Should Marijuana be legalized?

[Fenrisúlfr]

How exactly is that relevant?

In his communitarian utopia, somehow it is morally reprehensible to make a profit off anything he does not like. Give him no heed.

 

[razoredge]

Wait.... I thought I heard that little chirpy squeaky noise again.....

 

[razoredge]

How exactly is that relevant?

maybe you should ask the guy that brought it up

 

[PhantoMPhones]

No he's asking you... how is it relevant, simple question... answer, or do not and admit you don't have an answer.

By simply looking at history, more recent in this case, its easy to find the indications I'm pointing out.

For the sake of the thread, please put in point form what indications you are referring to, even if you've clearly stated them before, at least quote them, because I'm not sure what you are talking about. You seem to talk in circles completely ignoring the facts in favour of 'your opinion'.

Saying I cant prove something by producing a pie chart is silly because those in favor cant produce a model example of success or positive effects either.

Are you talking about legalization or pot in general? Either way, your point here is moot. It doesn't matter if 'we' can produce a model of 'success or positive effects', the whole point is WHY DID THE GOVERNMENT SUPPOSE IT HAD THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE THIS RESTRICTION ON PEOPLE IN THE FIRST PLACE? If you are talking success in terms of fighting drugs and solving the 'problem', perhaps you need to re-frame things. The 'problem' only became a 'problem' when the government decided it was a 'problem'. If you are talking weed or drugs in general with regards to positive effects, while they exist if you've been listening, is still in its basic form, ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT. Its NOT for the government to decide whether I can put something 'bad' (and I use the term loosely) in my body or not. You may chalk this up to a 'do what I want' form of 'whining', but its exactly whats at the heart of this issue. Not money, not addiction, not the health and safety of people... CONTROL. And then you respond with something like;

No it isnt for the government to tell you you could not smoke weed and it hasnt even changed a thing for those that would, but it may have made it so those like you steer away from it.

And then I pose to you the question; 'What does that have to do with anything? Why does the government have the right to steer me away from it to begin with?'

1.Then comes your argument on 'harm'... In the case of marijuana, completely 100% disproved. And when comparing with alcohol, which you have avoided addressing that particular issue HIDING behind 'i dont think alcohol should be legal either' in that you've completely overlooked and dismissed the legality of other drugs, regarding YOUR GOVERNMENT that you are defending, NOT YOU.. understand? NOT YOUR OPINION OF ONE VERSUS THE OTHER, ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF LEGALITY OF OTHER DRUGS VS MJ etc as it pertains to LAW and politics at this time.

2. Argument of addiction, not in terms of personal choice, but in terms of socioeconomic ramifications. ALSO COMPLETELY DEBUNKED.... ANYTHING can be addictive, the issue is PHYSICAL DEPENDENCE. It is PROVEN that d9thc contains NO chemically addictive properties. Any addiction occurring is due to psychological predisposition to addiction, in which case in place of MJ perhaps they became addicted to scat porn or McDonalds. Addiction argument is moot. I have already and can again provide statistical information that shows addiction levels do not significantly rise, and even fall given informed and TRUTHFUL education about drugs in unison with gradual decriminalization. Eg. Portugal, Canada, Netherlands.

3.Government peddling drugs. DEBUNKED. The government has been in the drug industry and weapons trade for decades. Prescription drugs? Cigarettes? Alcohol? Caffeine? Need I go on? In light of everything going on and public opinion etc etc, the government could do with some potential extra revenue.

4. The argument that the government would not profit..... SO WHAT? If they at least stop this stupid farce of a 'war' they would be saving a shit load of cash. The interjection that addicts taking the place of criminals would take as much resources is DEBUNKED as the supposition of a dramatic increase in the number of addicts is 100% ABSOLUTELY FALSE AND UNTRUTHFUL. Even IF it was true, is it not better to let a person fail on his/her own as a free citizen and then seek the help of others to rectify, mature and evolve through ones mistakes rather than calling these people 'criminals' deserving of some kind of punishment, especially in the case of marijuana, over a plant that grows naturally in every part of the world except the arctic and antarctic cirlces, NATURALLY? Where does your precious natural selection come into play with YOUR OPINION?

5. The 'you can't do whatever you want because what if you wanted to murder? There has to be a line with freedom' argument. Well let's just call this an absolutely moronic argument to start out with. If you want to go this route then we can pose questions such as 'why do half the people driving, possess a driving license, considering the manner in which they operate their vehicle, or for that matter why are people at ALL, trusted to operate their vehicle safely when every couple minutes there's a car crash somewhere? Why are people allowed to consume alcohol? Why can I handle my own gasoline or have campfires in my backyard? The point is, why is this the line when so many other FAR more dangerous activities that happen on a by the second basis are perfectly legal and commonplace? We need only to look at the facts to see that marijuana is INFINTELY LESS HARMFUL THAN GETTING IN YOUR CAR TO DRIVE TO WORK.

6. The 'you must follow the law no matter what' argument, for WHATEVER reason it may be... Well let's just say if we've come to that, then you are almost completely lost. And thats not a personal attack.

I cant think of one instance when the gov. had new found money that didnt open the door for them to find more ways to spend the money and more.

Then whats your point? If it happens over and over again then 1) we have a failed government and 2) Then this matter doesn't mean anything anyways, if its not this it will be something else and theres no reason for the government to control people in this manner. The only thing that would be at stake here is personal freedom.

Yes it is and more people should do so to help reduce the surface population. However no one is selling you that cliff and profiteering from it.

As posed by another poster, why is this relevant? Especially in today's economy?

No one gets hooked on addictive drugs by intention

cigarettes? alcohol? The point being that all this BS the government is throwing out is not working to deter people and may even prompt people to try drugs. Given proper education you would see a decline in addiction. PUNISHMENT IS NOT THE ANSWER. You want to take a look at history, look at any instance when the government tried to control people completely. Doesn't usually work out in the end.

well there may be those of extreme dysfunction that glorify it enough but typically those that do just went too far, too frequently. I have known many already showing signs of having problems that will sit there in complete denial that they rounded the corner.

