Marijuana is schedule I while cocaine is schedule II. If that is the case, why aren't pot smokers sent to jail or prision instead of perhaps just a ticket?
Of course they're sent to prison. 70% of US prison population is doing time for either using or selling pot. Where, I assume, they share cells with such society rejects as coffee drinkers and beer users.
Seriously though, the situation been beyond well-known and obvious for quite a while that it's now become a moot point. I'd like to suggest a course of action, but I'm quite certain I'll be signing up for the TWL in doing that.
I feel if you're going to make Marijuana Illegal... you should make Alcohol illegal too. Considering the ending results. Alcohol side affects are often way worse than that from Marijuana. You can get Alcohol poisoning, faster than anyone could ever overdose on pot. Can't drive. Can hardly talk. Some people are mad drunks. But how many mad potheads have you ever met? None. And if you don't know... then go get one. My personal opinion is why shouldn't they legalize it?
You'll prolly get a happier population. With regulations and rules behind the buying of pot, can be made the same as Alcohols. You cut out DRUG DEALERS and the possibility of them trying to sell you another "higher" drug. (which is often why its called a "gateway drug". Because, you're already committing a crime and dealing with drug dealers who sell more than pot.) If you bought it from the store, like you do cigs and alchy... I figured half of the US, will stop going to dealers and just buy it over a counter. Where its safer. Also, he was right 70 percent of jails are filled with crimes from marijuana, which in turn... you're paying for their food, their hospital stays and doctors, your paying for the men who watch over all these convicts (which only a few really need supervision like this.)
As far as that's been said. While there's a lot of concluding evidence that makes Marijuana just as harmful as eating handfuls of mayonnaise... if your not into it or prepared to handle it, then expect people to act like adults and allow them to do it from the comforts of their home. Who gives anyone the right to say that you cannot smoke this. There's no law against smoking plastics... and that can do far worst to you, than some refer.
That_Annoying_KidSire of TitlesJoin Date: 2003-03-01Member: 14175Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1750062:date=Jan 31 2010, 08:17 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Jan 31 2010, 08:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750062"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's only a paradox if you spell it h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y.
States' rights all the way on this issue. 'Nuff said.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Schedule one drugs also have ZERO medical value. Which is funny cause my friend who just died from cancer could only keep food down after he was under the influence, and it was the only thing that worked on his chemo induced nausea
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1751706:date=Feb 7 2010, 01:40 PM:name=That_Annoying_Kid)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (That_Annoying_Kid @ Feb 7 2010, 01:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1751706"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Schedule one drugs also have ZERO medical value. Which is funny cause my friend who just died from cancer could only keep food down after he was under the influence, and it was the only thing that worked on his chemo induced nausea<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> They're supposed to be addictive and a whole bunch of other things too, but that doesn't make it true.
I'm sorry to hear about your friend. My sincere condolences.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
edited February 2010
<!--quoteo(post=1751954:date=Feb 8 2010, 09:29 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Feb 8 2010, 09:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1751954"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They're supposed to be addictive and a whole bunch of other things too, but that doesn't make it true.
I'm sorry to hear about your friend. My sincere condolences.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually they don't have to be addictive, it must have a 'high potential for abuse', which is the case of THC. The problem is the concept of no medical usage, which is, as was pointed out, flat out wrong.
That being said, I don't actually know how the system works, I know it is a federal classification, and thus I assume it comes into play when you try to transport the stuff around, or bring it into/out of the country. States can (and do) have their own laws covering controlled substances. The obvious example is California, but NY also has been changing their views on it. A number of years ago we (I'm a NYer) passed laws making sentencing for marijuana related crimes just as harsh as for other controlled substances. Recently (last year iirc) we did a complete overhaul on the laws drastically lowering the punishments for users (part of our laws had the amount required for an "intent to sell" charge very low). It isn't great, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
Also, I honestly expect to see the federal classification of THC change fairly soon. There are lots of good medical journals out there that show the beneficial uses of THC. I don't expect it to be legalized (and I am one of those that think it should be as legal as tobacco and alcohol) any time soon, but a change in it's classification I think is on the way.
In the US, where the ideal is that people are free to do what they want as long as it doesn't affect others, the prohibition against adults using intoxicating substances is absurd and trying to play the 'medical' card just validates the thought that the government should be involved in what people do in the privacy of their own homes.
Public intoxication already takes care of affecting others for just being intoxicated, and any behavior that affects someone else already has a law in place. There is no need to be told that someone can't ingest something in their own spare time.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
edited February 2010
As much as I like the libertarian ideals, I think that in reality those ideas just wouldn't work. I used to always argue that we should just legalize all drugs and tax them (just as we do legal drugs), however after having a bit more experience with a few drugs (not personal, but first hand), I honestly think that there are some that should flat out be banned as the use of them really is just that dangerous.
