms as well crank and heroin. So, should we just legalize them as well? Why stop at narcotics? Why not completely legalize prostitution? I mean after all every body likes to get a lil bit, so why stop at prostitution, why not just legalize rape? Afterall, everybody has sex? Why just let the blackmarket make a profit off of the sex trade, we'll just tax it. Why not just take the 2nd amendment to its full potential and allow everyone to own anything that can be fired from the shoulder? Why should the balck market arms dealers make a profit off of stinger missile systems? Let's allow anyone at a gun show to sell them and just tax them. Why should only contract killers make money off of murder for hire? Let's legalize it and tax them.

But, in all honesty, I do see your point. Legalize drugs, or at least marijuana, and the murder rate, burglary rate, assault, and theft rate will magically drop. WOW all it took was a few magicians sitting in front of their computers, typing and toking away, to figure out and solve all the world's problems.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

Legalize Marijuana since it is no more dangerous than the now legal drugs (alcohol & tobbaco) and decriminalize ALL drugs and treat it as a medical problem AND take the profit out of the black market.

Prostitution should be legal and taxed and regular medical exams for all prostitutes. Making it safer and take the profit away from the black market.

Rape is a violent crime against individuals (deprives them of their freedoms) and should be illegal and heavy penalty.

Guns, Yes but not fully automatic weapons and heavy equipment ie: flamethrower's, grenade launcher's etc... Guns for hunting game and target practice and self protection.

Your argument is very radical and silly. Apples & Oranges.
Iven :patty:
[/quote]

And you're an idiot.

You have never seen the affects of prostitution or drug usage, even marijuana, up close, except toking away in your house or dorm room. You've never taken a walk on the bad side of town. And I don't mean just passing by or through the first couple of streets. I mean walking eyeball deep in hell. People talk about a zombie apocalypse, then screw your courage to its sticking place and go into the areas of town where white people are scared to go and you will see the walking dead. Legalizing it does not mean the low life players involved now are going to take a back seat, they will just have carte blanche to legally do what they are already doing.

I was a gang officer. Our unit was trained by LAPD CRASH. I am pretty sure I can arrange for you to take a ride along with them. I can personally take you into parts of New Orleans and Atlanta where there is a SWAT team on constant call just in case the police need help. I can take you to places where the fire department and emt personnel will refuse to go until the police have cordoned off the area.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Dec 7, 2012 11:50AM)
"And you're an idiot"

"peace and godspeed."

I guess the words peace and godspeed have different meanings when you are big tough "gang officer".
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 7, 2012 11:52AM)
Boy comparing smoking a joint to murder is just the kind of BIZZARO talk that made it illegal in the first place 80 years ago. Dreadnought what the hell are you smoking?
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 12:05PM)
Prove to me I am wrong. I've seen the affects. I have seen people in need of pot break into a persons house and steal just to get stuff. I have seen people shot and killed over the stuff. I guarantee you, those who are part of the problem now, will not bow out peacefully, just because it is now legal.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 12:09PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 12:50, Slide wrote:
"And you're an idiot"

"peace and godspeed."

I guess the words peace and godspeed have different meanings when you are big tough "gang officer".
[/quote]

You're welcome.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Dec 7, 2012 12:16PM)
" I have seen people in need of pot break into a persons house and steal just to get stuff."

must have been some *** good stuff. :)

In prohibition we learned the simple fact that you can't legislate against 99% of people who have no problem with alcohol in order to protect society from the 1% that do. No one is saying that a person hasn't abused pot, just like alcohol. You can't protect the world from all danger. But to try and legislate against something that 99% of people don't have any problems with is wrong and unenforceable.

The fact that your experience is informed by your work as a "gang officer" disqualifies you since ALL you see is the worst case scenario.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 7, 2012 12:17PM)
For a God fearing man you sure know a lot of scum bags.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 12:19PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 13:17, Al Angello wrote:
For a God fearing man you sure know a lot of scum bags.
[/quote]

You're welcome.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Dec 7, 2012 12:23PM)
Was anyone thanking you?
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 12:23PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 13:16, Slide wrote:
" I have seen people in need of pot break into a persons house and steal just to get stuff."

must have been some *** good stuff. :)

In prohibition we learned the simple fact that you can't legislate against 99% of people who have no problem with alcohol in order to protect society from the 1% that do. No one is saying that a person hasn't abused pot, just like alcohol. You can't protect the world from all danger. But to try and legislate against something that 99% of people don't have any problems with is wrong and unenforceable.

The fact that your experience is informed by your work as a "gang officer" disqualifies you since ALL you see is the worst case scenario.
[/quote]

So the answer is to legalize it. Again why not leaglize all bad habits. And I don't think my experience disqualifies me. And what would be the greatest case scenario? Our youth start smoking legalized weed, injecting legalized heroin and all of sudden their science and math scores shoot through the roof?

As far as the 98% of the people go, that 98% is too stoned or blind to see the real problem.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 12:24PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 13:23, Slide wrote:
Was anyone thanking you?
[/quote]

You did.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Dec 7, 2012 12:25PM)
Yes, like alcohol, the answer is to legalize it.

You must know some gang officers on the take. Should we make "gang officers" illegal because a percentage of you are corrupt?
Message: Posted by: Slide (Dec 7, 2012 12:27PM)
"You did."

I thought so...you have a READING COMPREHENSION issue.

Perhaps you are dyslexic? Have you been treated? I hear a good hit of pot works wonders for dyslexia
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 12:28PM)
No, legalization is not the answer. Because I ask you, where does one draw the line on the legalization of vice and other criminal activity?

No,being "On the take" is criminalized.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 7, 2012 12:28PM)
[quote]On 2012-12-07 06:38, irossall wrote:
3. The law of supply and demand will always be with us.[/quote]
What, exactly, is [i]the law of supply and demand[/i]?
Message: Posted by: Slide (Dec 7, 2012 12:29PM)
Ah, so maybe we should just make it illegal to do something criminal while high on pot and leave the rest of the law abiding citizens alone.

You can't legislate against vices. Why do you think all vices should be illegal?
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 12:33PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 13:27, Slide wrote:
"You did."

I thought so...you have a READING COMPREHENSION issue.

Perhaps you are dyslexic? Have you been treated? I hear a good hit of pot works wonders for dyslexia
[/quote]

As a fact, I am dyslexic. But my reading comprehension scores are well above average. I told you thank you because you called me, "The tough gang officer." While I am not at all big, I was pretty "Tough." Considering I was attached to the outlaw biker section. But my real reason for telling you wou're welcome, was because I just took it as you thanking me for going places and dealing with people you are to scared to go into and deal with.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Dec 7, 2012 12:33PM)
Should we outlaw Catholic Priests? Seems a lot of them have a few vices.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Dec 7, 2012 12:34PM)
"Considering I was attached to the outlaw biker section. But my real reason for telling you wou're welcome, was because I just took it as you thanking me for going places and dealing with people you are to scared to go into and deal with. "

See that would be you not comprehending again.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 12:38PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 13:29, Slide wrote:
Ah, so maybe we should just make it illegal to do something criminal while high on pot and leave the rest of the law abiding citizens alone.

You can't legislate against vices. Why do you think all vices should be illegal?
[/quote]

It is illegal to operate a motor vehicle while stoned. And we do legislate against vices (wicked or immoral behavior) we still can't... oh I don't know...I'm going out on a limb here... kill, steal, defraud, disrupt the general peace of society....

Again, get out of your ivory tower and take a walk on the dark side, away from the nice up standing sort you from whom you buy your weed.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 12:39PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 13:34, Slide wrote:
"Considering I was attached to the outlaw biker section. But my real reason for telling you wou're welcome, was because I just took it as you thanking me for going places and dealing with people you are to scared to go into and deal with. "

See that would be you not comprehending again.
[/quote]

Oh my bad, you're the Outlaw biker here. Explains everything...carry on.

Peace and Godspeed
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 12:40PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 13:33, Slide wrote:
Should we outlaw Catholic Priests? Seems a lot of them have a few vices.
[/quote]

And apparently a great many more magicians.

The problem with the argument is you are talking about making a person illegal not a thing or an act. The drug dealer is not illegal, his action and product are illegal.

Peace and Godspeed
Message: Posted by: Slide (Dec 7, 2012 12:47PM)
Last time I checked Pedophilia was illegal.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Dec 7, 2012 12:48PM)
Are you for making drinking illegal? do you drink yourself?

How many "gang and biker related" incidents were the result of alcohol?
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 12:52PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 13:47, Slide wrote:
Last time I checked Pedophilia was illegal.
[/quote]

Again, the act is illegal, NOT the person.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Dec 7, 2012 12:55PM)
You didn't answer the question.

I'll repeat it.

Do you think alcohol should be made illegal?
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 12:56PM)
I drink occasionally, but it is legal. If it were made illegal, then I simply won't drink.

Alcohol bike related incidents? None of which I know. I mean, I never asked one of them to submit to a field sobriety test after raiding one of their meth labs.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 12:58PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 13:55, Slide wrote:
You didn't answer the question.

I'll repeat it.

Do you think alcohol should be made illegal?
[/quote]

One question at a time. Now answer mine. When do you plan on taking that walk on the bad side of town?

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Dec 7, 2012 01:09PM)
"When do you plan on taking that walk on the bad side of town? "

I can tell you where I won't be walking. Into your store to give you some business.

In all my years in business I found it is not a good idea to insult my customers no matter what they are smoking.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 01:15PM)
I really don't need your business. Anyway, you failed to answer. I'll answer that question for you as rehearsals are about to start...

You never have and never will, because you choose to live in your rose colored world. And not meaning to sound racists, which is always a good way to start a statement, if you're white, then I know you have never been on the truly bad side of town, because you're still alive. When you feel you have the courage to make that walk, let me know. And even if you are white, I know some white people you really don't have the back bone to meet. Just keep buying your hooch from that college kid, you're at least safe.