And how do illicit drugs differ from legal and prescription drugs in this capacity? or infatuations and fetishes etc? How about TV, food, computers, gaming, adrenaline junkies etc etc?

I'll be nice and simply ask you.... have you thought out the reason behind the seatbelt law ? If so why do you think we have it ? Who do you think is behind it ?

Absolutely irrelevant. Its a question of freedom not 'whats good for you'. You seem to fall back on this 'government knows whats best' or at the very least 'i think this is for the best therefore in this issue i agree with the government' bullshit that is an absolute crock of fascist brainwashing. Do you like the fact that the government tells you what is good, bad, right and wrong, what you can and can't do, and in the manner which you do it? What to say, how to act? If so, then your production as a slave, robot, and expendable resource has been a complete success.

If you dont want to address this issue then dont bring up the "war on drugs isnt working" line. I was not the one that brought up the "war on ****** issue, but I will respond to anything one wants to bring up as a distraction.

As I recall any time someone wants to question your arguments and focus in on the issue of the legality of marijuana, you always abundantly state that you are not only talking about marijuana. YOU reference the war on drugs as a cop out to dealing with marijuana on its own, and then use the replies to the 'war on other drugs' as a distraction. Not the other way around.



Heres some facts/myths and resources for proof, please feel free to prove your case with substantiated evidence. Otherwise it seems you are floating dead in the water. Constantly talking in circles refusing any reasonable arguments simply because they do not fit with your model of 'reality'. Sorry bud, it would seem your 'reality' has been engineered.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

 

[razoredge]

Well this is going to take awhile , not sure at this point whether I will take all the time now. But I would like to say as I resd this response and most others, everybdy is coming to the totally wrong conclusions about my points of view and why I have them. I read responses and its like "WTF are they talking about" or "What makes them think that"

No he's asking you... how is it relevant, simple question... answer, or do not and admit you don't have an answer.

how is it not relevent ? How does it apply to drugs only bring harm to ones self ? The producer is involved, its a second party, willfully profiting from that which brings harm. Dont bounce back and forth from hard drugs to weed as EVERYONE has done during this topic then jump down my throat about it when your crying about "the war on ****** and "we have the right to fuck ourselves up if we want".... when you say that or want to apply those principles you are talking about ALL recreational drugs. The above applies to much of what the rest of your post addresses. I WONT REPEAT IT AGAIN.... OK ?

For the sake of the thread, please put in point form what indications you are referring to, even if you've clearly stated them before, at least quote them, because I'm not sure what you are talking about. You seem to talk in circles completely ignoring the facts in favour of 'your opinion'.

for the sake of the thread, read it from the beginning and try to pay attention, dont keep making your confusion my problem... OK ?

Are you talking about legalization or pot in general? Either way, your point here is moot. It doesn't matter if 'we' can produce a model of 'success or positive effects',

Alrighty, but for some reason I need to produce a model or Im ALL FUCKED IN THE HEAD ???????? OooooK!

The whole point is WHY DID THE GOVERNMENT SUPPOSE IT HAD THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE THIS RESTRICTION ON PEOPLE IN THE FIRST PLACE? If you are talking success in terms of fighting drugs and solving the 'problem', perhaps you need to re-frame things. The 'problem' only became a 'problem' when the government decided it was a 'problem'.

yes a one sided propaganda assult by the pro drug camp would indicate this, but if you look in history (U.S.) to the times leading to this you WILL find there WAS problems. Probably not weed, I cant say, there was alot of problems with the addictive stuff and thats IS what started it, that IS where the government felt the need to step in.... that is their rite and duty, serve and protect its citizens. Hopefull you realize you are talking about ALL drugs here....

If you are talking weed or drugs in general with regards to positive effects, while they exist if you've been listening, is still in its basic form, ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT.

Im lost here, have no ideal what you are talking about/regarding "positive effects" "Irrelevent".... whatt ?

Its NOT for the government to decide whether I can put something 'bad' (and I use the term loosely) in my body or not. You may chalk this up to a 'do what I want' form of 'whining', but its exactly whats at the heart of this issue. Not money, not addiction, not the health and safety of people... CONTROL. And then you respond with something like;

No it isnt for the government to tell you you could not smoke weed and it hasnt even changed a thing for those that would, but it may have made it so those like you steer away from it.

I guess I must remind again that your are obvioulsy talking about ALL drugs. If not, to bad, this principle applies to all, get it or get off my back about it. With drugs there is a producer, a second party, willfully profiting from that which brings harm. Dont blame me for the legal system, have you paid much attention to law suit issues the past 4 decades ? Things have gotten more intense not less. Far more intense than when they illegalized drugs. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH MY BASING MY VIEW ON THIS FROM WHAT I HAVE WITNESSED TRANSPIRE IN MY LIFE TIME.... GOT IT ?

You want to change a very base, minor issue based on principles. All fine and well, but Im saying there is a bigger monster that has become so boggled in bureacracy and ALL those that WHINE for THEIR SELF INTERESTS that this thing.... THIS ISSUE IS NOT AS CUT AND DRY AS "we should have the right"

And then I pose to you the question; 'What does that have to do with anything? Why does the government have the right to steer me away from it to begin with?'

I said that to give Dakyrn something to think about, if you would have avioded getting distracted in your pursuit you would have realized from what I wrote that we have another pro drug poster... Varis, who wants to promote drug use and make it totally socially acceptable, thus someone like Dakryn may have had an interest in being a smoker. Thus why I asked if he drank alcohol. Look either follow along and realize what Im refering to or quit wasting my time. It should have been clear what I was talking about.

