PDA

View Full Version : Legalizing pot.



John Smith
01-08-2014, 01:04 PM
Jon Stewart did a segment on this with the expected part on alcohol, with clips of people who are against marijuana drinking in excess.

It never ceases to amaze me how those who oppose legalizing this stuff seem to believe that no one is using it with it illegal.

It's my opinion that we have NO control over an illegal substance, but we have SOME control over it if it is legal. We can control the quality and we can generate tax revenue. We likely cannot control someone buying it legally and giving it to someone underage, as happens with both tobacco and alcohol.

Having had some experience with drinkers and marijuana users, only the drunks got belligerent and seemed to think they could take on the world. The few potheads I've known all seemed to mellow out and have no desire to drive anywhere.

Based on my experience, as one who neither smokes or drinks or does pot, if those around me are going to do any of these things, I prefer they smoke the marijuana.

Rum_Pirate
01-08-2014, 01:06 PM
Jon Stewart did a segment on this with the expected part on alcohol, with clips of people who are against marijuana drinking in excess.

It never ceases to amaze me how those who oppose legalizing this stuff seem to believe that no one is using it with it illegal.

It's my opinion that we have NO control over an illegal substance, but we have SOME control over it if it is legal. We can control the quality and we can generate tax revenue. We likely cannot control someone buying it legally and giving it to someone underage, as happens with both tobacco and alcohol.

Having had some experience with drinkers and marijuana users, only the drunks got belligerent and seemed to think they could take on the world. The few potheads I've known all seemed to mellow out and have no desire to drive anywhere.

Based on my experience, as one who neither smokes or drinks or does pot, if those around me are going to do any of these things, I prefer they smoke the marijuana.


Are you concerned about secondary smoke and damage it may cause?

BTW Does marijuana cause the same ills to lungs etc like tobacco smoke?

CWSmith
01-08-2014, 01:08 PM
I agree, John, but the issue deserves to be looked at more deeply. For instance, plenty of us drink only in moderation. I'm a 1 beer per month kind of guy. We should question the validity of using any drug for the purpose of altering our consciousness and I don't think it's a good idea. I also don't know where to draw the line - we are losing the war on drugs and that includes crack and meth, but I'm reluctant to legalize them.

The future will only see more potent drugs and we need to get right with this issue in a reasonable way that does not simply vilify every drug. That said, a drunk is a drunk whether they use alcohol or pot and I'm tired of dealing with them.

Keith Wilson
01-08-2014, 01:11 PM
BTW Does marijuana cause the same ills to lungs etc like tobacco smoke?Yes, probably - but it's very hard to smoke anywhere near as much weed as the average smoker does tobacco.

No, it's probably not good for you. Lots of things that aren't good for you are perfectly legal. IMHO the damage caused by making it illegal far outweighs the damage caused by legalizing it.

kc8pql
01-08-2014, 01:11 PM
BTW Does marijuana cause the same ills to lungs etc like tobacco smoke?

Probably, but few people, other than Rastas, smoke 40 a day like a lot of cigarette smokers do.

Rum_Pirate
01-08-2014, 01:17 PM
Probably, but few people, other than Rastas, smoke 40 a day like a lot of cigarette smokers do.


I suspect that smoking a lot less than 40 a day can cause serious health issues and subsequently health centre/hospital loadings.

Keith Wilson
01-08-2014, 01:21 PM
OK, might be. Big Macs are bad for you. Rum is bad for you. Not exercising is bad for you. Deep-fried Twinkies are bad for you. All of these things are legal. The question is not whether smoking weed is healthy, or even a good idea, but whether the harm caused is great enough to justify imprisoning people for smoking it.

switters
01-08-2014, 01:22 PM
I cant find a meme referencing "hold my joint and watch this". Probably a reason for that. Besides, we need the tax money for schools.

Breakaway
01-08-2014, 01:46 PM
Cigarettes are ( mostly) filtered. Joints--last time I rolled one was 25 years ago--not so much. Also, you inhale, exhale with cigs. You inhale and hold a drag on a joint.

Having smoked both ( Nicotine free for 6 months now.Yay for me.), pot was certainly heavier, thicker and seemed to create more "congestion." That' anecdotal, of course.

My point is that the comparison between the two requires more complexity than a simple count.

I think it should be legal. WTH-- I don't smoke it anymore, wont have to pay the upcharge!. Seriously, its being smoked by those who choose to smoke it already, so why not get some tax revenue

Kevin

pkrone
01-08-2014, 01:58 PM
Another thread questioned how to determine impairment when operating a vehicle. A very valid question. The old joke was that to test for impairment, the cop places a twinkie on the dashboard. If the accused grabs it, he's stoned.:d

okawbow
01-08-2014, 02:00 PM
Actually; no one has legalized pot in the US according to federal law. Those who buy weed in Colorado, for example, could be arrested and jailed by federal law enforcement. Those who sell it can also be charged under federal law. A new administration could put the skids on legalization in a hurry. Personally, I'm in favor of anything that de-criminalizes adult substance use. I'm tired of paying to keep potheads in jail.

John Smith
01-08-2014, 03:14 PM
Are you concerned about secondary smoke and damage it may cause?

BTW Does marijuana cause the same ills to lungs etc like tobacco smoke?

I'm going to assume one will not be able to smoke pot anywhere one cannot smoke a cigarette.

It seems to me that every time someone causes an auto accident under the influence, it is alcohol. Perhaps in a perfect world, no one would smoke or drink any of these things, but it's not a perfect world, and I'd rather people I know smoke pot than drink booze.

Lew Barrett
01-08-2014, 03:18 PM
Legalizing pot is sensible, what else is there to discuss? Guns?

Isn't it time for a good rum?

John Smith
01-08-2014, 03:19 PM
I agree, John, but the issue deserves to be looked at more deeply. For instance, plenty of us drink only in moderation. I'm a 1 beer per month kind of guy. We should question the validity of using any drug for the purpose of altering our consciousness and I don't think it's a good idea. I also don't know where to draw the line - we are losing the war on drugs and that includes crack and meth, but I'm reluctant to legalize them.

The future will only see more potent drugs and we need to get right with this issue in a reasonable way that does not simply vilify every drug. That said, a drunk is a drunk whether they use alcohol or pot and I'm tired of dealing with them.

I'm not sure I should care what substance one uses to get high. All I can witness to is that the drug I've seen modify behavior in a nasty way is alcohol. If I know people who do other drugs that alcohol or marijuana, I'm not aware of it, but that could mean they don't do other drugs, or the other drug use isn't so obvious.

Either way, I believe it is an actual fact that we have more control over substances that are legal than over substances that are not. That is not to be construed as my saying we have total control.

Let's fact it; drinking age is 21, but most teenagers manage to get booze if they want it. This will be no different.

Under our present policies, we are losing the war, spending a great deal of money to do so both in law enforcement and prisons, and it would make more sense to change our policies, save money, and make some revenue.

John Smith
01-08-2014, 03:21 PM
I suspect that smoking a lot less than 40 a day can cause serious health issues and subsequently health centre/hospital loadings.

And smoking it causes no health problems when it is illegal to smoke it?

I'd really like, for the sake of this discussion, to not have anyone post as if no one smokes pot because it is illegal. Or that more people will smoke it if it is legalized. There are many people who do not smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, which are legal. There's no valid reason to believe those people would smoke pot just because it is legal.

John Smith
01-08-2014, 03:23 PM
Actually; no one has legalized pot in the US according to federal law. Those who buy weed in Colorado, for example, could be arrested and jailed by federal law enforcement. Those who sell it can also be charged under federal law. A new administration could put the skids on legalization in a hurry. Personally, I'm in favor of anything that de-criminalizes adult substance use. I'm tired of paying to keep potheads in jail.
That is true, but it seems the feds are looking the other way for now.

ron ll
01-08-2014, 03:24 PM
I don't know John, since Washington State legalized the stuff the world pretty much came to an end. Sure enough, I just finally got up from my bean-bag chair and looked out the window, and yup, the sky is still falling here in Seattle. Whatever have we done?!

BETTY-B
01-08-2014, 03:25 PM
Actually; no one has legalized pot in the US according to federal law. Those who buy weed in Colorado, for example, could be arrested and jailed by federal law enforcement. Those who sell it can also be charged under federal law. A new administration could put the skids on legalization in a hurry. Personally, I'm in favor of anything that de-criminalizes adult substance use. I'm tired of paying to keep potheads in jail.

It had been up to the local federal prosecutors in each district to make the charges. However, Holder has now actually said, specifically to Washington and Colorado's governors, that they now have local "control" over their own marijuana laws. Yes, that could still change tomorrow. But as of right this minute, you can not be arrested by federal law enforcement in these two states only.

John Smith
01-08-2014, 03:36 PM
I expect this will be the next gay marriage. It will spread as the people see the world does not end.

One day we will look back and see how stupid Americans were in these areas.

switters
01-08-2014, 03:36 PM
In todays news paper there was article to refute an internet rumor concerning Rep. Michelle Bachmann got busted for being high on pot and driving in town.

http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20140108/NEWS01/301080058/Fake-news-story-claims-Rep-Bachmann-arrested-driving-stoned-Fort-Collins

newslo has another satire bit about Duck Dynasty that is pretty funny. They are very "progressive" oriented in a mean spirited sort of way for you left wing nuts in need of some partisan humor.:p

You right wing nuts might want to give it a pass unless you need your daily dose of outrage.

BrianY
01-08-2014, 03:45 PM
We should question the validity of using any drug for the purpose of altering our consciousness and I don't think it's a good idea.

Why? What is wrong with using a drug to alter conciousness? What is the difference between altering one's consciousness through meditation and doing it by smoking pot?

In what way are people's reasons (both "good" and "bad") for consuming alcohol different from people's reason's for smoking pot?

Rum_Pirate
01-08-2014, 04:08 PM
I'm going to assume one will not be able to smoke pot anywhere one cannot smoke a cigarette.

It seems to me that every time someone causes an auto accident under the influence, it is alcohol. Perhaps in a perfect world, no one would smoke or drink any of these things, but it's not a perfect world, and I'd rather people I know smoke pot than drink booze.

Are you really sure about that?

Consider that marijuana is not legal at the time of these reports and would increase when legal.



How Often Does Drugged Driving Cause Accidents?It is hard to measure the exact contribution of drug intoxication to driving accidents, because blood tests for drugs other than alcohol are inconsistently performed, and many drivers who cause accidents are found to have both drugs and alcohol in their system, making it hard to determine which substance had the greater effect.
Teens and Drugged DrivingVehicle accidents are the leading cause of death among young people aged 16 to 19. When teens’ relative lack of driving experience is combined with the use of marijuana or other substances that affect cognitive and motor abilities, the results can be tragic.
Between 2001 and 2006, 14.1 percent of high school seniors responding to the Monitoring the Future survey admitted to driving under the influence of marijuana in the 2 weeks prior to the survey.

One NHTSA study found that in 2009, 18 percent of fatally injured drivers tested positive for at least one illicit, prescription, or over-the-counter drug (an increase from 13 percent in 2005).
What Drugs Contribute to Accidents?After alcohol, THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the active ingredient in marijuana, is the substance most commonly found in the blood of impaired drivers, fatally injured drivers, and motor vehicle crash victims. Studies in several localities have found that approximately 4 to 14 percent of drivers who sustained injury or died in traffic accidents tested positive for THC.
A study of over 3,000 fatally injured drivers in Australia showed that when THC was present in the blood of the driver, he or she was much more likely to be at fault for the accident. Additionally, the higher the THC concentration, the more likely the driver was to be culpable.
Considerable evidence from both real and simulated driving studies indicates that marijuana can negatively affect a driver’s attentiveness, perception of time and speed, and ability to draw on information obtained from past experiences. Research shows that impairment increases significantly when marijuana use is combined with alcohol.
Other drugs commonly implicated in accidents include opiates, amphetamines, benzodiazepines, and cocaine. For instance, in a 2003 study of seriously injured drivers admitted to a Maryland shock trauma center, drugs other than alcohol were present in more than half of the cases. These included marijuana (26.9 percent), cocaine (11.6 percent), benzodiazepines (11.2 percent), and opiates and other prescription drugs (10.2 percent). A quarter of the cases involved both alcohol and other drugs.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/drugged-driving

Keith Wilson
01-08-2014, 04:32 PM
Sure, driving while stoned is not at all a good idea at all. That's not the point. Neither is driving while drunk. Both are currently illegal, and people currently do both. The question is whether the harm prevented by making marijuana illegal justifies the ham done by locking up marijuana users.

Since every one of your arguments applies equally to alcohol, perhaps you would favor a reinstatement of Prohibition?

John Smith
01-08-2014, 04:52 PM
Are you really sure about that?

Consider that marijuana is not legal at the time of these reports and would increase when legal.

I disagree. If the driver was high on pot, it would be an additional crime, and hardly be kept from the news. or charges.

Driving under the influence of an illegal substance would not be kept secret.

As I've said, the potheads I've known mellowed out, sat in the corner, and had no desire to go anywhere. They didn't drive. They didn't get angry.

Are those exceptions? I don't know. I have known alcoholics and they tended to behave very badly when drunk.

John Smith
01-08-2014, 04:53 PM
Sure, driving while stoned is not at all a good idea at all. That's not the point. Neither is driving while drunk. Both are currently illegal, and people currently do both. The question is whether the harm prevented by making marijuana illegal justifies the ham done by locking up marijuana users.

Since every one of your arguments applies equally to alcohol, perhaps you would favor a reinstatement of Prohibition?