Peace and Godspeed
Message: Posted by: FatHatter (Dec 7, 2012 01:25PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 13:05, Dreadnought wrote:
Prove to me I am wrong. I've seen the affects. I have seen people in need of pot break into a persons house and steal just to get stuff. I have seen people shot and killed over the stuff. I guarantee you, those who are part of the problem now, will not bow out peacefully, just because it is now legal.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

I've seen the effects of fire, not pretty. People die, stuff gone. Fire illegal? Nope.
I've seen the effects of poverty, not pretty. Stealing to eat, breaking in to get shelter from elements. Poverty illegal? Nope.
I've seen the effects of... yeah I could go on and on. Point is life has bad stuff in it and one can't legislate it away.

Seen many people bootlegging these days?
Message: Posted by: FatHatter (Dec 7, 2012 01:33PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 13:28, Dreadnought wrote:
No, legalization is not the answer. Because I ask you, where does one draw the line on the legalization of vice and other criminal activity?




[/quote]

The line is drawn at a person committing an act on another person.
Guy gets high and beats someone down? Got a law to cover that don't we?
Guy gets high and steals stuff? Got a law to cover that don't we?
Guy gets high and rapes? Got a law to cover that don't we?
Guy gets high and crashes into someone? Got a law to cover that don't we?
Guy gets high and watches Family Guy? Throw the bum in jail? Nope. Did nothing to cause pain or loss to anyone. That is where the line is and we already have plenty of laws in place to cover actions committed on others. High, sober, or whatever makes no difference and it is impossible to effectively legislate a select groups morality in a supposedly free society.
Message: Posted by: FatHatter (Dec 7, 2012 01:45PM)
[quote]
Dreadnought wrote:


And not meaning to sound racists, which is always a good way to start a statement, if you're white, then I know you have never been on the truly bad side of town, because you're still alive. When you feel you have the courage to make that walk, let me know. And even if you are white, I know some white people you really don't have the back bone to meet. Just keep buying your hooch from that college kid, you're at least safe.


[/quote]

See Slide, Dreadnought is using your tactic of the all encompassing statement. No white guy can go there cause he would be dead. Each & every white guy on the planet. All of them. No exceptions at all, couldn't happen.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 7, 2012 02:31PM)
Some people just can't stand watching others have a little harmless fun.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 7, 2012 03:10PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 13:05, Dreadnought wrote:
Prove to me I am wrong. I've seen the affects. I have seen people in need of pot break into a persons house and steal just to get stuff. I have seen people shot and killed over the stuff. I guarantee you, those who are part of the problem now, will not bow out peacefully, just because it is now legal.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

The problem with your earlier appeal to authority is that there certainly ARE people who have vast law enforcement backgrounds who feel that things like pot and prostitution should be legal. So it's not as simple as "I've seen things that you haven't, and therefore I'm right and you're wrong."

People have been shot and killed over sneakers, too, and very few people suggest that they should be illegal. I don't dispute that some problems associated with pot and prostitution are inherent in pot and prostitution; however, other problems associated with them are exacerbated specifically by the fact that they're illegal. As a for instance, I haven't been to Amsterdam, but I do have a friend who is a retired police detective; in his words, "It's a lot safer being a prostitute there than it is in L.A." In particular, decriminalization allows for some regulation, like periodic testing, it allows for prostitutes to safely seek police help when needed without admitting to a criminal status, and it provides for safer working conditions. Legal employers just don't beat the heck out of their employers nearly as often as illegal ones do.

Now, these points may not persuade you that it should be legal, and I respect that. There are good arguments against prostitution being legal, and one has to weigh the pros and the cons. My only point is that there ARE pros and cons. "It's bad, so it should be illegal" isn't one of those good argument against it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 7, 2012 03:14PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 13:23, Dreadnought wrote:

So the answer is to legalize it. Again why not leaglize all bad habits. And I don't think my experience disqualifies me. And what would be the greatest case scenario? Our youth start smoking legalized weed, injecting legalized heroin and all of sudden their science and math scores shoot through the roof?

[/quote]

Your slippery slope argument works both ways. You think pot should be illegal. OK, why not make all bad habits illegal? We could put people in jail for drinking soda (caffeine is a very addictive drug), table salt (heart disease is the leading killer), betting a dollar on a football game, and even picking your nose. And what would be the greatest scenario? More police and prison jobs, and healthcare costs go down once everything that's bad for you is illegal.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 7, 2012 03:16PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 13:28, Dreadnought wrote:
No, legalization is not the answer. Because I ask you, where does one draw the line on the legalization of vice and other criminal activity?

[/quote]

Exactly where it's drawn now; arbitrarily and on an item-by-item basis. There's nobody (who isn't being ironic) here claiming that everything should be illegal, or that nothing should be. The question is which side of the line should certain things be on. Saying, "You think pot should be legal, so you may as well legalize cocaine" is as silly as saying "You think Cocaine should be illegal, so you may as well make beer illegal," Or Diet Coke, even...that Aspertame is a killer.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Dec 7, 2012 04:18PM)
"And not meaning to sound racists, which is always a good way to start a statement, if you're white, then I know you have never been on the truly bad side of town, because you're still alive."

Whether or not you meant to sound racist or not, you certainly SOUND racist.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Dec 7, 2012 04:21PM)
"I really don't need your business."

I congratulate you. You are the first businessman working a niche industry who has no problems alientating customers that I've ever met. You must be selling something behind the counter. :)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 7, 2012 04:24PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 17:21, Slide wrote:
You are the first businessman working a niche industry who has no problems alientating customers that I've ever met.
[/quote]

I've known a couple.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 7, 2012 04:28PM)
[quote]On 2012-12-07 16:16, LobowolfXXX wrote:
. . . arbitrarily and [i]on an item-by-item basis[/i].[/quote]
Eeeewwww!

I thought you were better than that, Lobo. Get rid of that awful "on a <fill in your favorite adjective> basis" construction and use an adverb. Adverbs are your friends:

. . . arbitrarily, and [i]item by item[/i].

;)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 7, 2012 04:33PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 17:28, S2000magician wrote:
Adverbs are your friends:
[/quote]

Hemingway didn't trust 'em, so I don't trust 'em!
Message: Posted by: critter (Dec 7, 2012 04:40PM)
"We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone."
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 07:51PM)
The problems with marijuana is that the stuff on the streets today is not the same stuff that was on the streets 30, even 20 years ago. The mid 90's saw a change in the potency of the product. And I am sure that everyone stoner here will back up their point with some scientific argument and I can provide an argument that states the opposite. From my experience, I have never seen anything good stem from the use marijuana or any illegal drug. Then... there is the abuse of perscription drugs, which is a whole other issue.

There is also a difference between sneakers and pot and Lobo, you know that. I've never seen a person stoned out of his mind and passed out at a stop light because he was wearing Air Jordans.

As for not needing Slide's business, I have another job, my main job, that doesn't allow me to be concerned whether or not he buys an invisible deck from us, in fact, the store is just a very small part of that particular business.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 7, 2012 07:56PM)
Certainly there's a difference between pot and sneakers; I was simply commenting on the "People commit crimes to get it" argument.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 7, 2012 09:21PM)
Dreadnought
The street pot around here was $5 for a nickle bag in 1965, and it had the power to give you the munchies and enjoy listening to music. The street pot in 2012 cost $400 an ounce and it has the power to give you the munchies, and enjoy listening to music. Dreadnought the potency, or price of pot has nothing to do with the overall effects. You know in the 1930's they said "one puff and you'll want to kill your mother" Please stop telling baseless stories.

Now who is talking about something they really know very little about?
Message: Posted by: longhaired1 (Dec 7, 2012 10:12PM)
As the population ages, more of us can compare our personal experience on the subject with the Reefer Madness'esque anecdotes from the Mean Streets, some of which we have witnessed on this thread. We see and know of thousands of people who hold steady jobs, own businesses, raise families, run for public office etc. who have used this herb in the past or continue to do so without having it destroy their lives. Fortunately the laws in many states are beginning to reflect this trend towards sanity on the subject.

Personally, I find it amusing when people refer to the "prohibition era" as a thing of past.

Setting aside Supercop's glorious anecdotes of people shooting each other with bazookas just to get a hit, the fact remains; The prohibition of herb has caused far more damage and destroyed far more lives than the effects of the use of herb.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 10:23PM)
Over the last few years, law enforcement officers have seen a rise in synthetic marijuana or engineered strands of marijuana being grown and manufactured here and in other countries. The weed that is, for the most part, out on the street now contains THC levels that are almost 20 times more than what was in the pot in the 70's and 80's and can be potentially harmful to children in the womb or so says the Center for Genetic and Environmental Medicine at Texas A&M University. But I am sure since you are the enlightened one, you know more than a bunch of university professors. So, carry on, and apparently in your stoned state you had trouble spelling Seattle.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 7, 2012 10:26PM)
That's funny. What you call syntheticly engineered the rest of us call it selective breeding. Please stop you are making me laugh. The selective breeding makes for stronger more expensive pot that has the exact same effect as the weaker stuff from long ago had.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 10:39PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 23:12, longhaired1 wrote:
As the population ages, more of us can compare our personal experience on the subject with the Reefer Madness'esque anecdotes from the Mean Streets, some of which we have witnessed on this thread. We see and know of thousands of people who hold steady jobs, own businesses, raise families, run for public office etc. who have used this herb in the past or continue to do so without having it destroy their lives. Fortunately the laws in many states are beginning to reflect this trend towards sanity on the subject.

Personally, I find it amusing when people refer to the "prohibition era" as a thing of past.

