Marijuana decriminalization bill gaining support in Congress

[Ran]

Wow... And to think I really thought you were a pretty open minded dude at one time. I'm sure they deserved all the punishment they got after your little anonymous phone call. Being degenerates and all. I wonder how many people at the party received prison sentences, and serious fines for smoking pot with their friends. I'm sure they were doing so much to harm you, and disrupt your peace of mind.

Aside from a majority of the people there being underaged? Nah, didn't bother me a bit. Having fewer losers around the block exposing this crap to young teens is always good in my book.

I hope you're capable of imagining what it would be like if someone called the cops on you and your social circle of friends for drinking booze, while prohibition was enacted. Not only that. But lets use our imagination here and imagine that beer was illegal because the person who sought to make it that way, did so for personal reasons, using racial prejudice as a key social motivator.

Let's start with the first part of this hypothetical situation. If it was illegal, I wouldn't be drinking it. I would have absolutely no problem with alcohol being on the same list as marijuana.

So here's the real question. What did they do you warrant you calling the cops on them besides getting a little loud on 4/20? If you have a legitimate reason, then I'll be able to understand that, but if you did it just to "bust" them, I'm quite disappointed. You probably screwed a bunch of peoples lives up in a way you're unable to understand or empathize with.

See my first response. Also, I don't feel bad for them at all. They chose to smoke illegally so they get what they get. I just hurried things along.

[DrivenMind]

In your opinion. Unfortunately for you, the law is on my side. So you can sit here and try to rationalize it all you want. At the end of the day, I still win. Accept that.

The law also states that there should be a 55 mile per hour speed limit on most of our highways. Clearly just because something is "law" doesn't mean it is, or should be obeyed. When was the last time you saw someone doing 55 on an interstate highway within 40 miles of Atlanta?

[Ran]

The law also states that there should be a 55 mile per hour speed limit on most of our highways. Clearly just because something is "law" doesn't mean it is, or should be obeyed. When was the last time you saw someone doing 55 on an interstate highway within 40 miles of Atlanta?

So? I'll drive 69 in a 55. I'll break it down like this though:

Q) Will I get a ticket for driving 65-69 in a 55 zone?
A) Probably not, but legally I can be pulled over and fined.

Q) Does general acceptance make it okay for me to speed?
A) Legally, no. If I get pulled over then I'll accept my ticket. I won't be happy about it, but I'll pay it because I'm still wrong.

Q) Am I going to b*tch about the speed limit?
A) Unlike the people in this thread complaining about pot, no I'm not. I accept the law and keep on moving.

Q) If someone called the police and said I was doing 68 in a 55 and I get pulled over, would that be wrong?
A) Can't blame the person that called because I was the one speeding. Sucks for me, but oh well.

[DrivenMind]

Aside from a majority of the people there being underaged? Nah, didn't bother me a bit. Having fewer losers around the block exposing this crap to young teens is always good in my book.

So I take it, before you called the police you went over and checked IDs, just to make sure your assumption of them being "under aged" was correct, and accurately founded? Or did you just guess based on the look of the "losers" that they were underaged, and deserved to suffer persecution from this rednecks states finest. Your "losers" comment shows your prejudice.

Let's start with the first part of this hypothetical situation. If it was illegal, I wouldn't be drinking it. I would have absolutely no problem with alcohol being on the same list as marijuana.

So according to your logic, the law is in all cases the supreme intellectual authority on what people should and shouldn't do with their own bodies, in the privacy of their own lives. Does it not occur to you that the law isn't always objective, or unbiased? I wonder if the the Japanese thought it was fair when they were locked up in Interment Camps based on irrational thinking, and racial discrimination alone. Do you think that kind of bull**** would stand today?

See my first response. Also, I don't feel bad for them at all. They chose to smoke illegally so they get what they get. I just hurried things along.

Something tells me you'd feel differently if you'd ever be persecuted for victim less crime, or had to spend countless hours of your life in court being prosecuted when no harm was done.

[DrivenMind]

So? I'll drive 69 in a 55. I'll break it down like this though:

Q) Will I get a ticket for driving 65-69 in a 55 zone?
A) Probably not, but legally I can be pulled over and fined.

Q) Does general acceptance make it okay for me to speed?
A) Legally, no. If I get pulled over then I'll accept my ticket. I won't be happy about it, but I'll pay it because I'm still wrong.

Q) Am I going to b*tch about the speed limit?
A) Unlike the people in this thread complaining about pot, no I'm not. I accept the law and keep on moving.

Q) If someone called the police and said I was doing 68 in a 55 and I get pulled over, would that be wrong?
A) Can't blame the person that called because I was the one speeding. Sucks for me, but oh well.

Sounds like an awfully submissive viewpoint to take, but to each his own I suppose. If you want to pretend that politicians always have your best interests in mind feel free to do so, but history has a way of showing us that isn't always the case. Sometimes laws are made for no good reason at all.

[Ran]

So I take it, before you called the police you went over and checked IDs, just to make sure your assumption of them being "under aged" was correct, and accurately founded? Or did you just guess based on the look of the "losers" that they were underaged, and deserved to suffer persecution from this rednecks states finest. Your "losers" comment shows your prejudice.

Blantant obviousness was reason enough.

As far as my prejudice goes; Yes, I do consider them all to be losers. However turn about is fair play so feel free to think what you want of me.