I'm also sure a bit of research will show the punishment for this crime varies a great deal due to skin color and funds.

CWSmith
01-08-2014, 05:25 PM
What is the difference between altering one's consciousness through meditation and doing it by smoking pot?

Meditation is a consciousness-driven examination and drug use is an escape. How many rock stars have we lost to meditation? How much gang violence thrives on the purchase of yoga mats?

Breakaway
01-08-2014, 05:28 PM
Look, voice of (past) experience here. People who are heavy pot smokers or drinkers are going to do those things and drive ( and go to work, and just about everything else).

People who are truly recreational or social users of those drugs will not--or will not if they have had more than a taste on any given night.

One cannot claim " pot smokers do this and drinkers do that and meth snorters do this." Once someone gets high enough that their judgement is impaired, they MIGHT do anything.

Kevin

ron ll
01-08-2014, 05:34 PM
How much gang violence thrives on the purchase of yoga mats?

Gang violence is because the pot is illegal, not because it induces violence.

BETTY-B
01-08-2014, 05:50 PM
Meditation is a consciousness-driven examination and drug use is an escape. How many rock stars have we lost to meditation? How much gang violence thrives on the purchase of yoga mats?

Have we lost any rock stars to pot? How many have we gained?

Legalizing something the gangs have a grip on takes their power away.

Bob Adams
01-08-2014, 05:59 PM
https://scontent-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s526x296/1549552_571991476230617_1187008265_n.jpg

Lew Barrett
01-08-2014, 06:06 PM
Let's discuss the one of the most important issue: gateways. I will express my opinion if anybody else sees the importance. As has been inferred here already, it closes one path to criminality. There are other things we could discuss and learn about in respect to "gateway-ness."

Bob Adams
01-08-2014, 06:12 PM
The state of legality makes little differance in volume of use, IMHO. What it affects is the supply chain, taxed and regulated VS illegal and black marketed, with the attendant violence and incarceration problems. I think it being illegal actually tempts new users more, the "forbidden fruit" factor.

Keith Wilson
01-08-2014, 06:15 PM
One cannot claim " pot smokers do this and drinkers do that and meth snorters do this." I disagree. Different drugs affect the mind differently. While predictions about any given individual aren't worth much, one can certainly say that the odds of a meth-head doing something unpleasant are far greater than someone smoking weed - and the statistics bear this out.

Lew Barrett
01-08-2014, 06:34 PM
A good deal of information about behavior under the influence of various substances is well known. There are standard profiles for users of various drugs, and the profiles differ. It gets more confusing if people are taking various different substances at the same time.

As Keith says, any generality we might make is bound to have exceptions but we can make reasonably accurate assumptions for the general case.

hokiefan
01-08-2014, 06:39 PM
I disagree. Different drugs affect the mind differently. While predictions about any given individual aren't worth much, one can certainly say that the odds of a meth-head doing something unpleasant are far greater than someone smoking weed - and the statistics bear this out.

I don't think they've had much luck doing research on the long-term use of meth however. There are very few long-term meth addicts. |:(

Cheers,

Bobby

Lew Barrett
01-08-2014, 06:46 PM
This is where you can if you're serious and want to see the sponsored studies.

SAMHSA (http://www.samhsa.gov/data/)

You can look all this chit up!

TomF
01-08-2014, 06:54 PM
... How many rock stars have we lost to meditation?hmmm. Leonard Cohen dropped out for a few years. :D. Cat Stevens disappeared in an Islamic haze.

skipper68
01-08-2014, 07:01 PM
IMO, this is a great start to take down big oil, and start our country up again.
Ya, smoke it- or I have heard rumors its good in brownies.
The possibilities are endless.
Small farmers back with a crop that CLEANS soil.
Industrial Hemp is IT!
Clothes, food, paper, Hempcrete, plastics, Hemp powered machines, powered by the hemp oil they extract.
Perpetual motion.
It cleans the air, needs no pesticides and is harvested 4 times a year.
It is nutritious natural food for humans and livestock.
CRAP!
Monsanto is already patenting it!!!!!
:D
Watch!

skipper68
01-08-2014, 07:02 PM
IMO, this is a great start to take down big oil, and start our country up again.
Ya, smoke it- or I have heard rumors its good in brownies.
The possibilities are endless.
Small farmers back with a crop that CLEANS soil.
Industrial Hemp is IT!
Clothes, food, paper, Hempcrete, plastics, Hemp powered machines, powered by the hemp oil they extract.
Perpetual motion.
It cleans the air, needs no pesticides and is harvested 4 times a year.
It is nutritious natural food for humans and livestock.
CRAP!
Monsanto is already patenting it!!!!!
WATCH!!!
:D

P.S. I would rather deal with a pot head over an alcoholic with liver damage and an attitude-ANY DAY. ;)

ron ll
01-08-2014, 07:30 PM
Ya, smoke it- or I have heard rumors its good in brownies.


Here in Washington one can buy it in stores in lollipops among many other forms.

Breakaway
01-08-2014, 07:33 PM
Well, there's an unsaid side to those studies: The meth head who does nothing--or doesn't get caught--isn't one of the metrics used in the stats. She doesn't make the news, nor get arrested.

I agree that particular drugs will enhance certain types of behavior, but someone may be just as dangerous to society on ganja as for speed, booze, or anything else. The meth user may floor the gas pedal in purposeful and delirious ecstasy. The pot smoker may run the stop sign because his mind was on something else. It doesn't seem to make much difference to me whether I am killed by somenone who just doesn't care if I die, or someone who just doesn't know how he killed me. I'm dead either way.

Kevin

Curtism
01-08-2014, 07:37 PM
. . . but someone may be just as dangerous to society on ganja as for speed, booze, or anything else.

With all due respect, this is bull feathers. I would hope you'd be as concerned about those who drive around dialing cell phones or texting, even though that is perfectly legal.

Lew Barrett
01-08-2014, 08:19 PM
Well, there's an unsaid side to those studies: The meth head who does nothing--or doesn't get caught--isn't one of the metrics used in the stats. She doesn't make the news, nor get arrested.

I agree that particular drugs will enhance certain types of behavior, but someone may be just as dangerous to society on ganja as for speed, booze, or anything else. The meth user may floor the gas pedal in purposeful and delirious ecstasy. The pot smoker may run the stop sign because his mind was on something else. It doesn't seem to make much difference to me whether I am killed by somenone who just doesn't care if I die, or someone who just doesn't know how he killed me. I'm dead either way.

Kevin

I can't speak to the populations or how they're selected in all the studies (though the studies generally do) but there are variations in perceived behavior, and they're not all the same. I'd guess that becomes even more true when abuse is chronic. Again, nobody advocates for people to drive stoned, and a feature of the law here is that it establishes criteria for measurement (effectively zero tolerance) when people are apprehended driving under the influence. The issue remains one of considering the benefit of controlling sourcing and the inequity of punishment (I guess you have to first believe that punishing for use is silly) since the behavior can't be eradicated regardless if pot is legal or illegal.

Lew Barrett
01-08-2014, 08:22 PM
Here in Washington one can buy it in stores in lollipops among many other forms.

Please post a list of stores and available flavors.

Yeadon
01-08-2014, 08:29 PM
Gummy worms, too.

Old Dryfoot
01-08-2014, 08:30 PM
I see lots of reefer madness on this thread.

BrianY
01-08-2014, 09:24 PM
Meditation is a consciousness-driven examination and drug use is an escape.

Drug use for some people is a deliberate and thoughtful means to examine and expand their consciousness (see Timothy Leary), enhance perception and an essential part of their religious practice. Not every drug user is using it as an escape.

In any case, so what if they are using it as an escape? People use alcohol for the same reason. Why should people be able to drink beer but not light up a joint to relax after a hard day at work?



How many rock stars have we lost to meditation? How much gang violence thrives on the purchase of yoga mats?

how many rock stars and artists and authors and average joes have we lost to booze and ciggaretts and high fat diets and car accidents? As for gang violence, legalizing pot would eliminate the gang violence associated with inevitable and unstoppable growing and distribution of the drug.

Note that I'm not advocating the legalization of alll drugs. I do believe that the social and personal costs of cocaine, heroine and other hard drugs are sufficent reasons for keeping them illegal. I am convinced however that is hypocritical to allow the sale and consumption of alcohol while banning the sale and consumption of pot - a substance that has been demonstrated to be no worse and possibly even better for you than alcohol.

johnw
01-08-2014, 09:39 PM
Well, there's an unsaid side to those studies: The meth head who does nothing--or doesn't get caught--isn't one of the metrics used in the stats. She doesn't make the news, nor get arrested.

I agree that particular drugs will enhance certain types of behavior, but someone may be just as dangerous to society on ganja as for speed, booze, or anything else. The meth user may floor the gas pedal in purposeful and delirious ecstasy. The pot smoker may run the stop sign because his mind was on something else. It doesn't seem to make much difference to me whether I am killed by somenone who just doesn't care if I die, or someone who just doesn't know how he killed me. I'm dead either way.

Kevin

You clearly haven't had to deal with many tweakers. Never thought I'd miss junkies until tweakers started coming into my shop.

Junkies steal slow, and don't get in your face when you catch them. Potheads don't seem to steal much at all, at least when they come in high. They do get confused easily, but that's about the worst thing about dealing with them.

Different drugs do result in differing behavior.

Old Dryfoot
01-08-2014, 09:45 PM
"Different drugs do result in differing behavior."

Ever know anyone that was a happy content drunk when the beer was flowing, only to see them turn into a violent aggressive drunk when it was whiskey in the glass instead? I do.

Old Dryfoot
01-08-2014, 09:46 PM
The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 and the events (motivations) leading to it becoming law make for some interesting reading.

Old Dryfoot
01-08-2014, 10:03 PM
Hearst, DuPont, and Mellon. Without them there never would have been a war on drugs.

CWSmith
01-08-2014, 10:42 PM
Why? What is wrong with using a drug to alter conciousness?

Because it does not elevate consciousness, it lowers it. The same is true for that third glass of scotch.


Gang violence is because the pot is illegal, not because it induces violence.

Obviously. The question I'm trying to raise is where to draw the line and why. If you use meth, you will eventually be getting your money illegally. It's not pot that worries me, although I am fairly tired of potheads just because they are never the sharpest blade in the drawer.


Have we lost any rock stars to pot? How many have we gained?

Legalizing something the gangs have a grip on takes their power away.

Again, I'm really concerned about the harder stuff. I don't care about pot.


hmmm. Leonard Cohen dropped out for a few years. :D. Cat Stevens disappeared in an Islamic haze.

Funny, but they didn't die.


Drug use for some people is a deliberate and thoughtful means to examine and expand their consciousness (see Timothy Leary), enhance perception and an essential part of their religious practice...

Total BS. They fool a fool into thinking they are brighter than they are.

Old Dryfoot
01-08-2014, 11:09 PM
...I am fairly tired of potheads just because they are never the sharpest blade in the drawer.


Want to guess what all of these people have in common?

Bill Gates
Sir Richard Branson
Rick Steves
Aaron Sorkin
Michael Phelps
Barack Obama
Michael Bloomberg
Ted Turner
Montel Williams
Stephen King
Arnold Schwarzenegger

WX
01-08-2014, 11:29 PM
Want to guess what all of these people have in common?

Bill Gates
Sir Richard Branson
Rick Steves
Aaron Sorkin
Michael Phelps
Barack Obama
Michael Bloomberg
Ted Turner
Montel Williams
Stephen King
Arnold Schwarzenegger
JFK may have tried LSD with one of his many girlfriends.
Legalising pot will bring it's own set of problems but I doubt they will be as bad as the negatives involved in it being illegal.

CWSmith
01-08-2014, 11:37 PM
Want to guess what all of these people have in common?

Bill Gates
Sir Richard Branson
Rick Steves
Aaron Sorkin
Michael Phelps
Barack Obama
Michael Bloomberg
Ted Turner
Montel Williams
Stephen King
Arnold Schwarzenegger

You know what else they have in common? Most of them stopped.

WX
01-08-2014, 11:57 PM
You know what else they have in common? Most of them stopped.

Just goes to show it's not physically addictive.:)
A lot of people tend to ease up or give up on it as they get older. I use to smoke a lot back in my hippy daze but single malt whisky is my drug of choice these days.:)

CWSmith
01-09-2014, 12:08 AM
Just goes to show it's not physically addictive.:)
A lot of people tend to ease up or give up on it as they get older. I use to smoke a lot back in my hippy daze but single malt whisky is my drug of choice these days.:)

Smart.

I think I said far above that I think pot should be legal and that my main concern is the harder drugs. That said, this rubbish about mind expanding or mind altering or whatever is just that - rubbish. Every senior scientist I know who has made a real contribution to their field of study long ago gave up smoking pot. That organ between your ears is uniquely powerful, but there is no evidence it is improved by the recreational use of drugs of any kind (alcohol included). The mind and body do bounce back when you are younger, but every year it takes longer and longer. Eventually, you either stop punishing that organ or you lose the power it offers. No good scientist I know has ever told me "It was much easier to do that calculation after I'd used pot the day before." It just never happens any more often than they do better work after a bender.

Canoeyawl
01-09-2014, 12:09 AM
How Often Does Drugged Driving Cause Accidents?

I'm betting more people are maimed or killed in car accidents with nothing illicit in their systems. So it follows that the odds are better if you are "stoned"

Old Dryfoot
01-09-2014, 12:10 AM
You know what else they have in common? Most of them stopped.

Some may have stopped, a fair number are still blazing away though.