I agree, I dislike the idea of govn't controlling aspects of our lives that only effect us (I'm anti seat belt laws, but pro cellphone restrictions when driving). Marijuana has health risks, but very few risk to others, and the health risks are relatively minor (it's bad for you, but it isn't going to stop your heart the first time you smoke up). The risks to others are also relatively mild (driving under the influence of anything is dumb). I would classify a number of drugs like this, but some of the 'harder' ones are really dangerous (and not just because of bad batches), and cause VERY unpredictable and dangerous behavior. Because of this I actually no longer am all behind the legalization of most drugs.
And I know that we have laws that govern your actions when under the influence, the problem is that many drugs don't have the gradation of use like alcohol. Not every one who drinks gets to the point of serious mental changes, but other drugs there really is no middle ground. You take them and you end up totally altered, no longer rational in any way. Saying "ok, well if they go out and do something illegal we just lock them up" doesn't work, as a purely reactionary system of justice ends up with a lot of preventable crimes.
I admit, I'm willing to give up some freedoms for some safety.
Oh, according to the classification system (as near as I can understand them), both alcohol and tobacco should be Schedule One, as they have no medical value (to my knowledge), and are certainly open for ease of abuse. This doesn't mean I think they should be illegal, just a random note of interest.
<!--quoteo(post=1752450:date=Feb 11 2010, 10:03 AM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Feb 11 2010, 10:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752450"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I admit, I'm willing to give up some freedoms for some safety.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not, and I dislike the idea that you can give up my rights because it might affect your safety.
It's not just about your rights though, it's also about his rights. For one, his right to not get robbed or have his house plundered. Hard drugs are closely connected to crime rates since users tend to be too debilitated to lead a normal life and secure the income that is needed to fuel the drug habit. Without other means to procure the necessary cash, hard drug users frequently turn to crime. Does the drug user's right to inebriate himself supercede another's right to safety and property?
<!--quoteo(post=1752450:date=Feb 11 2010, 07:03 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Feb 11 2010, 07:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752450"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I admit, I'm willing to give up some freedoms for some safety.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then, as the proverb goes, don't be surprised when you get neither.
Well no, I understand where you're coming, and why wouldn't anyone: it's just how we do things. It's why we have the law at all. But this shouldn't be mistaken for a working system at any time: law is patchwork to fix issues that exist in society, it does not remove them.
<!--quoteo(post=1752477:date=Feb 11 2010, 10:38 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Feb 11 2010, 10:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752477"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hard drugs are closely connected to crime rates since users tend to be too debilitated to lead a normal life and secure the income that is needed to fuel the drug habit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Erm. In other words they're only dangerous because drugs are illegal?..
a_civilianLikes seeing numbersJoin Date: 2003-01-08Member: 12041Members, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead
edited February 2010
You can't argue that it's always bad to sacrifice some freedoms in the name of safety. Or do you support the freedom to, say, murder people? You have to arbitrarily draw the line somewhere in the middle.
<!--quoteo(post=1752481:date=Feb 11 2010, 10:54 PM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (a_civilian @ Feb 11 2010, 10:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752481"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You can't argue that it's always bad to sacrifice some freedoms in the name of safety.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It is. We don't see it because we never learned to think outside of the box where it does, indeed, seems like a good thing. Usually the box of our modern society, or even local culture: we can hardly imagine anything else.
<!--quoteo(post=1752481:date=Feb 11 2010, 10:54 PM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (a_civilian @ Feb 11 2010, 10:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752481"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Or do you support the freedom to, say, murder people?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, especially in self-defence.
Absolute freedom and law are, of course, logically self-contradicting and nonsensical concepts, nevermind unachievable. I think of them more as a false dichotomy.
<!--quoteo(post=1752478:date=Feb 11 2010, 08:49 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Feb 11 2010, 08:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752478"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Erm. In other words they're only dangerous because drugs are illegal?..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The assumption there being that drugs would be cheap-as-free if they were legal. This may or may not be the case, but does nothing to remedy what actually causes the hard drug users to turn to crime: That they are often too debilitated to keep a job.
<!--quoteo(post=1752487:date=Feb 11 2010, 11:14 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Feb 11 2010, 11:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752487"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The assumption there being that drugs would be cheap-as-free if they were legal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not free, of course, but not something you have to rob a bank over either. Hell, most of the drugs we ever hear about are painkillers (and indeed many painkillers are intoxicating and addictive).