Setting aside Supercop's glorious anecdotes of people shooting each other with bazookas just to get a hit, the fact remains; The prohibition of herb has caused far more damage and destroyed far more lives than the effects of the use of herb.
[/quote]

That last part is not a fact. As I said earlier, I can find as many experts that will say the opposite. I suppose that following your logic, if pot is legalized, then people will stop being "Destroyed" by it. Also, how do you determine who ws hurt by the prohibition and who was hurt by the effects?

So, where do you err, on the side of caution or the side of risk? And more importantly where do you draw the line? Do you legalize just marijuana or do you legalize other drugs or all drugs? I say again, if marijuana is legalized, why not heroin, why not meth, why not cocaine?

I am well aware that there are those that have toked, snorted and injected everything and anything and have gone on to be doctors, lawyers and everything else. Just as there are those who are raging alcoholics and have gone on to lead very productive. There are even those who beat their wives on a regular basis and have gone on to lead super productive lives. But I have seen at least, as many who have not.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 10:42PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 23:26, Al Angello wrote:
That's funny. What you call syntheticly engineered the rest of us call it selective breeding. Please stop you are making me laugh. The selective breeding makes for stronger more expensive pot that has the exact same effect as the weaker stuff from long ago had.
[/quote]

No, it doesn't Al. Where is your proof. Very rarily, if ever have I ever entertained an argument from you because, well... you really make no argument other than just run off at the mouth with nothing of any substance. Not once during this entire discussion have you offered anything intelligent.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 7, 2012 11:05PM)
My proof is the good voters of both Colorado, and Washington state. Your opinions is based on prejudices from the past, and is rapidly becoming a minority opinion. Why do you need to step on other people's rights?
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 11:21PM)
First, my opinions are not based on prejudices from the past, unless you are talking about my personal experiences. Secondly, I don't recall anywhere in the U.S. Constitution that says one has the right to smoke hooch. So, please enlighten me.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: longhaired1 (Dec 7, 2012 11:22PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 23:39, Dreadnought wrote:

That last part is not a fact. As I said earlier, I can find as many experts that will say the opposite. I suppose that following your logic, if pot is legalized, then people will stop being "Destroyed" by it. Also, how do you determine who ws hurt by the prohibition and who was hurt by the effects?

So, where do you err, on the side of caution or the side of risk? And more importantly where do you draw the line? Do you legalize just marijuana or do you legalize other drugs or all drugs? I say again, if marijuana is legalized, why not heroin, why not meth, why not cocaine?

I am well aware that there are those that have toked, snorted and injected everything and anything and have gone on to be doctors, lawyers and everything else. Just as there are those who are raging alcoholics and have gone on to lead very productive. There are even those who beat their wives on a regular basis and have gone on to lead super productive lives. But I have seen at least, as many who have not.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

You are on the wrong side of history on this issue. The trend is towards decriminalization and legalization. A more sane approach to the issue as I said before.

Perhaps you can tell us about the marijuana overdoses you saw in your law enforcement career.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 11:23PM)
Also Al, your proof is not proof that selective breeding has not raised the THC level.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: longhaired1 (Dec 7, 2012 11:28PM)
Sorry. Hate to double reply to a post, but...

[quote]
On 2012-12-07 23:39, Dreadnought wrote:
I am well aware that there are those that have toked, snorted and injected everything and anything and have gone on to be doctors, lawyers and everything else. Just as there are those who are raging alcoholics and have gone on to lead very productive. There are even those who beat their wives on a regular basis and have gone on to lead super productive lives. But I have seen at least, as many who have not.
[/quote]

Just to be clear. Of the 100+ million Americans who have tried cannabis, you estimate 50 million had their lives destroyed from it? You state "at least as many did not (go on to lead productive lives)".

I think your numbers are way off...
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 11:32PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 00:22, longhaired1 wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 23:39, Dreadnought wrote:

That last part is not a fact. As I said earlier, I can find as many experts that will say the opposite. I suppose that following your logic, if pot is legalized, then people will stop being "Destroyed" by it. Also, how do you determine who ws hurt by the prohibition and who was hurt by the effects?

So, where do you err, on the side of caution or the side of risk? And more importantly where do you draw the line? Do you legalize just marijuana or do you legalize other drugs or all drugs? I say again, if marijuana is legalized, why not heroin, why not meth, why not cocaine?

I am well aware that there are those that have toked, snorted and injected everything and anything and have gone on to be doctors, lawyers and everything else. Just as there are those who are raging alcoholics and have gone on to lead very productive. There are even those who beat their wives on a regular basis and have gone on to lead super productive lives. But I have seen at least, as many who have not.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

You are on the wrong side of history on this issue. The trend is towards decriminalization and legalization. A more sane approach to the issue as I said before.

Perhaps you can tell us about the marijuana overdoses you saw in your law enforcement career.
[/quote]

Again, where is your evidence, besides your saying that I am on the wrong side of history.

I haven't seen anyone OD on marijuana. In fact, I never saw anyone OD on any drug. I have seen the effects of gang warfare over turf battles being waged over distribution. And I'm sure you'll say that was because of crimilization. And you may be right, but narcotics distribution is more than just marijuana. I have also seen two traffic fatalities, both of which showed no alcohol but THC levels. As a traffic officer, I have also arrested two people for driving under the influence of marijuana. There were the burglaries, the assaults, disturbing the peace the list goes on.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: longhaired1 (Dec 7, 2012 11:34PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 00:23, Dreadnought wrote:
Also Al, your proof is not proof that selective breeding has not raised the THC level.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

Outside of the fetal health issue, something that this 50 year old male doesn't really have to worry about (what with the lack of womb), how has this increase in potency affected the user? Are more Funyuns being consumed? Or are people getting all hopped up on this superdope and shooting each other with bazookas?
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 11:38PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 00:28, longhaired1 wrote:
Sorry. Hate to double reply to a post, but...

[quote]
On 2012-12-07 23:39, Dreadnought wrote:
I am well aware that there are those that have toked, snorted and injected everything and anything and have gone on to be doctors, lawyers and everything else. Just as there are those who are raging alcoholics and have gone on to lead very productive. There are even those who beat their wives on a regular basis and have gone on to lead super productive lives. But I have seen at least, as many who have not.
[/quote]

Just to be clear. Of the 100+ million Americans who have tried cannabis, you estimate 50 million had their lives destroyed from it? You state "at least as many did not (go on to lead productive lives)".

I think your numbers are way off...
[/quote]

I didn't claim to see 100 million people. I said, of the ones I have seen. Which means, of those who I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that smoked weed who went on to lead productive lives, there were as many that did not. I will say that those in this thread that have stated they are users and those who have not said it but obviously are, I will say that I have seen more that have used and are not the happy, productive citizens.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 7, 2012 11:43PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 23:39, Dreadnought wrote:
So, where do you err, on the side of caution or the side of risk?
[/quote]
Personally, with respect to pot (and prostitution), I err on the side of individual liberty, with the understanding that some people will misuse that liberty. That's sort of how things go, in a free society.

[quote]
And more importantly where do you draw the line? Do you legalize just marijuana or do you legalize other drugs or all drugs? I say again, if marijuana is legalized, why not heroin, why not meth, why not cocaine?
[/quote]
Where do YOU draw the line? If you want cocaine illegal, why not alcohol? Why not caffeine? You've said that you use alcohol. Alcohol is a drug. Period. It's not "not a drug" just because it's a [i]legal[/i] drug.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 11:48PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 00:34, longhaired1 wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 00:23, Dreadnought wrote:
Also Al, your proof is not proof that selective breeding has not raised the THC level.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

Outside of the fetal health issue, something that this 50 year old male doesn't really have to worry about (what with the lack of womb), how has this increase in potency affected the user? Are more Funyuns being consumed? Or are people getting all hopped up on this superdope and shooting each other with bazookas?
[/quote]

The effects are heightened, loss of coordination, problem solving capabilities, distorted perception. But the scariest thing you said is that youseem not to worry about the effects on someone one else. As long as you get your buzz, as long as you are happy, you aren't worried about someone else.

Also where did I ever say bazooka.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 11:54PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 00:43, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 23:39, Dreadnought wrote:
So, where do you err, on the side of caution or the side of risk?
[/quote]
Personally, with respect to pot (and prostitution), I err on the side of individual liberty, with the understanding that some people will misuse that liberty. That's sort of how things go, in a free society.

[quote]
And more importantly where do you draw the line? Do you legalize just marijuana or do you legalize other drugs or all drugs? I say again, if marijuana is legalized, why not heroin, why not meth, why not cocaine?
[/quote]
Where do YOU draw the line? If you want cocaine illegal, why not alcohol? Why not caffeine? You've said that you use alcohol. Alcohol is a drug. Period. It's not "not a drug" just because it's a [i]legal[/i] drug.
[/quote]

Yep that's how a free society rolls. As I just stated in the post right before this one, no one has to care about how it directly effects another person. As long as a person's perceived right to get high is ensured.

My alcohol comsumption is really miniscule and is protected by the first amendment. If one wants to make the same argument for marijuana then go ahead. Peyote is protected by the same amendment.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 7, 2012 11:55PM)
There's a difference between not worrying about others, and not using the power of the criminal justice system to discourage adults from freely choosing to participate in potentially dangerous activities. The latter rationale could be used to make table salt, football, and rock climbing illegal. That wouldn't my first choice for a society, but it could certainly be justified along the same rationale.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 11:57PM)
I think it is the same.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 7, 2012 11:57PM)
Is there a Supreme Court ruling on alcohol as a First Amendment issue? Not being sarcastic here; I'm genuinely curious.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 7, 2012 11:59PM)
Religion. Which I won't bring up here.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 8, 2012 12:03AM)
The debate here isn't a legal one, though; it's a moral one. I don't think that anyone here (with the exception of Al) thinks that marijuana IS legal; the question is whether it [i]should be[/i]. You've gone from talking about how marijuana destroys lives, then when the conversation shifts to alcohol, which you know darn well has destroyed lives too, you want to bring the First Amendment into it? The more relevant (and parallel to the marijuana discussion) question isn't whether alcohol is constitutionally protected, but whether or not it should be. What about caring about the people whose lives have been destroyed? When we shift to your chosen drug of choice, do you switch to the position you've been bashing continually? You don't care, as long as you have a constitutional right to use your drug?