So the law according to your logic, the law is in all cases the supreme intellectual authority on what people should and shouldn't do with their own bodies, in the privacy of their own lives. Does it not occur to you that the law isn't always objective, or unbiased? I wonder if the the Japanese thought it was fair when they were locked up in Interment Camps based on irrational thinking, and racial discrimination alone. Do you think that kind of bull**** would stand today?

The law is the law. Is it objective or biased sometimes? Sure, but that's just too bad. Break the law go to jail. Don't like it? Move somewhere else. End of story.

Something tells me you'd feel differently if you'd ever be persecuted for victim less crime, or had to spend countless hours of your life in court being prosecuted when no harm was done.

Yes, no harm was done aside from the distribution of an illegal substance to young teens around the area. Also, hypotheticals are really a waste of time man. "What if's" can be used to turn anything around as a less than effective counter argument. They're good for fun topics, but not so much for things like this.

Sounds like an awfully submissive viewpoint to take, but to each his own I suppose. If you want to pretend that politicians always have your best interests in mind feel free to do so, but history has a way of showing us that isn't always the case. Sometimes laws are made for no good reason at all.

Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that politicians can be corrupt and what-not. I'll also voice an opinion on certain matters from time to time. However, if something is illegal then I will abide by the law despite the means by which the law was implemented. That's just how I am. My self-interest mindset will do nothing but get me in trouble if my activities are illegal. Should things come to such a sh*tty situation to where I can't stand it anymore, I'll move.

[DrivenMind]

Blantant obviousness was reason enough.

As far as my prejudice goes, yes I do consider them all to be losers. Turn about is fair play so feel free to think what you want of me.

But still without actual evidence to support this claim, you didn't know for sure if they were underage or not. It was an assumption based on a circumstantial observation alone.

The law is the law. End of story. Is it objective or biased sometimes? Sure, but that's just too bad. Break the law go to jail. End of story.

End of story? I think not, the people that shape and reform the laws in this country as the people who stand up against them when they're ridiculous. Again, just because an authority figure says their word is "law" means it should be followed blindly, without consideration?

Didn't the "law" in this country lock people up in the late 60s for distributing birth control? Because back then didn't only "losers" and "degenerates" would want to wear condoms too? And they did all that "harm" by having sex without the risk of unplanned pregnancy.

Yes, no harm was done aside from the distribution of an illegal substance to young teens around the area. Also, hypotheticals are really a waste of time man.

You still failed to verify where there was harm was done to any parties. Was there property damage involved? Did someone get hurt? Where is your proof that someone was doing harm? You sound like Ronald Regan.

"What if's" can be used to turn anything around as a less than effective counter argument.

What ifs are also how accepted social norms and beliefs, are brought into the public spotlight for closer analysis, and scrutiny. Is that not the point of something like philosophy?

"What if we tried to land on the moon?"

"What if all men were created equal, and we gave equal voting rights to blacks?"

"What is slavery is wrong?"

"What if we opposed British rule?"

"What if gays aren't immoral people or a hazard to the "American family"?"

[Deke]

I'm going to agree with Ran that the law is the law. Everyone that smokes know that they are breaking the law and should be willing to accept the consequences if they are caught. Do I necessarily agree with the law, no. Do I think anonymously phoning in info about a party is a rather douchetastic thing to do, yes. Regardless though, they could have easily chosen not to break it.

The law is the law, no matter how much it sucks, and breaking it out of defiance on a small scale isn't going to change anything.

And before anyone jumps on my case, read my previous posts. I think cannabis should be legal.

[BanginJimmy]

There's a lot of misinformation surrounding Cannabis, and a lot of people tend to forget how the very idea was sold to the American public.

Here are some quotes from the Director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, who was responsible for making Cannabis illegal.

“Reefer makes darkies think they are good as white men.”
-Henry J. Anslinger
Director in Chief, Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 1929

“In some districts, inhabited by Latin Americans, Filipinos, Spaniards and negroes, half the violent crimes are attributed to the marijuana craze. Dr. Lee Rice of san Antonio reports that eighty percent of all the murders committed by Mexicans are done while the killers are drugged by marijuana.”
-The Christian Century, June 29th, 1938

“Marijuana leads to pacifism and communist brain washing.”
-Henry J. Anslinger
Director in Chief, Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 1948

ran already answered to this so no point me me saying the saem thing.

That's an unbelievably ignorant statement, one that will force me to not take you seriously in this discussion, because clearly your opinion is not well founded, much less informed.

If you actually read what I was answering to, you would know that I was simply priving a point. Its very simple, just because someone is readily available doesnt mean it should be legal.

But assuming you are correct (and you not) lets go ahead and ask ourselves a question. Has alcohol ever caused or inspired violence? If you didn't answer "yes", end yourself now.

Alcohol does in fact cause people to be violent. I cant think of a single valid arguement against criminalizing alcohol and tobacco under the same statutes that are used to criminalize cocaine.

Horrendously moronic argument. Do you realize one of the most powerful hallucinogenic drugs in the world is sold under the trade name "Benodryl"? Probably not. Do you realize school children are prescribed stimulants that are of the same classification as cocaine, but totally legal, and abused like sugar? Probably not.

A Schedule 1 Drug, is classified by the Control Substances Act as a substance meeting one of the following three criteria;
a)”The drug or substance has a high potential for abuse.
b) The drug or substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
c) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.” 3/17/07 - Robert Graham

And all of those drugs are controlled substances, just like cocaine. The difference is, there is PROVEN medicinal uses for them. Not possible medicinal uses.

