|
Post by thorsmightyhammer on Nov 10, 2012 21:41:57 GMT -6
Randy, I'd say the hard core weed smokers and potheads are any more of a detriment to society than hard core alcoholics.
Me personally, I'd as soon see it all abolished and wiped from the face of the earth. I have zero use for alcohol or weed or drugs.
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Nov 11, 2012 2:38:55 GMT -6
"contrast to the same for marijuana"
Who really knows? Do you really believe it's any safer to smoke pot and drive than drink and drive? From what I know, anything that has mind altering properties has a magnifying effect on someone who has mind problems to begin with.
We have enough problems with alcohol, why legalize one more. I know pot dulls pain and is useful with glaucoma, and I have no problem with it being sold as a prescription drug. But I sure don't see any benefit in legalizing it.
Pam
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Nov 11, 2012 4:38:45 GMT -6
It will be interesting to review what each state arrives with or debates what is "recreational use" versus non recreational use. There is a Supreme Court Case on the horizon if there ever was one and may impact the use or control of many substances, now legal or not.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by James on Nov 11, 2012 14:00:43 GMT -6
Pam, I can think of at least two benefits in legalizing it.
1. Frees up a lot of government funds now being spent on law enforcement, judicial system, and prison system to catch and imprison pot-smokers, so that these funds might be put to more productive and beneficial purposes.
2. Takes the illegal profits out of the pot trade, and hurts drug cartels and criminal organizations.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by mmwb (Andrew Parker) on Nov 11, 2012 18:41:37 GMT -6
There is merit to those points, James, though I don't know it would make the impact in either relative to others drugs that are illegal. If marijuana is legalized, I don't expect to see any decrease in funding as it will be directed to the continued battle against remaining illegal drugs.
|
|
|
Post by James on Nov 11, 2012 20:27:31 GMT -6
Well, maybe. But marijuana is by far the most used and sold street drug.
Freeing law enforcement resources to go after more dangerous drugs shouldn't be a bad thing either, by your rationale.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 11, 2012 20:36:29 GMT -6
To think drug cartels would be effected at all is a misnomer. They would just switch product lines and the price of such would increase and the same ol' same ol' would take place.
To think crime would drop by any real numbers is off base as well.
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Nov 11, 2012 20:59:43 GMT -6
Here's a piece by one of the sponsors of WA's ballot measure, Marijuana's true potency and why the law should changeThe U.S. war against marijuana has failed and actually threatens public safety and rests on false medical assumptions. Guest columnist John McKay, Seattle's former U.S. attorney, argues why the laws against marijuana should be changed. By John McKay Special to The Seattle Times I DON'T smoke pot. And I pretty much think people who do are idiots. This certainly includes Marc Emery, the self-styled "Prince of Pot" from Canada whom I indicted in 2005 for peddling marijuana seeds to every man, woman and child with an envelope and a stamp. Emery recently pleaded guilty and will be sentenced this month in Seattle, where he faces five years in federal prison. If changing U.S. marijuana policy was ever Emery's goal, the best that can be said is that he took the wrong path. As Emery's prosecutor and a former federal law-enforcement official, however, I'm not afraid to say out loud what most of my former colleagues know is true: Our marijuana policy is dangerous and wrong and should be changed through the legislative process to better protect the public safety. Congress has failed to recognize what many already know about our policy of criminal prohibition of marijuana — it has utterly failed. Listed by the U.S. government as a "Schedule One" drug alongside heroin, the demand for marijuana in this country for decades has outpaced the ability of law enforcement to eliminate it. Perhaps this is because millions of Americans smoke pot regularly and international drug cartels, violent gangs and street pushers work hard to reap the profits. Law-enforcement agencies are simply not capable of interdicting all of this pot and despite some successes have not succeeded in thwarting criminals who traffic and sell marijuana. Brave agents and cops continue to risk their lives in a futile attempt to enforce misguided laws that do not match the realities of our society. These same agents and cops, along with prosecutors, judges and jailers, know we can't win by arresting all those involved in the massive importation, growth or distribution of marijuana, nor by locking up all the pot smokers. While many have argued the policy is unjust, few have addressed the dangerously potent black market the policy itself has created for exploitation by Mexican and other international drug cartels and gangs. With the proceeds from the U.S. marijuana black market, these criminals distribute dangerous drugs and kill each other (too often along with innocent bystanders) with American-purchased guns. Our wrongheaded policy on marijuana has also failed to address the true health threat posed by its use. While I suspect nothing good can come to anyone from the chronic ingestion of marijuana smoke, its addictive quality and health risk pale in comparison with other banned drugs such as heroin, cocaine or meth. Informed adult choice, albeit a bad one, may well be preferable to the legal and policy meltdown we have long been suffering over marijuana. Not only does our policy directly threaten our public safety and rest upon false medical assumptions, but our national laws are now in direct and irreconcilable conflict with state laws, including Washington state. So called "medical" marijuana reaches precious few patients and backdoor potheads mock legitimate medical use by glaucoma and chemotherapy patients. State laws are trumped by federal laws that recognize no such thing as "medicinal" or "personal" use and are no defense to arrests by federal agents and prosecution in federal courts. So the policy is wrong, the law has failed, the public is endangered, no one in