Ron Paul: Repeal the War on Drugs -- just like we repealed Prohibition
- 08-03-2010, 03:22 PM
being around pot heads and bars when i was younger, ill tell you first hand the violence comes from alcohol, not stoners.
are you suggesting we throw everybody who drinks alcohol in tent cities as well since there is a direct relation between beer and spousal abuse?
if so ill be for it, as id see most of washington finally locked up!Liked this post:
Gutterpump, Matthandyo, Dma378, Misfit and 10 others
- 08-04-2010, 02:08 AM
08-04-2010, 02:12 AM
08-04-2010, 10:30 AM
I have spent a few months in Netherlands and gotta tell you, there is barely any disturbance around their "coffeeshops" (places where dutch smoke weed) a lot different from bars and other places where alcohol served. Even though I am not a user, I'd say legalize the mj.
08-06-2010, 02:20 AM
08-06-2010, 03:03 AM
Maybe read the posts, watch the vids, and do a little homework on the pros and cons of the argument, and make your case in a objective manner instead of resorting to insults.
08-06-2010, 11:21 AM
"Okay naive morons." - Funny, when I originally asked you for your opinion, I had typed "Immature response in 5...4....3....2...1...", but I erased it because I figured I would give you a chance as coming off as an adult. My trust in people always bites me. But then again, me and you have been at this point before.
Although other drugs were mentioned in this thread, this thread is about marijuana, and more specifically Prop 19 became a focus in discussion. Please inform me of how many people you have seen "sucking ****" for marijuana. I think we all know this doesnt happen
It simply didnt happen. With the price drop that would inevitably come from legalization, it would be even further from the point of someone becoming that desperate for a hit of a drug that is only shown to be addictive through habitual means, no different then someone who insists on smelling food before eating it. THC, or Tetrahydrocannabinol, which is the active canninoid in the marijuana plant, contains no properties leading to a physical addiction, as seen in drugs such as nicotine and hydrocodone.
But you know, those who smoke pot are really just going to slowly move towards crack cocaine and heroin. I mean pot is a gateway drug. Again, not so much.
"While the gateway theory has enjoyed popular acceptance, scientists have always had their doubts," said lead researcher Andrew Morral, associate director of RAND's Public Safety and Justice unit. "Our study shows that these doubts are justified." [Unlike your random ranting, here is a source]Patterns in progression of drug use from adolescence to adulthood are strikingly regular. Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana -- usually before they are of legal age.
There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs. [Again, Source'd]
Well now that we settled that, we must address the other problems with marijuana we know are true. I think we should attack the core of the problem here. We all know marijuana eats at your brain and is the leading cause of death in america. Oh man, thats not true either? But my parents and the government told me it is!?! Why do people lie to me?
"Although the use of [marijuana] is not harmless, the current knowledge base does not support the assertion that it has any notable adverse public health impact in relation to mortality," Sidney concludes [Yay, even WebMD is more informed then you]2.The DEA's Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young concluded: "In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care." [Clearly this quote came from a pot smoking liberal, right? Nope... THIS IS FROM THE DEA]Yet, Despite this long history of use and extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that marijuana has caused a single death [Same Source-DEA]
Oh man, again I can't get over how much I have been lied to. I wonder what other things we have been lied to about.
Also please don't comment on the amount of children who visit rehab for marijuana addiction. We all know they took that option over jail time when they were caught. This is like saying every driver who received a speeding ticket and went to driving school really needs to relearn how to drive. Its a moot argument.
You are anti-governmental control of health care. General arguments for this include the high cost to the upper class (which based on your intelligence level I hope you are not a part of, but you might be upset about daddy's money being taxed before hitting that trust fund). I agree, the health care reform will not be cheap, and rather than get into that argument, lets leave it there. But, why not create an industry here in United States, that would create numerous jobs for our country, from seed experts, to growing, to cultivating, to preparation, to distribution, to retail, while at the same time receiving a very large tax benefit for the country, which might, oh no don't say it, help support health care in the united states. Other arguments for the health reform is that the government should not be in control of your health and make decisions for you receiving care. Why is it then that they should be able to tell you how to use your body, experience your body, and live your life? Especially when it becomes no risk to oneself? Sounds like a big government rule to me.