Cannabis sits in the same legal drug classification group as GHB, DMT, Heroin, and Ecstasy. All of which are far more hazardous to the health of a human being, and all of which posses’ significant addictive traits.

"Classification decisions are required to be made on the criteria of potential for abuse, accepted medical use in the United States, and potential for dependence."

I think that explains why marijuana would fall under a schedule I drug. And I have bolded it to make sure you knew what you were pasting.

Now considering the people who have done research on the subject (The US doesn't allow it) have found that's it's effects are neither as significantly inhibitory as alcohol, nor seriously addictive, nor as detrimental to the body as nicotine;

You are going to have to show me a reference on this one. Its widely known that marijuana is worse because you hold it in your lungs longer.

wouldn't that suggest that we AT LEAST reschedule it?

no, for reasons already stated.

If you drink socially, or smoke cigarettes what makes you think that "marijuana" is more dangerous than the psychoactive substances you are already putting into your body?

no one said it was, in fact, you will find that most people are in 100% agreement that alcohol is worse. But it is still legal.

[DrivenMind]

I'm getting Taco Bell. I will systematically reply to you guys upon my return.

[Ran]

But you still didn't know for sure if they were underage or not.

I'll take my chances and bet I made a correct assumption.

End of story? I think not, the people that shape and reform the laws in this country as the people who stand up against them when they're ridiculous. Again, just because an authority figure says their word is "law" means it should be followed blindly, without consideration?

This law isn't rediculous. It's just the rediculous people that keep crying about their precious drug.

You still failed to verify where there was harm was done to any parties. Was there property damage involved? Did someone get hurt? Where is your proof that someone was doing harm? You sound like Ronald Regan.

They're exposing underaged kids to an illegal substance thus integrating them into a law-breaking situation. Yeah, no harm there.

What ifs are also how accepted social norms and beliefs, are brought into the public spotlight for closer analysis, and scrutiny. Is that not the point of something like philosophy?

Your previous "what if's" do not correspond with the examples you just provided. There are different types of "what if's"

[Total_Blender]

Why don't you go rat out all the street racers on the killsforum. See how well liked you are on this site after that.

Expect retribution from those kids. They probably know it was you who narc'd on them

[DrivenMind]

I'll take my chances and bet I made a correct assumption.

Again, just because you assume there was no flaw in your judgment doesn't mean there isn't any.

This law isn't rediculous. It's just the rediculous people that keep crying about their precious drug.

How is it not rediculious? Nearly all "studies" that have "shown" cannabis to be addictive, have been unfounded, and improperly researched.

"Their precious drug"... You say that as if alcohol isn't equally, precious to an alcoholic. Again your showing psychoactive favoritism.

They're exposing underaged kids to an illegal substance thus integrating them into a law-breaking situation. Yeah, no harm there.

::rollseyes:: Because you were sooo acting out of social concern, and not vindictive prejudice. And you soooo took it upon yourself to bust people who were doing something you didn't agree with. Your justification as to whether or not they were underage is irrelevant without you knowing for sure. You still failed to verify who exactly was suffering injury or damage. Who was the victim here? Who was suffering? You know how often my Asian friends have been accused of "looking" underage?

Cut the crap, you know damn well you didn't call the police because you thought "harm" was being done.

Your previous "what if's" do not correspond with the examples you just provided. There are different types of "what if's"

The moon thing was a bit far fetched, I'll give you that. But since the laws making cannabis illegal were founded upon racial prejudice and not scientific fact, I'm gonna stick to that one.

[DrivenMind]

ran already answered to this so no point me me saying the saem thing.

If you actually read what I was answering to, you would know that I was simply priving a point. Its very simple, just because someone is readily available doesnt mean it should be legal.

Caffine can kill you, Asprin can kill you, Nicotine does kill you, Benedryl is a deliriant hallucinogenic drug. Salvia is perfectly legal. Ambien makes people sleep walk, and causes amnesia. All of these are perfectly legal drugs, and I don't hear anyone bitching about how socially irresponsible, or dangerous they are.

Alcohol does in fact cause people to be violent. I cant think of a single valid arguement against criminalizing alcohol and tobacco under the same statutes that are used to criminalize cocaine.

Except that alcohol and nicotine serve no real beneficial purpose to society.

And all of those drugs are controlled substances, just like cocaine. The difference is, there is PROVEN medicinal uses for them. Not possible medicinal uses.

WHERE?!?! Codine was perfectly legal until it was decided that it was making junkies out of people. So explain to me, where the PROVEN medicinal use for alcohol and nicotine is. What doctor recommends people drink or smoke? According to the control substances act, both should be in the Schedule 1 category.

"Classification decisions are required to be made on the criteria of potential for abuse, accepted medical use in the United States, and potential for dependence."

See my last comment. Alcohol is not used in any medicinal environment the way it is socially. The only medical treatment nicotine serves is to weane people off the addiction is has already caused.

I think that explains why marijuana would fall under a schedule I drug. And I have bolded it to make sure you knew what you were pasting.

Thank you for clearing that up, I was very worried I might miss it.

You are going to have to show me a reference on this one. Its widely known that marijuana is worse because you hold it in your lungs longer.

Wrong. How can you speak for all cigarette smokers? Do you know how long every smoker holds their smoke in their lungs? If you used vaporized cannabis, your detrimental smoking argument is defeated anyway.

