Another Marijuana Myth Goes Up In Smoke by Paul Armentano

[DR.D]

I guess I'm missing something here. Who made the argument that pot is not addictive or harmful? Then again, people get addicted to cell phones, and computers. Maybe we should outlaw them too.

I just think it's dishonest of our government to put all this effort into stamping out cannabis, when we have something like 400,000 people die each year because of tobacco, and another 80,000 people die because of alcohol. I wasn't able to find any statistics on how many cannabis related deaths we had in this country. I would suspect that it's not as high as alcohol or tobacco.

If our government is determined to save us from ourselves, then why don't they focus their efforts on stamping out alcohol and tobacco?

-Tinytoad

Forget alcohol and tobacco.. if the government really cared, they'd ban sugar! That's right, sucrose is the #1 killer in America, more than drugs or alcohol. You should have to be 21 to buy candy or refined sugar products, but we give it to little kids instead, setting them up for all kinds of future health problems before that can weight the risks of use. Is sucrose intrinsically bad? No, sugar is natural are useful in human physiology. It just get's abused out of human nature. In the book of Genesis, God clearly gives us all seed bearing plants and herb to use. He even comments that "it was good" after He created it. Sorry guys, but pot really should be legal and I don't wanna start a spiritual argument either. Would it get abused though, probably. Is is physically addictive or damaging, not really if used responsibly. I quit cold turkey over 6 years ago after using regularly for a looooong time, and had no withdrawals at all. I do miss it psychologically though. It was the only drug that never lied to me. It was an honest drug that had many benefits and never promoted greed or physical withdrawal like other drugs did. As for the gateway theory, the first drug I ever used was dbol! So I guess roids' are gateway drugs too (lol).

[CHAPS]

I smoked pot pretty much all through high school a couple times a day actually. I don't touch the stuff anymore i just don't like the feeling anymore, it also increases estrogen and smoking anything for that matter is not good for your lungs, that's why i don't do it anymore. But i could care less if people want to go ahead and light up, hell the amount of guys i know that deal the stuff is insane. Cigarettes are the one that really urks me though, younger and younger ppl are getting addicted and it just really digusts me. I really hope one day that cigarettes are illegal. As for legalizing pot i'm not sure about that one, i mean it's not like it's really going to affect the dealers they'll just move on to pushing the hard stuff. But i see no problem in getting pot from a doctor for a medical condition.

[CDB]

Damn man, you don't need to pity me. Someone that is that unhappy with their lives and where they live needs that pity. Save it for yourself. Apparently since you've travelled the world you should of stayed at a place that lives by the rules or lack of rules that you believe in. Considering all the types of gov't and leadership I would be willing to bet that you could locate such a place and be happy.

Amsterdam was nice, I may go back. I find it a weird attitude though, that someone born in this country, raised in this country, who has hurt no one has to go elsewhere to live their lives as they wish. One would think that meeting the above criteria they'd be welcomed in a peaceful nation.

And yours conflicts with mine. See how people can have different opinions? What I have seen with my own two eyes tells me this isn't something to legalize.

And at one time I agreed. Perhaps you should broaden your view a bit before you decide to lock up 70 million people, who according to the government have at one time or another used pot or some other illegal recreational drug. Do you honestly think they all belong in jail?

There are already laws i'm against and those that i'm both against and makes me have to choose either to continue and chance my career and life and my family's life or avoid/change what i'm doing.

Why does it never occur to you to speak out that you think a law is wrong? Certainly as a cop the enforcing of a law you think is wrong has to make your stomach twist, and no doubt your voice as a cop would carry more weight than the average citizen. So what are the rest of us to do when people like you stay silent and simply do the job regardless of your feelings?

1. Gang violence of pot wars? Hmm, other drugs and guns etc would also stop because pot was legal? Gang violence would continue as always.

Of course I want the whole shebang legal. Sorry if that wasn't clear. As intense as some drugs are, I'd prefer they be sold by legal companies who could be held responsible for their sale and use. All substances sold on the black market have violence surrounding their import and sale. Admittedly the legalization of marijuana alone wouldn't get rid of all gang violence, but it would certainly seperate a rather innocuous weed from the much harder drugs, not to mention save a ****load of enforcement money on both federal, state and local levels.

2. Safer products but also ran but your gov't/business drones with prices and potency differences. Not to mention large pot fields to supply these that would also be violated because there's always people wanting something for free so you're still getting pot related crimes. AND you will still have dealers for selling pot for cheaper prices and 'better' potency and laced with products for a better high.

