PDA

View Full Version : H.R. 5843 - Yea or Nay



Ross M
07-31-2008, 06:53 AM
Blind poll on H.R. 5843, the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008.

What is your opinion on the matter?

I personally feel the current prohibition has been just about as ineffective as the prohibition of alcohol was, with many of the same side effects:

Fosters disrespect for good laws;
Puts large amounts of money into the wrong hands;
Makes criminals out of hundreds of thousands of otherwise law abiding citizens;
Promotes development of organized crime syndicates;
Artificially raises the price of a commodity, forcing those who steal for the purpose of financing a habit to steal larger amounts;
Discourages those with a problem from seeking medical assistance;
Promotes ever more draconian law enforcement mindsets and tactics...

The list of adverse effects seems to be endless, yet I can think of almost no positive aspects of this prohibition.

Thoughts?

Ross

Tylerdurden
07-31-2008, 06:57 AM
I agree with you on this, let the people have their freedom back.

I don't think the CIA will support it being its one of their cash cows.

LeeG
07-31-2008, 07:09 AM
It's about time but won't that decrease income for police agencies?

Milo Christensen
07-31-2008, 07:18 AM
Marijuana use by responsible adults. There's a new entry into the classic definition of oxymoron.

elf
07-31-2008, 07:54 AM
Marijuana use by responsible adults. There's a new entry into the classic definition of oxymoron.

Like alcohol use by responsible adults, or tobacco use by responsible use, or religion use by responsible adults.

All drugs should be available for use by responsible adults. It's the irresponsible adults and young adults who are the problem, not the drug.

Milo Christensen
07-31-2008, 08:01 AM
I have no problem with decriminalization, but please, don't label marijuana users as responsible, O.K.? In the same way that alcohol users are not responsible while drinking. I know the bill's author is Barney Frank and that rings alarm bells. Ron Paul is also somehow involved and that should ring another set of alarm bells.

huisjen
07-31-2008, 08:06 AM
Heroin use by responsible adults? I'd actually be in favor of it, as it would turn it into a public health problem (treatable) rather than a funding source for the DEA and (other) organized crime. And there are some people (paliative end of life sedation) who could use it.

Pot has a reputation (although not necessarily harmless) of being less damaging than alcohol, and it has several legitimate medical uses, such as apetite enhancement and nausea control. It's also said to be effective against sciatica.

elf
07-31-2008, 08:17 AM
I have no problem with decriminalization, but please, don't label marijuana users as responsible, O.K.? In the same way that alcohol users are not responsible while drinking. I know the bill's author is Barney Frank and that rings alarm bells. Ron Paul is also somehow involved and that should ring another set of alarm bells.

Whoever is supporting the bill I don't understand why you think alcohol users can't be responsible while using. Can you explain your reasoning on that?

Do you mean to imply that just drinking a glass of wine or a shot of whiskey is irresponsible behavior on the face of it?

Phillip Allen
07-31-2008, 08:24 AM
I voted yes...primarily to de-fund certain government agencies

Milo Christensen
07-31-2008, 08:36 AM
Whoever is supporting the bill I don't understand why you think alcohol users can't be responsible while using. Can you explain your reasoning on that?

Do you mean to imply that just drinking a glass of wine or a shot of whiskey is irresponsible behavior on the face of it?

My experience is that it's difficult enough for the average American to be responsible while completely sober. Add an intoxicant to the mix and who knows?

As far as a shot, well, I had a recent experience while taking a 10 day course of an antibiotic that warned about dizziness and alcohol exacerbating that dizziness. I had about 1.5 oz tequila in a margarita and although hadn't been dizzy while sober, suddenly had the world spinning around. I can't imagine what would have happened if I had been driving a car. So, yes, there are very, very many examples of a single oz of alcohol causing serious problems with resultant inability to be responsible.

I don't really want to talk about the last time I shared a single joint with a group of 6 and drove home, but the statute of limitations has run out on that offense. It was like the acceleration to space warp stuff in the Star Wars movies. The sh!t they grow these days is one hell of a lot more potent than the stuff I used in the late 60's / early 70's.

elf
07-31-2008, 08:46 AM
Hmm. Guess we'd better get around to defining "responsible".

botebum
07-31-2008, 08:59 AM
I'm very mixed on the subject.
On the one hand I agree with most if not all of your points. Think of the tax revenue that would be collected!
On the other hand I can't support it at all. People here rant that tobacco use is one reason for health insurance costs, yet they support legalization of a drug with (from what I've read) more carcinagens(sp?) than tobacco. What of driving under the influence? Blood alchohol levels can be measured and a limit enforced as to when a driver is considered "impaired". What's the limit for how stoned a person is before they are considered impaired? Or do we just wait for the accident and then test them. If they test positive, they are impaired. Use of marijuana in young adults has been shown to have long term effects on their cognitive skills. If you think that making it illegal for minors to possess it will address this then you need to look out your window and see how many minors are smoking cigarettes. I've had a hard enough time trying to keep my older kids from smoking and abusing alcohol. Some of them have smoked marijuana as well. Making it legal is codoning it's use and will make it more difficult for parents to discourage use.
I think I'm a "no".