[Big J]

smoking weed is bad for you.................... making ganjabutter and then rice crispy treats is the way to go

[green91]

drivenmind you are DEAD ON with this topic. it's also important to note that an overwhelming majority of schedule 1 drugs are MAN MADE. marijuana is naturally occurring. to say that one plant is different than another is ridiculous.

[Maniacc]

smoking weed is bad for you.................... making ganjabutter and then rice crispy treats is the way to go

I would like to see hardcore facts and live physical side effects that actually show that the reason for any "bad" thing to happen to you or your body was caused by weed. What I don't understand is why people continue to say it's bad for you?! It's not! It's a natural herb with no deadly ingredients! Here's a funny story. A few friends of mine once got pulled over, high as hell. The cop knew they were high but couldn't prove that they were. Because they had nothing in the car that would indicate that they were in fact smoking. And what did the cop do? Nothing. The law is the law bullcrap is true, but what are they going to do? Jack sh*t if they can't prove it.

A lot of you are typing like you're comparing weed to other hardcore drugs out there. Haha, seriously it's not that big of a deal. You just break apart the nugget into small pieces then place it on a bowl or rolling paper. Roll it. Then light it up and smoke it. Big goddamn deal, right?

[alpine_aw11]

I would like to see hardcore facts and live physical side effects that actually show that the reason for any "bad" thing to happen to you or your body was caused by weed. What I don't understand is why people continue to say it's bad for you?! It's not! It's a natural herb with no deadly ingredients! Here's a funny story. A few friends of mine once got pulled over, high as hell. The cop knew they were high but couldn't prove that they were. Because they had nothing in the car that would indicate that they were in fact smoking. And what did the cop do? Nothing. The law is the law bullcrap is true, but what are they going to do? Jack sh*t if they can't prove it.

A lot of you are typing like you're comparing weed to other hardcore drugs out there. Haha, seriously it's not that big of a deal. You just cut the nugget into small pieces then place it on a bowl or rolling paper. Roll it. Then light it up and smoke it. Big goddamn deal, right?

One of the things holding it back from becoming legal(along with ignorance and the government's ever growing desires for money) is that there's no test for immediacy. What happened to your friends is proof of that, but most cops aren't going to say **** if even if they know you're stoned. Just make sure Ran isn't around the corner ready to report you.

[Blitanicle99]

Take it from someone who not only knows ALOT about marijuana but has done about every drug there is minus a few.

Pot cannot hurt you. It is theoretically possible to overdose, but not pyshically. There has NEVER been a recorded death due to marijuana. Marijuana does not kill brain cells, it re-directs the path of oxygen into your brain hitting different nerve receptors than your used to thus, everything feels new and different and ridiculously awesome.

It is alot of pyschological thing and how people handle their lives. For instance, I myself am I pretty upbeat person, I get **** done fast, I make goals and do them fast. when I burn, things slow down ,my care go away, and my self drive to accomplish things at that pace slow down and I enjoy things more rather than rush through things. This being said, thats why there are people out there that just don't get anyway when they smoke pot because they are already very chill in their lifestyle and its not a drastic change to them. For those people, Cocain blows their mind, because it takes them to that get-things done moment, goals, speed, faster, wired moment that they never experiance. Drugs affect people differently all the time. No two people will ever have the same rasafa or "high".

I would also like to prove, that that being said it has also been proven that smoking does NOT interfere with your driving, it actually makes you pay more attention to it and makes you a better driver. Proven in Britain, the driver did the road coarse, had a spliff, and did the coarse again. He did the coarse .2 seconds faster and was an overall better driver in opinion by driving instructors.




So all your talk about its a gateway drug is actually untrue, its people don't like it as much as other drugs and they find the speed addicting drugs more affective than others. So talk it up.



Also, drivenminds. well said.

[Mr. Antonov]

Q) Am I going to b*tch about the speed limit?
A) Unlike the people in this thread complaining about pot, no I'm not. I accept the law and keep on moving.

The thing is, for weed the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

Actually I had the pleasure of making an anonymous phone call that busted a 4/20 party near my residence. It was quite an enjoyable evening.

Wow.. You're a ****ing douchebag.

[uproot]

OH NO!!! IT'S REEFER MADNESS!!!!

[DrivenMind]

drivenmind you are DEAD ON with this topic. it's also important to note that an overwhelming majority of schedule 1 drugs are MAN MADE. marijuana is naturally occurring. to say that one plant is different than another is ridiculous.

Not only that, but in the 80s, the government legalized a synthetic form of the psychoactive component of Cannabis, THC to be used in a pill form. It's called Marinol, and it's a schedule II substance. What kind of sense does that make?

[BanginJimmy]

Caffine can kill you, Asprin can kill you, Nicotine does kill you, Benedryl is a deliriant hallucinogenic drug. Salvia is perfectly legal. Ambien makes people sleep walk, and causes amnesia. All of these are perfectly legal drugs, and I don't hear anyone bitching about how socially irresponsible, or dangerous they are.

But each of them do have specific medicinal uses. I have yet to see a single case of someone being killed by caffine or aspirin unless it was an intentional overdose.

Except that alcohol and nicotine serve no real beneficial purpose to society.

which is why I cant think of a single agruement against criminalizing them under the same statutes as cocaine. I believe I already said that though and you ignored it.