With respect to your earlier comment about those who don't say that they're users "but obviously are," for the record, I'm not (and I'm not suggesting that you were implying that I am). My moral and political philosophy is not dictated by my personal tastes.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 8, 2012 12:04AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 00:59, Dreadnought wrote:
Religion. Which I won't bring up here.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

I don't want to drag religion into it, either. I was pretty sure that was what you meant; I just didn't know the Supreme Court had ruled on alcohol as a religious issue.
Message: Posted by: longhaired1 (Dec 8, 2012 12:05AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 00:59, Dreadnought wrote:
Religion. Which I won't bring up here.
[/quote]

Genesis 1:29-31

29: And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

God gave us pot.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 8, 2012 12:07AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 01:04, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 00:59, Dreadnought wrote:
Religion. Which I won't bring up here.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

I don't want to drag religion into it, either. I was pretty sure that was what you meant; I just didn't know the Supreme Court had ruled on alcohol as a religious issue.
[/quote]

Found it...rang a bell when I looked, but if I'd read it, I didn't remember it.
Message: Posted by: longhaired1 (Dec 8, 2012 12:08AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 00:48, Dreadnought wrote:

The effects are heightened, loss of coordination, problem solving capabilities, distorted perception. But the scariest thing you said is that you seem not to worry about the effects on someone one else. As long as you get your buzz, as long as you are happy, you aren't worried about someone else.

[/quote]

Dread, buddy. It sure doesn't take long for you to get personal.

Specifically:

[quote]
As long as you get your buzz, as long as you are happy, you aren't worried about someone else.
[/quote]

Care to explain?
Message: Posted by: longhaired1 (Dec 8, 2012 12:13AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 00:32, Dreadnought wrote:
I haven't seen anyone OD on marijuana. In fact, I never saw anyone OD on any drug.
[/quote]

Thank you. No one has seen anyone OD on marijuana.

[quote]
I have seen the effects of gang warfare over turf battles being waged over distribution. And I'm sure you'll say that was because of crimilization. And you may be right, but narcotics distribution is more than just marijuana.
[/quote]

Yes, I am right, and the battles you describe are based on money. You're inadvertently making some very compelling arguments in favor of legalization. I would like to see marijuana, an herb that most people could easily grow in their garage, taken out of the hands of the narcotics dealers.

I'm not completely unfamiliar with the subject. I was raised in Humboldt County, and was there when pot became a big business. I have stories to tell as well, but your and my personal anecdotes are just that... anecdotes.

[quote]
I have also seen two traffic fatalities, both of which showed no alcohol but THC levels.
[/quote]

That seems like a low number to me given how long THC remains detectable in the system, long after the person is under the influence.

[quote]
As a traffic officer, I have also arrested two people for driving under the influence of marijuana.
[/quote]

Again, a remarkably low number. I'm guessing you pulled over way more than that who were under the influence of marijuana and you weren't able to detect it.

[quote]
There were the burglaries, the assaults, disturbing the peace the list goes on.
[/quote]

And having know, loved and associated with herb users for four decades I have yet to see one (1) person use marijuana and, as a result of that useage, commit a burglary, an assault, or disturb the peace.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 8, 2012 12:18AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 01:13, longhaired1 wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 00:32, Dreadnought wrote:
I haven't seen anyone OD on marijuana. In fact, I never saw anyone OD on any drug.
[/quote]

Thank you. No one has seen anyone OD on marijuana.

[quote]
I have seen the effects of gang warfare over turf battles being waged over distribution. And I'm sure you'll say that was because of crimilization. And you may be right, but narcotics distribution is more than just marijuana.
[/quote]

Yes, I am right, and the battles you describe are based on money. You're inadvertently making some very compelling arguments in favor of legalization. I would like to see marijuana, an herb that most people could easily grow in their garage, taken out of the hands of the narcotics dealers.

I'm not completely unfamiliar with the subject. I was raised in Humboldt County, and was there when pot became a big business. I have stories to tell as well, but your and my personal anecdotes are just that... anecdotes.

[quote]
I have also seen two traffic fatalities, both of which showed no alcohol but THC levels.
[/quote]

That seems like a low number to me given how long THC remains detectable in the system, long after the person is under the influence.

[quote]
As a traffic officer, I have also arrested two people for driving under the influence of marijuana.
[/quote]

Again, a remarkably low number. I'm guessing you pulled over way more than that who were under the influence of marijuana and you weren't able to detect it.

[quote]
There were the burglaries, the assaults, disturbing the peace the list goes on.
[/quote]

And having know, loved and associated with herb users for four decades I have yet to see one (1) person use marijuana and, as a result of that useage, commit a burglary, an assault, or disturb the peace.
[/quote]

I agree with you regarding the inherent problems with criminalization (out of the hands of the dealers); however, I think the low levels of traffic incidents argue in Dread's favor. Surely, legalization would increase those numbers. Of the people who use any drug, a certain percentage drive. And a certain (nonzero) percentage of people will partly base their decisions on which drug(s) to use on whether or not they're legal.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 8, 2012 12:20AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 01:03, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The debate here isn't a legal one, though; it's a moral one. I don't think that anyone here (with the exception of Al) thinks that marijuana IS legal; the question is whether it [i]should be[/i]. You've gone from talking about how marijuana destroys lives, then when the conversation shifts to alcohol, which you know darn well has destroyed lives too, you want to bring the First Amendment into it? The more relevant (and parallel to the marijuana discussion) question isn't whether alcohol is constitutionally protected, but whether or not it should be. What about caring about the people whose lives have been destroyed? When we shift to your chosen drug of choice, do you switch to the position you've been bashing continually? You don't care, as long as you have a constitutional right to use your drug?

With respect to your earlier comment about those who don't say that they're users "but obviously are," for the record, I'm not (and I'm not suggesting that you were implying that I am). My moral and political philosophy is not dictated by my personal tastes.
[/quote]

It is a moral issue but I'm trying not to go that route. Now if someone wants to then the discussion takes on a whole new meaning and life.

I also did not intend to bring the first amendment into it. I merely told the truth. I do partake in alcohol although, the theology behind it takes us into an area I really don't want to go as I am sure others don't want to, or supposedly don't want to go. As to the Supreme Court ruling on it, I don't know that they have rule on it specifically, I think they ruled on Santaria animal sacrifices and certain Native American tribes using peyote.

[quote]You don't care, as long as you have a constitutional right to use your drug?[/quote] This involves religion. As I said, I don't want to go there, but at the same time, I won't let someone trample my faith and be advised I have a masters in Philosophy and a doctorate in Theology.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 8, 2012 12:21AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 00:57, Dreadnought wrote:
I think it is the same.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

While we're here, Dread, I hope that none of my posts directed at you is taken to reflect any sort of disrespect. I disagree with you vehemently on this issue, but I have a profound respect for your experience and rationale (though I think you're relying on some of the less-than-best arguments against pot).
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 8, 2012 12:24AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 01:20, Dreadnought wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 01:03, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The debate here isn't a legal one, though; it's a moral one. I don't think that anyone here (with the exception of Al) thinks that marijuana IS legal; the question is whether it [i]should be[/i]. You've gone from talking about how marijuana destroys lives, then when the conversation shifts to alcohol, which you know darn well has destroyed lives too, you want to bring the First Amendment into it? The more relevant (and parallel to the marijuana discussion) question isn't whether alcohol is constitutionally protected, but whether or not it should be. What about caring about the people whose lives have been destroyed? When we shift to your chosen drug of choice, do you switch to the position you've been bashing continually? You don't care, as long as you have a constitutional right to use your drug?

With respect to your earlier comment about those who don't say that they're users "but obviously are," for the record, I'm not (and I'm not suggesting that you were implying that I am). My moral and political philosophy is not dictated by my personal tastes.
[/quote]

It is a moral issue but I'm trying not to go that route. Now if someone wants to then the discussion takes on a whole new meaning and life.

[/quote]

I think that all discussions about whether something should or should not be legal are inherently moral ones, to an extent. When we're weighing individual liberties against the knowledge that some people will do great harm to themselves and others given those liberties, I think the moral aspect of the discussion plays a very large role.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 8, 2012 12:29AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 01:13, longhaired1 wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 00:32, Dreadnought wrote:
I haven't seen anyone OD on marijuana. In fact, I never saw anyone OD on any drug.
[/quote]

Thank you. No one has seen anyone OD on marijuana.

[quote]
I have seen the effects of gang warfare over turf battles being waged over distribution. And I'm sure you'll say that was because of crimilization. And you may be right, but narcotics distribution is more than just marijuana.
[/quote]

Yes, I am right, and the battles you describe are based on money. You're inadvertently making some very compelling arguments in favor of legalization. I would like to see marijuana, an herb that most people could easily grow in their garage, taken out of the hands of the narcotics dealers.

I'm not completely unfamiliar with the subject. I was raised in Humboldt County, and was there when pot became a big business. I have stories to tell as well, but your and my personal anecdotes are just that... anecdotes.

[quote]
I have also seen two traffic fatalities, both of which showed no alcohol but THC levels.
[/quote]

That seems like a low number to me given how long THC remains detectable in the system, long after the person is under the influence.