<!--quoteo(post=1752487:date=Feb 11 2010, 11:14 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Feb 11 2010, 11:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752487"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This may or may not be the case, but does nothing to remedy what actually causes the hard drug users to turn to crime: That they are often too debilitated to keep a job.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then give drugs to them for free. Less cost to state, less cost to people. Well, as in, that's what would happen if law made any sense, I wouldn't actually propose it. Of course this hypothesis also fails the test by statistics, as countries that did legalize hard drugs are doing quite fine to this day... But that's all distracting from the real point.
I would say, rather, it does not remedy what makes people turn to drugs: ignorance and depression. There can be no law to fix that either: laws don't solve problems, they're our way of pretending we can somehow get away with doing nothing about them.
a_civilianLikes seeing numbersJoin Date: 2003-01-08Member: 12041Members, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead
edited February 2010
<!--quoteo(post=1752485:date=Feb 11 2010, 05:03 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Feb 11 2010, 05:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752485"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, especially in self-defence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> But not only in self-defense? Very well.
Edit: What I mean is, do you support the right to murder people unconditionally? But presumably that was obvious.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1752490:date=Feb 11 2010, 04:22 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Feb 11 2010, 04:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752490"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then give drugs to them for free. Less cost to state, less cost to people. Well, as in, that's what would happen if law made any sense, I wouldn't actually propose it. Of course this hypothesis also fails the test by statistics, as countries that did legalize hard drugs are doing quite fine to this day... But that's all distracting from the real point.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait, back up a second there.
What countries have legalized hard narcotics? I know of a few where THC is legal/quasi legal, but I don't consider that a 'hard' drug.
<!--quoteo(post=1752490:date=Feb 11 2010, 04:22 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Feb 11 2010, 04:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752490"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then give drugs to them for free. Less cost to state, less cost to people. Well, as in, that's what would happen if law made any sense, I wouldn't actually propose it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How does intentionally cutting out a portion of your work force and just putting them on welfare make any sort of sense? It would be like "oh, you want to be a wino? sounds great! here's 2 bottles of rum, have fun!". Actually, that would be exactly it. "here's a bag of heroin, come back next week when you need some more!".
Also, the old 'proverb' is generally misquoted, and wrongly attributed. The one most people know might not have been Franklin, but was still <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The keys obviously being Essential Liberty and Temporary Safety. Freedoms, rights, and Essential Liberty are rather different concepts. As the concept of sacrificing nothing for safety is pure anarchy, and, as you pointed out, is as absurd as a police state where you sacrifice all liberty for 'safety'.
<!--quoteo(post=1752501:date=Feb 12 2010, 12:01 AM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (a_civilian @ Feb 12 2010, 12:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752501"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I mean is, do you support the right to murder people unconditionally? But presumably that was obvious.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes.
What I'm trying to say that neither allowing nor prohibiting murder is an answer to any problem, the answer would be a solution. Namely, find out why people kill and eliminate the cause rather than scolding them for it.
<!--quoteo(post=1752510:date=Feb 12 2010, 12:20 AM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Feb 12 2010, 12:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752510"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What countries have legalized hard narcotics? I know of a few where THC is legal/quasi legal, but I don't consider that a 'hard' drug.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm terrible with names, don't remember. Anyway, like I said, that's only a distraction: feel free to ignore it.
<!--quoteo(post=1752510:date=Feb 12 2010, 12:20 AM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Feb 12 2010, 12:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752510"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How does intentionally cutting out a portion of your work force and just putting them on welfare make any sort of sense?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You don't have to put them on welfare when they're in jail and have damaged another part of your work force. Like I said, it doesn't make sense, it's only a step above the insanity that is prohibition. Different degress of wrongness if you may.
<!--quoteo(post=1752510:date=Feb 12 2010, 12:20 AM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Feb 12 2010, 12:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752510"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, the old 'proverb' is generally misquoted, and wrongly attributed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you know what I meant, and I stand by it. (Also I fail to see how that changes meaning of the quote)
a_civilianLikes seeing numbersJoin Date: 2003-01-08Member: 12041Members, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead
<!--quoteo(post=1752511:date=Feb 11 2010, 06:22 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Feb 11 2010, 06:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752511"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I'm trying to say that neither allowing nor prohibiting murder is an answer to any problem, the answer would be a solution. Namely, find out why people kill and eliminate the cause rather than scolding them for it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> But you have to either allow it or prohibit it by definition (obviously you could divide it into different classes, but for each class the choice is the same). If you prohibit it, you're infringing on one freedom. If you allow it, you're infringing on another (the freedom to live). You can't win.