1.Then comes your argument on 'harm'... In the case of marijuana, completely 100% disproved.

whats disproved... weed causing harm ? OK... Im sure there is only one side of the camp on that issue... right ? Sorry I know better, its not totally detrimental but long term effects and short term focus, is effected. I DO NOT NEED TO LOOK IT UP TO PROVE IT, you research junkies can do that for yourself, IF you are truely honest people you will find the evidence and accept it.

And when comparing with alcohol, which you have avoided addressing that particular issue HIDING behind 'i dont think alcohol should be legal either' in that you've completely overlooked and dismissed the legality of other drugs,

Hiding.... what !!!!! I refered to being discusted by the fact that I have first hand... personally... been let down by alcoholics and all the other problems revolving about booze and somehow Im hiding.... why are you beggin me to ask you if your retarded.... because you clearly are not so please stop !

regarding YOUR GOVERNMENT that you are defending

I FUCKING HATE MY GOVERNMENT AND ALL GOVERNMENTS WORLD WIDE, do NOT go here again (see the begging for retard comments again please) Difference here between myself and those worried about "if we have the right to do as we please for what ever our PERSONAL interests are" I'd rather straighten out the problems of bureacracy and human/government ignorance than worry about something as petty as sneaking around to smoke my weed.

NOT YOU.. understand?

yarite.... whatever

NOT YOUR OPINION OF ONE VERSUS THE OTHER, ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF LEGALITY OF OTHER DRUGS VS MJ etc as it pertains to LAW and politics at this time.

sorry lost, but Im sure all I have addressed above applies... over... and over... and over.... and over again........

2. Argument of addiction, not in terms of personal choice, but in terms of socioeconomic ramifications. ALSO COMPLETELY DEBUNKED.... ANYTHING can be addictive, the issue is PHYSICAL DEPENDENCE. It is PROVEN that d9thc contains NO chemically addictive properties. Any addiction occurring is due to psychological predisposition to addiction, in which case in place of MJ perhaps they became addicted to scat porn or McDonalds. Addiction argument is moot.

Who argued weed is addictive ? I only stated that is was addictive and if you reference said post you would see that I was talking psychological addicting... so tell me again what is moot ?

I have already and can again provide statistical information that shows addiction levels do not significantly rise, and even fall given informed and TRUTHFUL education about drugs in unison with gradual decriminalization. Eg. Portugal, Canada, Netherlands.

I have seen footage of the drug scene in Amsterdam, Im not impressed and wouldnt want that here (legal), neither would most of the American population.

It is good to see you stressed "significantly rise" I wouldnt know but would be sceptical of any studies that show either way. Im very leary of one sided views and prefer to use my own "vision".

Being as your talking addiction levels, once again I must assume your talking drugs, not weed... NO ? I'd have a hard time believing we'd be a better society if the hard drug users and dealers in jail were out on the street. Then no doubt if it were legal and we were saving all that money on drug enforcement.... lol.... we would be spending it on rehab, a nearly worthless venture. Got any HONEST stats on reformed druggies or alchys ?

We have a education system in this country that if you deal drugs and get caught you are going to jail, that has had a medium level effect as deterant. We have plenty of drug education in this country, for decades now, its effect ? probably middle of the road, that and illegalization has most likely kept Dyrkyn from becomeing a smoker, but he has yet to respond to that question, so I shouldnt assume but am useing it as a valid example regardless the person.

3.Government peddling drugs. DEBUNKED. The government has been in the drug industry and weapons trade for decades. Prescription drugs? Cigarettes? Alcohol? Caffeine? Need I go on?

I fail to see how you have debunked anything here. What you ARE doing is validating our fucked up government.... that you also want to condemn... all according to your needs at the time... interesting.

I dont want them further into the drug trade and think its totally fucked up to have the government profiting from "recreational" drugs that fuck people up. I dont see why its hard to understand that I cant wrap my head around that idea...

4. The argument that the government would not profit..... SO WHAT? If they at least stop this stupid farce of a 'war' they would be saving a shit load of cash. The interjection that addicts taking the place of criminals would take as much resources is DEBUNKED as the supposition of a dramatic increase in the number of addicts is 100% ABSOLUTELY FALSE AND UNTRUTHFUL.

I dont think its money the people of this country want saved. I did address how government wastes money earlier, I would personally focus here. I did address a cheaper, faster way to lower the scumbag ratio... but Im sure you support government control of these kinds of thing.... lol

if it was true, is it not better to let a person fail on his/her own as a free citizen and then seek the help of others to rectify, mature and evolve through ones mistakes rather than calling these people 'criminals' deserving of some kind of punishment,

They can do it that route now if they choose all the while knowing they are involved in an illegal activity, I am OK with that.

especially in the case of marijuana, over a plant that grows naturally in every part of the world except the arctic and antarctic cirlces, NATURALLY?

I have already addressed this issue, repeatedly, you are clueless as to my feeling on it because you are easily distracted and loose focus.

Where does your precious natural selection come into play with YOUR OPINION?

so we talking weed or hard drugs here ?

5. The 'you can't do whatever you want because what if you wanted to murder? There has to be a line with freedom' argument. Well let's just call this an absolutely moronic argument to start out with.

weed or hard drugs ? make the choice ! Hard drugs, the dealer becomes a muderer... any questions ?

If you want to go this route then we can pose questions such as 'why do half the people driving, possess a driving license, considering the manner in which they operate their vehicle, or for that matter why are people at ALL, trusted to operate their vehicle safely when every couple minutes there's a car crash somewhere?

Is not the automobile primarily a necessity to get to work ? Sorry but I think that is a totally irrevelent comparision... where jumping off cliffs specifically designed to jump off from is very relevent.

Why are people allowed to consume alcohol?

I question this everyday, however Im educated enough to know why they could not fight that battle.

Why can I handle my own gasoline or have campfires in my backyard?

your answer "There has to be a line with freedom'" Works for me

The point is, why is this the line when so many other FAR more dangerous activities that happen on a by the second basis are perfectly legal and commonplace?