WHERE?!?! Codine was perfectly legal until it was decided that it was making junkies out of people. So explain to me, where the PROVEN medicinal use for alcohol and nicotine is. What doctor recommends people drink or smoke? According to the control substances act, both should be in the Schedule 1 category.

look up 1 rebuttal.

See my last comment. Alcohol is not used in any medicinal environment the way it is socially. The only medical treatment nicotine serves is to weane people off the addiction is has already caused.

I have absolutely no clue where you are going with this.

Thank you for clearing that up, I was very worried I might miss it.

you obviously did since you are still saying that it shouldnt be a schedule I drug. The amount of abuse alone easily puts in it this catagory.

Wrong. How can you speak for all cigarette smokers? Do you know how long every smoker holds their smoke in their lungs? If you used vaporized cannabis, your detrimental smoking argument is defeated anyway.

I cant, but I can make a reasonable guess based on personal knowlege. Oh, and I also have a bit of science to back it up.

http://www.ebiologynews.com/2463.html

[Lucky DAWG]

I guess I found all of the pot heads.



You forget that people are still smuggling cigs into the US. People are still smuggling and producing illegal alcohol and the ATF spends ALOT of money chasing them down. Like I said, this will simply become another black market industry.




Actually I wasnt comparing the 2 at all. If you read the quote I was replying to you would understand that. My point was that just because something is readily available doesnt mean that it should be legal.



Actually I think it would be more expensive. The costs of regulating this industry would far outweigh the small amount brought in by taxes. The fact that there would no longer be any fear of arrest for being caught with it, I think it would increase usage and therefore it would increase demand for the illegal product sold at half the price.

I don't understand you here Bangin Jimmy, usually i agree with you. I thought you were a through and through republican. We don't need the government upsizing itself to wage war on petty things and flood the jails.


I want my money to stay in my pocket, not supporting this kind of stuff.



I agree that we should be spending money on limiting the power of cartels bringing it into the country and therefore putting our money in the pockets of "bad people" in other countries. But its simply a changing of hands here usually for small quantities that is for personal use.



Why do i have to babysit someone who wants to throw their life away with a meth lab in their basement? Its called evolution, let them kill themselves off if they choose to live their life that way.



Drug usage is lower in the Netherlands and it is legal for "soft" drugs like marijuana and i think a few opiates, cocaine and the such are still illegal to my knowledge but still used less. I know a lot on this topic i had to write my college english paper on it.





Its petty and dumb, the government doesn't need to be any larger. By taxing this stuff if the same growers of medical marijuana would feed it into the market of consumers then that money would increase our tax revenue and lower tax burdens on the general population.




The drug war hurts both sides, sometimes you have to choose the battles you can win and this is not one of them. As long as drugs exist there will be a desire for them by certain groups of people.



Most if not ALL of the criminal activity due to drugs does not occur because of the effects of the drugs... it happens because the sales are criminalized and you can not call the police if someone steals your merchandise. So drug dealers take it to the streets and resort to drug wars for faster and bigger "get rich fast, live in the fast lane" lifestyles. Leaving hundreds of innocents dead with stray gunfire.




Its dumb and if you can't see this then you are living in a fantasy world.

[alpine_aw11]

I don't understand you here Bangin Jimmy, usually i agree with you. I thought you were a through and through republican. We don't need the government upsizing itself to wage war on petty things and flood the jails.


I want my money to stay in my pocket, not supporting this kind of stuff.



I agree that we should be spending money on limiting the power of cartels bringing it into the country and therefore putting our money in the pockets of "bad people" in other countries. But its simply a changing of hands here usually for small quantities that is for personal use.



Why do i have to babysit someone who wants to throw their life away with a meth lab in their basement? Its called evolution, let them kill themselves off if they choose to live their life that way.



Drug usage is lower in the Netherlands and it is legal for "soft" drugs like marijuana and i think a few opiates, cocaine and the such are still illegal to my knowledge but still used less. I know a lot on this topic i had to write my college english paper on it.





Its petty and dumb, the government doesn't need to be any larger. By taxing this stuff if the same growers of medical marijuana would feed it into the market of consumers then that money would increase our tax revenue and lower tax burdens on the general population.




The drug war hurts both sides, sometimes you have to choose the battles you can win and this is not one of them. As long as drugs exist there will be a desire for them by certain groups of people.



Most if not ALL of the criminal activity due to drugs does not occur because of the effects of the drugs... it happens because the sales are criminalized and you can not call the police if someone steals your merchandise. So drug dealers take it to the streets and resort to drug wars for faster and bigger "get rich fast, live in the fast lane" lifestyles. Leaving hundreds of innocents dead with stray gunfire.




Its dumb and if you can't see this then you are living in a fantasy world.

QFT. However, it seems pretty obvious to me that the government isn't fighting this pointless war on drugs due to the safety of our citizens, as it does provide quite a lot of funding for them. It just seems odd to me that after we removed the Taliban from Afghanistan that we did nothing to stop the rampant growth in heroin production, yet over here weed is a huge concern. The US government has actually helped and funded drug lords in other countries(ex.-the president of Afghanistan's brother, who is one of the largest heroin dealers in the world-at least 80% of heroin here comes from this source which we allowed to be created). This petty drug war does nothing but imprison the innocent, and has done absolutely nothing to prevent drugs from getting into our hands. I could get weed anytime I wanted to with a couple phone calls, wouldn't take more than a couple minutes. Maybe if it was actually working I could understand their motives, but the actions taken by the government have done nothing but put a tiny dent on the drug trade.