Lets also look at marijuana scheduling, shall we? It is schedule I drug. That means its bad, really really bad. Or does it? Really a schedule I drug is a drug the DEA believes to be addictive and harmful, with no medicinal benefit. Because we all know that marijuana has shown to have no medicinal benefit. Oh damn, again, I think we have been mislead:
Alright, so the government doesnt agree that there is a medicinal benefit to marijuana. Fine, if they really don't think it is a medicine, then maybe we should follow their logic. Whats that? I believe the government does believe in medicinal marijuana? Why do I believe that? Because they approved a patent for marijuana to be used for medicinal reasons [PATENT 6630507]. God I love the government.
For additional information, Cocaine/Crack is a schedule II drug, indicating that cocaine has medicinal benefits. But lets not recognize marijuana to have the same benefits.
I also am not going to even get started on the Alcohol vs. Marijuana debate, if you can't wrap your simple mind around that argument, then this discussion is worthless.
Oh and I LOL'd Hard at your cigarette comment. Again, if you don't see tobacco as more harmful to health then marijuana, you are very mislead.
I will address other drugs later, but for now will get back to work.
08-06-2010, 12:13 PM
Rather, I gleaned that such individuals tend toward illegality not due to some evil inherent within the act of ingesting elicit compounds, nor due to terminal flaws in the fabric of their characters, but precisely and only because the act itself is and was already illegal: which is to say, the peripheral activities of drug use (theft and larceny, assault, et al) occur primarily because the central activities of drug use (acquiring and using them) exist in a social context which predicts the former.
While I concede your point that the mortally addictive nature of elicit drug use contributes earnestly to the issue, I could recite a litany of compounds with similarly addictive natures that do not result in such indirectly destructive behaviors. The distinguishing feature, here, is that the avenues of obtainment for these other addictive compounds - pharmacies for prescription medications and liquor stores for alcohol, namely - have been legitimized, and subsist in a social atmosphere which provides collective normative constraints that prevent such behaviors as a result.
Does an alcoholic, for example, not commit such acts because alcohol is less addictive than its illegal counterparts, or because alcoholics are vested with a sense of moral aptitude that drug addicts do not possess? No, of course not, and suggesting as much is absurd. They do not because they are permitted to conduct the central activity of their addiction (obtaining and drinking alcohol) through legitimate channels which carry pressures to conduct oneself in a particular manner - and needless to say, purchasing heroin in a back alley does not come associated with such constraints.
I could pose a thought experiment asking you to reverse the legalities of elicit drugs and alcohol in an effort to consider what the consequence would be, but luckily, that is not necessary: tradition already proffers an answer of what occurred when alcohol was made illegal, and displays what activities seemingly normal people are willing to engage in when they are placed in the right context. Unfortunately, you have not managed to make yourself a student of history, and your premises fail miserably on those grounds.
08-06-2010, 08:15 PM
instead, use money to put more cops on the streets to help fight crime. make them legal and they dont have to worry about all the drug dealers anymore as an extra bonus.
its as simple as that, making things illegal doesnt stop anybody, and your seeing first hand how big of a problem it is, although its illegal. nobody is saying doing drugs is good.
making drugs legal will get the drug pushers off the street introducing the drugs to kids, pushing them and convincing them to learn some new habits so the drug dealers can make some cash.
for your last comment, about making ciggarettes illegal, well i dont think they should be illegal just like all the other drugs. the problem is you compare ciggs to pot. ciggs kill 450,000 americans a year, and pot kills 0, so do the math and you will see a little difference there.
Liked this post:
Gutterpump, Matthandyo, Dma378, Misfit and 10 others
08-06-2010, 09:38 PM
08-07-2010, 12:48 PM
Find out how much prices would drop if legalized. In fact, whatever taxes would be put on it and regulation would raise the price is what I hear. I was talking the entire time about drugs on the whole, but great job isolating the argument purely on marijuana to give yourself a rallying cry.
Exposure to drugs at a young age will inevitably lead a few to try others. Its not the substance itself as much as the lifestyle. This is not a hard reach. Marijuana may not by physically addictive (according to modern research) but the act and lifestyle can be. In the same way they say quitting cigs is almost 50% just holding the cigarette between your fingers and taking breaks since its an embedded part of your lifestyle.