Seems some intrusions are over the top, no ? Its a simple evaluation to me.

We need only to look at the facts to see that marijuana is INFINTELY LESS HARMFUL THAN GETTING IN YOUR CAR TO DRIVE TO WORK.

I have less concern over the personal harm of weed than the principles put forth about why it should be legal. {got it yet? }

As far as I know we need to drive to work, we dont need to smoke weed.

6. The 'you must follow the law no matter what' argument, for WHATEVER reason it may be... Well let's just say if we've come to that, then you are almost completely lost. And thats not a personal attack.

Did I say that ? ... Didnt think so !

Then whats your point? If it happens over and over again then 1) we have a failed government and

NO SHIT !

2) Then this matter doesn't mean anything anyways, if its not this it will be something else and theres no reason for the government to control people in this manner. The only thing that would be at stake here is personal freedom.

Personal freedom if anything more than the bullshit concept it is. Would allow me to put a bullit though the head of anyone that sells drugs to my people.

As posed by another poster, why is this relevant? Especially in today's economy?

I covered this already

cigarettes? alcohol? The point being that all this BS the government is throwing out is not working to deter people and may even prompt people to try drugs. Given proper education you would see a decline in addiction. PUNISHMENT IS NOT THE ANSWER.

"May even" thank you.

I cant understand how people dont think the education is out there, but guess what it doesnt even work as good as the drug laws. Even with the education of the drug laws in themeselves "your going to jail if busted" have a minimal effect. However all these combined have their effect. Perhaps people if that concerned could just stop being assholes.

You want to take a look at history, look at any instance when the government tried to control people completely. Doesn't usually work out in the end.

did they leave them living ? what could one expect then

And how do illicit drugs differ from legal and prescription drugs in this capacity?

Seems I covered my concern with this when I talked about the boondoggle that would be created with making "recreational ****** controled drugs. But again everyone is distracted and has avoided that subject.... go figure

or infatuations and fetishes etc? How about TV, food, computers, gaming, adrenaline junkies etc etc?

yes there are alot of problems concerning these issues

Absolutely irrelevant. Its a question of freedom not 'whats good for you'. You seem to fall back on this 'government knows whats best' or at the very least 'i think this is for the best therefore in this issue i agree with the government' bullshit that is an absolute crock of fascist brainwashing.

Sorry to tell you but your responce was a complete FAILURE, do you care to try to answer the seatbelt question again ? I'll leave it open, in good faith that someone is smart enough to know what the seatbelt law is about.

Do you like the fact that the government tells you what is good, bad, right and wrong, what you can and can't do, and in the manner which you do it? What to say, how to act? If so, then your production as a slave, robot, and expendable resource has been a complete success.

case you havent figured it out yet I dance to my own tune, dont assume my conclusions and deductions were based on any outside source, only my own experience.

As I recall any time someone wants to question your arguments and focus in on the issue of the legality of marijuana, you always abundantly state that you are not only talking about marijuana.

False, I have bounced back and forth depending on what I was addressing BY OTHERS

I focused on weed, I only want the random drug testing to stop. I'm happy to take my chances within the current laws and would stand my ground if busted. However I dont want to promote the smoking of weed, I simply have no shame for being a smoker. I see weed for what it is, its not a positive thing, it distracted me in high school(along with music, girls and cars), it toasted my short term memory, but its something I do... occasionally these days

YOU reference the war on drugs as a cop out to dealing with marijuana on its own, and then use the replies to the 'war on other drugs' as a distraction. Not the other way around.

False, I did not bring up the war on drugs, I did reply to it. In fact it was YOU that brought up the war on drugs (my short term memory is not that bad... lol) What I did say was the principles of legalizing weed based on "we have the right to do as we please" and "we will save money if we stop the drug investigations and drug busts" also apply to all recreational drugs.

My main concerns before this distraction of trying to get your head straight on my thoughts on this matter, WERE

1. How are they going to deal with drug testing ?
2. Sobriety tests?
3. Does the government have the rite to prosper from being drug dealers ? Because if they legalize for the purpose of "sin taxes" that is exactly what they are doing, becoming drug dealers.
4. Do we want corporations to be the new drug pushers ?
5. Do we want the government to know whos smoking weed ? because Im sure with a legal system, they will try to control it as a "controled substance". If its as simple as walking into the convient store and grabing a bag of weed and paying at the cash register as beer is, well thats one thing (excluding my above issues) but I doubt this would be the scenerio, as I know how governments function.

I think there was other valid concerns I brought up. But...

Heres some facts/myths and resources for proof, please feel free to prove your case with substantiated evidence. Otherwise it seems you are floating dead in the water. Constantly talking in circles refusing any reasonable arguments simply because they do not fit with your model of 'reality'. Sorry bud, it would seem your 'reality' has been engineered.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

Yes, this is a one sided propaganda thingy that reeks as bad as a bong

Myth: Marijuana Can Cause Permanent Mental Illness.

Not to the degree of the other side of the propagana but not innocent as the other wants to make it. We are now into decades of my generation of smokers and the effects are becoming obvious. Your into research, check "the other sides" propaganda, and weed and sort it out for yourself, I dont have the time. I know, I see the results through experienced eyes.

Myth: Marijuana is Highly Addictive. Long term marijuana users experience physical dependence and withdrawal, and often need professional drug treatment to break their marijuana habits.

This proves the propaganda of this source because no one has had this opinion since the 60's except that generation (my parents/grandparents) that were exposed to the other propaganda. Why they even addressed it is laughable

Myth: Marijuana Is More Potent Today Than In The Past. Adults who used marijuana in the 1960s and 1970s fail to realize that when today's youth use marijuana they are using a much more dangerous drug.