<!--quoteo(post=1752518:date=Feb 12 2010, 12:58 AM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (a_civilian @ Feb 12 2010, 12:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752518"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But you have to either allow it or prohibit it by definition (obviously you could divide it into different classes, but for each class the choice is the same). If you prohibit it, you're infringing on one freedom. If you allow it, you're infringing on another (the freedom to live). You can't win.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's exactly what I was saying with thinking inside the box. When every choice leads to loss, you've got yourself a false dichotomy.
I love when a ruling authority lets me know what I can and cannot consume for the sake of my physical or mental health. I hope to see pot banned forever along with a rebanning of alcohol and tobacco. Since the government knows what's best for my body, and will enforce these judgments as they should, I also I look forward to seeing most fast food menu's reduced to virtually nothing along with a strict ban on candy and sweets and I'm eagerly awaiting to be placed on a federal diet program.
You know how they have handicapped parking? If I was in control of this country I'd have "Fat people parking." You'd have a different license plate, probably in the shape of a doughnut for added humiliation, that prevented you from parking anywhere close to your desired location. This would force all of our physically unhealthy people to actually walk.
Support SentrySteve -- The People's Candidate -- in 2012.
<!--quoteo(post=1752554:date=Feb 12 2010, 05:37 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Feb 12 2010, 05:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752554"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually never mind. I'm not even sure what you guys are talking about any more.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Law in general. Or, as you put it, <!--quoteo(post=1752554:date=Feb 12 2010, 05:37 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Feb 12 2010, 05:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752554"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not quite as simple as "allow it or prohibit it".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1752557:date=Feb 12 2010, 05:54 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Feb 12 2010, 05:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752557"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Support SentrySteve -- The People's Candidate -- in 2012.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You got my vote.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Namely, find out why people kill and eliminate the cause rather than scolding them for it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think I quite understand in this scenario how this could apply? Saying to "Find out why people use drugs and fixing it" I dunno if you know, but it's not drugs like this, that people should be aware of. There's millions of reasons why people use drugs. Both prescript ed and non. Pains, aches, depressions, appetite, etc. The list could go on and on. Life is hard for some people. Some people use them in religious practices. They can't just be wiped off the face of the planet, either. Most can be grow or harvested anywhere in the world. People do it in celebration, some do it for relaxing. Whatever the case is, if all done responsibly... what's the problem?
Personally, I feel its the push in Pharmaceutical drugs, that have made things so bad. Drugs that warn you before hand of anal bleeding or an erection lasting more than 5 hours. Drugs that can turn you into a walking lethargic monster, that without you forking over large amounts of money, cannot afford this tiny little pill anymore. That have tricked a lot of our doctors in forgetting the basics of medicine and a cure-it-all pill. No more do we have the days of a hot chicken noodle soup and tea remedy for a common cold.
Where do we draw the line as why we accept this to be "legal" or "illegal" when almost all of the legal sh!t can kill me... and cannibus (sp?) cannot. (I dunno if I spelled that right, because my spellchecker doesn't recognize it.) Cutting it at it's source isn't going to change much... as there are too many reasons why fear of imprisonment hasn't worked. I'm asking why we cannot allow everyday citizens the right to choose what's responsible... because everyone's line of responsibility is different. As different as a snowflake.
<!--quoteo(post=1752614:date=Feb 12 2010, 03:45 PM:name=TGunz81)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TGunz81 @ Feb 12 2010, 03:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752614"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think I quite understand in this scenario how this could apply?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I was addressing the problem more generally. I don't think this discussion will ever make sense without looking at the bigger picture.
To be more precise, I think the whole Marijuana debate is simply a media-driven farce designed solely to distract people from other, much more grave issues. You have to dig deeper one way or another.
<!--quoteo(post=1752614:date=Feb 12 2010, 03:45 PM:name=TGunz81)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TGunz81 @ Feb 12 2010, 03:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752614"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Saying to "Find out why people use drugs and fixing it" I dunno if you know, but it's not drugs like this, that people should be aware of. There's millions of reasons why people use drugs. Both prescript ed and non. Pains, aches, depressions, appetite, etc. The list could go on and on. Life is hard for some people. Some people use them in religious practices. They can't just be wiped off the face of the planet, either. Most can be grow or harvested anywhere in the world. People do it in celebration, some do it for relaxing. Whatever the case is, if all done responsibly... what's the problem?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's what I'm trying to say: you have to understand the reason people do it instead of just telling them they can or can't, less of all based on wild conjecture or opinion as it is now. If it's medical or recreational, banning that is asinine - and if it's depression, punishing the victims is just incredibly cruel.
You need studies, investigation and eventually solutions, not laws.