Here anuder dink for you. Go ahead and see what legalization would do to California's budget problems. I think it was estimated that the budget shortfall for the year would have been gapped...a stunning 1/26th from the stuff I saw. So without a huge amount of taxation to make it practically unaffordable, it really wouldnt help pay for jack ****.
You need to get over the fact that marijuana is not a cure all miracle drug. The whole "oh youre big government because you want to regulate drugs" **** doesnt fly. Mind altering substances, something that will impair your judgment and can be addictive, does not fit into the unlimited personal freedom column. You use tunnel vision to make the issue black and white for you. No risk to ones self.
08-07-2010, 01:40 PM
Ironically, your inability to extract and comprehend the primary message of my post highly suggests the post was "leaps and bounds above your intellect." The issue here is the context. More on this later.You "gleaned" that people do them simply because they are illegal. Cute. I think its hilarious that apparently people do things because they are illegal. Well, I suddenly have the urge to steal and car and kill someone since its illegal. Hot damn.
Coincidentally, there is nothing for you to "buy," as that is not the message I am "selling." Again, it is your muddied interpretation which may or may not be deliberately crafted to make my initial argument appear weaker.Yeah, Im not buying your brand on, stealing and violence only are results of drugs being illegal.
I cannot imagine which part of my post led to this afield nonsense.Crack heads would still be stealing anything not bolted down if they could go to a corner store and get it. No really, as long as you guys just want to let the addicts run rampant in the name of personal freedom and give them access to anything they may want, lets just stop paying the DEA and rerout the money to health and human services.
While this portion, like your entire bellyaching rant, presents little in the way of a substantive counterposition which even attempts to remain salient to my post, it seems like an appropriate place to summarize my argument in a simple format.Legalization is condoning it. Lets go clubbing, get some ex, whatever, wooo. So alcoholism is a devastating condition that rips apart families, puts people into massive debt, and a cascade of other negative ramifications. So putting other more addictive, harmful substances on the market will just create a new line of addicts. As you yourself said, alcohol is less addictive. Whereas with many drugs, it can only take a number of uses on less than one hand to be hooked. Then the fun begins. Alcoholics can even attempt to live normal lives. Good luck when you are shaking from needing another shot of heroin. You girls need to see big picture. Peoples lives, finances, health, ability to work, etc etc. How are they positively impacted here. Then you say, well I hate big gubment and it should be our freedom bro. It becomes my problem when my tax dollars have to pay for the cleanup of the mess this would bring on. You either have a impressively naive romantic view of libertarianism or you just refuse to see what the impact would be.
Your position can be stated as follows, "Drug use, in and of itself, devoid of all other societal factors, leads to theft and larceny, crime, rape, and mortally damaging trends to a given society."
My position, counter to this, can be stated as follows, "Drug use does not, in and of itself, lead to theft and larceny, crime, rape and mortally damaging trends to a given society, and requires the introduction of other societal factors."
Obviously, it is simple to see that my argument in no way resembles what you have here presented. These "other societal factors" are obviously the sum total of criminal elements that will inevitably control nearly all illegitimized activities in the pursuit of profit. While it seems a stretch for you to consider any given topic as existing in terms beyond simple binaries and the limited scope of your geography, I again appeal to both history and cultures other than this one to reveal your perspective as rooted in little else than simple mindedness.
Let us take prostitution, for example, as an elicit activity in the United States which comes associated with other peripheral crimes (drug use, murder, assault, etc). In your limited view, again, the activity itself inherently causes these problems, which ought to predict that conclusion wherever the activity takes place, whether it has been legitimized or not. Obviously, this is nowhere near the case. Countries like Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, and some portions of the United States have fully-regulated prostitution industries that have not been shown to induce these activities in their areas of establishment.
As any reasonable person can see how these examples verify my argument, I will end the post here.
08-07-2010, 02:13 PM
08-07-2010, 02:37 PM
damn TT did not take you very long to resort to personal attacks filling up your long and unconvincing posts (that really need more line breaks if you want anybody to read that crap).