law enforcement is talking about it and precious few policymakers will honestly face the soft-on-crime sound bite in their next elections. What should be done? • First, we need to honestly and courageously examine the true public-safety danger posed by criminalizing a drug used by millions and millions of Americans who ignore the law. Marijuana prohibition has failed — it's time for a new policy crafted by informed policymakers with the help of those in law enforcement who have risked their lives battling pot-purveying drug cartels and gangs. • Second, let's talk about marijuana policy responsibly and with an eye toward sound science, not myth. We can start by acknowledging that our 1930s-era marijuana prohibition was overkill from the beginning and should be decoupled from any debate about "legalizing drugs." We should study and disclose the findings of the real health risks of prolonged use, including its influence and effect on juveniles. • Third, we should give serious consideration to heavy regulation and taxation of the marijuana industry (an industry that is very real and dangerously underground). We should limit pot's content of the active ingredient THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), regulate its sale to adults who are dumb enough to want it and maintain criminal penalties for sales, possession or use by minors, drivers and boaters. Federal criminal law should give way to regulation, while prohibiting interstate violation of federal laws consistent with this approach. In short, policymakers should strive for a regulatory and criminal scheme like the one guarding that other commodity that failed miserably at prohibition, alcohol. As my law-enforcement colleagues know well from chasing bootleggers and mobsters, this new regulatory and criminal approach will still require many years of intensive investigation and enforcement before organized criminal elements are driven from the vast marijuana market. DEA and its law-enforcement partners must therefore remain well equipped and staffed to accomplish this task: to protect our families from truly dangerous drugs and to drive drug cartels, gangs and dope dealers from our society. John McKay is a law professor at Seattle University and the former United States attorney in Seattle.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Nov 12, 2012 7:18:42 GMT -6
that our 1930s-era marijuana prohibition was overkill from the beginning and should be decoupled from any debate about "legalizing drugs."
Reefer Madness and the Comstock laws
|
|
|
Post by C1972 on Nov 13, 2012 3:23:29 GMT -6
Not necessarily. I'd say if all fifty state could put it to a referundum you and I'd be surprised at how many would pass it. Randy if your kids are going to be pot heads they'll do it wether its legal or not. Didn't you get drunk before you turned 21? I drink less than just about anyone I know and I got drunk before 21. I could care less if they legalize it as long as businesses are allowed to test for it and your ass is fired if you fail, especially if someone gets hurt. I can't recall any headlines telling of anyone killing themselves or whole families due to being stoned, can anyone here? As far as drug testing goes, uurine tests are EASY to beat due to the advent of synthetic urine kits w/ heat packs. I know this to be true due to some friends that have used them successfully numerous times. If I still smoked I'd be screwed as they hair follicle test where I work and goes back 180 days. Of all the drugs out there, alcohol does more damage than all others combined. Plus, the war on drugs is an utter failure.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 13, 2012 6:03:00 GMT -6
c1972 so killing people is your baseline for legal and non legal drugs?
I don't think out country needs an influx of any more, non motivated people..............................
|
|
|
Post by mostinterestingmanintheworld on Nov 13, 2012 6:15:33 GMT -6
The Government obviously isn't of any use in controlling it. I'd say open it up and fire the DEA staff that is not getting the job done.
Let the employers take over, that would take care of 50% of the population. Of course you'd have to test all those on Govt. assistance as well, that's the other 50%.
Wah lah, problem solved, net loss of Govt. funds spent on police.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Nov 13, 2012 8:00:17 GMT -6
TC- you think people that smoke weed are like Reefer madness-
educate yourself
you would be SHOCKED at how many people you know, work with, converse with- smoke it
you don't have a clue
|
|
|
Post by thebeav2 on Nov 13, 2012 12:22:30 GMT -6
Gay marriage, Illegals moving Into our country legalized pot smoking this country Is going to H ell In a hand basket. I feel sorry for my children and my grand children.
|
|
|
Post by James on Nov 13, 2012 13:04:26 GMT -6
If you don't like smoking pot or gay marriage, then don't do it.
The question is whether the jackboot of government should come down on the throats of those who feel differently. Should we criminalize this behavior, and spend money and resources enforcing those laws?
Jim
|
|
|
Post by claythomas on Nov 13, 2012 15:00:41 GMT -6
Some rational pros and cons no doubt.
I think in most cases we should stop trying to idiot proof everything 'cause there are way too many idiots.
So many rules, regs,and laws are put on the books to try to control the 5% of morons who could care less about what the laws are, and they just end up inconveniencing the rest of us that have a clue.
At the end of the day IMO the question should be; Do you want to live in a country where the government can tell you what plant you can grow/dry/roll/and smoke on your own property?
CLEARLY for me that answer is no!
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Nov 13, 2012 16:56:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Nov 14, 2012 8:10:50 GMT -6
I just aobut fell over when at yellowstone we were given a brochure saying stay back (something like 15-20 feet) from the bears and bison-
duh- no shite sherlock!
|
|
|
Post by thebeav2 on Nov 14, 2012 8:36:03 GMT -6
I just aobut fell over when at yellowstone we were given a brochure saying stay back (something like 15-20 feet) from the bears and bison-
duh- no shite sherlock!
LOl and the idiot pot head would be the first one to go try and pet the bear warning or not..
|
|
|
Post by thebeav2 on Nov 14, 2012 8:37:46 GMT -6
FWS that Is just to sick
|
|