<!--quoteo(post=1752614:date=Feb 12 2010, 03:45 PM:name=TGunz81)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TGunz81 @ Feb 12 2010, 03:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752614"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Where do we draw the line as why we accept this to be "legal" or "illegal" when almost all of the legal sh!t can kill me... and cannibus (sp?) cannot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> See, that's what you're doing wrong. You presume government and businesses care about your welfare. I think it's rather naive to propose such a thing even as a hypothetical at this point in time.
<!--quoteo(post=1752614:date=Feb 12 2010, 01:45 PM:name=TGunz81)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TGunz81 @ Feb 12 2010, 01:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752614"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Where do we draw the line as why we accept this to be "legal" or "illegal" when almost all of the legal sh!t can kill me... and cannibus (sp?) cannot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Cannabis. So there are no carcinogens or tar in cannabis smoke? Interesting. I didn't know inhaling burning vegetation could be completely harmless.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->See, that's what you're doing wrong. You presume government and businesses care about your welfare. I think it's rather naive to propose such a thing even as a hypothetical at this point in time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't believe its naive to believe that Government should dictate individuals beliefs, brought forth through time and age. Yes, outdated as it is... it's day to change will happen sooner than you think. Possibly even right now, history could be in the works. Especially our government, over other forms of previous governments. Democracy is the best thing to happen in Government's as it's not run by any single ruler or person. (But, I guess I don't have to tell you that.) While, it's all about big business, I feel it's [our] Governments time to step up to the responsibility of taking care of all its children.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Cannabis. So there are no carcinogens or tar in cannabis smoke? Interesting. I didn't know inhaling burning vegetation could be completely harmless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said completely harmless. Ever. Of course like many things, if you do it a lot, it'll kill you. Celery to me is harmless. No fat. And so few calories that eating it burns more than it's worth. Completely harmless. But, if you ate it everyday for the rest of your life... I'm sure you'd somehow die early from celery.
Nothing is completely harmless. Living is a risk to some people. While I'll be happy to live another 30 or 40 years, I'm not just going to feel it in my lunges, but also in my knees, legs, back, arms, and everything else I plan on moving and bending over the next half of my life... Life is already going to wear me down. I'm pretty sure you're all going to get to the same. When I'm 70, the youngest person will be 55. And we're all going to die. I'm not giving up or anything, but I realize life is too short to cry about stuff all the time. Gotta make the best out of what your given, smile, be kind and retain your personal morality.
But, there's also nothing saying you need to SMOKE cannabis. You can use a vaporizer, in which your not inhaling carcinogens. Or some people even eat it. There's many other ways to ingest marijuana, than smoking it.
<!--quoteo(post=1752685:date=Feb 12 2010, 08:57 PM:name=TGunz81)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TGunz81 @ Feb 12 2010, 08:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752685"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't believe its naive to believe that Government should dictate individuals beliefs, brought forth through time and age. Yes, outdated as it is... it's day to change will happen sooner than you think. Possibly even right now, history could be in the works.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What the Christ on a pogo stick?..
<!--quoteo(post=1752685:date=Feb 12 2010, 08:57 PM:name=TGunz81)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TGunz81 @ Feb 12 2010, 08:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752685"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I feel it's [our] Governments time to step up to the responsibility of taking care of all its children.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> ...I really have nothing to say to that.
Comments
Seriously though, the situation been beyond well-known and obvious for quite a while that it's now become a moot point. I'd like to suggest a course of action, but I'm quite certain I'll be signing up for the TWL in doing that.
States' rights all the way on this issue. 'Nuff said.
The tide has been slowly shifting for a couple of generations though.
My personal opinion is why shouldn't they legalize it?
You'll prolly get a happier population. With regulations and rules behind the buying of pot, can be made the same as Alcohols. You cut out DRUG DEALERS and the possibility of them trying to sell you another "higher" drug. (which is often why its called a "gateway drug". Because, you're already committing a crime and dealing with drug dealers who sell more than pot.) If you bought it from the store, like you do cigs and alchy... I figured half of the US, will stop going to dealers and just buy it over a counter. Where its safer. Also, he was right 70 percent of jails are filled with crimes from marijuana, which in turn... you're paying for their food, their hospital stays and doctors, your paying for the men who watch over all these convicts (which only a few really need supervision like this.)
As far as that's been said. While there's a lot of concluding evidence that makes Marijuana just as harmful as eating handfuls of mayonnaise... if your not into it or prepared to handle it, then expect people to act like adults and allow them to do it from the comforts of their home. Who gives anyone the right to say that you cannot smoke this. There's no law against smoking plastics... and that can do far worst to you, than some refer.