Mostly answered PM's
Don't post on my profile, I don't read that stuff, PM me instead
<------ Hard to believe, but I wasn't on any anabolics in the avatar shot
08-07-2010, 03:05 PM
08-07-2010, 03:18 PM
08-08-2010, 12:32 AM
Either way, here is the main flaw in the argument you presented. I posted sources, from both sides (Again, even the DEA was sourced), and you presented opinion. If I need to explain to you the difference between how you and I presented our arguments, there is no need to continue this discussion.
Pot prices could drop from $375 an ounce under the state's current medical marijuana law to as little as $38 per ounce before taxes as legal pot suddenly becomes available to the public, RAND researhers concluded. [CBS NEWS - referring to a RAND study]Again, thanks for trying.The RAND Corp. study estimated that marijuana prices could fall as much as 80 percent if the drug is legalized as proposed in a pending ballot initiative that Californians will vote on this fall. That translates into as little as $1.50 per joint
n fact, seven times as many teens (35%) listed the prohibited marijuana as easiest to obtain as listed beer (5%), which of course is legal and regulated. [CASA (National Center on Addition and Substance Abuse) Study]
So by no longer needing to wrongfully arrest, prosecute, and jail someone for marijuana, the state is saving over 200 million. Nice. Now we are taxing the pot, and collecting money for the state on every ounce/joint sold.COST OF MARIJUANA ENFORCEMENT IN CALIFORNIA IS OVER $200 MILLION PER YEAR
The cost of marijuana enforcement in California currently can be estimated at over $200 million per year, as follows.
(1500 prisoners @ $49 K per year - 2009 est.) $73.5 million
Jail costs (est. 40% of prison population) $29.4 million
Felony prosecution, court & probation
(est. 8500 felony prosecutions (2008), SF DA's office est. $9250 per case) $78.6 million
Felony arrests 17,000 arrests (2008) @ $732/arrest* $12.4 million
Misdemeanor court costs: $100 court time/case, 61,000 cases) $6.1 million
Misdemeanor arrests ($300/arrest,* offset by fines) ----- $0
California Marijuana Suppression Program (OCJP) $3.8 million
TOTAL: $203.8 million
California NORML's analysis of the benefits of marijuana legalization are as follows:
* An excise tax of $50 per ounce of marijuana would raise about $770 - 900 million per year.
* Retail sales on the legal market would range from $3 - $4.5 billion, generating
another $240 - 360 million in sales taxes.
* Legalization would save over $200 million in law enforcement costs for arrest, prosecution, trial and imprisonment of marijuana offenders. Need for CAMP helicopter surveillance would also be eliminated.
* Based on experience with the cigarette tax, total revenues of $1.5 - $2.5 billion might ultiimately be realized.
* Based on experience with the wine industry, the total economic activity generated by legal marijuana could be nearly four times as great as retail sales, around $12 - $18 billion. Amsterdam-style coffeehouses would generate jobs and tourism. If the marijuana industry were just one-third the size of the wine industry, it would generate 50,000 jobs and $1.4 billion in wages, along with additional income and business tax revenues for the state.
* Industrial hemp could also become a major business, comparable to the $3.4 billion cotton industry in California. [Same Source]Oh please to the medicinal benefits. This is the wiki that discusses outcomes of recent studies. No one claims it to be a "cure all," but the extent of which can benefit from a flower is insane. If a supplement company were to discover a herb that had as many effects on the bodybuilding world, you would be singing its praises.You need to get over the fact that marijuana is not a cure all miracle drug. The whole "oh youre big government because you want to regulate drugs" **** doesnt fly. Mind altering substances, something that will impair your judgment and can be addictive, does not fit into the unlimited personal freedom column. You use tunnel vision to make the issue black and white for you. No risk to ones self.
As for the mind altering not equaling freedom, why then are you ok with cigarettes? They are insanely addictive, and although they offer only a very short "high," they still are a leading cause of death in the United States. Dont get me wrong, I am not anti-smoking, but I do prefer consistency in an argument. How does this become black and white me? The black and white may be existent in the law sense only. Something is either legal or not. Sure, are there reasons that go against marijuana usage? Maybe. But none that we know of. Marijuana is illegal for very questionable reasons, (seriously read into), none of which are presented in a manner consistent with what we are as a country today.