Any good pothead knows this is total bullshit. We were smoking crap in the 70's. Even the good stuff "Columbian gold" "Panama Red" doesnt come close to what is grown in this country today

Myth: Marijuana Offenses Are Not Severely Punished. Few marijuana law violators are arrested and hardly anyone goes to prison. This lenient treatment is responsible for marijuana continued availability and use.

My experience with this seems contrary, so I may be wrong... or I may be right. I would look to the abundance of marijuana users as throwing the stats high for those that do get jail time. Most I would suspect is little more than a night in the county lock up, which throws the "jailed for weed" stats high as well because it doesnt specify. Then they might get some community service, probation and rehab... which as I recall you all support.

"This lenient treatment is responsible for marijuana continued availability and use."

I'm not experienced with anyone who wants more punishment for potheads. maybe they are out there, I cant say. Whatever the topic the countries population will always be mixed in its opinion. Meddling is something people do, check your local zoning boards, town boards, city governments, school boards, lobby groups... get the picture... its the human element rearing its ugly face.

Myth: Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco. Marijuana smokers are at a high risk of developing lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema.

Dont see the point of this. Does anyone want to agrue that it has no ill effects on the lungs. There is a current train of thought amounst old potheads watching their friends die that maybe it does cause cancer, just a paranoia in my opinion. We are all going to die, but lets not deny the repulsive effect a nice long toke has on the lungs........ Paaaalease!

Well I made it that far.... have a good day.... lol

 

[PhantoMPhones]

So in the end you've said absolutely nothing once again, congratulations.

Asides from the fact that you yourself are saying you have NOTHING to back any of your 'claims' up asides from your own 'experience', 'eyes' as you are calling it... Try again. Btw refusing a completely legitimate request to clearly state your opinion or questions, is in itself admitting defeat. I have read your posts again and again and I can't pin down what it is exactly that you are trying to say, because you seem to do a lot of backtracking and blatant dismissal while making claims that seem to conflict with eachother, or because I am failing to comprehend. Thats why I asked for you to clarify, I didn't need some dick snide reply like you're fucking 14 or something. Here's the rest of my reply in a format that you seem to understand better;

I cant understand how people dont think the education is out there, but guess what it doesnt even work as good as the drug laws. Even with the education of the drug laws in themeselves "your going to jail if busted" have a minimal effect. However all these combined have their effect. Perhaps people if that concerned could just stop being assholes.

lol omfg, you fail. Nice to meet you, 6902343123-02...Nice to meet you, 6902343123-02...Nice to meet you, 6902343123-02...Nice to meet you, 6902343123-02...Nice to meet you, 6902343123-02.

1. How are they going to deal with drug testing ?
2. Sobriety tests?

You've missed the point, yet again. You're so worried about testing and rules and control. You place so called order/safety and BLIND FUCKING OBEDIENCE over human interest. You place your ideas of right, wrong, acceptable, unacceptable as the only reasonable answer, ('our position' on the other hand is being backed up by medical evidence) and for a person who doesn't want 'to go there' you seem to eat the feces your government is feeding you with a big smile on your face, not to mention seeming to lie back while the government fucks you from behind with laws that you can 'deal with' or 'take your chances with', despite their fascist nature. For someone who talks about personal experience you SEEM to have NO grasp on the issue of MJ legalization. imho. Perhaps it is an issue for you? Perhaps you are easily addicted and thusly have really only had limited exposure and have concluded the 'evils' of substances based on your own susceptibility or your observations in your small sample of the population, as there you have no evidence to support your claims being cogent and representative of the norm or majority. Then again perhaps this is completely untrue. I cannot say for certain thusly I can only make conjectures, nor do I believe it is a point worth dwelling on for obvious tangential reasons. Though I believe it is safe to assume that you aren't one to balk at a prescription painkiller (or local anesthetic) or otherwise prescribed medication....

3. Does the government have the rite to prosper from being drug dealers ?
Because if they legalize for the purpose of "sin taxes" that is exactly what they are doing, becoming drug dealers.
4. Do we want corporations to be the new drug pushers ?

Oh, you must be new here... Welcome to Earth.

5. Do we want the government to know whos smoking weed ? because Im sure with a legal system, they will try to control it as a "controled substance". If its as simple as walking into the convient store and grabing a bag of weed and paying at the cash register as beer is, well thats one thing (excluding my above issues) but I doubt this would be the scenerio, as I know how governments function.

lol....weak. You seriously wrote this, re-read it and decided to hit post?

and for the love of kittens;

Who argued weed is addictive ? I only stated that is was addictive and if you reference said post you would see that I was talking psychological addicting... so tell me again what is moot ?

Actually originally you did not make the distinction. You brought up addiction and referenced 'sucking in' and 'gateway' nonsense. This is an example of backtracking or at the least an example of where you tried to generalize the point, only stating the point in its most basic form hoping nobody would catch you on it. Do you seriously not understand why this is NOT A VALID ARGUMENT?

Finally, to repost what I have found to be the best post here yet;

Am I supposed to take this seriously? You've gone from flatly denying that legalising a drug would be of any benefit to its users, to suggesting that people who buy hard drugs deserve to die, to simply "nuh-uh"-ing the idea that weed could ever become legal, despite the fact that California and Massachusetts both have bills in the works for it. This is just pathetic dude.

If you want to keep bull-headedly presuming the worst about every possible aspect of drug legalisation while offering no evidence for your outlandish claims, this argument is just useless, and I'm not going to waste my time. You're clearly wrapped up in your own narrow opinions and unable to comprehend the bigger picture here.

-------------------------------------------



Look man, I'm not TRYING to offend you , and I've been rather couth up until now, I have indicated no offense intended and stated clearly that any conjectures about you are made as pure hypothesis as it might pertain to the root of your particular view(?), but YOU seem to be making personal insults for no other reason. If you would like to continue this as adults I'm game, but your condescending tone is absolutely immature and rather ignorant considering the short sightedness of your arguments and responses. As it has been said, your arguments have been addressed. If you disagree, I will ask once more for you to write out in point form your exact (alleged) questions, exactly as you would have them answered, because you seem to go 'well what about...X?' and then someone says 'well the thing about X is..' and then you say 'well thats not what I asked'. Which is not an accusation, in the best of circumstances this is a communication failure.