Yeah, to think of all those out of control 'raids' by citizens on tobacco fields... And I guess that's why we still have a massive black market in liquor once that prohibition was ended. Oh wait, we don't... Ah never mind about that. Weed is different. Do you have any clue how insane what you're saying sounds? People raiding fields? Who the **** grows marijuana in a field anymore? Do you know how much time would be spent seperating the plants for proper budding in a frigging field? And I guess people would have to concentrate their 'raids' in August, as that's really the only time naturally grown weed buds correctly in the northern hemisphere. You'd think that window would make it easy to stop all those raids. Oh that's right no, you don't know what you're saying, because again you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

3. Age restrictions..This one actually made me chuckle a bit. Like restrictions with ciggs and alcohol that we're constantly arresting kids for abusing but then again we have unsolved murders in every district so why are we even making these arrests?

It's very simple: would you rather have a network of legal dealers who at least make somewhat of an effort to check on age, or do you want a network of illegal dealers who never check on age, and in your own view not only fail to do that but push other drugs on kids? What would you rather have? Because you're not going to get rid of the drugs. You've been trying for decades and they're still here. Failure complete, what practical solution would you rather have? As an aside when I was a kid it was easier to get weed than liquor, and still is if I can trust my teacher friends. Hell liquor you needed to find someone unscrupulous to get it for you. Weed was delivered to your frigging front door, as well as coke and steroids and anything else you wanted, because the whole distribution and sale system was by default unscrupulous.

4. So introducing what would be a huge business into the economy would lower corruption and cost savings with ads,lawyers,law suits, product testing, etc etc...And you say i'm divorced from reality? Good ****ing lord man. You have issues.

Do you prefer your lobbyists out in the open and using money legally, or in the shadows and using guns and offerring bribes? Again, a simple choice. As far as reality, compare the governments of Mexico and Columbia to our own and then get back to me. The levels of corruption in those countries are only made possible because of the massive cash flow to be had on the black market. And there are people on the take here as well. At least in the legal markets you know who the 'lobbyists' are, and there are laws to control them to an extent.

If you live in the US resisting arrest may get you taken down but for the most part it will not net you a death especially in your example of merging in a right lane. You can only use force needed to control a suspect and that doesn't include deadly force unless it is being used on you or another(dumbed down simple version).[/QUOTE]

I said resist at all levels. Say you try and issue the ticket, he drives away. You follow, he goes faster. He goes home, you give chase and try to arrest, he fights back. Every escalated attempt by you to enforce the law engenders an escalation in resistance on his part. At what point will you walk away and decide enforcement is not worth it? No level is the answer. You completely miss the point, there is no law that if you don't comply with it will not result in your death. Or do you carry those guns just to scare people, and the level of force used to enforce a law is a judgement call left to you?

How about this: don't pay your taxes. **** 'em. When the government comes to collect, resist. Resist every effort to collect. Let me know at what point they decide to say **** it, and walk away.

And every cop out there should be working unsolved murders...Again, forget any other crime cause there's a murder case out there somewhere and adding 2000 cops per case isn't over kill. How about reply to me when you're not stoned?

Haven't smoked in a good long time.

When the day comes that someone is born with a joint in their lips as a natural body part then this example will make sense. As of right now it's an arguement over hair dye. I'm partial to black myself.

Very well, let's outlaw pink coats then. You missed the point again, and I'm tired of explaining it so just puzzle it over if you must.

Anyone who disagrees is a drone, got it. Anyone who follows laws are drones, got it.

That is not what I said but if you must resort to such idiocies then be my guest. When someone has to misrepresent what you've said to make a point, it usually means they've lost the argument. Thanks, you can go back to your all important job of hunting down and locking up Grateful Dead fans now.

[Jayhawkk]

Nothing like an honest drug. Those are the ones I search for. Caffeine isn't honest. Sure, it tells me it'll get me up with tasty goodness but it treats you like a prostitute. Once it's done its thing it takes off and leaves you hung out to dry feeling like **** with nothing to show for it but memories a a headache.

[Jayhawkk]

You are the one who is using straw man arguements to get a rise and reaction. You are the one who is upping all the stats and making it seem worse than it is. My friend this and my friend that doesn't have any more weight than mine.

EDIT


Let's try and use the resist scenerio again. If I make a stop and keep trying to arrest someone and they refuse then this is what would happen...

1. Pursuit of vehicle need backup
2. Calls in local and adjacent agencies for backup
3. Ends up at house with multiple officers
4. Officers try and subdue suspect
5. Suspect resists with just his person and multiple officers will use less than lethal force
6. Uses knife gun etc then presentation of force is made
7. Suspect still comes at them with gun or weapon
8. Suspect dies from running from a merging traffic ticket stop
9. Suspect is/was an idiot.