I'm too liberal. Thank god, I'm not pres.
~TGunz
States' rights all the way on this issue. 'Nuff said.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Schedule one drugs also have ZERO medical value. Which is funny cause my friend who just died from cancer could only keep food down after he was under the influence, and it was the only thing that worked on his chemo induced nausea
They're supposed to be addictive and a whole bunch of other things too, but that doesn't make it true.
I'm sorry to hear about your friend. My sincere condolences.
I'm sorry to hear about your friend. My sincere condolences.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually they don't have to be addictive, it must have a 'high potential for abuse', which is the case of THC. The problem is the concept of no medical usage, which is, as was pointed out, flat out wrong.
That being said, I don't actually know how the system works, I know it is a federal classification, and thus I assume it comes into play when you try to transport the stuff around, or bring it into/out of the country. States can (and do) have their own laws covering controlled substances. The obvious example is California, but NY also has been changing their views on it. A number of years ago we (I'm a NYer) passed laws making sentencing for marijuana related crimes just as harsh as for other controlled substances. Recently (last year iirc) we did a complete overhaul on the laws drastically lowering the punishments for users (part of our laws had the amount required for an "intent to sell" charge very low). It isn't great, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
Also, I honestly expect to see the federal classification of THC change fairly soon. There are lots of good medical journals out there that show the beneficial uses of THC. I don't expect it to be legalized (and I am one of those that think it should be as legal as tobacco and alcohol) any time soon, but a change in it's classification I think is on the way.
Public intoxication already takes care of affecting others for just being intoxicated, and any behavior that affects someone else already has a law in place. There is no need to be told that someone can't ingest something in their own spare time.
I agree, I dislike the idea of govn't controlling aspects of our lives that only effect us (I'm anti seat belt laws, but pro cellphone restrictions when driving). Marijuana has health risks, but very few risk to others, and the health risks are relatively minor (it's bad for you, but it isn't going to stop your heart the first time you smoke up). The risks to others are also relatively mild (driving under the influence of anything is dumb). I would classify a number of drugs like this, but some of the 'harder' ones are really dangerous (and not just because of bad batches), and cause VERY unpredictable and dangerous behavior. Because of this I actually no longer am all behind the legalization of most drugs.
And I know that we have laws that govern your actions when under the influence, the problem is that many drugs don't have the gradation of use like alcohol. Not every one who drinks gets to the point of serious mental changes, but other drugs there really is no middle ground. You take them and you end up totally altered, no longer rational in any way. Saying "ok, well if they go out and do something illegal we just lock them up" doesn't work, as a purely reactionary system of justice ends up with a lot of preventable crimes.
I admit, I'm willing to give up some freedoms for some safety.
Oh, according to the classification system (as near as I can understand them), both alcohol and tobacco should be Schedule One, as they have no medical value (to my knowledge), and are certainly open for ease of abuse. This doesn't mean I think they should be illegal, just a random note of interest.
I'm not, and I dislike the idea that you can give up my rights because it might affect your safety.
Then, as the proverb goes, don't be surprised when you get neither.
Well no, I understand where you're coming, and why wouldn't anyone: it's just how we do things. It's why we have the law at all. But this shouldn't be mistaken for a working system at any time: law is patchwork to fix issues that exist in society, it does not remove them.
<!--quoteo(post=1752477:date=Feb 11 2010, 10:38 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Feb 11 2010, 10:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752477"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hard drugs are closely connected to crime rates since users tend to be too debilitated to lead a normal life and secure the income that is needed to fuel the drug habit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Erm. In other words they're only dangerous because drugs are illegal?..
It is. We don't see it because we never learned to think outside of the box where it does, indeed, seems like a good thing. Usually the box of our modern society, or even local culture: we can hardly imagine anything else.
<!--quoteo(post=1752481:date=Feb 11 2010, 10:54 PM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (a_civilian @ Feb 11 2010, 10:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752481"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Or do you support the freedom to, say, murder people?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, especially in self-defence.
Absolute freedom and law are, of course, logically self-contradicting and nonsensical concepts, nevermind unachievable. I think of them more as a false dichotomy.
The assumption there being that drugs would be cheap-as-free if they were legal. This may or may not be the case, but does nothing to remedy what actually causes the hard drug users to turn to crime: That they are often too debilitated to keep a job.
Not free, of course, but not something you have to rob a bank over either. Hell, most of the drugs we ever hear about are painkillers (and indeed many painkillers are intoxicating and addictive).