 

[razoredge]

So in the end you've said absolutely nothing once again, congratulations.

bullshit, its apparent to me now that you are retarded if you want to sit there and say I didnt say anything. I did notice your post offered nothing pertaining to the topic.... go figure

Asides from the fact that you yourself are saying you have NOTHING to back any of your 'claims' up asides from your own 'experience', 'eyes' as you are calling it... Try again./

I did not say I had nothing to back up my points. I said there was no model in a response to this

You can't prove that government income from marijuana tax is bad, you can't prove that it's a gateway drug just because it's a drug, you can't prove that any government profit would just be spent on regulation (which still be a profit, since right now we have no income from drugs and we spend money on the "war on ******, marijuana being one).

Why do I even have to prove that the government making money from marijuana is bad ? Aside from the fact that Im entitled to my opinion as anybody is... To me it is bad for a few reasons.

1. They have no honest rite for any "sin" taxes. They are unfair taxes because they discriminate, the excessive taxes on tobacco and alcohol are outragous, they have also been on a rapid rise, this rapid rise and the fact that they exist validates my concern, got it? Its my belief that nothing in this country should be subject to any tax outside of the standard sales tax.

The war with England for independence was in part fueled by this very kind of excessive tax and terriffs. So am I wrong there ? Address it directly or shut up

2. The government earning money from drug dealing makes them accessory and by law therefore liable for any harm.

I did not talk anywhere about gateway drugs, Dakryn and you were the first to go into that. Then I addressed it. Do I want to do some research to locate the evidence to prove to you children that its a "gateway" drug? nope! Its typically the first drug used by those that would venture down that road. Does that make it a gateway drug ? You choose. Can it be proven that it is NOT a gateway drug ? Why something so foolish would be addressed in the first place is beyond me, the entire "gateway" thing is no concern of mine.

I cant prove the government would go crazy regulating weed ? Are you kidding me? They have gone crazy regulating everything else, from the lenght of a sleeve on a Tee-shirt to how people raise their children, get a fucking clue... its a trend that has been on a steady rise. Hows abouts you prove they dont spend excessive amounts of money regulating petty things, let alone imagine how ape shit they would go with a drug.

Btw refusing a completely legitimate request to clearly state your opinion or questions, is in itself admitting defeat.

Defeat ? You are a child arent you? age ? So OK, let me make a legitimate request that you show me where I have not clearly stated my opinions and questions ?

I have read your posts again and again and I can't pin down what it is exactly that you are trying to say.

I cant help you with this, I feel I have made my views and concerns blantently obvious

because you seem to do a lot of backtracking

Show me the backtracking you are concerned about

and blatant dismissal

Show me the dismissal

while making claims that seem to conflict with eachother,

Show me the conflicting interests

or because I am failing to comprehend.

I am showing you your failure to comprehend

Thats why I asked for you to clarify,

I did clarify, over and over again

I didn't need some dick snide reply like you're fucking 14 or something.

You asked me to go back through 4 pages of this topic to sort out for you that which you are failing to comprehend... it deserved any kind of reply I gave and frankly I could have been much harsher

Here's the rest of my reply in a format that you seem to understand better;



lol omfg, you fail. Nice to meet you, 6902343123-02...Nice to meet you, 6902343123-02...Nice to meet you, 6902343123-02...Nice to meet you, 6902343123-02...Nice to meet you, 6902343123-02.

Get real, apparently you aim to prove your a retard

You've missed the point, yet again. You're so worried about testing and rules and control.

Yes I am for valid reasons. I have witnessed 35 years of steadily increasing regulations and controls as already mentioned above. Prove Im wrong !

I have a great concern for testing as I know first hand the failure and discrimination of urine testing. Its the one currently used because its the easiest, fastest and least expensive.

Comparing alcohol breath tests to determine current blood alcohol levels is easy.

It would now seem like an amazing feat if one of you know it alls addressed how employment drug testing and driving sobriety tests would be handled if weed was legalized. I have asked many times and all you guys have done is side step it.

You place so called order/safety and BLIND FUCKING OBEDIENCE over human interest.

Blind fucking obedience ? you sound to be getting desperate

Did you just put "order/safety" on the opposite side of the fence from human interest ? thats rich

You place your ideas of right, wrong, acceptable, unacceptable as the only reasonable answer,

You know it alls are basing your side of the picture on the same exact thing "it should be our rite" "it would save money", so whats your problem here ?

('our position' on the other hand is being backed up by medical evidence)

What medical evidence ? The stuff on that pro drug propaganda web site ?

and for a person who doesn't want 'to go there' you seem to eat the feces your government is feeding you with a big smile on your face,

Oh really? Man you are getting desperate

not to mention seeming to lie back while the government fucks you from behind with laws that you can 'deal with' or 'take your chances with', despite their fascist nature.

Are you suggesting that the institution of government has not been fucking people over since the beginning of human history ? Are you suggesting that I have not in this topic expressed my disgust with regulations. Sorry but you are the one throwing out the contradictions here.

"fascist nature" I have no use for political tags

For someone who talks about personal experience you SEEM to have NO grasp on the issue of MJ legalization. imho.

You key words here are "in my opinion". What I have done in this topic is address the complications and indications of marijuana legalization and requested that somebody offer solutions. 4 pages and still nothing... imagine that.

Perhaps it is an issue for you? Perhaps you are easily addicted and thusly have really only had limited exposure and have concluded the 'evils' of substances based on your own susceptibility or your observations in your small sample of the population,

Didnt I state I was lucky as not to have addictive problems ? Let me guess... ya want some proof, dontcha.... want me to go have a exam ? get involved in some survey... watchya need sonny ?

as there you have no evidence to support your claims being cogent and representative of the norm or majority.