[Lucky DAWG]

QFT. However, it seems pretty obvious to me that the government isn't fighting this pointless war on drugs due to the safety of our citizens, as it does provide quite a lot of funding for them. It just seems odd to me that after we removed the Taliban from Afghanistan that we did nothing to stop the rampant growth in heroin production, yet over here weed is a huge concern. The US government has actually helped and funded drug lords in other countries(ex.-the president of Afghanistan's brother, who is one of the largest heroin dealers in the world-at least 80% of heroin here comes from this source which we allowed to be created). This petty drug war does nothing but imprison the innocent, and has done absolutely nothing to prevent drugs from getting into our hands. I could get weed anytime I wanted to with a couple phone calls, wouldn't take more than a couple minutes. Maybe if it was actually working I could understand their motives, but the actions taken by the government have done nothing but put a tiny dent on the drug trade.

exactly.


As long as their is lucrative money involved in drug trading, then people will assume the risk. I think the creativty and desperation of most people to make a lot of money quick is underestimated.


The drug dealers as a whole are usually ahead of the government. You may get a few big fish in the pond, but they will always regroup and just have someone else take the other guy's spot.



Its simple economics, by eliminating competition all they do is just make another cartel more lucrative.

[BanginJimmy]

I don't understand you here Bangin Jimmy, usually i agree with you. I thought you were a through and through republican.

not a republican at all. I am a conservative.

We don't need the government upsizing itself to wage war on petty things and flood the jails.

the DEA isnt going anywhere whether or weed is legal, but the govt would be larger if it was legalized for the regulatory bodies that would need to be set in place.

I want my money to stay in my pocket, not supporting this kind of stuff.

again, legalizing it would mean more money out of your pocket, not less.

I agree that we should be spending money on limiting the power of cartels bringing it into the country and therefore putting our money in the pockets of "bad people" in other countries. But its simply a changing of hands here usually for small quantities that is for personal use.

legalizing it would increase the power of the cartels. Not only would their product be legal, but it would also be more widely used. This would eliminate 1 more level of secrecy in the chain.

Why do i have to babysit someone who wants to throw their life away with a meth lab in their basement? Its called evolution, let them kill themselves off if they choose to live their life that way.

this is a joke right?

Drug usage is lower in the Netherlands and it is legal for "soft" drugs like marijuana and i think a few opiates, cocaine and the such are still illegal to my knowledge but still used less. I know a lot on this topic i had to write my college english paper on it.

We arent the netherlands though, the US has a tendency of taking any simple freedom and abusing it to the point that its legality should be questioned.

Its petty and dumb, the government doesn't need to be any larger. By taxing this stuff if the same growers of medical marijuana would feed it into the market of consumers then that money would increase our tax revenue and lower tax burdens on the general population.

the added costs of regulation would easily surpass the taxes added. Then add in the fact that law enforcement would have no leverage on the users so they can work up the chain to the dealers and suppliers.

Heres another one for you. A smoker is paying $4.00 for a pack of Marlboros from the gas station. One day he learns that Joe down on the corner has illegally packaged Marlboros for $2.00 a pack. Where do you think the smoker is going for his next high?

The drug war hurts both sides, sometimes you have to choose the battles you can win and this is not one of them. As long as drugs exist there will be a desire for them by certain groups of people.

I agree. I could also say the same thing for any number of illegal activities. I will bring up child porn because I just learned a bit about it on Friday. 10k+ arrests are made every year for possession of child porn. Law Enforcement knows who several of the sources are, but because they are overseas they cant be touched. Should child porn be legal also because there will always be a supply and demand for it?
Yes I know its a drastic leap from weed to child porn, but it is the same concept.

Most if not ALL of the criminal activity due to drugs does not occur because of the effects of the drugs... it happens because the sales are criminalized and you can not call the police if someone steals your merchandise.

wrong, most drug related crimes are robberies and burglaries so they addicts can get the money for their next fix. The number of people killed as retaliation is barely worth mentioning in comparison.

So drug dealers take it to the streets and resort to drug wars for faster and bigger "get rich fast, live in the fast lane" lifestyles. Leaving hundreds of innocents dead with stray gunfire.

not at all, most larger dealers keep as low a profile as possible. Its mostly the small timers that live in the last lane.

Its dumb and if you can't see this then you are living in a fantasy world.

I live in the real world, you are the one in the fantasy world.

[Lucky DAWG]

not a republican at all. I am a conservative.




the DEA isnt going anywhere whether or weed is legal, but the govt would be larger if it was legalized for the regulatory bodies that would need to be set in place.




again, legalizing it would mean more money out of your pocket, not less.





legalizing it would increase the power of the cartels. Not only would their product be legal, but it would also be more widely used. This would eliminate 1 more level of secrecy in the chain.





this is a joke right?





We arent the netherlands though, the US has a tendency of taking any simple freedom and abusing it to the point that its legality should be questioned.








the added costs of regulation would easily surpass the taxes added. Then add in the fact that law enforcement would have no leverage on the users so they can work up the chain to the dealers and suppliers.

Heres another one for you. A smoker is paying $4.00 for a pack of Marlboros from the gas station. One day he learns that Joe down on the corner has illegally packaged Marlboros for $2.00 a pack. Where do you think the smoker is going for his next high?