In the same way not all those who drink are obnoxious drunks, not everyone that smokes is a brainless pothead.

hokiefan
01-09-2014, 12:15 AM
Smart.

I think I said far above that I think pot should be legal and that my main concern is the harder drugs. That said, this rubbish about mind expanding or mind altering or whatever is just that - rubbish. Every senior scientist I know who has made a real contribution to their field of study long ago gave up smoking pot. That organ between your ears is uniquely powerful, but there is no evidence it is improved by the recreational use of drugs of any kind (alcohol included). The mind and body do bounce back when you are younger, but every year it takes longer and longer. Eventually, you either stop punishing that organ or you lose the power it offers. No good scientist I know has ever told me "It was much easier to do that calculation after I'd used pot the day before." It just never happens and more easily than they do better work after a bender.

Reminds me of college days. Went with some buddies to a friend's apartment to watch Monday Night Football. Had a ton of beer while watching the game, no worries its a half mile walk back to the dorm. On the way back I remembered I had forgotten to do my calculus homework. So when I got back I sat down with a beer and did my homework. The next morning I realized it was illegible and needed to be copied over before handing it in, but it was all correct. To this day I'm shocked when I think about it.

Cheers,

Bobby

skuthorp
01-09-2014, 12:29 AM
Hearst, DuPont, and Mellon. Without them there never would have been a war on drugs.
Yup, and despite assurances during WW2 thousands of acres of hemp were planted and made into aircrew clothing because the products of the above industrials could hack it.
Despite the obvious, that addiction is a health problem, the penal, law and policing industries with way too much to lose join the synthetic fibre and petroleum industry lobbies in assuring that the status quo remains.

Canoeyawl
01-09-2014, 01:09 AM
I can still smell rope burning around here some days

mdh
01-09-2014, 02:52 AM
Yep, 2 years worth of unemployment checks, free health coverage due to unACA, food stamps for the munchies, and I'll see you in Colorado.

Curtism
01-09-2014, 05:31 AM
Yup, and despite assurances during WW2 thousands of acres of hemp were planted and made into aircrew clothing because the products of the above industrials could hack it.
Despite the obvious, that addiction is a health problem, the penal, law and policing industries with way too much to lose join the synthetic fibre and petroleum industry lobbies in assuring that the status quo remains.

Yeap, the private prison industry trembles at the thought of losing one of their biggest cash cows. And lets not forget big pharma and the cancer industrial complex. The last thing they want is something that provides relief from symptoms that can easily be grown in someones back yard.

varadero
01-09-2014, 06:13 AM
Does this meen that the growing of flax and therefore the availiability of all the great by-products will again become legal?

Bob Adams
01-09-2014, 06:55 AM
Hearst, DuPont, and Mellon. Without them there never would have been a war on drugs.


And paranoid white people. Drug laws are among the most racist in the USA. Support for them was raised by propaganda showing white women being raped by drug crazed negroes.

John Smith
01-09-2014, 07:16 AM
Look, voice of (past) experience here. People who are heavy pot smokers or drinkers are going to do those things and drive ( and go to work, and just about everything else).

People who are truly recreational or social users of those drugs will not--or will not if they have had more than a taste on any given night.

One cannot claim " pot smokers do this and drinkers do that and meth snorters do this." Once someone gets high enough that their judgement is impaired, they MIGHT do anything.

Kevin
This post brings to mind a very long ago discussion on PBS headed by a judge who was tired of drug users being brought before him.

One father told a gut wrenching story of his son dying because of drugs. The judge, with great compassion, said to him, "Drugs being illegal did not save your son."

The overall theme of this judge's argument was that we have no control over illegal substances. We have some control over legal substances.

During prohibition people drank stuff that wasn't fit to drink. At least with alcohol legal, there's some control over the quality. Are drugs any different?

Does anyone here thing the war on drugs has worked? How much crime, other than drug use, is related to drugs being illegal?

Curtism
01-09-2014, 07:40 AM
This post brings to mind a very long ago discussion on PBS headed by a judge who was tired of drug users being brought before him.

One father told a gut wrenching story of his son dying because of drugs. The judge, with great compassion, said to him, "Drugs being illegal did not save your son."

The overall theme of this judge's argument was that we have no control over illegal substances. We have some control over legal substances.

During prohibition people drank stuff that wasn't fit to drink. At least with alcohol legal, there's some control over the quality. Are drugs any different?

Does anyone here thing the war on drugs has worked? How much crime, other than drug use, is related to drugs being illegal?

I think it's important to distinguish between drugs that are manufactured in a lab, like alcohol, and substances such as pot that are cultivated. Marijuana is quite different than any of the distilled compounds.

John Smith
01-09-2014, 08:28 AM
Let's discuss the one of the most important issue: gateways. I will express my opinion if anybody else sees the importance. As has been inferred here already, it closes one path to criminality. There are other things we could discuss and learn about in respect to "gateway-ness."

I don't buy it. Regardless, the fact that drugs are illegal does not stop those who want them from getting them. It only puts a lot of people in jail that shouldn't be. It makes a very profitable industry for a lot of bad people.

There is no evidence that making any of these substances legal will increase their use, or that people who smoke pot, if it's legal, will go on to other drugs.

I suspect it makes as much sense to figure that if pot is not readily available, and something else is, the person who can't easily get the marijuana will try what's readily available; that would be a gate.

John Smith
01-09-2014, 08:34 AM
With all due respect, this is bull feathers. I would hope you'd be as concerned about those who drive around dialing cell phones or texting, even though that is perfectly legal.
Actually it is not legal. At least not in my state. Is it enforced? Not often.

But, then, a drunk driver is usually only caught AFTER he runs into something or through a red light.

NO ONE wants anyone driving who is distracted or high. As I've said often, we cannot get uninsured and unlicensed drivers off the road, and my suggestions to use technology to do this (car won't start without valid license/insurance) has been scoffed at.

All that said, if a driver is high, does it matter what substance? And, as I've posted, in my admittedly limited experience, I've not seen anyone smoking marijuana who wanted to drive.

John Smith
01-09-2014, 08:36 AM
"Different drugs do result in differing behavior."

Ever know anyone that was a happy content drunk when the beer was flowing, only to see them turn into a violent aggressive drunk when it was whiskey in the glass instead? I do.

I've seen some nasty drunks from beer.

John Smith
01-09-2014, 08:40 AM
JFK may have tried LSD with one of his many girlfriends.
Legalising pot will bring it's own set of problems but I doubt they will be as bad as the negatives involved in it being illegal.

I think we'll find out. My gut tells me the feds will leave Colorado (and other states that legalize pot) alone as an opportunity to see the impacts of legal pot.

The only question I have is whether or not people will look at these test cases through unbiased eyes and if we'll get an honest assessment.

John Smith
01-09-2014, 08:43 AM
Smart.

I think I said far above that I think pot should be legal and that my main concern is the harder drugs. That said, this rubbish about mind expanding or mind altering or whatever is just that - rubbish. Every senior scientist I know who has made a real contribution to their field of study long ago gave up smoking pot. That organ between your ears is uniquely powerful, but there is no evidence it is improved by the recreational use of drugs of any kind (alcohol included). The mind and body do bounce back when you are younger, but every year it takes longer and longer. Eventually, you either stop punishing that organ or you lose the power it offers. No good scientist I know has ever told me "It was much easier to do that calculation after I'd used pot the day before." It just never happens any more often than they do better work after a bender.

A lot of our opinions are based on assumptions which may or may not be accurate.

As I said a few posts ago, I expect easily gotten marijuana will disincline people to seek and try less easily gotten and still illegal drugs.

I've also said I'd rather people I have to deal with get high on anything but alcohol: from my limited experience, only drunks get nasty and belligerent. More experience might change that opinion.

John Smith
01-09-2014, 08:46 AM
I think it's important to distinguish between drugs that are manufactured in a lab, like alcohol, and substances such as pot that are cultivated. Marijuana is quite different than any of the distilled compounds.

I recall a "Quincy" episode where the fertilizer used to grow some pot ended up with sick kids. I expect that's possible. All the more reason to make it legal so the quality can be controlled.

Breakaway
01-09-2014, 09:11 AM
ou clearly haven't had to deal with many tweakers. Never thought I'd miss junkies until tweakers started coming into my shop.

Junkies steal slow, and don't get in your face when you catch them. Potheads don't seem to steal much at all, at least when they come in high. They do get confused easily, but that's about the worst thing about dealing with them.

Different drugs do result in differing behavior.

John,

I dont doubt that meth users cause a ruckus. In fact I know they do. But all of them don't. You just see the ones who have gotten to the point of oblivion. You cant say with certainty--remember, statistics were brought into the conversation; numbers-- that every meth user steals, is a social miscreant etc. All you can say with certainty is that you saw___meth users in your store stealing. ( and even then, how do you KNOW they were taking meth? Could be crack, could be prescription speed they are abusing; hell, they could just be plain old psychotic)

Kevin

ETA: Just to be clear I am pro- legalization not because I think pot is harmless, but because its prevalent despite decades-old laws against it.Hence I think our money and resources would be best spent on other things.

K

switters
01-09-2014, 09:36 AM
Does this meen that the growing of flax and therefore the availiability of all the great by-products will again become legal?

We have guy in colorado who is starting a small and somewhat legalally sanctioned hemp farm, more are on the way.

http://durangoherald.com/article/20140107/NEWS01/140109664/0/s/Will-hemp-be-the-next-cash-crop

slug
01-09-2014, 09:43 AM
.

John,

I dont doubt that meth users cause a ruckus. In fact I know they do. But all of them don't. You just see the ones who have gotten to the point of oblivion. You cant say with certainty--remember, statistics were brought into the conversation; numbers-- that every meth user steals, is a social miscreant etc. All you can say with certainty is that you saw___meth users in your store stealing. ( and even then, how do you KNOW they were taking meth? Could be crack, could be prescription speed they are abusing; hell, they could just be plain old psychotic)

Kevin

ETA: Just to be clear I am pro- legalization not because I think pot is harmless, but because its prevalent despite decades-old laws against it.Hence I think our money and resources would be best spent on other things.

K

HARMLESS !!!!!

no way... Pot makes you dumb...thats why they call it dope.

Pot smoking carpenters typical dont have a full hand of fingers. Pot smoking painters always need to repaint the panel.

if you smoke dope or come to work drunk on my job site you will get fired.

Obviously pot shouldn't be a criminal offense , but you cant state that its harmless.

its a shame that education cant convince people to avoid pot.

Bob Adams
01-09-2014, 09:51 AM
I think it's important to distinguish between drugs that are manufactured in a lab, like alcohol, and substances such as pot that are cultivated. Marijuana is quite different than any of the distilled compounds.

Great lab:

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/3-GALLON-COPPER-WHISKEY-STILL-MOONSHINE-STILL-/00/s/MTIwMFgxNjAw/$(KGrHqJ,!nwE-wqtg63KBPtmu,Gihg~~60_35.JPG

Osborne Russell
01-09-2014, 09:55 AM
Actually; no one has legalized pot in the US according to federal law. Those who buy weed in Colorado, for example, could be arrested and jailed by federal law enforcement. Those who sell it can also be charged under federal law. A new administration could put the skids on legalization in a hurry. Personally, I'm in favor of anything that de-criminalizes adult substance use. I'm tired of paying to keep potheads in jail.

Technically true but it's kind of like "I heard a few cracks but I haven't seen any avalance, yet . . . "

The feds are not going to arrest a few thousand, let alone tens of thousands, of otherwise law abiding people just to look strong, because it doesn't make you look strong, it makes you look foolish.

If Congress doesn't act this could be even worse than prohibition. Federal prohibition keeps the price up and the money flowing to the criminals, while the Feds don't have the resources to stop it and the states refuse to even try.

Peoples' lungs be damned, this is bad governing.

Osborne Russell
01-09-2014, 09:57 AM
Legalizing pot is sensible, what else is there to discuss? Guns?

Isn't it time for a good rum?

BY:D

Old Dryfoot
01-09-2014, 10:40 AM
HARMLESS !!!!!

no way... Pot makes you dumb...thats why they call it dope.

Pot smoking carpenters typical dont have a full hand of fingers. Pot smoking painters always need to repaint the panel.

if you smoke dope or come to work drunk on my job site you will get fired.

Obviously pot shouldn't be a criminal offense , but you cant state that its harmless.

its a shame that education cant convince people to avoid pot.

Clueless... stop getting your information from the DEA, It's making you look like a foolish parrot.

slug
01-09-2014, 10:46 AM
Who you calling clueless you knuckle dragging trog.

Show me your facts.

Old Dryfoot
01-09-2014, 10:48 AM
And paranoid white people. Drug laws are among the most racist in the USA. Support for them was raised by propaganda showing white women being raped by drug crazed negroes.

It's reefer madness. Way back when, a few pi$$ed off white guys succeeded in protecting their monopolies and investment by vilifying pot. Anslinger, kept the lie alive and everyone has bought into it ever since. Booze is far more harmful both health wise and socially yet we can find a way to live with that. $hit... we even regard it's consumption as a sign of refinement, sophistication, and elegance.

John Smith
01-09-2014, 10:48 AM
HARMLESS !!!!!

no way... Pot makes you dumb...thats why they call it dope.

Pot smoking carpenters typical dont have a full hand of fingers. Pot smoking painters always need to repaint the panel.

if you smoke dope or come to work drunk on my job site you will get fired.

Obviously pot shouldn't be a criminal offense , but you cant state that its harmless.

its a shame that education cant convince people to avoid pot.