Do I need evidence that weed is typically the first drug used by teens ? Perhaps this has changed as I know theres tons of pills out there today, many stolen or sold prescription drugs.

Do I need to prove our government has gone regulation crazy ?

Do I need to prove our government has gone tax crazy ?

Do I need to show you some "burnouts" to prove to you weed does have negative long and short term effects ?

DO I need to show that alcohol... a legal mind altering substance is the most abused subtance ?

Do I need to show you hundreds of liable law suits before you understand second party responsibility ? or third party accessary ?

Do I need to show you malpractice cases brought against Doctors ?

Do I need to show you that drugs are a controled substance... prescribed by Doctors and carefully controlled through the pharm industry ?

Do I need to do some research to show you cost numbers of the ATF ?

Do I need to do research to show you expense numbers of how much it costs the FDA to control and regulate individual items under its jurisdiction ?

Funny... an aspestos law suit commercial just came on the tube....

Then again perhaps this is completely untrue. I cannot say for certain thusly I can only make conjectures

Ahha.... now your on to something

nor do I believe it is a point worth dwelling on for obvious tangential reasons.

Whats the matter ? Are you admitting the subject is abit more complicated that "we should have the rite" ?

Though I believe it is safe to assume that you aren't one to balk at a prescription painkiller (or local anesthetic) or otherwise prescribed medication....

What are you saying here ? Whats the point of relevancy ?

Oh, you must be new here... Welcome to Earth.

Whats this supposed to mean, are you validating how things work ? Imagine that........

lol....weak. You seriously wrote this, re-read it and decided to hit post?

5. Do we want the government to know whos smoking weed ? because Im sure with a legal system, they will try to control it as a "controled substance". If its as simple as walking into the convient store and grabing a bag of weed and paying at the cash register as beer is, well thats one thing (excluding my above issues) but I doubt this would be the scenerio, as I know how governments function.

lol... weak... response... try again

and for the love of kittens;

Who argued weed is addictive ? I only stated that is was addictive and if you reference said post you would see that I was talking psychological addicting... so tell me again what is moot ?

Actually originally you did not make the distinction.

You brought up addiction and referenced 'sucking in' and 'gateway' nonsense.

Oh really ? I could swear it went something like this :

Actually weed is addictive, there is NO physical addiction, the body doesnt go through hell. The mind is another story, not hell but a desire not easy to resist occurs. I am placeing no emphisis on this just putting the rumor in its place.

This is an example of backtracking or at the least an example of where you tried to generalize the point, only stating the point in its most basic form hoping nobody would catch you on it. Do you seriously not understand why this is NOT A VALID ARGUMENT?

huh what ? :zombie:

Finally, to repost what I have found to be the best post here yet;

Am I supposed to take this seriously? You've gone from flatly denying that legalising a drug would be of any benefit to its users, to suggesting that people who buy hard drugs deserve to die, to simply "nuh-uh"-ing the idea that weed could ever become legal, despite the fact that California and Massachusetts both have bills in the works for it. This is just pathetic dude.

If you want to keep bull-headedly presuming the worst about every possible aspect of drug legalisation while offering no evidence for your outlandish claims, this argument is just useless, and I'm not going to waste my time. You're clearly wrapped up in your own narrow opinions and unable to comprehend the bigger picture here.

yes that was a Varis great cop out so as not to respond directly to my concerns. The best response to a concern I got from Varis was regarding how drug testing would be done and his reply was something along the lines of "they will come up with something" "they have tests for alcohol". I suppose I should be crying out for "proof"... lol


-------------------------------------------

Look man, I'm not TRYING to offend you , and I've been rather couth up until now, I have indicated no offense intended and stated clearly that any conjectures about you are made as pure hypothesis as it might pertain to the root of your particular view(?), but YOU seem to be making personal insults for no other reason.

No just like you I make them as pure hypothesis.

If you would like to continue this as adults I'm game, but your condescending tone is absolutely immature and rather ignorant considering the short sightedness of your arguments and responses. As it has been said, your arguments have been addressed. If you disagree, I will ask once more for you to write out in point form your exact (alleged) questions, exactly as you would have them answered, because you seem to go 'well what about...X?' and then someone says 'well the thing about X is..' and then you say 'well thats not what I asked'. Which is not an accusation, in the best of circumstances this is a communication failure.

Again very rich. As I look back to the quotes I have done of yours in this very post and I used your entire post... there is not one response to questions asked in the previous post you were responding too... let alone many others just since we have been talking. You didnt ever re-address the seat-belt issue... not origional brought up by me... but quite relevent in the legal extremes our society has come to. Face it your copping out, dont have the answers, dont have enough experience, get your information... selectively... from biased on line sources.

Sure boys "in a perfect world" it should be just one great big free for all, but guess what, its a human world and therefore FAR from perfect.

Its been all fucked up by those that abuse whatever it is that suits their greed and/or selfishness. I find it interesting that this word abuse in regards to having human rites is most found connected to drugs, violence and governmental powers. Combining these abuses its not hard for me to see how things came to be as they are today.

I have spent my life pondering what is it is mankind goes not get that would not cause them to pull their heads out of their ass and behave responsibly. But alas, I have to accept that it is the flaw of the human equation, so with that mankind has to accept their responsibility for things having become what they are.

Carry on, if you want to address my concerns with some viable theory as to how to get around them, I will show interest.

If you want to continue trying to cut me down, because you cant deal with these issues, I can play that game too.... its all about choices

 

[PhantoMPhones]

damn double post

 

[PhantoMPhones]

Oh really ? I could swear it went something like this :

No need to be a smartass, re-read your own posts where you first state your opinion on things and you will note that you didn't make any distinction until it was questioned by someone.