Now you mentioned to me that you were addressing drugs as a whole, and I never commented on it. I am actually very mixed on the belief, and can't take a full opinion on it. I ideally think that drugs should be legal. But I don't want people using them and can't honestly say that I think someone should be able to purchase Heroin at a grocery store. This is honestly one of the great mysteries in life (as in how to handle this issue). But, I do have a proposal that I find to be significantly better than our current issue:
Decriminalize all Drugs. Stop jailing people for drugs. You see, decriminalization is not legalization. If something is legal, it would be the right of everyone to participate. If something is decriminalize, it is still not legal to participate in, but, the punishment would be lowered.
In this state of decriminalization, the enforcement should be towards helping out addicts, not jailing them. Focus the money on programs to treat these addicts, not punishing them. Drug addiction is a mental disorder. Someone who becomes addicted to a drug needs medical attention, that may actually lead to the person overcoming the problem. Enforcement should be pushed against the dealers.
As I said though, it is a complicated freedom, and I still would like to see it legalized. Although it would kill me to see someone using heroin in front of me due to legalization, I don't feel the govt. should be able to say what one can do with their own body. Where the line can be drawn, who knows.
08-08-2010, 12:33 AM
(Sorry to those following this discussion for the length, I am just very passionately behind this issue.)
08-08-2010, 01:30 AM
08-08-2010, 04:15 AM
08-08-2010, 04:18 AM
08-12-2010, 02:38 AM
35 years after Nixon started the war on drugs, we have over one million non-violent drug offenders living behind bars. The War on Drugs has become the longest and most costly war in American history, the question has become, how much more can the country endure? Inspired by the death of four family members from “legal drugs” Texas filmmaker Kevin Booth sets out to discover why the Drug War has become such a big failure. Three and a half years in the making, the film follows gang members, former DEA agents, CIA officers, narcotics officers, judges, politicians, prisoners and celebrities. Most notably the film befriends Freeway Ricky Ross; the man many accuse for starting the Crack epidemic, who after being arrested discovered that his cocaine source had been working for the CIA.
American Drug War shows how money, power and greed have corrupted not just drug pushers and dope fiends, but an entire government. More importantly, it shows what can be done about it. This is not some ‘pro-drug’ stoner film, but a collection of expert testimonials from the ground troops on the front lines of the drug war, the ones who are fighting it and the ones who are living it.
After 4 years of production including several sold out test screenings in New York, Austin & Los Angeles, the final version of American Drug War: The Last White Hope is locked and loaded. (Excerpt from americandrugwar.com)
08-12-2010, 10:25 AM
08-12-2010, 12:31 PM
If they weren't charged black market prices for their drugs fewer of them would turn to crime to support their habit, meaning less robbery and/or burlgary for the same population of crack addicts. But don't let little things like logic and rationality get in the way of a good ignorant rant.Go watch crack heads steal anything for money.
Might be able to afford an apartment if he wasn't being charged ridiculous prices for heroin.Watch a heroin addict shoot up behind an alley.
Let him have his fix and he won't freak out.Watch a coke head freak out when they need a fix.
Blah blah blah blah blah and more blah. The problems you point to are either caused or exercerbated by prohibition. Nor has there ever in the history of the planet been a successful prohibition.Go watch someone suck **** to get more acid. Ive seen all of these in person, save for the acid, I wasnt actually watching. You are all ****ing idiots who have no concept of what people are getting into. You want to legalize this ****?
This is the 'flood gate' argument and it is pure bull****. You are not 'introducing' these substances into our society, they are already here. Economics tells us that if prices go down there will certainly be an increase in users, but history also shows that demand for drugs is largely inelastic which means people aren't very responsive to price changes, which is why it takes drastic and draconian laws to affect drug use, and which also means the increase in users will be minimal, however the decrease in crime surrounding the manufacture, sale, distribution and use of drugs would be phenomenal.What would be the harm in introducing highly addictive substances into a society where excess and hedonism are the cornerstones of our contemporary culture?
I don't support using your tax dollars for such services.Fine, my tax dollars wont.