[quote]
As a traffic officer, I have also arrested two people for driving under the influence of marijuana.
[/quote]

Again, a remarkably low number. I'm guessing you pulled over way more than that who were under the influence of marijuana and you weren't able to detect it.

[quote]
There were the burglaries, the assaults, disturbing the peace the list goes on.
[/quote]

And having know, loved and associated with herb users for four decades I have yet to see one (1) person use marijuana and, as a result of that useage, commit a burglary, an assault, or disturb the peace.
[/quote]

Legalizing gambling did not necessarily take organized crime out of it, why should legalizing any illegal drug take the dealers out? People go to dealers to get perscription medication.

So you haven't seen any marijuana users comit any crime and????
I have.

I've arrested my fair share of DWIs. Most were alchol. As I said two fatalities were marijuana related. And two more were just DWIs. Marijuana is detected in the blood. There is a mathametical equation that an determine the amount of THC in the blood stream and how long ago it has been there. Just as there is a mathametical equation to determine the same for BAC.

And you choose to move into the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, that's nice.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 8, 2012 12:32AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 01:21, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 00:57, Dreadnought wrote:
I think it is the same.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

While we're here, Dread, I hope that none of my posts directed at you is taken to reflect any sort of disrespect. I disagree with you vehemently on this issue, but I have a profound respect for your experience and rationale (though I think you're relying on some of the less-than-best arguments against pot).
[/quote]

I got my reasons. As I said, I have never seen anything good come from marijuana.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 8, 2012 01:01AM)
[quote]With respect to your earlier comment about those who don't say that they're users "but obviously are," for the record, I'm not (and I'm not suggesting that you were implying that I am). My moral and political philosophy is not dictated by my personal tastes. [/quote]

I know you aren't.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: longhaired1 (Dec 8, 2012 01:15AM)
On 2012-12-08 01:29, Dreadnought wrote:
[quote]
So you haven't seen any marijuana users comit any crime and????
[/quote]

And yet, Dreadnought, you and I both know that I didn't say that, did I? For the sake of efficiency in the discussion maybe you could not do that. You know, responding to things people aren't saying. Probably best if we stay focused.

[quote]
I've arrested my fair share of DWIs. Most were alchol. As I said two fatalities were marijuana related. And two more were just DWIs. [/quote]

I wasn't questioning your numbers. I'm curious if you have an idea how many people you pulled over who were under the effects of marijuana but went undetected. I'm interested that you only wrote two marijuana related DWI's when I think you and I can both agree, there are a lot of people using herb and driving. Would you say that is about average for a career in law enforcement?


[quote]
And you choose to move into the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, that's nice.
[/quote]

Nope. Posted it sans interpretation. I did however point out, correctly, that God made pot.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 8, 2012 02:03AM)
Let me replay it for you. You said:
[quote]And having know, loved and associated with herb users for four decades I have yet to see one (1) person use marijuana and, as a result of that useage, commit a burglary, an assault, or disturb the peace. [/quote]

My DWIs usually came by way of a special DWI task force. So, probably none, as long as they blew into the tube or refused it didn't matter to me. Some had weed on them but DWI under influence of alcohol or schedule narcotic was the same.

Average for law enforcement, I don't know, depends on where you are, what agency and what your duties are.

God made poison ivy as well, doesn't mean you want to plant it in your garden.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 8, 2012 02:09AM)
There is a private school here in the news this week: They suspended a teacher as he would not submit to a random drug test. Now all the teachers are on strke.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 8, 2012 07:43AM)
Drednought
The THC level does not alter the effect in any way shape or form no matter how high the THC level is the effect is exactly the same. You can buy a $5 bottle of wine, or a $500 bottle of wine the results will be the same. I suggest that you do your homework before you stick your foot in your mouth again.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 8, 2012 07:59AM)
Tell the people at Texas A&M that.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 8, 2012 08:19AM)
I give up. There is no amount of solid proof that will change your preconcieved notions. So stick your head in the sand, and be an old fart for the rest of your sad life.

BTW
I've been to Athens Ga. and not everybody in that cool college town is as up tight as you are my strange friend. LOL
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Dec 8, 2012 08:19AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-06 08:23, Al Angello wrote:
With that kind of money to be had there will be lots of domino's fall in 2013, and the DEA will all have to go out and get real jobs. LOL
[/quote]

Don't be silly. There's still cocaine, crack and heroin not to mention designer drugs. There's plenty out there for the DEA to do.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 8, 2012 08:27AM)
Yes Ed
But the day of busting the gentle peace loving pot smoker is over. In the future the DEA will not be able to make a living busting the low hanging fruit.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 8, 2012 09:08AM)
And the gun toting pot dealer?

Peace and Godspeed
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Dec 8, 2012 09:19AM)
I had such a blissful sheltered childhood I don't remember any awareness of drugs until 14 when I saw the movie The Cross and The Switchblade at Church, and from that I assumed drugs were something Negroes did in Harlem. The other day I came across something about world's worst parents and there's pics of parents sharing bongs with their 10 year olds. What a world!

I don't use the demon weed myself and wouldn't if it was legal, but I suspect I know more people who indulge, than don't. I would tell anyone who asked me that I think it's better not to use drugs or alcohol. I think life is pretty good without them and can't see how they would enhance my life. I also know people who use drugs to increase their enjoyment of life only to have the opposite happen - either through dependence or the increased financial burden. I have a friend who smokes so much of the stuff I'll swear he doesn't get high - it just keeps him normal. I can be normal without spending $300 a week on grass.

But although I am anti drug use I would vote in favour of decriminalisation, so long as there were increased penalties for any other crime associated with the drug use. Drive a car under the influence - no more licence, commit a robbery to buy the stuff - increased sentence, give it to a child - throw away the keys etc.

Because the majority of people I know who smoke grass are normal, law abiding citizens beyond their drug use. Why should their drug use be criminalised when it does not result in them doing anything that impacts negatively on the rest of society?

The main argument for a fresh approach though is that the present approach just plain doesn't work. For the untold wealth that is squandered in the war on drugs - the money wasted on finding crops, stopping the smuggling, catching the dealers and users, prosecuting them and providing for them behind bars - and still anyone who wants to use the stuff does. I do not know one person who says 'I don't use it because it's illegal.'

If our governments spent that much money on something like say... finding oil, without result, we would be rioting in the streets, but we are fine with them p!ssing this money down the drain with the result that anyone who wants to use drugs is using them, either at home, or in prison. If we can't even stop drug use in prison, how do we stop it in a free society?
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 8, 2012 09:53AM)
Drednought
In Pennsylvania the pot dealers are more likely to carry a concealed harmonica, or an ipod. You can't spread lies and assume that the gullible general public will automatically believe your baseless fairy tales.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 8, 2012 09:55AM)
I can agree with the stiffer and more severe penalties if the stuff has to be legalized. I think the penalties have to actually hurt. Too many people just pay their fine over time and serve probation, and I blame the prosecutors for that. In New Orleans, at one point, the joke was: if you commit a murder, just be sure to run a stop sign so the DA can drop the murder charge and you can plead to the disobeying a stop sign.

Peace and Godspeed
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 8, 2012 10:16AM)
400,000 Americans die each year from the advance complications of tobacco addiction, 100,000 Americans die each year from the advance complications of alcohol addiction, but nobody in recorded history has ever died, or gotten sick from smoking pot. It's illegal today because of do some gooders in the 1930's panicked when they found out that other people were having too much fun.
Message: Posted by: irossall (Dec 8, 2012 11:25AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 13:28, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2012-12-07 06:38, irossall wrote:
3. The law of supply and demand will always be with us.[/quote]
What, exactly, is [i]the law of supply and demand[/i]?
[/quote]

Excuse me please if I don't have as good a vocabulary, spelling, or understanding of the rules of English language (no disrespect to you, just trying to answer your question).

My understanding of "the law of supply and demand" is as follows:
As long as enough people have a desire to aquire something (demand) AND that something is either hard to get or illegal, someone will do their best to make it available (supply) so they can make a nice profit from selling it. Legal or not, there seems to always be someone willing to do the work and take the risk to make sure that "demand" is satisfied.
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: irossall (Dec 8, 2012 11:42AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-07 12:45, Dreadnought wrote:

[/quote]

And you're an idiot.

You have never seen the affects of prostitution or drug usage, even marijuana, up close, except toking away in your house or dorm room. You've never taken a walk on the bad side of town. And I don't mean just passing by or through the first couple of streets. I mean walking eyeball deep in hell. People talk about a zombie apocalypse, then screw your courage to its sticking place and go into the areas of town where white people are scared to go and you will see the walking dead. Legalizing it does not mean the low life players involved now are going to take a back seat, they will just have carte blanche to legally do what they are already doing.

I was a gang officer. Our unit was trained by LAPD CRASH. I am pretty sure I can arrange for you to take a ride along with them. I can personally take you into parts of New Orleans and Atlanta where there is a SWAT team on constant call just in case the police need help. I can take you to places where the fire department and emt personnel will refuse to go until the police have cordoned off the area.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]



Thank You for calling me an Idiot. Comming from you, that is a compliment.

I find it funny that you know so much about my past. You are correct, I did not take a "walk on the bad side of town" I lived for a number of years in the bad side of town (San Francisco's "Tenderloin District") both on the street and in cheap motels. Yes, I did see many "Zombie" types and some very dangerous people. Most of them were hooked on Alcohol, Heroin, Speed etc... I was mugged in 1984 by an Alcoholic (still don't know why exactly) while sleeping in my sleeping bag on the corner of Golden Gate & Market street. I lost my job because of the mugging (could not do my job with a broken arm in a cast).

Most of the "Hookers" I've met were very nice, it was their "Pimps" I was leary of.