I agree. I could also say the same thing for any number of illegal activities. I will bring up child porn because I just learned a bit about it on Friday. 10k+ arrests are made every year for possession of child porn. Law Enforcement knows who several of the sources are, but because they are overseas they cant be touched. Should child porn be legal also because there will always be a supply and demand for it?
Yes I know its a drastic leap from weed to child porn, but it is the same concept.





wrong, most drug related crimes are robberies and burglaries so they addicts can get the money for their next fix. The number of people killed as retaliation is barely worth mentioning in comparison.




not at all, most larger dealers keep as low a profile as possible. Its mostly the small timers that live in the last lane.






I live in the real world, you are the one in the fantasy world.

Your entire argument is void considering you keep telling me it will cost MORE money. You explain to me how just another sales tax is going to cost MORE money then the hundreds of operations under way resulting in dead agents, millions in technology, millions in pay of preperation for busts and so forth.


What i got from your argument is that we should get rid of sales tax because it takes too much "regulation". And you are the one pushing Fair Tax.




Please explain to me where this logic comes from.

[alpine_aw11]

^I'm sorry but you're definitely living in a fantasy world if you think people who smoke weed are committing murder and armed robbery to get their "fix." I'm all for keeping hard drugs illegal, I've never touched them(well one, but it's nothing like cocaine or heroin) and definitely consider myself to be a responsible smoker, along with 99% of the people who do smoke. Weed isn't causing **** for crime except the actual act of smoking it.

Edit: Not you Lucky, posted right before me

[TIGERJC]

Why don't you go rat out all the street racers on the killsforum. See how well liked you are on this site after that.

Expect retribution from those kids. They probably know it was you who narc'd on them

*Breaking news* Asian kid face kicked in at tonight's varsity meet

[TIGERJC]

Drug usage is lower in the Netherlands and it is legal for "soft" drugs like marijuana and i think a few opiates, cocaine and the such are still illegal to my knowledge but still used less. I know a lot on this topic i had to write my college english paper on it.

Those drugs are still illegal, but the gov't still gives those drugs out at gov't owned clinics and supplies clean needles. Also they try to counsel the users while they are there, and because they look at it as a disease and they know that this is really the only way to help them get better or least live a somewhat decent life

[The12lber]

not a republican at all. I am a conservative.

Actually, based on the kind of things you've said throughout the posts I've seen you make, you fall in line more with neo-conservative political ideology. This is viewed by political scientists to be a liberal political ideology, especially considering that its origins are with prominent disenfranchised liberals of the 70s.

[The12lber]

EDIT: Actually, I'm bored so I'll elaborate a little more.

So you're comparing modern society and law enforcement to what it was 80 years ago? Nice.

Alright, I'm going to break you in on a big secret.

SINCE THE TIME WHEN THE VERY FIRST STATUTES WERE ENACTED AND GOVERNMENTS PUT IN PLACE, BLACK MARKETS AND CRIMINAL UNDERWORLDS HAVE EXISTED TO SUPPLY EVERY ILLEGAL GOOD OR SERVICE AS LONG IT IS IN DEMAND. THE CRIMINAL UNDERWORLD IN QUESTION WILL USE PART OF ITS PROFITS AS OPERATIVE COSTS TO BUY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND GOVERNMENT.

Look, its still happening now with illicit drugs. Its exactly the same situation as prohibition. You are f*cking dumb for not catching onto this.

Who cares about Columbia and why did you bring them up? However, since you're bringing it up. How exactly does it feel to be supporting this civil war?

I care because they're people too and our bogus war on drugs has put their country in a persistent state of civil war for the better part of 40 years. Also, I never said I was buying drugs and supporting their civil war. Another logical fallacy, unsurprising from someone as unintelligent as yourself.

On this note, I do believe that hemp should be permissible for economical purposes like textile and what-not. As an actual resource, it can be very valuable. I've stated that in older threads as well.

So cocaine should now be legalized because it was made illegal over a supposedly racist standing?

Supposedly racist? Haha, haha, hahahaha. Oh my, there's not too many ways you can spin the notion of Congress being afraid of "cocainized n*ggers" raping white women into not being racist.

In your opinion.

Have you ever done any drugs to form a good opinion on whether or not its a big deal? I'm going to venture the guess, no.

Unfortunately for you, the law is on my side. So you can sit here and try to rationalize it all you want. At the end of the day, I still win. Accept that.

Yeah, but you're still one hell of a dumb mother****er. I'm actually fairly shocked that you assumed just because I support decriminalization and regulation of drug sales, I am a drug purchaser, indirectly funding guerilla groups and drug cartels in South America. You don't have to have a stake in an issue to recognize idiocy.

For the record, you didn't win ****. If supporting laws, statutes, etc, that were in place decades before your birth and you had nothing to do with the enactment of is considered winning, I win for actually supporting The Constitution of the United States (which all laws are mandated to be in agreement with), something drug prohibition pisses on.

[The12lber]

legalizing it would increase the power of the cartels. Not only would their product be legal, but it would also be more widely used. This would eliminate 1 more level of secrecy in the chain.

You are insufferably stupid. Do you know why illicit drugs are produced by drug cartels, roaming the jungle/desert (Afghanistan is the world's largest opium exporter, after all) in armed militias, refining their product in underground labyrinths or at remote airstrips?

BECAUSE IT IS ****ING ILLEGAL AND THEY HAVE TO MAKE IT THAT WAY.