Unlike tobacco, marijuana doesn't have to be smoked. It is smoked because that's the most efficient way to deliver the effects which means self dosing is easier and you get more for your money. If it didn't cost as much as it does, if it were legal, there would be standardization and quality control as exists in other industries which would make eating it more reliable and there would also be research into vaporizors because the active ingredients don't need to be combusted to get them into your lungs. Hence, no smoking, no cancer, just Doritos.It cracks me up that California is campaigning to ban smoking cigarettes and is trying to legalize weed, among other things. Just lol.
Your analysis of drug policy is sophmoric, idiotic and wrong. It implies that the government prohibition is effective which it isn't, and can be maintained which it can't. Every 'success' in squelching momentary supply raises the long term profit incentive for remaining and new suppliers to provide more. Every ratcheting up of the legal consequences means more nonviolent users are going to prison when they shouldn't and all the attendant costs of such, and means increasingly less ethical and violent people get involved in the production and sale of the substances. All the while the prohibition execerbates the very problems it's supposed to solve and then the worsening of conditions is used as an excuse by prohibitionists such as yourself for more of the same policies that either caused the conditions or made them worse.
Alcohol prohibition did not stop drinking and did not stop alcoholism. It lead to a very small decrease in overall alcohol consumption, shifted the ratio of users away from beer and wine and more toward harder liquor, and actually lead to an increase in alcoholism. Manufacturers were pushed out of legitimate society and as such were accountable to no one and started using increasingly questionable methods to speed up production and make products that harmed and literally killed users and left no legal recourse for survivors or family members or estates. Most notably, the violence surrounding the manufacture, distribution, sale, and even the use of alcohol rose in lockstep with the severity of the attempts to quash it until people finally got a ****ing clue and legalized it again.
In other words you are wrong. Facts show you are wrong. History shows you are wrong. And persistent belief in something that is blatantly false and self defeating like continuing drug prohibition shows you are 'naive' to put it politely. And the simple fact that all the problems you indentify are in fact happening and consistently getting worse under and during the policy of prohibition which you support hasn't clued you in to the fact that you might be off base on this issue, well it speaks volumes as to your mental capacity.
08-12-2010, 01:24 PM
Game. Set. Match.
08-12-2010, 07:56 PM
08-12-2010, 09:17 PM
This is a pretty cowardly way to go about the discussion. So I take it you have no respect for me, or any other member on this board who disagrees with you? It proves the thoughts of many here, but put into words makes you a worthless contribution to this forum, and any other community you belong to.For that to be true, there needs to be a baseline of respect or caring. I have neither. I dont back up what I say because I understand the reality that nothing any of us do without the command of millions of dollars will ever matter as far as impacting change. I dont care enough to try to convince anyone here. Happy go lucky namby pamby land fantasies just piss me off.
So your opinion, backed by 0 actual credibility and completely bias, is a good method of argument, but a completely independent research firm is a "damn bible for this ****." I hope you find a career that has nothing to do with debate or intellectual discussion.Oh man, they are a damn bible for this ****. We'll see what your dime bag costs when its done.
Please explain how this is "slanted." Although the website that spotlighted the study is anti-drug war, if you wrapped your mind beyond the tiny political corner you have trapped it into, you would realize that the study itself was conducted by CASA, a group that is anti-drug, in fact fighting drugs is the reason for their existence. I pity your ignorance.Sourcing people who fit what you want to be said is great and all, but again, its just slanted speculation. My point is say you take an average pot dealer, I guarantee he knows people into harder **** that deal harder **** just by association based on the substances. The drug itself doesnt bridge that gap.
On the second part of that argument, I ponder to myself which side of the argument are you on? So you realize that having people source a drug like marijuana from a dealer can lead to a dealer pushing harder drugs? So basically prohibition creates the gateway? I can't believe we are in agreement. Although I am sure you will accuse me of twisting your words.
But they certainly lead to death through over consumption, something that marijuana in no way does. Again you seem ok with the legalization of alcohol that has a very strong, and at times stronger then marijuana, effect on the brain. It is proven to be one of the most detrimental things to society, and it kills the user over the long term. Consistency, give it a try.Does soda impair your ability to drive? Does junk food impair your judgment? Gambling is banned in many places. Again, those things do not impact your mind in as significant a way as pot.