Education can't get people to not smoke cigarettes.

Old Dryfoot
01-09-2014, 10:50 AM
Who you calling clueless you knuckle dragging trog.

Show me your facts.

"Pot smoking carpenters typical dont have a full hand of fingers."
"Pot smoking painters always need to repaint the panel."

You first.

slug
01-09-2014, 10:57 AM
I dont have time to educate you..put your joint down and google the effects of marijana usage.

pay particular attention when they describe brain damage

and dont come near my job site.

Breakaway
01-09-2014, 11:01 AM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by slug http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=4026302#post4026302)
HARMLESS !!!!!

no way... Pot makes you dumb...thats why they call it dope.

Slug, I copied and pasted my statement below.


ETA: Just to be clear I am pro- legalization not because I think pot is harmless,

If that it is unclear I apologize to all. I mean that I do not think pot is harmless, but I am an advocate of legalization regardless of that belief, and for the reasons stated.

Kevin

Old Dryfoot
01-09-2014, 11:05 AM
Well I'm of to my job site, have fun with you anger. Do try to learn a little about the real world though, I promise it won't hurt.

slug
01-09-2014, 11:07 AM
Have fun flipping pizzas

skuthorp
01-09-2014, 11:22 AM
Now now boys. Slug does have a point about pot and work, but no more so than an alcohol impaired worker. But pot now is not the same as pot in th1960's, plant breeding and probably patented GM varieties are way more potent. But then that's like comparing beer to op rum, no?

Osborne Russell
01-09-2014, 11:43 AM
Obviously pot shouldn't be a criminal offense , but you cant state that its harmless.

That's true of aspirin.


its a shame that education cant convince people to avoid pot.

It's a shame that education can't convince people that the costs of prohibition outweigh the benefits ridiculously.

slug
01-09-2014, 11:59 AM
Here you go. University of Maryland School of medicine research ..effects on the brain

have a watch.


http://youtu.be/Tgp-oZ_f6Xk

Lew Barrett
01-09-2014, 01:44 PM
You know what else they have in common? Most of them stopped.

Not remotely the case. (http://www.mpp.org/outreach/top-50-marijuana-users-list.html?page=5)

For many, admitting to use would be like admitting they are atheists. That makes them neither abstainers nor believers.

Here are a few with integrity. Many are on the list. And Richard Branson? A pothead if ever there was one!

Lew Barrett
01-09-2014, 01:47 PM
HARMLESS !!!!!

no way... Pot makes you dumb...thats why they call it dope.

Pot smoking carpenters typical dont have a full hand of fingers. Pot smoking painters always need to repaint the panel.

if you smoke dope or come to work drunk on my job site you will get fired.

Obviously pot shouldn't be a criminal offense , but you cant state that its harmless.

its a shame that education cant convince people to avoid pot.

Yeah, it's a bad idea to run power tools stoned, and it's a bad idea to abuse any substance. This is different than saying it makes you stupid. It makes you stoned. And when you are stoned, the best thing to do is stay at home, just as it would be if you had a glass or two of wine. Does wine make you stupid?

BrianY
01-09-2014, 02:35 PM
Slug, I completely agree that people shoudl not operate power tools or work construction while under the influence of pot I also agree that pot is not completely harmelss.

What I don't get is why should tehre be a legal distinction between alcohol and pot. It is clear that alcohol is harmful and that being under the influence while working or driving can be a very bad thing. Every one of your arguments against pot apply to alcohol. In your opinion, should alcohol also be illegal? If not, why not? What is the difference between it and pot?

TomF
01-09-2014, 02:51 PM
Here you go. University of Maryland School of medicine research ..effects on the brain

have a watch. Compelling viewing, to be sure.

I've seen similar work describing the impact on fetal brain development from maternal smoking, to say nothing of "fetal alcohol syndrome." I suspect that we'd find chronic tobacco and alcohol use during adolescence might have impacts on brain function that would not be too strikingly different in character to the ones these researchers have observed in exposure to pot during adolescence.

That is, I suspect that the key phrase there is "during adolescence' - and I suspect that the impact would be greater if we measured the impact "during childhood," "before age 5," or "during fetal development." Logically, one can assume that many substances - whether good or bad for the body - will have the potential for structural impacts on brain development if exposure occurs chronically during those developmental windows.

That's part of a well proven argument in favour of good nutrition and sleep habits for children and adolescents too, after all. And frankly, for children and adolescents to have caring and consistently positive social relationships with their caregivers. The research on that has been in since Bolby published during the 1950s, and was only confirmed and expanded with the advent of diagnostic imaging like MRIs to map the organic differences.

So again, why should pot be treated differently than other substances with well documented negative impacts ... which happen to be well established in the marketplace now? I'm not a pot smoker, but the whole issue looks to me like a case for regulation rather than criminalization. Especially if society-wide, we're interested in harm reduction.

Keith Wilson
01-09-2014, 02:51 PM
No, of course marijuana isn't completely harmless. That's not the point. Many things that are not harmless are nonetheless legal. Alcohol is by no means harmless either. The point is that the harm resulting from prohibition is greater than the harm that would be caused by legalization.

skuthorp
01-09-2014, 02:57 PM
I expect it will eventually, but the tobacco companies will probably be the beneficiaries of regulated pot. Domestic growth of a few plants will be forbidden as is having a moonshine still and, at least here, growing your own tobacco outside the heavily taxed commercial market. Illegal tobacco is called 'chop chop' here.

Keith Wilson
01-09-2014, 03:01 PM
The same highly efficient machinery that makes cigarettes will roll joints just as effectively.

Breakaway
01-09-2014, 03:17 PM
And when you are stoned, the best thing to do is stay at home, just as it would be if you had a glass or two of wine.

Oh, great. Consume this and become self-imprisoned. Give me some!

Just kidding. Couldn't resist. I agree that's the responsible way to consume a mind altering, behavior altering drug.

It seems to me that that the argument that pot should be legalized because other harmful substances are legal is a non-starter. Two "wrongs" don't make a right, do they?

Kevin

BrianY
01-09-2014, 03:34 PM
It seems to me that that the argument that pot should be legalized because other harmful substances are legal is a non-starter. Two "wrongs" don't make a right, do they?

Kevin

no two wrongs don't make a right, but that's not the point here. The point is consistency of logic. It is illogical to ban pot while allowing alcohol when the exact same arguments against pot apply to alcohol.

Do you honestly consider alcohol to be a "wrong"?

slug
01-09-2014, 03:40 PM
Pot needs to be decriminalized because its insane to convict, imprison and ruin the lives of people for smoking it.

Decriminalized and legal are not the same.

I havent read the new pot laws of reforming states .
if these laws encourage consumption , then they will be challenged.

education is the best way to discourage drug use.

CWSmith
01-09-2014, 03:41 PM
I expect easily gotten marijuana will disincline people to seek and try less easily gotten and still illegal drugs.

I don't believe that pot is the gateway drug it is so often claimed to be, but at the same time I have heard of rather few people who started with cocaine, LSD, or heroin.


I've also said I'd rather people I have to deal with get high on anything but alcohol: from my limited experience, only drunks get nasty and belligerent. More experience might change that opinion.

Ok, but here is my experience. In graduate school half the room would be socializing, drinking a beer, laughing and talking while the other half sat in the corner, stoned, laughing at NOTHING and contributing nothing at all to the experience of anyone else at the party. I don't go to parties just so I can watch stoners drooling on themselves. So I don't care what your drug of choice may be, if you can't keep it sober I'd rather you took it somewhere else. It's insulting.

Breakaway
01-09-2014, 03:42 PM
no two wrongs don't make a right, but that's not the point here. The point is consistency of logic. It is illogical to ban pot while allowing alcohol when the exact same arguments against pot apply to alcohol.

Do you honestly consider alcohol to be a "wrong"?

No, I don't consider it a wrong. I consider it like any other drug:It has the potential to produce harmful actions by the individuals who consume it. So if I am pro-legalization on that basis, consistent logic dictates being pro every drug.

Instead, I am " anti-drug" but pro-legalization because laws have proved almost completely inneffective in stopping drug use. So if use can not be stopped or controlled, societal goods in the form of tax revenue, and resources now freed up to be applied elsewhere, might as well come from it.

Kevin

slug
01-09-2014, 04:04 PM
Alcohol is heavily restricted.. Drive your car under the influence and you loose. Sell alcohol to a minor and you loose .. How will they supervise and regulate pot ? Will your brain surgeon spark up a joint before he slices you open ? Will public employees now need to be drug tested ?

Keith Wilson
01-09-2014, 04:04 PM
So if I am pro-legalization on that basis, consistent logic dictates being pro every drug. I don't think that makes sense. Mind-altering drugs are not all alike. Some produce much worse effects on average than others Marijuana and methamphetamine are not in the same category.

I think weed can be regulated much as alcohol is now. That's not perfect, but it's better than what we do at present.

johnw
01-09-2014, 04:08 PM
No, I don't consider it a wrong. I consider it like any other drug:It has the potential to produce harmful actions by the individuals who consume it. So if I am pro-legalization on that basis, consistent logic dictates being pro every drug.

Instead, I am " anti-drug" but pro-legalization because laws have proved almost completely inneffective in stopping drug use. So if use can not be stopped or controlled, societal goods in the form of tax revenue, and resources now freed up to be applied elsewhere, might as well come from it.

Kevin

See post #48. People behave differently under different drugs, and some behaviors are less acceptable than others.

Breakaway
01-09-2014, 04:13 PM
People behave differently under different drugs, and some behaviors are less acceptable than others.

Based on my life's experience I must disagree. Instead I'd say, that: Different people behave differently under different drugs at different times, and some behaviors are less acceptable than others.

Kevin

BrianY
01-09-2014, 04:20 PM
Alcohol is heavily restricted.. Drive your car under the influence and you loose. Sell alcohol to a minor and you loose .. How will they supervise and regulate pot ? Will your brain surgeon spark up a joint before he slices you open ? Will public employees now need to be drug tested ?

The laws concerning pot use should be the same as those for alcohol...and as far as I know, that's exactly what has been proposed by those that want it legalized.

BrianY
01-09-2014, 04:30 PM
So if I am pro-legalization on that basis, consistent logic dictates being pro every drug.

Kevin

That would be true only if every drug had the same effect, which they most certianly do not.

the 'consistent logic" that needs to be applied to the situation is the logical weighing of potential harm posed by the substance in question. Our society has decided that the potential harms posed by the consumption of alcohol are great enough that it needs to be be regulated but they are not great enough that it needs to be be banned. A logically consistent weighing of the potential harms posed by pot should, IMO, lead to the same conclusion. No one has presented any evidence to believe otherwise. In addition, consideration should be given to the harms posed by the continued illegality of pot. Again, IMO, they far outwieigh the potential harms of making pot legal.

The same cannot be said for other drugs such as heroin, cocaine. IMO, a reasonable evaluation of the potential harms of these and other drugs are significant enough to warrant their continued illegality.

Breakaway
01-09-2014, 04:34 PM
That would be true only if every drug had the same effect, which they most certianly do not.

Brian, I see this as flawed, since not every individual is affected in the same way. So just because the effects are different, doesn't mean the effects are more severe or worse than any other drug. Even if we presume a consistent dosage and delivery method for any given drug, any given individuals tolerance for that drug, current state of health, physical stature, and more is going to skew the results.

Keivn

BrianY
01-09-2014, 04:39 PM
Brian, I see this as flawed, since not every individual is affected in the same way. So just because the effects are different, doesn't mean the effects are more severe or worse than any other drug. Even if we presume a consistent dosage and delivery method for any given drug, any given individuals tolerance for that drug, current state of health, physical stature, and more is going to skew the results.

Keivn


I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Please clarify.

CWSmith
01-09-2014, 04:39 PM
The argument that pot is no different than alcohol and maybe better presumes that the purpose of both is to get high. Do people really think that a glass of wine with dinner is consumed for the purpose of getting high? Can't you just enjoy the flavor without drinking the whole bottle and then another? When did anyone praise the delicate aroma of a joint and remain clear headed after doing so? People smoke pot to get high. Sober people enjoy a glass of alcohol and stay sober. There is a very real difference.

Keith Wilson
01-09-2014, 04:39 PM
Again, drugs not all alike. In order to assess the balance of benefits and harm when writing laws, you have to deal with the whole population. On average, some drugs are much more likely to cause harm than others. Marijuana is, on average, much less dangerous than methamphetamine (to pick two extreme examples). Certainly some people may be harmed by marijuana. But for every 1000 pot smokers, how many are harmed or cause harm? For every 1000 meth users? Not even close.

TomF
01-09-2014, 04:49 PM
The argument that pot is no different than alcohol and maybe better presumes that the purpose of both is to get high. Do people really think that a glass of wine with dinner is consumed for the purpose of getting high? Can't you just enjoy the flavor without drinking the whole bottle and then another? When did anyone praise the delicate aroma of a joint and remain clear headed after doing so? People smoke pot to get high. Sober people enjoy a glass of alcohol and stay sober. There is a very real difference.I just got finished reading Michael Pollan's recent book Cooked.

In his section about fermentation, he reviews surprisingly solid arguments from some that agriculture began not because we wanted bread, but because we wanted beer. Observing that natural fermentation is well known and well used by a variety of species ... to get drunk. And that most Human cultures have done the same, perhaps beginning with drinks based on grain mush chewed and spat into a communal pot, before developing into fine brandy or rich Burgundies today.