[CDB]

Since you replied while I was replying...

First, that dog search has to be done in a reasonable time.
Second, He would have to have a reason to use a dog to search.

No, he wouldn't. By federal ruling of the SCOTA a dog sniffing is not a search, therefore there is no need for a warrant or cause of any kind.

Third, had he found something he better of had 1 and 2 in order or the drugs found would of been fruits of the poisonous tree and not used anyways.

See above, look up the ruling from the other post. You're wrong.

You're also assuming that I believe that illegal searches and ******* cops making unwarrented stops do not happen. I know there are crooked cops who abuse their powers and I am also aware that there are laws on the books that don't make sense.

But previously...

You're really misinformed here. And I am a cop and I also know that no one is searching a locked glovebox or trunk and I also know that no one is doing a complete search of your vehicle...

I believe pot should not be legalized because of what I have seen on a professional and personal basis. Not because it's inherintly evil or because i'm a drone.

What if you're wrong? Does it not occur to you that in your capacity as a cop the people you're likely to deal with are not going to be the creme de la ****ing creme of humanity no matter what substance they're using? How many **** up drunks do you see in a given day, and does that mean we should make alcohol illegal too now and start indiscriminently locking up all drinkers, because your personal experience dictates it and **** everyone else?

Did you even read the case law? You never needed a warrant to search a car when making an arrest to begin with. Ever heard of inventory prior to towing? This was also off of a plain view law and others...

You don't need one when not making an arrest either because the protections have been dumbed down. But then again you're the guy who said no cop was conduction illegal searches and then said you know cops conduct illegal searches. Maybe you need some time to work things out?

[CDB]

1. Pursuit of vehicle need backup
2. Calls in local and adjacent agencies for backup
3. Ends up at house with multiple officers
4. Officers try and subdue suspect
5. Suspect resists with just his person and multiple officers will use less than lethal force
6. Uses knife gun etc then presentation of force is made
7. Suspect still comes at them with gun or weapon
8. Suspect dies from running from a merging traffic ticket stop
9. Suspect is/was an idiot.

Good, so you admit I am right. Now to 9, who is the idiot, the suspect or the cops who killed him over a moving violation? Because this would be the escalation NO MATTER THE OFFENSE. Jay walking or murder, the escalation would be the same. Perhaps if death is the logical end result or extreme law enforcement, maybe we need to take greater care over what laws we enact. And perhaps when people's lives are literally at stake, 'that's the law' shouldn't trump right and wrong.

You're more than right, I can be a prick on this issue. I don't apologize as it's only luck that I didn't end up in prison on nonviolent offenses, and I would have been put there in part by someone just like you. Your blithe willingness to destroy the lives of otherwise peaceful people says to me you deserve some pokes and prods, as they're certainly less harmful and more justified than the gun you'd pull out to kill a pot smoker to enforce your precious laws in extreme circumstances.

Oh, and as an edit I have to go out now, after all it is Saturday. And you know what? I'm the designated driver, which means I'll be driving around a bunch of stoned, drunken partying mother****ers while dead sober. Oh wait no, I'll be plastered. There's no such ****ing thing as responsible use when it comes to drugs...

[Jayhawkk]

No cop LEGALLY is searching etc etc...There's plenty of case law where these things are thrown out because of ****ed up stops...Are there cases of cops getting away with doing it? of course but that isn't the scope of the arguement and would take 10 more threads.

You're confusing a k-9 officer making a stop and an officer without k-9. there's a difference because of the time factor among other things. You better have reason for detaining a person long enough to have a dog handler get to the scene and search. Make this a habitual thing with no results or weak cases and it'll end quick.

[Jayhawkk]

He would be the idiot since he took it to that extreme that forced the cops hand. The cop didn't know anything else about this person. Just that he ran when making a simple traffic stop. You know how many stops that started out simple ended up killing officers?

And there's many accounts of cops pulling out guns and killing people just sitting there minding their own business smoking a joint?

EDIT

[Jayhawkk]

Actually something that was said earlier would be something I could agree on.


legal is but increase the penalties of crimes involving use. i.e.,driving while high etc. Making very stiff penalties for both children and parents for underage use(of course to and extent regarding parents who are shown to clearly play an active role). Strong penalties for use/selling/buying in school zones.

I would also raise the legal limit to 25. At 21 you're having enough of a time trying to stay sober.