Doug

Milo Christensen
07-31-2008, 09:03 AM
. . . Pot has a reputation (although not necessarily harmless) of being less damaging than alcohol, and it has several legitimate medical uses, such as apetite enhancement and nausea control. It's also said to be effective against sciatica.

Check out Ron Paul's bill HR 5842.

Phillip Allen
07-31-2008, 09:06 AM
My thought exactly Elf.
Responsible is exemplified by being drunk and still acting responsibly...I've done it: drunk as a sailor at a big party and when it broke up my friends insisted I was sober enough to drive home (ten miles). "No" I said, "Being drunk is an exscuse to slur your words, stumble around and kiss the ladies hands (National Collegate Players end of year Gala...we were being elegant) but if I act stupid when I'm drunk, I'll still be stupid when I'm sober...just able to hide it better.

George Roberts
07-31-2008, 09:29 AM
I am all for allowing people to use drugs on their property, responsible or not.

I am against letting drug use overflow into the public areas or into my area.

But the truth is that most drug use is going to overflow onto public areas.

Keith Wilson
07-31-2008, 09:32 AM
Yes. It will cause some problems, certainly, but it's a huge improvement on the current situation.

Paul Pless
07-31-2008, 09:34 AM
such as apetite enhancement Just what America needs eh?;)

brad9798
07-31-2008, 09:44 AM
"On the one hand I agree with most if not all of your points. Think of the tax revenue that would be collected!
On the other hand I can't support it at all. People here rant that tobacco use is one reason for health insurance costs, yet they support legalization of a drug ..."

DAMN DOUG!

Couldn't of said better myself ...

I too see that interesting dichotomy ... like the threads where folks wine and cry about animal abuse, post nothing in defense of child abuse ...

Or ... abolish the death penalty and give women all the abortions they want folks on this forum.

The juxtaposition of this is darkly entertaining!

Oh, and I don't care if they legalize it or not ... let's just stop acting like 'illicit'drug usage of any kind is positive or responsible. ;)

Captain Blight
07-31-2008, 10:48 AM
People are going to smoke pot, regardless of what the Gubbimint has to say about it. At least with it legal, it would

-ease some of the burden on overstrained police resources
-relieve some of the burden on overstrained court systems
-slow the influx of prisoners into our prison complexes
-present a possibility of another source of tax revenue
-change the paradigm. I think this last one is maybe the most important of all; for those who want to gnash your teeth about "illicit use" and "dopers' and "hippies..." Turn the WayBack Machine back to 1922: Marijauna's legal; alcohol isn't. What do you do on a Friday night?

I'm not the crusader for legalization I used to be, but legalization certainly makes sense to me. I know the benefits outweigh the risks.

Bob Adams
07-31-2008, 10:56 AM
People are going to smoke pot, regardless of what the Gubbimint has to say about it. At least with it legal, it would

-ease some of the burden on overstrained police resources
-relieve some of the burden on overstrained court systems
-slow the influx of prisoners into our prison complexes
-present a possibility of another source of tax revenue
-change the paradigm. I think this last one is maybe the most important of all; for those who want to gnash your teeth about "illicit use" and "dopers' and "hippies..." Turn the WayBack Machine back to 1922: Marijauna's legal; alcohol isn't. What do you do on a Friday night?

I'm not the crusader for legalization I used to be, but legalization certainly makes sense to me. I know the benefits outweigh the risks.

Exactly.

Tom Montgomery
07-31-2008, 10:57 AM
Legalize it. Prohibit its use in public.

The only drawback I can see is that legalization would result in huge profits for Phillip Morris, Brown & Williamson, etc. while forcing many young people to find legitimate work.

Bill R
07-31-2008, 06:39 PM
People are going to smoke pot, regardless of what the Gubbimint has to say about it. At least with it legal, it would

-ease some of the burden on overstrained police resources
-relieve some of the burden on overstrained court systems
-slow the influx of prisoners into our prison complexes
-present a possibility of another source of tax revenue
-change the paradigm. I think this last one is maybe the most important of all; for those who want to gnash your teeth about "illicit use" and "dopers' and "hippies..." Turn the WayBack Machine back to 1922: Marijauna's legal; alcohol isn't. What do you do on a Friday night?

I'm not the crusader for legalization I used to be, but legalization certainly makes sense to me. I know the benefits outweigh the risks.

Ditto. Benefit of defunding certain government agencies in the process.

I don't smoke pot anymore. Haven't in about 20 years. But... I sure as hell don't care if you do. Personal choice/ personal responsibility. Shouldn't be up to the gub'mint.