There is absolutely a difference between enjoying a wonderful glass of something and toking on a joint ... I'd argue there's a difference between the wonderful glass of something and most of the beer that gets sold in my local outlet too. There's a difference between a fine blended pipe tobacco and a cheap cigarette ...

Who knows? It may be that once a legal market can be developed for marijuana, someone will upscale the market. We've done it for our other legal drugs of choice.

Keith Wilson
01-09-2014, 04:58 PM
Human cultures have done the same, perhaps beginning with drinks based on grain mush chewed and spat into a communal pot . . . And then there's koumiss.

Breakaway
01-09-2014, 04:58 PM
When did anyone praise the delicate aroma of a joint and remain clear headed after doing so? People smoke pot to get high. Sober people enjoy a glass of alcohol and stay sober.

I cant agree here, either. No reason someone couldn't take a toke or light a bowl to sharpen their appetite. Flipping the coin, plenty of people get sloshed while waving the " I was drinking wine with my meal" flag for justfication. ( Plenty dont of course.) Its just not that cut and dry.


I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Please clarify.'

I'm saying each substance consumed may be constant but the individuals that ingest those substances are are variable. Mix the two and you cannot count on consistent results.


Again, drugs not all alike. In order to assess the balance of benefits and harm when writing laws, you have to deal with the whole population. On average, some drugs are much more likely to cause harm than others. Marijuana is, on average, much less dangerous than methamphetamine (to pick two extreme examples). Certainly some people may be harmed by marijuana. But for every 1000 pot smokers, how many are harmed or cause harm? For every 1000 meth users? Not even close.

I agree with this in a general way, but does it matter to the victim whether the guy who starts a fight, robs or kills is 1 in 10 or 1 in 1000? So the correctness of your assertion is not going to sway those opposed to legalization. Need a different argument to do that.


Bottom line: Legalize it. But don't rationalize it by believing its "safe." ( struggles for right word)

Kevin

Keith Wilson
01-09-2014, 05:05 PM
but does it matter to the victim whether the guy who starts a fight, robs or kills is 1 in 10 or 1 in 1000?No, but it does matter to those who write the laws, or it should. Banning something that has 1 in 10 chance of causing harm is plausible, banning something that has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance is silly. Again, it's a matter of balancing the harm caused by the drug against the harm caused by locking people up.

TomF
01-09-2014, 05:07 PM
A lawmaker ought to legislate regulation of the issues at the left end of the Pareto curve, where you'll get the most result for the effort you put in. Rather than concentrate on the issues in the middle or towards the right of the Pareto, where you'll maybe expend a similar amount of regulatory effort ... but get vastly less impact.

Legislate where the benefits will be greatest and most widely felt, or where the harms to be averted are the most egregious.

johnw
01-09-2014, 05:22 PM
Based on my life's experience I must disagree. Instead I'd say, that: Different people behave differently under different drugs at different times, and some behaviors are less acceptable than others.

Kevin

I have a lot of experience with people under the influence of different intoxicants walking into my store, and as stated in #48, which you appear not to have read, the behavior differs by the intoxicant. I have yet to have some pothead come into my store and get in my face. Tweakers do that all the time. What you say is certainly true of alcohol -- I've met some people who are quite pleasant drunks, others who want to fight. But the notion that meth and pot can have the same effect on people's behavior is absurd, no matter how different those people are. If you disagree with the notion that people behave differently under different drugs, perhaps you haven't experienced being sober in the presence of people using different drugs.

I can't help thinking you mean something other than what you appear to be saying. Of course people behave differently under the influence of different drugs. That's often the point of taking the drug. If pep pills and sleeping pills had the same effect, no one would bother with either. Similarly, a downer like heroin and an upper like meth appeal to the people taking them because they affect them differently.

And if you're simply saying any drug can lead to inappropriate behavior, you don't actually disagree with me, unless you are saying the likelihood of people behaving badly isn't affected by what drug they are taking.

So what are you saying?

John Smith
01-09-2014, 06:07 PM
Oh, great. Consume this and become self-imprisoned. Give me some!

Just kidding. Couldn't resist. I agree that's the responsible way to consume a mind altering, behavior altering drug.

It seems to me that that the argument that pot should be legalized because other harmful substances are legal is a non-starter. Two "wrongs" don't make a right, do they?

Kevin

That's not my point. My point is making it illegal doesn't stop anyone from using it. Prohibition didn't work with alcohol, and it doesn't work with other substances. It creates crime. We have NO control over illegal substances. We have SOME control over legal substances.

John Smith
01-09-2014, 06:09 PM
I don't believe that pot is the gateway drug it is so often claimed to be, but at the same time I have heard of rather few people who started with cocaine, LSD, or heroin.



Ok, but here is my experience. In graduate school half the room would be socializing, drinking a beer, laughing and talking while the other half sat in the corner, stoned, laughing at NOTHING and contributing nothing at all to the experience of anyone else at the party. I don't go to parties just so I can watch stoners drooling on themselves. So I don't care what your drug of choice may be, if you can't keep it sober I'd rather you took it somewhere else. It's insulting.

I tend to agree with all of that, but when one drinks too much, one is apt to get really nasty to a point where I'd prefer they sat speechless in a corner.

John Smith
01-09-2014, 06:11 PM
Alcohol is heavily restricted.. Drive your car under the influence and you loose. Sell alcohol to a minor and you loose .. How will they supervise and regulate pot ? Will your brain surgeon spark up a joint before he slices you open ? Will public employees now need to be drug tested ?

I doubt we'd have any more control over pot than we do of alcohol, but we'd have more control of legal pot than we have of illegal pot.

Admittedly, my experience with potheads is limited, but I've never seen one high on pot drive. I can't say that about booze.

CWSmith
01-09-2014, 06:13 PM
I just got finished reading Michael Pollan's recent book Cooked.

In his section about fermentation, he reviews surprisingly solid arguments from some that agriculture began not because we wanted bread, but because we wanted beer. Observing that natural fermentation is well known and well used by a variety of species ... to get drunk. And that most Human cultures have done the same, perhaps beginning with drinks based on grain mush chewed and spat into a communal pot, before developing into fine brandy or rich Burgundies today.

There is absolutely a difference between enjoying a wonderful glass of something and toking on a joint ... I'd argue there's a difference between the wonderful glass of something and most of the beer that gets sold in my local outlet too. There's a difference between a fine blended pipe tobacco and a cheap cigarette ...

Who knows? It may be that once a legal market can be developed for marijuana, someone will upscale the market. We've done it for our other legal drugs of choice.

I would follow your argument to a different conclusion. Still, I think that locking people in a cage over pot is hugely unproductive and something better is required. Treating drug abuse as a medical problem instead of a legal problem would be a good start.

John Smith
01-09-2014, 06:13 PM
That would be true only if every drug had the same effect, which they most certianly do not.

the 'consistent logic" that needs to be applied to the situation is the logical weighing of potential harm posed by the substance in question. Our society has decided that the potential harms posed by the consumption of alcohol are great enough that it needs to be be regulated but they are not great enough that it needs to be be banned. A logically consistent weighing of the potential harms posed by pot should, IMO, lead to the same conclusion. No one has presented any evidence to believe otherwise. In addition, consideration should be given to the harms posed by the continued illegality of pot. Again, IMO, they far outwieigh the potential harms of making pot legal.

The same cannot be said for other drugs such as heroin, cocaine. IMO, a reasonable evaluation of the potential harms of these and other drugs are significant enough to warrant their continued illegality.

No one uses those drugs if they're illegal. No one ever dies from an overdose if the drug is illegal. I recall reading an article some years back that many of the "overdoses" are actually poisonous product, much like some of the home made hooch during Prohibition

John Smith
01-09-2014, 06:15 PM
Brian, I see this as flawed, since not every individual is affected in the same way. So just because the effects are different, doesn't mean the effects are more severe or worse than any other drug. Even if we presume a consistent dosage and delivery method for any given drug, any given individuals tolerance for that drug, current state of health, physical stature, and more is going to skew the results.

Keivn

Even prescription drugs act differently for different people. A drug may be a godsend for one patient, and have major side effects on another.

CWSmith
01-09-2014, 06:16 PM
I tend to agree with all of that, but when one drinks too much, one is apt to get really nasty to a point where I'd prefer they sat speechless in a corner.

Agreed. I have no use for drunks, but I do retain some pity. It is a wicked bad addiction with long-term brain and personality effects.

John Smith
01-09-2014, 06:19 PM
The argument that pot is no different than alcohol and maybe better presumes that the purpose of both is to get high. Do people really think that a glass of wine with dinner is consumed for the purpose of getting high? Can't you just enjoy the flavor without drinking the whole bottle and then another? When did anyone praise the delicate aroma of a joint and remain clear headed after doing so? People smoke pot to get high. Sober people enjoy a glass of alcohol and stay sober. There is a very real difference.

I'm not sure it matters. A lot of people think the "few" drinks they've had doesn't impair their driving, until they run into something.

I don't use any of these things, and I don't care which of them someone else chooses to use, or why. I do care if they rob my local gas station to pay for their substance of choice. I do care that people get killed because some substances are illegal, or some get put in prison, which costs ME money. The whole war on drugs costs the taxpayers money.

Just the financial argument is pretty strong. Get some control, tax it, cut prison costs, cut police costs, cut court costs. And the same people who smoke pot now will still smoke pot, but we'll get some tax revenue from it, and none of it will poison them.

John Smith
01-09-2014, 06:23 PM
Agreed. I have no use for drunks, but I do retain some pity. It is a wicked bad addiction with long-term brain and personality effects.

Perhaps we could use some of the tax revenue to help people get off whatever substance they abuse.

There are a couple of facts of life that I'm sure of. One is that making something illegal doesn't stop it from happening; only allows a method of punishing those who break that law. The second is that we have more control over legal substances than we have over illegal substances.

I guess a third is there are some wars we cannot win, and the war on drugs is one of them.

Breakaway
01-09-2014, 06:30 PM
So what are you saying?

Those who choose to use drugs, illegal or legal, do so at will, despite laws being in place. Any argument for legalization--that is, any attempt to convince those standing in the way of legalization--will be less effective if based on the drug's purported effect because a negative effect can be shown in all cases and that's all they need.

Better in my view to argue the for better use of resources than to go tit for tat ( as we did here today) on what "high" is "good" and what high is "bad."

The script needs rewriting.

Kevin

skuthorp
01-09-2014, 06:38 PM
Re Beer, For a very long time since humans began congregating in communities/towns beer was the safe and healthy drink as water supplies rapidly became polluted with human and animal wastes. Nelson's Captain Hardy died of Cholera in Dorset in 1839 at Grenwich, purportedly from Cholera.

johnw
01-09-2014, 07:03 PM
Those who choose to use drugs, illegal or legal, do so at will, despite laws being in place. Any argument for legalization--that is, any attempt to convince those standing in the way of legalization--will be less effective if based on the drug's purported effect because a negative effect can be shown in all cases and that's all they need.

Better in my view to argue the for better use of resources than to go tit for tat ( as we did here today) on what "high" is "good" and what high is "bad."

The script needs rewriting.

Kevin

Having seen the effects of meth and heroin, I'm a lot less convinced that they should be legal than I am that pot should be legal. I just don't see people suffering the kind of consequences from using pot that is see happening to people who use those other two. Pot heads pay a price in lost acuity and lost time, but it's a hell of a lot less likely to kill them than junk or meth.

So, even with your explanation, I can't see where your point of view makes sense. We can expect that legalization will make a drug more popular, so the effects of the drug are of prime importance.

Breakaway
01-09-2014, 07:47 PM
I just don't see people suffering the kind of consequences from using pot that is see happening to people who use those other two.

Agreed. The "ultimate consequences" for a pot addict may not be as serious as those for someone addicted to other drugs. But I also have known people who used heroin, meth and/or cocaine regularly, but recreationallly.They and did not ruin there lives or pose a clear and present danger to society. (Yet)



We can expect that legalization will make a drug more popular, so the effects of the drug are of prime importance.

I don't think it will. At least not appreciably. Anyone who wants drugs can and does get them now. Why do you think the legality will make any difference?

Kevin

Lew Barrett
01-09-2014, 08:12 PM
It may be that once a legal market can be developed for marijuana, someone will upscale the market. We've done it for our other legal drugs of choice.

They're way ahead of you. It happened years ago.

johnw
01-09-2014, 08:16 PM
Agreed. The "ultimate consequences" for a pot addict may not be as serious as those for someone addicted to other drugs. But I also have known people who used heroin, meth and/or cocaine regularly, but recreationallly.They and did not ruin there lives or pose a clear and present danger to society. (Yet)




I don't think it will. At least not appreciably. Anyone who wants drugs can and does get them now. Why do you think the legality will make any difference?

Kevin

For the reason you quoted.


We can expect that legalization will make a drug more popular, so the effects of the drug are of prime importance.

Breakaway
01-09-2014, 08:25 PM
^ Again, I ask, on what basis will legalization make pot more popular? Are there throngs lying in hopeful wait of their first hit once devil weed becomes legal? :)
Or are there people who smoke it now, will smoke it then and whose ranks may be bolstered by those using it as prescribed medication?

Kevin

johnw
01-09-2014, 08:29 PM
^ Again, I ask, on what basis will legalization make pot more popular? Are there throngs lying in hopeful wait of their first hit once devil weed becomes legal? :)
Or are there people who smoke it now, will smoke it then and whose ranks may be bolstered by those using it as prescribed medication?

Kevin

It will be more socially acceptable and the risk will be lower. Do you imagine the end of prohibition had no effect on alcohol consumption? We decided prohibition itself was a greater evil.