[CDB]

He would be the idiot since he took it to that extreme that forced the cops hand. The cop didn't know anything else about this person. Just that he ran when making a simple traffic stop. You know how many stops that started out simple ended up killing officers?

And this is the mindset I'm talking about, it doesn't even occur to you to question the reason for stopping him. In your mind the kill is justified because apparently all laws are worth killing for. I know damn well cops are killed, one of the first posters I saw when I was gonna go that route for a career was a cop in a pool of blood next to car, with the caption below "Routine traffic stop..." Point being though that you apparently won't even consider the idea that the laws bring about such situations. Maybe the laws are the reason every citizen is a God damn fleeing suspect and potential death threat. No one is killing cops because they bought some JD for a party, but if they have some coke in the trunk they just might.

And there's many accounts of cops pulling out guns and killing people just sitting there minding their own business smoking a joint?

Most people take the practical approach and surrender. That's their choice. Doesn't mean death is out of the picture or not what's driving the law though. But perhaps you'd like to look up on the web the number of drug raids and the like that go bad, and then the cops don't find what they were looking for. Look up the case of a Mr. Paz, he was killed in a mistaken drug raid on the wrong house. The cops siezed his savings too and tried to hold on to it under seizure laws even after it was shown Paz had nothing to do with drugs on any level. Just another necessary casualty of war to you I guess, maybe you'd think different if it was your father, wife or kid that was killed.

At first I thought you actually had an arguement but as it turns out you don't. You just believe with what you believe and **** everything else. No amount of 5 dollar words or thesaurus ****ing will change the fact that you're a ****.

No, it won't. Edit that before a mod does though, they might get mad. I don't give a **** though. I've tried talking and changing the laws from in the system, it doesn't work because the government has people like you brainwashed and thinking so irrationally it's useless. When you're dealing with someone like that you have to smack them a few times to get some sense into them, it's just the way of the world.

[CDB]

Actually something that was said earlier would be something I could agree on.

legal is but increase the penalties of crimes involving use. i.e.,driving while high etc. Making very stiff penalties for both children and parents for underage use(of course to and extent regarding parents who are shown to clearly play an active role). Strong penalties for use/selling/buying in school zones.

I would also raise the legal limit to 25. At 21 you're having enough of a time trying to stay sober.

Gee, we agree...

[Jayhawkk]

Doesn't matter about what the reason was to stop the guy. Why can't you understand this? If he led police on a high speed chase what normal thinking person would have done this with no reason?

Again you're brining up incidence of mistakes or wrong doing. I can bring up more cases of drug users making violent offenses than you can of cops raiding the wrong house.

EDIT

[Jayhawkk]

Edit

[moklepaul]

I support decriminalizing (personal amounts of) marijuana. Cops have better thing to worry about than petty drug busts. Legalizing? It sounds good in theory, but I'm not sure it'd work.

[CDB]

Doesn't matter about what the reason was to stop the guy. Why can't you understand this? If he led police on a high speed chase what normal thinking person would have done this with no reason?

The normal person who knows that even though they haven't hurt anyone, stolen anything or damaged property or in fact engaged in any act that would be considered traditionally criminal, but knows they might end up in prison because, God forbid!, they have a substance the government doesn't approve of. That aside, the main point is death is at the end of the enforcement of any law, because there is no point at which you or any other law enforcement official would say it's not worth it to pursue anymore. Even if you knew that all the person was guilt of was some minor violation, they'd better stand tall for the law or they're dead. Again it comes down to what I brought up with BP, subserviance. Perhaps a person would resist the enforcement of a law because the law is BULL**** and deserves to be scrapped.

Again you're brining up incidence of mistakes or wrong doing. I can bring up more cases of drug users making violent offenses than you can of cops raiding the wrong house.

Suppose you can, your point would be what? Not only did those people use drugs, I can guarantee you they also... DRANK MILK! They may have also, oh my God... EATEN FOOD! You're confusing correlation with causation and/or implicitness, and only because you were taught to think that way. There are plenty of drug users, the vast majority in my experience, whose only crime is the sale, aquisition and possession of the drugs. They are otherwise peaceful and law abiding. Once more, do we outlaw alcohol because some users drive under the influence, or get drunk and beat their wives? No, because the vast majority don't do those things and it would be absurd to make a law that indiscriminantly targets all users of alcohol because of the foul acts of a small subset of those users. It would also be absurd because it is obvious alcohol is not the cause of that behavior, it is at most a contribution element in the already ****ed up pathology of a moron with no self control, violent tendencies, etc. By your reasoning just because a few schmucks drive under the influence we should stop by the bar and lock up the whole happy hour crowd.