<!--quoteo(post=1752487:date=Feb 11 2010, 11:14 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Feb 11 2010, 11:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752487"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This may or may not be the case, but does nothing to remedy what actually causes the hard drug users to turn to crime: That they are often too debilitated to keep a job.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then give drugs to them for free. Less cost to state, less cost to people. Well, as in, that's what would happen if law made any sense, I wouldn't actually propose it. Of course this hypothesis also fails the test by statistics, as countries that did legalize hard drugs are doing quite fine to this day... But that's all distracting from the real point.
I would say, rather, it does not remedy what makes people turn to drugs: ignorance and depression. There can be no law to fix that either: laws don't solve problems, they're our way of pretending we can somehow get away with doing nothing about them.
But not only in self-defense? Very well.
Edit: What I mean is, do you support the right to murder people unconditionally? But presumably that was obvious.
Wait, back up a second there.
What countries have legalized hard narcotics? I know of a few where THC is legal/quasi legal, but I don't consider that a 'hard' drug.
<!--quoteo(post=1752490:date=Feb 11 2010, 04:22 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Feb 11 2010, 04:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752490"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then give drugs to them for free. Less cost to state, less cost to people. Well, as in, that's what would happen if law made any sense, I wouldn't actually propose it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How does intentionally cutting out a portion of your work force and just putting them on welfare make any sort of sense? It would be like "oh, you want to be a wino? sounds great! here's 2 bottles of rum, have fun!". Actually, that would be exactly it. "here's a bag of heroin, come back next week when you need some more!".
Also, the old 'proverb' is generally misquoted, and wrongly attributed.
The one most people know might not have been Franklin, but was still <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The keys obviously being Essential Liberty and Temporary Safety. Freedoms, rights, and Essential Liberty are rather different concepts. As the concept of sacrificing nothing for safety is pure anarchy, and, as you pointed out, is as absurd as a police state where you sacrifice all liberty for 'safety'.
Yes.
What I'm trying to say that neither allowing nor prohibiting murder is an answer to any problem, the answer would be a solution. Namely, find out why people kill and eliminate the cause rather than scolding them for it.
<!--quoteo(post=1752510:date=Feb 12 2010, 12:20 AM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Feb 12 2010, 12:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752510"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What countries have legalized hard narcotics? I know of a few where THC is legal/quasi legal, but I don't consider that a 'hard' drug.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm terrible with names, don't remember. Anyway, like I said, that's only a distraction: feel free to ignore it.
<!--quoteo(post=1752510:date=Feb 12 2010, 12:20 AM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Feb 12 2010, 12:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752510"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How does intentionally cutting out a portion of your work force and just putting them on welfare make any sort of sense?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't have to put them on welfare when they're in jail and have damaged another part of your work force. Like I said, it doesn't make sense, it's only a step above the insanity that is prohibition. Different degress of wrongness if you may.
<!--quoteo(post=1752510:date=Feb 12 2010, 12:20 AM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Feb 12 2010, 12:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752510"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, the old 'proverb' is generally misquoted, and wrongly attributed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you know what I meant, and I stand by it. (Also I fail to see how that changes meaning of the quote)
But you have to either allow it or prohibit it by definition (obviously you could divide it into different classes, but for each class the choice is the same). If you prohibit it, you're infringing on one freedom. If you allow it, you're infringing on another (the freedom to live). You can't win.
That's exactly what I was saying with thinking inside the box. When every choice leads to loss, you've got yourself a false dichotomy.
Actually never mind. I'm not even sure what you guys are talking about any more.
You know how they have handicapped parking? If I was in control of this country I'd have "Fat people parking." You'd have a different license plate, probably in the shape of a doughnut for added humiliation, that prevented you from parking anywhere close to your desired location. This would force all of our physically unhealthy people to actually walk.
Support SentrySteve -- The People's Candidate -- in 2012.
Law in general. Or, as you put it,
<!--quoteo(post=1752554:date=Feb 12 2010, 05:37 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Feb 12 2010, 05:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752554"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not quite as simple as "allow it or prohibit it".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1752557:date=Feb 12 2010, 05:54 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Feb 12 2010, 05:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752557"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Support SentrySteve -- The People's Candidate -- in 2012.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You got my vote.
I don't think I quite understand in this scenario how this could apply? Saying to "Find out why people use drugs and fixing it" I dunno if you know, but it's not drugs like this, that people should be aware of. There's millions of reasons why people use drugs. Both prescript ed and non. Pains, aches, depressions, appetite, etc. The list could go on and on. Life is hard for some people. Some people use them in religious practices. They can't just be wiped off the face of the planet, either. Most can be grow or harvested anywhere in the world. People do it in celebration, some do it for relaxing. Whatever the case is, if all done responsibly... what's the problem?