When something becomes legal, its producers become corporations and business. When prohibition ended did the mob gain more power? No, they lost revenue. They had to rely on their racketeering and gambling/white slavery/whatever the **** else they had going on. When legitimate business can produce a product, there's no niche for the criminal underworld to produce it. NONE.

Are there violent groups of criminals, roaming Texas, setting up illicit oil derricks and refineries?

[Ran]

1) The12lber makes me laugh for his wannabe tough-guy responses. I won't even justify him with a response anymore.

2) DrivenMind, I would move if I had the means and financial resources to do so. I'll pos-rep you in return though, since you seemed to be somewhat sensible in your debate with me unlike the remaining flock of stoners in here.

I'm outta here. This bill won't pass and I'll sit with a smile everytime one of you morons gets busted. Have fun smoking in shadows. lol

[DrivenMind]

not a republican at all. I am a conservative.

Big surprise there... You do drive a lowered American SUV after all.

the DEA isnt going anywhere whether or weed is legal, but the govt would be larger if it was legalized for the regulatory bodies that would need to be set in place.

How would it need to be larger? Law enforcement agencies across the country already have huge portions of their precincts dedicated to busting those harmlessly "crazed" marijuana smokers. It would take a lot less resources and man power to make a few regulatory laws regarding the sale and distribution of cannabis, than it would to keep trying to push prohibition, and forced prosecution on a substance that more than 50% of the countries population has tried.

again, legalizing it would mean more money out of your pocket, not less.

Wrong. It costs $19,000 annually per inmate in the US. Considering in 2006 alone, 800,000 people were arrested for "marijuana" violations that seems like a pretty quick way to save some bank. Not to mention the businesses, and industries that could be created if hemp were allowed to create some competition within the textile industry. Do you really believe that it costs the government less to hunt, and prosecute violators? You realize despite the aging war on drugs cannabis use is at an all time "high". Clearly the drug war isn't working.

Since 1992, six million tax paying Americans have been locked up for deciding to smoke a little weed. Does that number not sound outrageous to you?

legalizing it would increase the power of the cartels. Not only would their product be legal, but it would also be more widely used. This would eliminate 1 more level of secrecy in the chain.

Wrong again. He's an unlikely idea, what if it turned them into legitimate business people, who contributed more of thier profits into taxes to help fuel our economy. Just because a drug is legal doesn't mean it's any more widely abused. I wonder if the people over at Budwiser were called "cartels" during alcohol prohibition.

And could you also explain to me, where in the medical industry they require patients to ingest alcohol. Or inhale cigarette delivered nicotine.

this is a joke right?

Yea, the war on drugs has been a joke since the foul criminal Nixon introduced it in 1971.

"This scourge will stop!"
No it won't. You'll just blow a lot of our money trying to stop it.

We arent the netherlands though, the US has a tendency of taking any simple freedom and abusing it to the point that its legality should be questioned.

Did you just say that? It's not a freedom if you can get arrested for doing it. How can you abuse a freedom, that isn't a actually freedom? It's legality should be questioned because it ISN'T a freedom.

the added costs of regulation would easily surpass the taxes added. Then add in the fact that law enforcement would have no leverage on the users so they can work up the chain to the dealers and suppliers.

Law enforcement has the ultimate leverage on dealers already anyway. It's called a prison sentence. You keep saying the added costs of regulation would surpass the taxes added, as if you're deliberately ignoring the fact that there would be a reduction in costs when the government isn't spending it's time prosecuting almost a million extra non-violent "offenders".

Heres another one for you. A smoker is paying $4.00 for a pack of Marlboros from the gas station. One day he learns that Joe down on the corner has illegally packaged Marlboros for $2.00 a pack. Where do you think the smoker is going for his next high?

Depends. If the smoker knows he's going to get a reliable quality product from the gas station every time, why would he waste his time sourcing out another distributor just to save $2 a pack? Most people would pay the extra $2 just to avoid the risk of having to deal with the potential law involvement.

I agree. I could also say the same thing for any number of illegal activities. I will bring up child porn because I just learned a bit about it on Friday. 10k+ arrests are made every year for possession of child porn. Law Enforcement knows who several of the sources are, but because they are overseas they cant be touched. Should child porn be legal also because there will always be a supply and demand for it?
Yes I know its a drastic leap from weed to child porn, but it is the same concept.

No it's not, that's absolutely ****ing ridiculous.

wrong, most drug related crimes are robberies and burglaries so they addicts can get the money for their next fix. The number of people killed as retaliation is barely worth mentioning in comparison.

Source your information. This is blantant intellectual dishonesty. You're talking about junkies. Usually it's the opiate addicts that behave this way. Not pot heads. You think a "lazy, unmotivated" pot head is going to commit a burglary so he can get smoke?

I live in the real world, you are the one in the fantasy world.

This is false too. You might exist in the real world, but you're living in the conservative propoganda day dream.

[BOBA-GA-NUSH]

http://www.mpp-vip.org/

Here is a link to some of the V.I.P supporters

[ATL_EG]

http://www.abovetheignorance.org/

don't have time to argue

[BOBA-GA-NUSH]

http://www.abovetheignorance.org/

don't have time to argue

CRAP ASS LINK IS TOO SLOW BRO.

[eViLMunkey]

These guys can get their hopes up all they want. It's not going to pass and we all know it.

Actually I don't think it will pass down south I know it will up here in the N.East and also on the west coast and some states in the Midwest. .