Breakaway
01-09-2014, 08:40 PM
Do you imagine the end of prohibition had no effect on alcohol consumption?

Bulkier, heavier and harder to smuggle and distribute furtively product so I am not sure that it is apples to apples...but yes, I believe the same number of people drank alcohol before and after prohibition. I do not see legalized pot as sparking a rise in use. A rise in admitted use, perhaps, but not in actual use.

Kevin

Jim Bow
01-09-2014, 09:01 PM
Time to call the Troll Hunter!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dgeYkYOZA

Breakaway
01-09-2014, 09:06 PM
I
think you're wrong. I think people who used it when young, but stopped due to legal pressures, will start using it again. It isn't good enough to risk the legal downside.

I guess we'll see. As more states legalize it, that is surely a number some official is going to want to bandy about.

Johnw's question about Prohibition's effect on alcohol consumption prompted me to go to Wikipedia.Didn't find out much there:

After the prohibition was implemented alcohol continued to be consumed. However, how much compared to pre-Prohibition levels remains unclear. Studies examining the rates of cirrhosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrhosis) deaths as a proxy for alcohol consumption estimated a decrease in consumption of 10–20%.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_during_and_after_prohibition#cite_note-4)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_during_and_after_prohibition#cite_note-5)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_during_and_after_prohibition#cite_note-6) One study reviewing city-level drunkenness arrests came to a similar result.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_during_and_after_prohibition#cite_note-7) And, yet another study examining "mortality, mental health and crime statistics" found that alcohol consumption fell, at first, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level; but, over the next several years, increased to about 60–70 percent of its pre-prohibition level.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_during_and_after_prohibition#cite_note-8)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_during_and_after_prohibition

Kevin

johnw
01-09-2014, 09:14 PM
I

I guess we'll see. As more states legalize it, that is surely a number some official is going to want to bandy about.

Johnw's question about Prohibition's effect on alcohol consumption prompted me to go to Wikipedia.Didn't find out much there:

After the prohibition was implemented alcohol continued to be consumed. However, how much compared to pre-Prohibition levels remains unclear. Studies examining the rates of cirrhosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrhosis) deaths as a proxy for alcohol consumption estimated a decrease in consumption of 10–20%.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_during_and_after_prohibition#cite_note-4)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_during_and_after_prohibition#cite_note-5)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_during_and_after_prohibition#cite_note-6) One study reviewing city-level drunkenness arrests came to a similar result.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_during_and_after_prohibition#cite_note-7) And, yet another study examining "mortality, mental health and crime statistics" found that alcohol consumption fell, at first, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level; but, over the next several years, increased to about 60–70 percent of its pre-prohibition level.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_during_and_after_prohibition#cite_note-8)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_during_and_after_prohibition

Kevin

And by the 1950s, you weren't hip if you didn't drink.

Seems to me a lot of folks will be more inclined to smoke dope if they aren't risking their freedom. The question to be answered is, will that do more harm than the prohibition of pot?

It's my opinion that pot will do less harm than the effects of it being illegal, but as Donn points out, that remains to be seen. The current policy has failed so spectacularly, I think it's worth ending it.

jpb54
01-09-2014, 09:15 PM
My granddaughter (4 years old now ) suffers from seizures . Research is showing that pot will help.
This evenings news stated that finally a Georgia politician is willing to listen to the science ,rather than the politics . It's time is coming .

johnw
01-09-2014, 09:16 PM
I don't think any comparison between alcohol use and pot use is valid. They are entirely different substances. Alcohol is far more apt to cause dependence than pot.

If we had proof that pot is anything like as harmful as alcohol, it would be impossible to make it legal.

Old Dryfoot
01-09-2014, 09:30 PM
Have fun flipping pizzas

Waterproofing actually. I'm doing an interior drainage job in an office building parkade this week.

Today I cut an 80 foot trench in a concrete slab, jack hammered that cut in to little bits, and did a second cut for a sump basin. I also built a form for the basin

How was your day? :D

Waddie
01-09-2014, 09:43 PM
Might as well make pot legal. It will give young people something to do besides think about their slim chances of getting a good job or paying back their massive loans. Besides, it's easier to face that dishwasher job if you're stoned.

It's also easier for that baby boomer who can't afford to retire despite that chronic arthritis.......

And the government will like it because people won't notice how ****ty things have gotten. So pot could prevent riots. I've never seen a stoner with the energy, or desire, to riot about anything.

regards,
Waddie

skuthorp
01-09-2014, 10:37 PM
Put like that Waddie I reckon you could have sold the idea to Reagan and Thatcher, they reckoned TV sport and soft porn would be adequate.

Canoeyawl
01-10-2014, 01:41 AM
I've never seen a stoner with the energy, or desire, to riot about anything.

regards,
Waddie


You don't get out much...



http://sixtieshippie.com/pentagon.JPG

Curtism
01-10-2014, 05:42 AM
Working in various boat shops for the last few decades, I can honestly say that given a choice between working with a crew of guys who went home, had a few puffs and maybe a couple beers before tearing into the refrigerator . . . and guys who regularly sat at the bar for a few hours after work, then had a pickled sausage or frozen burrito for dinner . . . I'd choose the smoker types as workmates anytime. They're generally better fueled, more rested and alert and it doesn't take them 'til noon to actually start accomplishing anything. Whereas the guys with hangovers were, for the most part, just plain dangerous to be around in a wood shop environment.

And since we're engaging in generalities (to the tune of 4 pages now (good job, Mr. Smith)), another thing I'll mention about the pot culture is that, given the illegality of their drug of choice, they generally tend to be homebodies, not out in public so much and seem better able to stay out of trouble . . . such as getting in scuffs and being public nuisances. Drinking, on the other hand, often involves a more public, social bar atmosphere and, as anyone whose ever spent a few afternoons in bars will know, you don't ordinarily have to go far looking for trouble, as it will usually find you.

Which leads me to wonder . . . if/when pot is legal, which is pretty much inevitable, will there eventually be pot bars? Places where people meet after work to toast the day? And if so, what effects will that have on the attitudes and social habits of pot smokers. Either way it will be interesting to watch how all that unfolds.

Bob Adams
01-10-2014, 06:00 AM
Alcohol is heavily restricted.. Drive your car under the influence and you loose. Sell alcohol to a minor and you loose .. How will they supervise and regulate pot ? Will your brain surgeon spark up a joint before he slices you open ? Will public employees now need to be drug tested ?

There is absolutely nothing to stop him from doing that now. Sell it at package good stores, same guidelines as alcohol. You need to understand pot is simple to get. God forbid we legalize it, generate some tax revenue, lower the prison population and reduce the gun violence body count.

Curtism
01-10-2014, 06:25 AM
Do you suppose the politicians have started to figure out the actual size of the voting block who either have a family member or know someone who was given a harsh sentence for possession of a few grams of pot and think the current laws need to be changed? Even people who don't smoke will, hopefully, eventually realize how many tax dollars are being thrown down the "drug-war" rat hole and want to see some sort of reforms.

Heck, even our state AG, a died in the wool red/T-party panderer (whose gearing up for higher office) was recently making noises about considering throwing her support towards marijuana for medical use. Shocked me and I thought I'd heard it all from this crew.

Upshur
01-10-2014, 09:37 AM
"I sail away a country mile,"

Lew Barrett
01-10-2014, 01:08 PM
Which leads me to wonder . . . if/when pot is legal, which is pretty much inevitable, will there eventually be pot bars? Places where people meet after work to toast the day? And if so, what effects will that have on the attitudes and social habits of pot smokers. Either way it will be interesting to watch how all that unfolds.

The laws here and in Colorado don't tolerate "pot bars" (or a more likely social scenario in the Dutch style, "cafes") and pretty much confine consumption to your home or private spaces. The regulations are sufficiently specific to make public consumption illegal. The depth of regulatory verbiage (in Washington) as regards production, distribution and consumption is massive, as well as the levels of tolerance for "holding" (you're allowed one ounce) and blood levels while driving.

The issues of "holding" and driving may perhaps be difficult to police, but licensing for production, distribution and public consumption will be, you can be sure, strictly regulated.

Dumah
01-10-2014, 04:03 PM
In the transportation industries, including, but not limited to, commercial drivers, commercial pilots, Masters aand crews of commercial vessels are subject to MANDANTORY drug and alcohol tests. The laws are federal because of interprovincial, interstate, and international commerce. Three criteria exist for testing, preemployment, random check (for instance, at a weigh scale) and, most of all WITHIN TWO HOURS of an "incident". These laws were in effect when I was trucking in the late '80s, why not extend this to the "civilian side", or, like has been argued 20 years before, "It's unconstitutional without cause".

Leaglize it, tax it, and spent the revenue on better things. I'd rather deal with a stoner than a drunk, less likely to see a stoner in public, and certainly more docile :D.

Nobody here seems to argue that it is probably not the healthist choice, but it appears to this old cynic the benifits of legalization out weigh the potential grief.

Cheers, Dumah,
Halifax,m NS

John Smith
01-10-2014, 04:13 PM
It will be more socially acceptable and the risk will be lower. Do you imagine the end of prohibition had no effect on alcohol consumption? We decided prohibition itself was a greater evil.

All of this argument is speculative. Will some smoke it that don't now? Probably. I doubt it's as many as some think.

John Smith
01-10-2014, 04:16 PM
I think you're wrong. I think people who used it when young, but stopped due to legal pressures, will start using it again. It isn't good enough to risk the legal downside.

You "think". That's not fact. That's conjecture. You could be quite wrong.

I "think" readily available pot will cut down on the use of other substances. Only one way to find out.

Meanwhile it is FACT that we are spending a ton of money of a failed war on drugs. We are locking up a lot of people who use recreational drugs, but can't afford a lawyer, and keeping people in prison is expensive. A great deal of the crime in this country seems to be agreed is due to the drugs being illegal, not that they're used.

John Smith
01-10-2014, 04:17 PM
I don't think any comparison between alcohol use and pot use is valid. They are entirely different substances. Alcohol is far more apt to cause dependence than pot.

Also, from my experience, more violent behavior.

John Smith
01-10-2014, 04:19 PM
Might as well make pot legal. It will give young people something to do besides think about their slim chances of getting a good job or paying back their massive loans. Besides, it's easier to face that dishwasher job if you're stoned.

It's also easier for that baby boomer who can't afford to retire despite that chronic arthritis.......

And the government will like it because people won't notice how ****ty things have gotten. So pot could prevent riots. I've never seen a stoner with the energy, or desire, to riot about anything.

regards,
Waddie

Can't say that about drunks, can you?

rbgarr
01-11-2014, 01:09 PM
http://i40.tinypic.com/25jlbbt.jpg

Canoeyawl
01-11-2014, 11:13 PM
I recall a "Quincy" episode where the fertilizer used to grow some pot ended up with sick kids. I expect that's possible. All the more reason to make it legal so the quality can be controlled.

Note how often it happens with say spinach and packaged salad not to mention chicken and ground beef. Quality control by our gutted government is a joke.

George Jung
01-12-2014, 01:07 AM
I don't know much about the pot that most folks get - but wonder, is it common practice for it to be less than 'pristine'?

A patient of mine confessed her pain management doc sprung a drug screen on her recently - she expected THC to show up - but was confused about the PCP - 'I never used that'. I suspect it was laced with it, something I'd heard about 30 plus years ago. Still common?

Old Dryfoot
01-12-2014, 02:42 AM
Perhaps back in the day it was a way to disguise 'schwag' or 'ditch weed' as something worth smoking, but that was when imports were the the primary source. Today the vast majority is domestically produced, add to that a greater degree of knowledge in the consumer base, and that practice may be a thing of the past.

I can't recall ever hearing of adulterated pot either first hand, second hand, or from the media. Lots of bad heroin and ecstasy though.

Jim Mahan
01-12-2014, 01:43 PM
When I was in Taiwan in the early seventies I had one opportunity to get high. Martial law, very little crime and almost no drug use, and a persistent rumor about a GI serving a life sentence in a Taiwanese prison for possession of a single joint, with no relief from the US military. Scary.
So I was at a party and someone had somehow scored some local pot. Given the circumstances, no one was prepared, we had nothing to smoke it in and no papers to roll a doobie. Somebody came up with eyeglass cleaning papers and we used that.
The local weed was reportedly weak and therefore fortified with something, and it knocked me on my ass. Never experienced anything like that before or since.

Jazzman
01-12-2014, 04:25 PM
When I was in Taiwan in the early seventies I had one opportunity to get high. Martial law, very little crime and almost no drug use, and a persistent rumor about a GI serving a life sentence in a Taiwanese prison for possession of a single joint, with no relief from the US military. Scary.
So I was at a party and someone had somehow scored some local pot. Given the circumstances, no one was prepared, we had nothing to smoke it in and no papers to roll a doobie. Somebody came up with eyeglass cleaning papers and we used that.
The local weed was reportedly weak and therefore fortified with something, and it knocked me on my ass. Never experienced anything like that before or since.

Heroin.

Waddie
01-13-2014, 05:11 AM
When I was in Taiwan in the early seventies I had one opportunity to get high. Martial law, very little crime and almost no drug use, and a persistent rumor about a GI serving a life sentence in a Taiwanese prison for possession of a single joint, with no relief from the US military. Scary.
So I was at a party and someone had somehow scored some local pot. Given the circumstances, no one was prepared, we had nothing to smoke it in and no papers to roll a doobie. Somebody came up with eyeglass cleaning papers and we used that.
The local weed was reportedly weak and therefore fortified with something, and it knocked me on my ass. Never experienced anything like that before or since.