I'm sure you don't believe what I say and that is ok. You have made up your mind and nothing will change it.

I won't call you an Idiot (I was raise better) but I will call you a closed minded person who refuses to consider anything but your own prejeduce or bias (please excuse my bad spelling, I really am smarter than I sound).

God Speed to you Sir.
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Dec 8, 2012 12:02PM)
I'm surprised (and a bit disappointed) at how personal Dreadnought has been in this thread, as he is usually polite and patient. Iven is most certainly not an idiot, and I hope Dreadnought finds an apology at his fingers soon.

Some topics touch us a little more closely than others.

I have no strong opinion on the legalization of pot, but I do find that most of the advocates greatly underplay its negative effect on judgment and its positive effects on everything from curing cancer to building peace love and brotherhood. On the former point, I do have a small anecdote.

The last time I smoked pot was about 20 years ago. I was with some friends and one couple had their less-than-one-year-old daughter with them. The mother, who had partaken, had the daughter on her lap and reached out with her right hand to pick up a freshly poured cup of coffee. On autopilot she brought the steaming hot coffee cup to her daughter's lips. Thankfully, the daughter was not harmed, but the adults were all rather shaken, and I still tremble as I write this, thinking of what other things could be done on autopilot.

John
Message: Posted by: irossall (Dec 8, 2012 12:14PM)
No apology needed. As implied, this is a touchy and emotional subject and obviously Dreadnought has his story and reasons for getting emotional. He spoke his truth and for that reason, I don't believe he is just being rude to have fun or to hurt feelings.
Most of us speak from our own experience and a little from what we read or hear on the news.
If I was offended (I was a little but I can handle it) it was his remark about my not knowing what the "bad side of town" was like. How would or could he know? that's all.
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Dec 8, 2012 12:44PM)
You "don't know" because you are not agreeing with him.

If you "knew," then obviously you would agree with his interpretation of the facts.

I'm never going to say marijuana is harmless in any way shape or form.

I just don't think it's the killer drug it's been presented as for so many years.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Dec 8, 2012 12:49PM)
I was NOPD homicide. My former uniformed partner along with his new partner answered a call about a disturbance in the street in the Calliope projects. They turned onto South Galvez and found a young black male lying in the street bleeding and unconscious. Witnesses pointed to one of the apartments in the project and said the person who attacked the youth was living there. The officers approached the apartment and the door swung open and they were shot dead in the parking lot, with a 12 gage at point blank range. Witnesses said the killer, Damon Clark, was "Smoking weed" all day and the fight erupted over a dominos game. The bag of weed was found and forensics IDed it as cannabis laced with Phencyclidine aka Angel Dust. Clark barricaded himself in the house and NOPD SWAT took care of business.

In my opinion, legalize it if you want but nothing good comes from marijuana. And trust me damage from a 12 gage at point blank range is the stuff of nightmares, and that dusted weed... it was bought off the street like that, happy toking.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: longhaired1 (Dec 8, 2012 12:56PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 13:49, Dreadnought wrote:
I was NOPD homicide. My former uniformed partner along with his new partner answered a call about a disturbance in the street in the Calliope projects. They turned onto South Galvez and found a young black male lying in the street bleeding and unconscious. Witnesses pointed to one of the apartments in the project and said the person who attacked the youth was living there. The officers approached the apartment and the door swung open and they were shot dead in the parking lot, with a 12 gage at point blank range. Witnesses said the killer, Damon Clark, was "Smoking weed" all day and the fight erupted over a dominos game. The bag of weed was found and forensics IDed it as cannabis laced with Phencyclidine aka Angel Dust. Clark barricaded himself in the house and NOPD SWAT took care of business.

In my opinion, legalize it if you want but nothing good comes from marijuana. And trust me damage from a 12 gage at point blank range is the stuff of nightmares, and that dusted weed... it was bought off the street like that, happy toking.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

You do realize that was a PCP anecdote, don't you?
Message: Posted by: irossall (Dec 8, 2012 12:57PM)
Would Legal Marijuana have "Angel Dust". Your argument sounds like a good reason to legalize AND control Marijuana.
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Dec 8, 2012 01:05PM)
I too think about the effect on kids. Surely nobody would want their child to grow up and become a pot head or dope dealer. Then why allow others to set examples by saying it's ok and making it legal.

I'm with Dreadnought, nothing good can ever come from it.

Tom
Message: Posted by: irossall (Dec 8, 2012 01:24PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 14:05, TomBoleware wrote:
I too think about the effect on kids. Surely nobody would want their child to grow up and become a pot head or dope dealer. Then why allow others to set examples by saying it's ok and making it legal.

I'm with Dreadnought, nothing good can ever come from it.

Tom
[/quote]

I don't want my Daughter to grow up an alcoholic. By your reasoning, alcohol should not be legal, advertised or openly displayed on store shelves.

What "good" is outlawing Marijuana? Our jails are full of "potheads", the "black market" is thriving and there is the possibility that purchasing on the black market could get one killed ie: robbed, tainted pot and exposure to other more harmful drugs.

As I stated before, what good has the "War On Drugs" done?

At least those who are for Legalization have come up some answer's but those who appose legalization have not given any tangible answers exept to continue the "War" and keeping the black market in business and makeing more money than ever. I would like those who are against the legalization and control of Marijuana to come up with a working solution. Let's here it, OK.
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: irossall (Dec 8, 2012 01:28PM)
President Obama smoked plenty of weed in his youth. How did he ever become a Senator and now President of the United States. Why is he not a "Zombie" whacked out of his mind? Why did he not get "addicted" to Marijuana? Why did he not go on to use Heroin?
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 8, 2012 02:02PM)
Oh. Who's being naive, Kay? :)
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Dec 8, 2012 03:56PM)
Iven,

I can't speak for Obama but I can for Cody the four year old, he will never speak right himself because his mom thought it was ok to smoke weed while she was pregnant. Her friends convinced her marijuana was harmless to everybody.

I can speak for Josh a recent new born who will probably never be right because his parents mixed Marijuana and God knows what.

I can also speak for Summer, a cute little nine year old that lost her parents because they smoked a little too much and both ended up in prison.

But still, you are right, there are no good answers to satisfy everyone.

Stopping the users is the only real answer I see, and then the dealers will go away. But that's not about to happen.

Tom
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 8, 2012 04:01PM)
I suppose a ventriloquist has some right to speak for another - as entertainment.

Now about those who drink, smoke, eat poorly, convey anti-social ideas to defenseless children... we seem to have a market for alcohol and sick ideas so let's not fret over one while the others are taking thousands of lives a year - okay?

drive safe - type safer

j
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 8, 2012 04:53PM)
Well it's all very well saying lets not fret but as we all know, the family members of a Pot Head person end up stepping into caretaker roles, which often requires them to change their daily routines or activities. A person with Pot Head tendencies often needs reminders and assistance when it comes to basic things like eating and bathing. Moreover family members of a Pot Head, unless they have received medical advice from a professional, often don't know how to react to the bizarre things a Pot Head will say or how to deal with a Pot Head episode.
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Dec 8, 2012 05:13PM)
J, I don't speak out for the little ones to entertain, I do it because they can't speak for themselves. I know all those above personally, and more. Not only am I obligated to protect children, I have a right to and feel good about speaking out for them when it's in their best interest. I say, let's leave the drugs with the doctors, okay.

Tom
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 8, 2012 07:52PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 18:13, TomBoleware wrote:
J, I don't speak out for the little ones to entertain, I do it because they can't speak for themselves. I know all those above personally, and more. Not only am I obligated to protect children, I have a right to and feel good about speaking out for them when it's in their best interest. I say, let's leave the drugs with the doctors, okay.

Tom
[/quote]

Are you a non-drinker?
Message: Posted by: FatHatter (Dec 8, 2012 08:17PM)
What ever happened to mind your own business?
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 8, 2012 08:24PM)
I gave up both tobacco and alcohol decades ago because they were bad for my health, but as an ex drinker, and smoker I still have empathy for the addict.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 8, 2012 09:39PM)
What does your doctor say about you smoking marijuana?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Dec 8, 2012 10:10PM)
LOL, I really doubt he's told his doctor.
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Dec 8, 2012 11:15PM)
I was hooked on tobacco for 45 years, gave it up a few years back. Just stopped cold turkey. Drank alcohol a little off and on but never got hooked on it. I never had any desire for marijuana. Had some friends that used it many years ago, but like most they stopped or either moved on to something else that killed them. Come to think of it, I don't know any older drug addicts.

I'm against any drug use simply because I've seen how it can destroy families. It's hardly ever just the user that gets hurt, other family members are usually dragged down with them.

I don't trust any of the so called 'facts' about marijuana. I think most are just made up numbers by those who use it.

Tom
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Dec 8, 2012 11:51PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 14:28, irossall wrote:
President Obama smoked plenty of weed in his youth. How did he ever become a Senator and now President of the United States. Why is he not a "Zombie" whacked out of his mind? Why did he not get "addicted" to Marijuana? Why did he not go on to use Heroin?
Iven :patty:
[/quote]

I agree and would point out that marijuana is NOT a gateway drug and most users are hardly what you would call pot-heads. If you don't like it, don't smoke it. It's all about personal responsibility and LESS government intrusion into our private lives.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Dec 9, 2012 04:18AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 14:05, TomBoleware wrote:
I too think about the effect on kids. Surely nobody would want their child to grow up and become a pot head or dope dealer. Then why allow others to set examples by saying it's ok and making it legal.

I'm with Dreadnought, nothing good can ever come from it.