Another piss-poor argument. In fact I will first point out that you use words that you apparently do not even know the meaning of. Subsist = Maintain or support oneself. In the way you used that it would be in no way support of your argument. Don't mind me correcting your english, it must be strange having a "dreg" of society, who smokes marijuana for recreation often, and has smoked through much of this discussion, correcting someone who has achieved such a high class level of society by not smoking pot.I cant wait. It will remove the dregs of society from where I live. Make it readily available and cheap so they can subsist and smoke all day. Cant wait to see how this will impact welfare and government support.
I can't believe the points you make to argue with. Nothing is a cure all for a government budget. Every single person in the US could send the government an extra 1000, equivalent to about 307Billion, and it wouldn't even be a crack at our National Debt. Does not mean it wouldn't be a step in the right direction as far as the government is concerned.You do realize the depth of californias budget gap right?
Sarcastic or not, you don't seem to be for the criminalization of cigarettes. On the second comment, stating earlier that you have no respect for people you are talking to and are ok with resorting to childish name calling, proves very much that you fit the role perfectly.Remember that part where you talked about how sarcasm doesnt come through a computer screen? I dont say bro because Im not douche tool.
Drop the murder non-sense. Don't shift outside of our argument to prove your point. If someone murders someone, high or sober, they deserve punishment. Rehab is not a reward. It is very taxing on the body and a very difficult and at times painful experience for people who go through it, However, it provides a chance at recovery. What does a cell bring a non-violent drug user? The ability to mingle with criminals, still have access to drugs (Numerous stories have come out of drug smuggling in prison, at times even by prison staff-feel free to call me out on it, ill post news articles), and grow a deeper resentment towards the government. They get let go, and go back to using. All the while, sucking dry our tax dollars. It is significantly more expensive to have someone in a jail cell for 5 years then a rehab facility for a couple months.It is a disease. A disease they brought on themselves (yes, Im aware of "addictive personalities" but dependency is largely not the case with that). How do we reward them? Treatment and care. Not that they would use it, theyll relapse. What consequences? You are rewarding them for being drug addicts. Great, as if we need more coddling in today's society. Let me guess, we should apply this to everything else. Commit a murder? Lets put the guy into counseling and instead of a cell, lets build dormitories and have mixers.
I would like a re-explanation of what you mean in the last sentence. Again it seems we are in agreement. Prohibition, a product of our government, has lead to a booming underground market, fueled and funded by gunfire and bloodshed. Countries like Mexico are at a complete state of warfare over getting these drugs into our country, to meet the demand we have for them. The government created these problems. It is no different then alcohol prohibition, which certainly you are against, which was proven to be a complete disaster. Prohibition does not, and never will work. It doesn't stop the demand, it just places the supply in the wrong hand.If addicts didnt impact peoples lives in so many facets and my tax dollars wouldn't pay for their self brought on need for treatment, fine. If they sat in a house and did drugs all day and didnt leave it, fine. It becomes my problem because in namby pamby land, it works out great. This, like too many things done by our government, will end in abuse and disaster.
Again, not true. Over 40 percent of Americans have tried marijuana. [Nida.gov], You are saying that over 40 percent of americans are irresponsible drug addicts....please....I have. And gotta be honest, the people who responsibly use them are a significant minority group compared to people who cant.
Marijuana can be edible if prepared in foods. Do not underestimate the large market of edible marijuana that will be available post ban. Although smoking marijuana does not have nearly the amount of negative effects that tobacco does, those who are opposed to the act of smoking can easily purchase an edible form.As yes, every single people carries a vaporizer around.
Also, again, as a dreg of society, I would like to point out that "every single people" makes my head hurt.
Please don't come back with anything but fact.
08-13-2010, 08:11 AM
Similar Forum Threads
- By diablosho in forum PoliticsReplies: 15Last Post: 01-30-2011, 02:07 PM
- By lutherblsstt in forum PoliticsReplies: 148Last Post: 06-22-2009, 12:31 PM
- By ECTOmorph in forum General ChatReplies: 14Last Post: 10-12-2007, 01:43 PM
- By foo.c in forum PoliticsReplies: 7Last Post: 11-06-2005, 09:20 AM
- By CDB in forum PoliticsReplies: 3Last Post: 10-25-2005, 08:12 PM