Some people I once knew used to "step" on the weed by mixing it with real weeds (dried and shredded up) and added formaldehyde to restore the high. They got the formaldehyde from a local funeral home.

regards,
Waddie

BETTY-B
01-17-2014, 03:24 PM
http://media2.policymic.com/d0dbb11842d16558028b490cb9fae7b3.gif

johnw
01-17-2014, 04:18 PM
Yeah, it looks like it's all about bureaucratic entrepreneurship.

Rum_Pirate
01-17-2014, 04:50 PM
http://media2.policymic.com/d0dbb11842d16558028b490cb9fae7b3.gif

A few questions:

So when drugs are legalised will that mean that all those enforcing no drug policy will lose their jobs?

Then if not all drugs are legalised how many will be retained to enforce the no drug policy?

How much income will be made from the tax on legalised selling of drugs?

Canoeyawl
01-17-2014, 04:53 PM
A few questions:

So when drugs are legalised will that mean that all those enforcing no drug policy will lose their jobs?


We can only dream about that. Once those guys have their fingers in the candy jar you can never get them out. It's an entitlement...

Breakaway
01-17-2014, 07:54 PM
http://media2.policymic.com/d0dbb11842d16558028b490cb9fae7b3.gif


How would they get accurate stats for number addicted? I am not saying this is wrong, but how would they get the number? Seems to me that best they could do was get the number of people who sought treatment, which, one would think, is something less than the total.

Kevin

johnw
01-17-2014, 08:23 PM
A few questions:

So when drugs are legalised will that mean that all those enforcing no drug policy will lose their jobs?

Then if not all drugs are legalised how many will be retained to enforce the no drug policy?

How much income will be made from the tax on legalised selling of drugs?

When prohibition ended with alcohol, they got certain drugs made illegal, employing many of the same people who'd gone after bootleggers. The spending exploded when drugs became part of the culture war.

CWSmith
01-17-2014, 09:08 PM
How would they get accurate stats for number addicted? I am not saying this is wrong, but how would they get the number? Seems to me that best they could do was get the number of people who sought treatment, which, one would think, is something less than the total.

Kevin



I suspect that arrests and such provide researchers with a way to normalize their studies.

Betty, that is a very telling statistic! Thank you. My wife worked in drug treatment for a time and I will share this with her.

Michael D. Storey
01-18-2014, 09:18 AM
Are you concerned about secondary smoke and damage it may cause?

BTW Does marijuana cause the same ills to lungs etc like tobacco smoke?

It is my understanding that marijuana smoke does not contain the nicotene that tobacco smoke does. I reckon that no smoke that you inhale builds strong bodies twelve ways, however.

Michael D. Storey
01-18-2014, 09:23 AM
A few questions:

So when drugs are legalised will that mean that all those enforcing no drug policy will lose their jobs?

Then if not all drugs are legalised how many will be retained to enforce the no drug policy?

How much income will be made from the tax on legalised selling of drugs?

The purpose of drug law enforcement is not to provide jobs. I think that your inference that all drugs should be uncontrolled is not workable or desirable.

I think that various drugs should be examined to look at cost of control and amount of public use, and potential harm. I am sure that some should be removed from the list, and some should be regulated in a different way. We are still in this country enforcing drug control laws, some of which have a racially-motivated origin.

We will not fix this by interpreting it in extremes. It is not an all or none kind of thing, here

Jim Mahan
01-18-2014, 10:10 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate View Post

Are you concerned about secondary smoke and damage it may cause?

BTW Does marijuana cause the same ills to lungs etc like tobacco smoke?
It is my understanding that marijuana smoke does not contain the nicotene that tobacco smoke does. I reckon that no smoke that you inhale builds strong bodies twelve ways, however.

First, a couple of puffs will get you high for half a day. No need to smoke any more than that. Still, a real stoner might smoke a couple or three joints a day. A cigarette smoker is going to go through twenty or thirty or forty a day.
Next, if you go into a pot smoker's house, you can't tell unless there is pot actually burning at the time. I smoke with my neighbor in his living room a couple of times a week. His house is well cared for but he's not a fanatic about it. It does not smell like pot at all. Now go into the average cigarette smoker's house. It reeks. The walls and ceiling are yellowish brown with nicotine. The carpets and drapes and all the furniture will still like cigarettes even after normal cleaning. Same with the clothes closets, etc. Now think about the lungs of the those folks. Ever seen a stoner with yellow brown stains on his fingers like a cigarette smoker?

Jim Mahan
01-18-2014, 10:15 AM
Our big problem with drugs isn't pot. It's meth. Meth is destroying lives even without considering all the law enforcement and incarceration activity. Meth is worse than, or at least as bad as heroin. It's easy to get, it's relatively cheap, and it is being manufactured all over the planet by the ton, for export and domestic use by N. Korea, China, Mexico.

slug
01-18-2014, 10:17 AM
To smoke pot you must purchase it. To purchase pot you must contact a criminal.

Jim Mahan
01-18-2014, 10:22 AM
Or grow it yourself. Or smoke with friends that grow it, or trade for it, or get it with a medical card. I haven't paid for pot in ten years. Also, note that when a pot smoker is out, it isn't a big deal like it is for most other drugs and cigarettes. And except for the pot, none of the people I ever got pot from were criminal in any other way. None.

John Smith
01-18-2014, 10:23 AM
Our big problem with drugs isn't pot. It's meth. Meth is destroying lives even without considering all the law enforcement and incarceration activity. Meth is worse than, or at least as bad as heroin. It's easy to get, it's relatively cheap, and it is being manufactured all over the planet by the ton, for export and domestic use by N. Korea, China, Mexico.

And, meth is illegal. Isn't that the whole point of this discussion? Making it illegal doesn't make it go away. It only provides a revenue stream to the "bad' guys.

Wouldn't we have more, although not total, control of all these substances if they were NOT illegal?

Full Tilt
01-18-2014, 10:29 AM
To smoke pot you must purchase it. To purchase pot you must contact a criminal.

Making you a criminal too.

John Smith
01-18-2014, 10:31 AM
Making you a criminal too.

Depending a great deal on your skin color.

I remember reading many, many years ago an editorial on criminal sentencing in Texas. Armed robbery got probation. A couple of ounces of pot got a substantial prison sentence.

Insane.

Full Tilt
01-18-2014, 11:17 AM
Depending a great deal on your skin color.

Race makes no difference to whether a person is a criminal or not. It only changes the probability of the criminal being prosecuted.

beernd
01-18-2014, 11:27 AM
It's my opinion that we have NO control over an illegal substance, but we have SOME control over it if it is legal. We can control the quality and we can generate tax revenue. We likely cannot control someone buying it legally and giving it to someone underage, as happens with both tobacco and alcohol.


And we can stop wasting truckloads of money in "The war on drugs". Instead spend that money for a war on poverty, (I was going to say war on stupidity, but I am afraid that would be another war we can't win);)

Breakaway
01-18-2014, 11:28 AM
And except for the pot, none of the people I ever got pot from were criminal in any other way

This statement presupposes that they reported the income made from selling drugs to the IRS.

Kevin

beernd
01-18-2014, 11:29 AM
Are you concerned about secondary smoke and damage it may cause?

BTW Does marijuana cause the same ills to lungs etc like tobacco smoke?
Don't smoke the stuff, mix some in a nice herb tea, or a vegetable soup, (don't do the space cake thing because that's to strong, and don't ask me how I know :o)

beernd
01-18-2014, 11:45 AM
IMO, this is a great start to take down big oil, and start our country up again.
Ya, smoke it- or I have heard rumors its good in brownies.
The possibilities are endless.
Small farmers back with a crop that CLEANS soil.
Industrial Hemp is IT!
Clothes, food, paper, Hempcrete, plastics, Hemp powered machines, powered by the hemp oil they extract.
Perpetual motion.
It cleans the air, needs no pesticides and is harvested 4 times a year.
It is nutritious natural food for humans and livestock.
CRAP!
Monsanto is already patenting it!!!!!
:D
Watch!

In a way the fact that Monsanto is patenting it is good news, they will spend billions to lobby the legalization of it ;)

Full Tilt
01-18-2014, 11:54 AM
In a way the fact that Monsanto is patenting it is good news, they will spend billions to lobby the legalization of it ;)

That's twisted.

slug
01-19-2014, 03:45 AM
Organized crime and legal pot...the Netherlands

"Pressure to reform Dutch drug laws as gang violence grows"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3997943/Pressure-to-reform-Dutch-drug-laws-as-gang-violence-grows.html

Keith Wilson
01-19-2014, 09:01 AM
Comparison of US and Netherlands crime rates; link here (http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Netherlands/United-States/Crime). I'll take their problems any day.

The particularly striking difference is that the US, per capita, has 5 times as many people in jail as Holland.

John Smith
01-19-2014, 09:04 AM
I find it interesting that most people seem to understand what we are doing isn't working, but are opposed to even trying doing something different. Similar to the way we do healthcare.

Baffles me.

Canoeyawl
01-19-2014, 11:43 AM
Depending a great deal on your skin color.

Texas...

Insane.


There is some truth in there

slug
01-19-2014, 11:50 AM
I find it interesting that most people seem to understand what we are doing isn't working, but are opposed to even trying doing something different. Similar to the way we do healthcare.

Baffles me.


You seem to believe that by legalizing pot your problems will go away.

the dutch epxerience proves this to be wrong.


Im in Spain. Private consumption of pot is legal. School kids are stoned.

Keith Wilson
01-19-2014, 12:10 PM
You seem to believe that by legalizing pot your problems will go away.That's silly. Of course they won't. Marijuana itself will be at least as much of a problem as it is now, possibly more. We just won't be wasting money and effort arresting, trying, and putting people in jail for no very good reason. Legalization won't solve many problems, but it will be a small improvement. That's a good enough reason to do it.

CWSmith
01-19-2014, 12:13 PM
You seem to believe that by legalizing pot your problems will go away.

the dutch epxerience proves this to be wrong.

Im in Spain. Private consumption of pot is legal. School kids are stoned.

It seems to me that when we discuss the possible legalization of pot we can still maintain the illegality of driving stoned and add to that list. Some tasks are very important, so if we can develop a good test for pot use and set standards, why not let airplane pilots blow into a balloon before flying if that means testing for both alcohol and pot? I think education is also important, so maybe there a daily or random blow into a balloon is also appropriate if we can decide what is a reasonable response to a failed balloon test? That's another part of the problem - setting reasonable responses based on context.

JimD
01-19-2014, 12:20 PM
My two cents: Legalize it. And then don't use it.

John Smith
01-19-2014, 12:39 PM
You seem to believe that by legalizing pot your problems will go away.

the dutch epxerience proves this to be wrong.


Im in Spain. Private consumption of pot is legal. School kids are stoned.

I don't think I"ve said that. I do believe all the problems that are connected to it being illegal will go away, and that's, IMO, most of the problems.

Legal alcohol didn't make alcohol problems go away, but all the problems connected it being illegal went away.

My whole point, which I thought I've been clear about, is that we have more control over a substance if it is legal than we have if it is not legal.

John Smith
01-19-2014, 12:41 PM
How will school kids ever learn things like spelling if'n they'z stoned all the time, huh?

How can we have so many words like "their" "seizure" "weight" "weird" and teach that "I" comes before "E" except after "C" and not drive the kids to drugs?

slug
01-19-2014, 12:50 PM
My two cents: Legalize it. And then don't use it.
Thats it. Decriminalize, use the money saved on the ...war on drugs...for education. Teach kids to not smoke dope.

Decriminalized and legal are not the same.

Keith Wilson
01-19-2014, 12:51 PM
Explain, please. Is alcohol 'decriminalized' or 'legal'? Smoking weed in moderation doesn't seem to do much harm.

slug
01-19-2014, 01:02 PM
Explain, please. Is alcohol 'decriminalized' or 'legal'? Smoking weed in moderation doesn't seem to do much harm.
Alcohol is legal.

decriminalized means..in Spain, private consumption is legal, public consumption sends you to prison, public consumption is interpreted by the police, be careful. growing, intent to distribute is a grey area...better stay away from it or you may be in for a big surprise.

the logic behind decriminalization is to keep the court, prison system and police department from getting bogged down.

In the netherlands pot has given rise to violent organized crime. Big money to be made in Legal pot .

drug tourism is also a curse. Dutch cities are swamped with stoned tourists, pissing on your front door and generally behaving like stoned tourists.

Keith Wilson
01-19-2014, 01:06 PM
Why is legal pot any more likely to lead to organized crime than illegal pot? Or legal alcohol, for that matter?

slug
01-19-2014, 01:19 PM
Why is legal pot any more likely to lead to organized crime than illegal pot? Or legal alcohol, for that matter?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3997943/Pressure-to-reform-Dutch-drug-laws-as-gang-violence-grows.html

Keith Wilson
01-19-2014, 01:26 PM
You didn't answer the question. Why is legal pot any more likely to lead to organized crime than illegal pot? Or legal alcohol, for that matter? The experience of the US with Prohibition is an example of the exact opposite of what you're claiming. Alcohol is a large, heavily regulated, entirely legitimate business. In the 1920s, it was the province of organized crime.

slug
01-19-2014, 01:34 PM
You will have to ask the Dutch...money laundering, tax evasion, corruption in licensing..EXPORT. Drugs are now the biggest agricultural export of the netherlands.

Ive lived in the Netherlands. The idea behind a coffee shop was to make sure young people...your kids..smoked dope in a location that you could supervise. Unfortunately these coffee shops morphed into drug selling zones with every drug available out back in the parking lot.