Tom
[/quote]

I don't want my kids smoking or drinking either. I do this by not smoking and/or drinking myself and letting them know why. I do NOT do this by lobbying to have smoking and/or drinking outlawed and the people who do it arrested and thrown into prison.
Message: Posted by: irossall (Dec 9, 2012 05:30AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 16:56, TomBoleware wrote:
Iven,

I can't speak for Obama but I can for Cody the four year old, he will never speak right himself because his mom thought it was ok to smoke weed while she was pregnant. Her friends convinced her marijuana was harmless to everybody.

I can speak for Josh a recent new born who will probably never be right because his parents mixed Marijuana and God knows what.

I can also speak for Summer, a cute little nine year old that lost her parents because they smoked a little too much and both ended up in prison.

But still, you are right, there are no good answers to satisfy everyone.

Stopping the users is the only real answer I see, and then the dealers will go away. But that's not about to happen.

Tom
[/quote]

Sorry to hear about those kids BUT:

Pregnant Women should not take anything into their bodies but good food and drink not alcohol or any drug not prescribed by a physician.

Josh's parents should not do Marijuana laced with other "God Knows What" PCP? Heroin? Draino?

Summer's Parents were thrown in prison? What did they do besides smoke Marijuana? Prison is a real problem in itself.

Marijuana doesn't seem to be the main problem here. The problem was using adultrated Marijuana and using while pregnant. Going to prison is part of the War on Drugs.

I don't say that pregnant Women should smoke anything but in jamaica Thousands of pregnant Women use Marijuana in various forms and I don't hear these horror stories about them. Also, the Majority of Jamaican's have used Marijuana for many purposes from the cradle to the grave. If Marijuana was so bad, why don't we hear about it? Jamaica should be in the news and those who are against the legalization of Marijuana should be plasetering the media with tons of horror stories to get their point across.

I would still like to hear a solution to the Marijuana "Problem" from those who are against it. All I hear is how bad it is and no body should do it and it should be illegal. Well, it is illegal and thousands if not millions are doing it. Anyone have a plan, an idea of how to stop the use of this evil weed? I would like to hear a solution, not just stories.
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 9, 2012 09:15AM)
Tommy
I PMed you the answer.

Rockwall
Your cynicism always amuses me.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 9, 2012 10:05AM)
Thanks Al but it was an open question to anyone really. I was merely wondering what were doctors saying in general to people who are pot smokers.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 9, 2012 10:30AM)
Here Tommy

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/the-human-condition/2009/11/13/the-american-medical-association-reconsiders-marijuana-will-the-justice-department-follow.html
Message: Posted by: longhaired1 (Dec 9, 2012 02:26PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-09 11:05, tommy wrote:
Thanks Al but it was an open question to anyone really. I was merely wondering what were doctors saying in general to people who are pot smokers.
[/quote]

It was years ago but the conversation during an exam went something like this:

"Any drug use?"
"Occassionally some herb. That's about it."
"I'm not too worried about that."
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 9, 2012 03:49PM)
A witch doctor was originally a type of healer who treated ailments believed to be caused by witchcraft. I wonder how the exam went. Had any dizzy spells?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 9, 2012 04:31PM)
There's some talk about targeting violence rather than consumption as an interim measures. [url=http://www.seguridadcondemocracia.org/administrador_de_carpetas/OCO-IM/pdf/Kleiman-SurgicalStrikesDrugWarsFA.pdf]link to article[/url]

Workplace drug use policies may be a simpler approach

Then again we are facing some entrenched hypocrisy here so ... will see how denial flows
Message: Posted by: longhaired1 (Dec 9, 2012 04:34PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-09 17:31, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Workplace drug use policies may be a simpler approach
[/quote]

It will be interesting to see how workplace drug policies change in states where is herb legalized.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 9, 2012 04:38PM)
It's not a matter of legal - alcohol is legal yet testing as positive for that stuff in your system is not okay at the workplace.

Same for driving (while impaired)
Message: Posted by: longhaired1 (Dec 9, 2012 04:59PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-09 17:38, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
It's not a matter of legal - alcohol is legal yet testing as positive for that stuff in your system is not okay at the workplace.

Same for driving (while impaired)
[/quote]

Agreed, but isn't it the case that testing for illegal drugs is not limited to being under the influence at the workplace?

And, not to nitpick, consumption of alcohol is acceptable in some work situations.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 9, 2012 05:26PM)
Yes like I said above, teachers are now being required to take random drug tests. Like as in prison. A work contract will come with: “I am willing to take a random drug test,” If you want a job when in prison, rather than being locked up there 23 hours a day, then they ask you to sign such a contract.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 9, 2012 06:10PM)
Tommy
So you think that it is ok to kill yourself with tobacco, or alcohol? While killing your self with a gun or a knife is illegal, and marijuana which has never made anyone sick is an evil drug.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 9, 2012 06:18PM)
You can kill with anything you like for all I care. It all helps to reduce the poulation. Save the planet!
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Dec 9, 2012 06:47PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-09 11:30, Al Angello wrote:
Here Tommy

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/the-human-condition/2009/11/13/the-american-medical-association-reconsiders-marijuana-will-the-justice-department-follow.html
[/quote]

"This should not be viewed as an endorsement of state-based medical cannabis programs, the legalization of marijuana, or that scientific evidence on the therapeutic use of cannabis meets the current standards for a prescription drug product"

Hardly the rousing endorsement you would like it to be.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Dec 9, 2012 07:06PM)
Here is the AMA's current position:

[quote]Yet despite how the culture around pot has changed, defenders of the current federal policy have clung to a prominent, and trusted, ally to back them: the American Medical Association, which the justice department often cites when enforcing marijuana policy.

So it it might have come as a surprise on Tuesday when the AMA announced that, after 72 years, it was reversing its pot policy—and urged the federal government to do the same. Precipitated by a similar decision by the group’s Medical Student Section, the AMA resolved that “that marijuana’s status as a federal Schedule 1 controlled substance be reviewed,” with the goal of facilitating clinical research, [b]and presented a new medical report, conducted by its Council on Science and Public Health, laying out the drug’s various medical benefits.[/b]

The AMA hopes the resolution will make clinical research on cannabis—long a roadblock in proving that the substance was ill-classified—a more-easily obtained reality. At present, getting the necessary clearance to study a Schedule 1 drug is a near-impossible bureaucratic nightmare that involves multiple government agencies, and purchase of notoriously low-potency pot from the government’s only legal growth facility, at the University of Mississippi. As a result, “only a small number of randomized, controlled trials have been conducted on smoked cannabis,” physician (and AMA board member) Edward Langston told the Los Angeles Times earlier this week.

Tthe AMA move is a powerful symbolic gesture—"a huge shift in medical ideology," says the medical student who spearheaded the resolution—and demolishes the long-held pot prohibitionist claim that "no sound scientific studies have supported medical use of smoked marijuana.”
[emphasis added]
[/quote]

Hardly a rousing argument against marijuana.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 9, 2012 07:09PM)
Will the government be adding it to the water? To some it would be a blissful release from the depression.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Dec 9, 2012 07:44PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-09 20:06, mastermindreader wrote:
...
Hardly a rousing argument against marijuana.
[/quote]

True Bob, but I'm not the one claiming that it's completely harmless, has never hurt anyone ever ever, and will cure all of mankinds ills. (OK, so a certain someone hasn't made that last claim but I'm expecting to see it anytime now.)
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 9, 2012 08:00PM)
Rockwall
They have declared marijuana completely harmless in two states so far.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 9, 2012 08:09PM)
[quote]On 2012-12-09 21:00, Al Angello wrote:
They have declared marijuana completely harmless in two states so far.[/quote]
What, exactly, does it mean to declare it completely harmless?

It's not as if they've proven that that's so.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Dec 9, 2012 08:58PM)
I'm not aware of any state or authority declaring marijuana to be completely harmless. Not many things are if they are abused or used to excess. While I'm in favor of legalization as I see it to be a matter of personal choice, I think it is probably at least as hard on the lungs as tobacco.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 9, 2012 09:04PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-09 21:00, Al Angello wrote:
Rockwall
They have declared marijuana completely harmless in two states so far.
[/quote]

Saying things like this doesn't really advance the claim that it doesn't impair your ability tobthink rationally.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 9, 2012 09:15PM)
Well no, what they have done is declared marijuana a right. What is the opposite of a right but a wrong? You see it's a psychological mind trick. The message is, it is wrong not to take marijuana. Now why would the powers that be want to encourage the population to take marijuana I wonder? Well, as all know, the big idea behind everything that they do is population control. Men who smoke marijuana frequently have significantly less seminal fluid, a lower total sperm count and their sperm behave abnormally, all of which may affect fertility adversely, a new study in reproductive physiology at the University at Buffalo has shown. Hmmmm. So just perhaps marijuana is saving the planet. So are homosexuals of course, which is why the powers that be gave we the people the word gay instead of homosexual. Gay means happy and what are you if you not gay but unhappy. Hmmmm. The right to engage in perpetual war, a so called strategy dreamt up and declared Ex CIA Director David Petraeus can not be a wrong. That has helped save the planet. Hmmmm. Thank you for your service.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Dec 9, 2012 09:19PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-09 22:04, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-12-09 21:00, Al Angello wrote:
Rockwall
They have declared marijuana completely harmless in two states so far.
[/quote]

Saying things like this doesn't really advance the claim that it doesn't impair your ability tobthink rationally.
[/quote]

LOL. Best response yet Lobo. Gave me a good laugh.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 9, 2012 09:23PM)
If they can't find a good reason to make it illegal that is as close as you are going to get to a declaration of pot being a totally harmless medicinal herb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvGJvzwKqg0
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 9, 2012 09:24PM)
Gay pot smoking peace loving killers make ideal citizens. Hail the chief!
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 9, 2012 10:02PM)
[quote]On 2012-12-09 22:23, Al Angello wrote:
If they can't find a good reason to make it illegal that is as close as you are going to get to a declaration of pot being a totally harmless medicinal herb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvGJvzwKqg0
[/quote]
So, in short, they haven't declared it completely harmless.