Personally, I feel its the push in Pharmaceutical drugs, that have made things so bad. Drugs that warn you before hand of anal bleeding or an erection lasting more than 5 hours. Drugs that can turn you into a walking lethargic monster, that without you forking over large amounts of money, cannot afford this tiny little pill anymore. That have tricked a lot of our doctors in forgetting the basics of medicine and a cure-it-all pill. No more do we have the days of a hot chicken noodle soup and tea remedy for a common cold.
Where do we draw the line as why we accept this to be "legal" or "illegal" when almost all of the legal sh!t can kill me... and cannibus (sp?) cannot. (I dunno if I spelled that right, because my spellchecker doesn't recognize it.) Cutting it at it's source isn't going to change much... as there are too many reasons why fear of imprisonment hasn't worked. I'm asking why we cannot allow everyday citizens the right to choose what's responsible... because everyone's line of responsibility is different. As different as a snowflake.
I was addressing the problem more generally. I don't think this discussion will ever make sense without looking at the bigger picture.
To be more precise, I think the whole Marijuana debate is simply a media-driven farce designed solely to distract people from other, much more grave issues. You have to dig deeper one way or another.
<!--quoteo(post=1752614:date=Feb 12 2010, 03:45 PM:name=TGunz81)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TGunz81 @ Feb 12 2010, 03:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752614"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Saying to "Find out why people use drugs and fixing it" I dunno if you know, but it's not drugs like this, that people should be aware of. There's millions of reasons why people use drugs. Both prescript ed and non. Pains, aches, depressions, appetite, etc. The list could go on and on. Life is hard for some people. Some people use them in religious practices. They can't just be wiped off the face of the planet, either. Most can be grow or harvested anywhere in the world. People do it in celebration, some do it for relaxing. Whatever the case is, if all done responsibly... what's the problem?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's what I'm trying to say: you have to understand the reason people do it instead of just telling them they can or can't, less of all based on wild conjecture or opinion as it is now. If it's medical or recreational, banning that is asinine - and if it's depression, punishing the victims is just incredibly cruel.
You need studies, investigation and eventually solutions, not laws.
<!--quoteo(post=1752614:date=Feb 12 2010, 03:45 PM:name=TGunz81)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TGunz81 @ Feb 12 2010, 03:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752614"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Where do we draw the line as why we accept this to be "legal" or "illegal" when almost all of the legal sh!t can kill me... and cannibus (sp?) cannot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, that's what you're doing wrong. You presume government and businesses care about your welfare. I think it's rather naive to propose such a thing even as a hypothetical at this point in time.
Cannabis. So there are no carcinogens or tar in cannabis smoke? Interesting. I didn't know inhaling burning vegetation could be completely harmless.
I don't believe its naive to believe that Government should dictate individuals beliefs, brought forth through time and age. Yes, outdated as it is... it's day to change will happen sooner than you think. Possibly even right now, history could be in the works. Especially our government, over other forms of previous governments. Democracy is the best thing to happen in Government's as it's not run by any single ruler or person. (But, I guess I don't have to tell you that.) While, it's all about big business, I feel it's [our] Governments time to step up to the responsibility of taking care of all its children.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Cannabis. So there are no carcinogens or tar in cannabis smoke? Interesting. I didn't know inhaling burning vegetation could be completely harmless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said completely harmless. Ever. Of course like many things, if you do it a lot, it'll kill you. Celery to me is harmless. No fat. And so few calories that eating it burns more than it's worth. Completely harmless. But, if you ate it everyday for the rest of your life... I'm sure you'd somehow die early from celery.
Nothing is completely harmless. Living is a risk to some people. While I'll be happy to live another 30 or 40 years, I'm not just going to feel it in my lunges, but also in my knees, legs, back, arms, and everything else I plan on moving and bending over the next half of my life... Life is already going to wear me down. I'm pretty sure you're all going to get to the same. When I'm 70, the youngest person will be 55. And we're all going to die. I'm not giving up or anything, but I realize life is too short to cry about stuff all the time. Gotta make the best out of what your given, smile, be kind and retain your personal morality.
But, there's also nothing saying you need to SMOKE cannabis. You can use a vaporizer, in which your not inhaling carcinogens. Or some people even eat it. There's many other ways to ingest marijuana, than smoking it.
What the Christ on a pogo stick?..
<!--quoteo(post=1752685:date=Feb 12 2010, 08:57 PM:name=TGunz81)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TGunz81 @ Feb 12 2010, 08:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1752685"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I feel it's [our] Governments time to step up to the responsibility of taking care of all its children.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...I really have nothing to say to that.