CWSmith
01-19-2014, 02:01 PM
You will have to ask the Dutch...money laundering, tax evasion, corruption in licensing..EXPORT. Drugs are now the biggest agricultural export of the netherlands.

Ive lived in the Netherlands. The idea behind a coffee shop was to make sure young people...your kids..smoked dope in a location that you could supervise. Unfortunately these coffee shops morphed into drug selling zones with every drug available out back in the parking lot.

But, weren't there a great many bad decisions between A and B? I mean, if you decide to set up coffee shops where people can smoke dope in safety, that doesn't mean you need to tolerate the use of harder drugs. It may make catching these people easier, or not, but they don't need to be the same thing.

Don't get me wrong - I don't believe that legalization of pot will cure all problems. In my mind it's more a matter of how you address what is, more correctly, a public health problem.

slug
01-19-2014, 02:09 PM
I suspect that the dutch would do things differently if they could start over again.

if your state is contemplating pot legalization it would be wise to consult the dutch for ideas.

CWSmith
01-19-2014, 02:36 PM
It would also be wise to set measurable definitions for "driving under the influence", etc. where pot is concerned.

George Jung
01-19-2014, 02:54 PM
I've not seen anything on how that would be defined; if you have a source/link, I'd appreciate it. With alc., BAL/breathalyzer are options; there are key findings on physical assessment, as well. I'm unaware of similar options with THC.

CWSmith
01-19-2014, 02:58 PM
I don't know how to do it, except maybe a blood test, and that's what worries me. I care less about someone smoking pot and more about them driving while stoned.

slug
01-19-2014, 03:23 PM
For me the big issue is how to keep kids off pot. Adults should know better. if they choose to get stoned thats their problem.

I know a school teacher and she tells me that half the kids...15 16 year olds are stoned in class.

with alcohol you can keep control on kids access to it. With pot you cant because they can grow thier own.

George Jung
01-19-2014, 03:27 PM
Maybe. Homebrew is an option, ya know, though I doubt any kid is focused enough to do either. And if memory serves, buying alcohol as a minor wasn't that difficult (or so I've been told...). The info on expanding drug use in Holland is troubling. I haven't seen a link to that - but the idea Holland would 'do things differently', in hindsight, should be an attention-getter.

slug
01-19-2014, 03:32 PM
Gee...a kid cant put a bottle of whiskey in his school bag then sneak out between class for a few chugs.

dope fits in your pocket..always ready.


It would be interesting to hear what educators think of the new pot laws.

CWSmith
01-19-2014, 03:53 PM
For me the big issue is how to keep kids off pot. Adults should know better. if they choose to get stoned thats their problem.

I know a school teacher and she tells me that half the kids...15 16 year olds are stoned in class.

with alcohol you can keep control on kids access to it. With pot you cant because they can grow thier own.

I agree with your worries. I worry about long-term brain issues with any drug use by children. If pot is legalized in the manner of alcohol, there still needs to be restrictions on its use.

Jim Mahan
01-19-2014, 04:15 PM
BTW, roadside blood tests for THC are problematic. THC stays in your system for long after the being stoned wears off, and THC also occurs naturally in humans, without pot use. Also, something to think about, the human body has nervous system receptor sites for THC. How did that happen?

George Jung
01-19-2014, 04:20 PM
I'm curious - how does THC occur 'naturally' in humans? AFA 'receptors', of course there would have to be receptors the THC could affect - otherwise, no 'high' would result. I don't believe they are THC-specific, however.

I've read in the news that some highschools (private) are going to be doing drug screens on all students - likely hair samples. The THC deposits in the hair, so quitting a week before a scheduled test is useless - and these tests will be unannounced.

Jim Mahan
01-19-2014, 04:26 PM
Something I heard once. Maybe when I was loaded.
Still, if you collect some sample that indicates a person has used sometime in the last few weeks, but they're not stoned or holding when they are sampled, is that reasonable or fair? If I could show (somehow clinically) that you had alcohol in your system a week ago and I know you were driving, are you culpable for DUI?

George Jung
01-19-2014, 04:33 PM
No; different metrics, is all. In the case of the school screenings, they're more concerned with drug use, period, than if they're currently intoxicated.

slug
01-19-2014, 04:47 PM
They use the breathalizer test to detect drugs.

http://sensabues.com/

if youre a stock market gambler you might buy some shares in the company.

Lew Barrett
01-20-2014, 06:06 PM
You will have to ask the Dutch...money laundering, tax evasion, corruption in licensing..EXPORT. Drugs are now the biggest agricultural export of the netherlands.

Ive lived in the Netherlands. The idea behind a coffee shop was to make sure young people...your kids..smoked dope in a location that you could supervise. Unfortunately these coffee shops morphed into drug selling zones with every drug available out back in the parking lot.

I think John addressed this but I will add 2 cents.
As you lived in the Netherlands, you know the reality is that marijuana is not, strictly speaking, legal there. You can't export (but they do) and you can't grow it for your own use or for sale (but they do) and there are a bunch of other sidesteps, ifs and buts that make what we would normally consider "legalization," that is to say full legal access and regulated trade, not fully representative of the Dutch set up.

The Netherlands has a number of problem with what seems otherwise (on the face of it) to be "legal" behavior, including a great deal of traffic in human beings for what ostensibly is "legal prostitution." Theirs is a tolerant and liberal culture, but not without its own flaws and issues, and weed is still, as is likely to be the case here for many years, tolerated but not respected. That defines the real Dutch view.

It can be done better, and perhaps they should. There's no doubt that organized crime will see this business as a potential loss of profit and may attempt to infiltrate it in both legitimate and illegitimate fashion, but legalizing and taxing it is still the best way to get control of it. Decriminalization is an acceptable step lacking any other options, and I wouldn't argue against it per se when it is the only available possibility, but if the Dutch have problems, they should address them directly and reformat their approach.

It doesn't have to be "that" way.

Michael D. Storey
01-20-2014, 09:38 PM
This statement presupposes that they reported the income made from selling drugs to the IRS.

Kevin

Well, it is true that many things that the IRS does seem to have been done by absolute stoners, but I seriously doubt that too awful many folk are actually selling drugs to the IRS

johnw
01-20-2014, 10:11 PM
Well, it is true that many things that the IRS does seem to have been done by absolute stoners, but I seriously doubt that too awful many folk are actually selling drugs to the IRS

I think some have been paying taxes. The penalty for lying about how you made your money has got to be less than the penalty for not paying taxes. Anyway, I've met one grower who said he paid income tax. I've met a few smugglers, but none of them claimed they paid income tax. Of course, a grower tends to own property that could be seized for tax evasion.

Michael D. Storey
01-22-2014, 11:42 AM
I think some have been paying taxes. The penalty for lying about how you made your money has got to be less than the penalty for not paying taxes. Anyway, I've met one grower who said he paid income tax. I've met a few smugglers, but none of them claimed they paid income tax. Of course, a grower tends to own property that could be seized for tax evasion.

I file a schedule c and am asked on the 1040 what I do for a living. No proof, just asked. I have been questioned about where my numbers came from, and have always had answers to support them.
If one were interested in diddling the tax man, it would be easy. A farmer who claims to pay taxes may be claiming it on the crop of squash that he also planted, or the tractor repair service that he runs. I can not imagine anyone in their right mind ever listing an illegal activity, a felony, no less, as their business on their federal tax return, even though Treasury has no connection with Justice.

Michael D. Storey
01-22-2014, 11:48 AM
Or grow it yourself. Or smoke with friends that grow it, or trade for it, or get it with a medical card. I haven't paid for pot in ten years. Also, note that when a pot smoker is out, it isn't a big deal like it is for most other drugs and cigarettes. And except for the pot, none of the people I ever got pot from were criminal in any other way. None.

I have never paid for it. I have always grown what I wanted. Never sold a seed. Try no to look for trouble

Jim Mahan
01-22-2014, 12:15 PM
Perfect. You're prolly never gonna be busted or have your stuff confiscated, and you're not facilitating the drug cartels and their violence, nor contributing to the underground economy. (Not intended as sarcasm.)

switters
01-22-2014, 12:25 PM
Help we are out of cheeze whiz and twinkies!

Breakaway
01-22-2014, 12:57 PM
I have never paid for it. I have always grown what I wanted.

You got the seeds from somewhere! ;):D

Kevin

switters
01-22-2014, 02:52 PM
NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report (http://bit.ly/NhEEu0))—President Obama is about to issue an executive order that would force all Americans to purchase a monthly supply of marijuana, the Fox News Channel reported today.
According to Fox’s Sean Hannity, who broke the story, Obama’s initiative is part of a broader plan to make weed available and affordable to every individual in the United States.
Under Obama’s plan, every American would be required to purchase a government-mandated amount of marijuana per month or face a penalty of up to two thousand dollars.
Hannity said that the President hopes to have the mandatory marijuana plan up and running by 2015, “but they’re still working on the Web site.”
Appearing on Fox, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) took issue with Obama’s recent remark that marijuana was no more dangerous than alcohol: “I saw that as an insult.”

Jazzman
01-22-2014, 06:41 PM
Well, we have roadside stoner tests here now. Cops swab your saliva. Very simple.
My day job is bus driver. We have as law an under 0.02 alcohol limit for heavy vehicles (0.05 cars and m/c), however my employer (gov) has zero % alcohol policy. So, gotta watch how many you have the night before, and we have a breathalyser we can use to check ourselves before sign on.They do random Breath tests occaisionally. No problems for me.
We also have random drug checks which involve peeing into a bottle, no swabs at work yet. I've known stoners who got tested positive for THC. It doesn't mean they were stoned on the job, however now there is a grey area and if work want to sack you they have the upper hand. In actuality, they ask you when you smoked etc, then they test again in a month. Clean, no worries. I knew a bloke they gave 3 chances to to test clean and he just didn't care and got sacked. I even said to him, Why don't you just stop for a while?
I've known some blokes who got stoned and drove and I can say they were good drivers. No prangs and careful. I don't want stoned or drunk people driving my kids around however. AND if they have an accident stoned and it's not their fault they are automatically in the wrong. Just too much of a liabilty. We had a driver go to gaol recently because an old woman fell on his bus and knocked her head and died. The in-bus video was pulled and it was stated that he drove off without her having a proper hold.
I'm not sure pot is so harmless and I've smoked plenty when in my early 20's. Some people end up pretty messed up by it. The first guy to get me stoned ended up jumping off the rocks at Coogee and killed himself. I knew him well and he did go bonkers.
It's also well known to be bad on the developing brain. Being a jazz muso I see it all the time. I know guys in their 70s and 80s still chuffing. They grow their own. One of my dear old mates has emphysema which never goes away.
I was in Amsterdam recently at the start of 3 months holiday. Went to a coffee shop and smoked half a joint then had to get back to the campsite. It was not an enjoyable experience!!

CWSmith
01-22-2014, 06:48 PM
Jazzman, it sounds like your employers are pretty reasonable where a test failure does not mean getting fired. I think this is a model for us all.

Jazzman
01-22-2014, 07:30 PM
I think so too. Although my post was pretty rambling.
I neglected to mention that they have a level of THC (which we are not privy to) whereby they can tell if you are stoned or have residual levels. So they may be able to sack you for being stoned on the job. Like I said, it's a grey area, not as B&W as alcohol. And the employer holds the cards. It's a great job with fantastic conditions and I'm staying!

I think CW you mentioned earlier the benefits of a clear mind and I agree. That said, people will do what they do. I know I did! I'm one of the lucky few who made it out the other side.
I think pot should be decriminalised. It more or less is here and we don't have any issues except health. And illegal to drive stoned.

I also think it can be a gateway drug. It was for me and many friends.

The real test is whether ones personal choices affect others.

StevenBauer
01-22-2014, 07:59 PM
Well, we have roadside stoner tests here now. Cops swab your saliva. Very simple.
My day job is bus driver. We have as law an under 0.2 alcohol limit for heavy vehicles (0.5 cars and m/c), however my employer (gov) has zero % alcohol policy.


Jazz, those numbers don't sound right. Here the limit for driving is .08. If you have .2 that would be, according to the official chart:
Impairment of:
Reflexes
Reaction time
Gross motor control
Staggering
Slurred speech
Temporary erectile dysfunction
Possibility of temporary alcohol poisoning

But I have heard you guys take your drinking pretty seriously down there in UpsideDownLand. ;)


Steven

Jazzman
01-22-2014, 08:21 PM
Sorry!!! forgot the zero! 0.02 for heavies, 0.05 cars and bikes.
I recently did 4000 miles on a motorcycle in the States, and I must say the 0.08 was most civilised!

wizbang 13
01-23-2014, 06:04 AM
The two states that just legalized it are going to the Super BOWL!!!

John Smith
01-23-2014, 08:33 AM
I seem to recall that peeing in the cup can produce false positives if one is taking any of a variety of over the counter cold medications.

Michael D. Storey
01-23-2014, 01:37 PM
Perfect. You're prolly never gonna be busted or have your stuff confiscated, and you're not facilitating the drug cartels and their violence, nor contributing to the underground economy. (Not intended as sarcasm.)

Huge point. Know your source, buy local. Do Not buy Mexican Products. They help finance carnage and human misery. Even with NAFTA

Michael D. Storey
01-23-2014, 01:40 PM
You got the seeds from somewhere! ;):D

Kevin
These plants are so plentiful that they grow wild in nearly every state and Provence. I have successfully hybridized a strain that I like from wild plants. We're talkin weeds, here. Not hybrid roses.