And why should I edit it? You have flat out insulted me throughout this thread. used repeated words to try and discredit me and belittle the way I think.

I have belittled you? You would happily throw me and people like me in prison for extended periods of time because of a bull**** law based on ignorance and misinformation. What am I supposed to do, be nice? To hell with that, I've had it with being nice to people who support such insanity. Not only does it not accomplish anything, they don't deserve niceness. I mean, do you lack any perception of what it is you do to people when you arrest them? You are ****ing people's lives up and they have done nothing to deserve it. Belittled you? Deal with it.

I just didn't use your style of wording in the process of doing the same in return. I started with an opinion that differed and you started with the insults.

Your opinion was a blithe dismissal of legalization, meanwhile people are rotting in jails, have had their careers and families trashed and their lives ****ed forever because of your opinion. Your opinion deserves belittlement. I'm not the one advocating throwing people in prison for smoking a weed I don't like. I'm not the one saying all users should be ****ed because a few behave like idiots. And I'm sick of being 'civil' towards people who would have happily torn my life to pieces.

Let's go back to the red head analogy, it was bad I admit. Let's talk sodomy. There's no need for blowjobs, it's a purely voluntary behavior. So I guess all those sodomy laws on the books that were often selectively enforced against gays are fine by you, right? Guess they should just buck up and accept the consequences of their actions, right? After all, It's The Law. And we'll just ignore the fact that the consequences are totally invented by the government. Lest we forget there are people who think sodomy is just as indicative of a degenerate nature as you think drug use is. Should they all just rot in prison? No one is born with a joint between their lips, and no one is born needing a knob shine either when there are so many other ways to get their rocks off. So those laws must also be just fine and dandy by you. And they are complete bull**** as well.

Criminalizing voluntary and consensual behavior that does not hurt or endanger other people, be it drug use, knob shines, religions or whatever, is anti freedom, anti liberty and anti american, not to mention immoral, unethical, unjust and just plain ****ing disgusting and irrational.

And if a routine traffic stop is what causes the death of a cop and not the offender in your mind then argueing anything using logic or sense is out the window for you. If I stop you for a expired tag or dead tail light and i get shot and killed. in your mind I deserved it because the law was stupid. I'm just glad more of you aren't running around.

Perhaps if the books weren't full of laws that made every single citizen an enemy combatant in the eyes of law enforcement, people would be less likely to shoot you. Perhaps if there weren't so many laws making it impossible to not break them just by cracking a fart people would be less jumpy when you pulled them over. I'm sure you're happy that there aren't many people like me running around, because much as I love freedom at this point in my life I'd have no qualms throwing you in prison over some bull**** law just to give you a dose of your own medicine. Hypocritical? Absolutely. Sue me.

As for the edit I suggested you make, it was for your own preservation. I seriously doubt a mod would make much of it, but you never know. I don't care what people call me, especially those of your ilk. And now, after a night of drinking diet coke and hauling some drunks around (Oh my God, responsible drug users!?!??!?!?), I'm going to bed.

[myfathersboy]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CDB again.


I don't smoke pot....But I believe in freedom.

Keep fighting the good fight.

[ArnoldIsMyIdol]

Criminalizing voluntary and consensual behavior that does not hurt or endanger other people, be it drug use, knob shines, religions or whatever, is anti freedom, anti liberty and anti american, not to mention immoral, unethical, unjust and just plain ****ing disgusting and irrational.

Amen.

[Jayhawkk]

Parents Accused of Rewarding Sons With Pot


Does a responsible person or two who does drugs means that the majority do? EDIT

[DR.D]

Parents Accused of Rewarding Sons With Pot


Yeah, just because Oh my God, you know a responsible person or two who does drugs means that the majority do? But in the end my opinion happens to be the law and here's the kicker...Your opinion isn't and you have to live with it. Hopfully while you're transporting a car load of these people you get stopped and OMG! get your life screwed while you rot in prison making friends with bubba and learning to cry yourself to sleep at night thinking the whole time you should of went back to Amsterdam. Enjoy your life

Jay! Don't talk like that bro. I know you and you're too good of a man to get all ****ty like that. You know how much I honor and respect cops and military personnel too, but CDB is basically right with most of this. Tell me one thing, are you the kind of cop that would have arrested that teacher with the pot? Or would you see that society really needed him more than the system did, confiscate his stuff and let him go? That’s really the difference between a good cop that get’s it and a mindless robot cop like CDB was talking about that only sees the law with no understanding of right or wrong in his heart.