Got it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 9, 2012 10:05PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-09 22:23, Al Angello wrote:
If they can't find a good reason to make it illegal that is as close as you are going to get to a declaration of pot being a totally harmless medicinal herb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvGJvzwKqg0
[/quote]

And yet, you've pointed out many times the harmful effects of tobacco and alcohol, which by your logic have been declared "completely harmless" in 50 states.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Dec 9, 2012 10:17PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-09 22:19, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-12-09 22:04, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-12-09 21:00, Al Angello wrote:
Rockwall
They have declared marijuana completely harmless in two states so far.
[/quote]

Saying things like this doesn't really advance the claim that it doesn't impair your ability to think rationally.
[/quote]

LOL. Best response yet Lobo. Gave me a good laugh.
[/quote]

I guess we do agree on some things after all!
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 9, 2012 10:23PM)
What does completely harmless mean when as Bat Masterson said 'There are more ways to kill a dog than by choking him to death with a piece of custard pie.'
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 9, 2012 10:55PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-09 06:30, irossall wrote:
I would still like to hear a solution to the Marijuana "Problem" from those who are against it. All I hear is how bad it is and no body should do it and it should be illegal. Well, it is illegal and thousands if not millions are doing it. Anyone have a plan, an idea of how to stop the use of this evil weed? I would like to hear a solution, not just stories.
Iven :patty:
[/quote]

Personally, I'm not against it. People do all sorts of things that are illegal, and lots of people do most of them. The fact that thousands if not millions of people smoke pot isn't much of an argument against it. One could just as easily say, "hundreds of thousands of people commit burglaries, so what's the solution to burglary? Criminalization isn't working. We should make it legal." And so on.

The question is whether fewer people smoke pot than would if it were legal, and the answer is certainly yes, which means that the illegality of pot [i]does[/i], to an extent, mitigate its harmful effects. It's hard for me to picture a rational, informed, intellectually honest person taking the other side of that one.

The further question is whether the (my) answer to the above question is enough justification for it to be illegal, and in my opinion, the answer to that one is no, and it's not very close.

But if one wants to do anything other than preach to the choir, one needs some sort of credibility with open minded people, and one doesn't get any credibility by asserting that there are no cons to legalization. Of course there are. It's pretty pointless to argue that one. On the other hand, I think it's pretty easy, and potentially quite useful, to argue that the pros outweigh the cons.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 9, 2012 10:55PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-09 23:17, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-12-09 22:19, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-12-09 22:04, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-12-09 21:00, Al Angello wrote:
Rockwall
They have declared marijuana completely harmless in two states so far.
[/quote]

Saying things like this doesn't really advance the claim that it doesn't impair your ability to think rationally.
[/quote]

LOL. Best response yet Lobo. Gave me a good laugh.
[/quote]

I guess we do agree on some things after all!
[/quote]

You guys are too kind to me for taking a chip shot.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 9, 2012 10:56PM)
Tommy
"Completely harmless" means that after over 80 years of spending multi millions of dollars in thousands of research projects to find evidence to prove that pot is bad for you all of the research has failed terribly. So the best cop out the losers of this battle can come up with is "smoke at your own risk". That is the definition of "completely harmless" that seems to fit here.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Dec 10, 2012 03:54AM)
The main argument of those against legalisation appears to be the possible consequences of people smoking the stuff even though it would appear the majority of smokers are law abiding citizens in all other respects. Quite amusing from the country where so many insist the majority of gun owners should not be penalised for the actions of the minority. Bongs don't kill people - people kill people.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 10, 2012 04:31AM)
It would appear the majority of rapists are law abiding citizens in all other respects. :)
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Dec 10, 2012 04:32AM)
Apples =/= Oranges.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 10, 2012 04:45AM)
Note: You can make much more awesome pipes out of marshmallows than oranges.
Message: Posted by: irossall (Dec 10, 2012 05:30AM)
When the laws against private use by adults possessing small amounts of Marijuana do greater harm than the drug itself, it is time for our laws to change and reflect the real harm done.

Washington has taken a great step in the right direction but still has a way to go to make it more realistic.
I think the best compromise at this point is to amend the law to allow the black market to sell small amounts of Marijuana (under an ounce) to adults, in the privacy of their homes or a non-public place.

Since the Fed's, State and the many people against the legalization AND control of Marijuana insist on keeping the black market in operation and reaping the profits from sales and distribution, this seems to be the best we can do.

As it is now, I can have small amounts in my Home and use it but I will go to jail if I get caught buying it. This makes no sense to me. So let's go on supporting the black market and let's keep throwing people in jail for something the state of Washington say's I can have and use in the privacy of my Home but I can't legaly get access to.
I guess that is the solution?
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 10, 2012 08:23AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-08 10:19, Destiny wrote:
I do not know one person who says 'I don't use it because it's illegal.'
[/quote]
You may not know people who say it, but I bet you know people who do it. There are people for whom it's just a part of the internal calculus.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 10, 2012 08:28AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-10 06:30, irossall wrote:

As it is now, I can have small amounts in my Home and use it but I will go to jail if I get caught buying it. This makes no sense to me.
[/quote]

If it makes you feel any better, you can go to jail for those small amounts in your home, too.
Message: Posted by: NicholasD (Dec 10, 2012 09:48AM)
I wonder if there's anyone out there who doesn't do it just because it's a rediculously stupid and useless thing to do.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 10, 2012 10:00AM)
NicholasD
If it makes you feel any better my 90 year old parents don't understand why these kids today need to have different kind of fun that they did either. Does that make you feel any better grand pop?
Message: Posted by: NicholasD (Dec 10, 2012 10:10AM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-10 11:00, Al Angello wrote:
NicholasD
If it makes you feel any better my 90 year old parents don't understand why these kids today need to have different kind of fun that they did either. Does that make you feel any better grand pop?
[/quote]

I get it now, this is as harmless as Elvis' gyrating hips. Give me a break!
Message: Posted by: FatHatter (Dec 10, 2012 10:59AM)
No one will convince anyone to think different.
Those that smoke will do so regardless of laws. Proof is in the pudding as they say.
Those that don't will continue to demonize it. Again proof is in the pudding.

The reasons Al has stated here and on other threads repeatedly that a plant, yes a plant, is illegal are factual. Those reasons have nothing to do with any harm to the user or anyone else.
People getting to know other people that smoke and are leading productive lives changes minds.
People realizing that prohibition is prohibition and it didn't work with booze and it's not working with drugs, ALL DRUGS, will changes minds.
This process takes time and the time is here now in several States.
tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick
Message: Posted by: irossall (Dec 10, 2012 11:12AM)
Marijuana was made legal in Alaska in 1975 and made illegal again in 2006. It was legal to possess small quantities and to grow a certain amount of plants. What problems did Alaska have? Other than problems with the local Government.
http://www.mpp.org/states/alaska/
Iven :patty:
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 10, 2012 11:46AM)
NicholasD
One sure sign of being old, and out of touch is the anger one experiences from being left behind. My grand mother told me long ago that the automobile was a passing fad. Grand mom is dead now, and the car is here to stay. Let it go Nick and embrace the future.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 10, 2012 12:08PM)
I think it may be you who might be a little out of touch, Al, with your ascribing anger to everyone who disagrees with you.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 10, 2012 12:33PM)
The Jamaicans made it fashionable here in the reggae clubs etc. Were I grew up it is known as “The Rasta Capitol of Europe” . The Reggae band, UB40 are from the same place. Nigel is a gambler and they have a snooker hall where we hung out. I love Reggae music and we used to go the clubs and it's a wonder I am not pot head. but I never smoked at all and so well I just never did.

According to the DEA the elite are financing the campaign to get it legalised, guy such as George Soros and why is that .... what is it for the billionaires? Importation perhaps?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 10, 2012 12:38PM)
[quote]On 2012-12-10 11:59, FatHatter wrote:
Proof is in the pudding as they say.[/quote]
The fact that they say it when it makes no sense - they're misquoting [i]The proof of the pudding is in the eating[/i] - says a lot about those who say it.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 10, 2012 12:52PM)
Lobo
It is sad that there are so many angry people at this forum. Perhaps we should work on that problem instead if pi$$ing on other peoples parades. LOL
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 10, 2012 12:58PM)
The rasta doctor is a man that deal with herbs and roots for the healing of the rastaman.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Dec 10, 2012 01:14PM)
Tommy
Are you feelen irie mon?
Message: Posted by: FatHatter (Dec 10, 2012 01:20PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-10 13:38, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2012-12-10 11:59, FatHatter wrote:
Proof is in the pudding as they say.[/quote]
The fact that they say it when it makes no sense - they're misquoting [i]The proof of the pudding is in the eating[/i] - says a lot about those who say it.
[/quote]

But then you have never used an abbreviation.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 10, 2012 01:45PM)
[quote]On 2012-12-10 14:20, FatHatter wrote:
[quote]On 2012-12-10 13:38, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2012-12-10 11:59, FatHatter wrote:
Proof is in the pudding as they say.[/quote]
The fact that they say it when it makes no sense - they're misquoting [i]The proof of the pudding is in the eating[/i] - says a lot about those who say it.[/quote]
But then you have never used an abbreviation.[/quote]
[i]It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so.[/i]
- Will Rogers
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 10, 2012 01:50PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-10 13:52, Al Angello wrote:
Lobo
It is sad that there are so many angry people at this forum. Perhaps we should work on that problem instead if pi$$ing on other peoples parades. LOL
[/quote]

I don't see nearly as many of them as you do, but I think there may be a few.