Yet again you've failed restate your questions as requested for the sake of getting back on topic, and haven't addressed ANYTHING as I can see it. You merely picked apart my post and responded as if everything was a personal attack, in full rhetoric. You took a 4 paragraph post and turned it into a 30 paragraph post because you are attacking my sentences, rather than dealing with the subject. And now you are on a tangent about seat belt law. You are presenting a question to which you have a point but are trying to bait me into responding otherwise due to the tangential nature of the question.

Unless you want to re-clarify your 'questions' so I can try to address them and you have every intention on supporting your own claims with more than 'nuh-uh', 'im not listening' and 'i think', then I'm out of here as you are wasting time I will never get back. I will NOT reply to you, just as the others have done.

I think we have similar opinions on a lot of things and that this discussion has just gotten out of hand. I will try to address some things, but I will not listen to you insult me anymore. Let's just discuss this like adults please.

1. They have no honest rite for any "sin" taxes. They are unfair taxes because they discriminate, the excessive taxes on tobacco and alcohol are outragous, they have also been on a rapid rise, this rapid rise and the fact that they exist validates my concern, got it? Its my belief that nothing in this country should be subject to any tax outside of the standard sales tax.

Agreed whole heartedly. However, my concern is the legalization of cannabis, not what the government does after that point. Like you, I hate all governments foreign and domestic, probably for the same or similar reasons you do. I would agree that there is a FAR more heinous mechanism at work at this very moment, and that focusing all our effort towards 'legalization' rather than the greater matter at hand is dubious, however that is for another time and place of discussion, which I would absolutely love in fact. However, I don't see anything wrong with doing ANYTHING that puts a dent in or slows progression of the gradual mass manipulation and intentional de-evolution and enslavement, however minute it may be. For myself, it isn't a matter I'm concerned about. It is already effectively (in practice) decriminalized here, and for that matter, nobody really cares (well the odd asshole but hey.) But there's nothing to say that people who cannot for one reason or other concern themselves with the greater matters at hand effectively, can't help in their own way, even if it seems insignificant. And honestly, I don't think they would make much from it as people would grow their own anyways or obtain it elsewhere, as has been discussed previously.

2. The government earning money from drug dealing makes them accessory and by law therefore liable for any harm.

As far as I'm concerned they already do make money from drug and other questionable commodities and therefore to me the point does not need to be debated.

Do I want to do some research to locate the evidence to prove to you children that its a "gateway" drug? nope! Its typically the first drug used by those that would venture down that road. Does that make it a gateway drug ? You choose.

First? Sugar, caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, marijuana. I'd say out of those five marijuana is usually the last.

It would now seem like an amazing feat if one of you know it alls addressed how employment drug testing and driving sobriety tests would be handled if weed was legalized.

Exactly as they are now. Nothing would need to change. Whether I'm stoned behind the wheel before legalization or after legalization it makes no difference. Whether its legal or not its still illegal to be under the influence while driving. Testing would stay as it is now, and non-existent on roadside stops as it is now (unless the technology is developed which shouldn't be hard, and would be phased in just like tasers were etc.) As it stands there is no need for the kind of testing you are suggesting. There is no evidence to suggest that this would change just because legalization has occurred, as there is no evidence or model for it to be set against, (actually you could use portugal and the netherlands model, but lets leave that be for simplicity's sake)and why is that? Surely not because people haven't been driving while high. (Studies even show that prescription drugs are far more a hazard than marijuana when it comes to driving, and they don't test for prescription drugs during roadside stops. In fact, a diabetic attack, heart attack and prescription induced state are almost always mistaken for drunk drivers)

As far as employment testing goes, I don't understand what you mean. Some companies do test for drugs as you've said. I do not agree with it at all. If it's legal then the companies would have to just ignore marijuana test results. Just like you may not know if someone is drunk or on coke or whatever in the workplace, you wouldn't necessarily know someone is high on ganja. This is always taken on a case by case basis. Drug testing in companies is done on say a monthly or annual basis, or whatever the case may be and obviously alcohol cannot be tested for using this method. The drug tests detect the metabolite of the drug in the system, not the drug level itself. They do not determine 'highness' they determine 'history of highness'.

We have a education system in this country that if you deal drugs and get caught you are going to jail, that has had a medium level effect as deterant. We have plenty of drug education in this country, for decades now, its effect ? probably middle of the road, that and illegalization has most likely kept Dyrkyn from becomeing a smoker, but he has yet to respond to that question, so I shouldnt assume but am useing it as a valid example regardless the person.

As far as education goes here, its just like the government handles all its other 'education'. It's pretty much tantamount to fear mongering. People are kept completely in the dark when it comes to drugs, and are fed propaganda and told they would go to jail. Not only is this unacceptable, but it doesn't work. For the most part when people come in contact with marijuana and find out its not the baby-killer that it's made out to be, and they've been lied to, and then they are prompted to try other things. To ME, that's the real gateway there. Bottom line, the current education 'approach' is not only a farce, it is a financial disaster setting itself up.

Let me know what you think.

 

[razoredge]

No need to be a smartass, re-read your own posts where you first state your opinion on things and you will note that you didn't make any distinction until it was questioned by someone.

I know I never said weed was physically addictive, I have known better than that for decades. Any reference to addictive drugs would have been to "addictive ******. Which I bring up because "we should have the right to do as we please" and "stop wasting money on the war on ****** brings us to addictive drugs. So you must be confused there.

Yet again you've failed restate your questions as requested for the sake of getting back on topic, and haven't addressed ANYTHING as I can see it.

Dude the previous post to your request had a numbered list... geeze !

You merely picked apart my post and responded as if everything was a personal attack, in full rhetoric. You took a 4 paragraph post and turned it into a 30 paragraph post because you are attacking my sentences, rather than dealing with the subject.

I am breaking down our posts now so I can directly respond to the numberous things you are saying. That last post was drenched with my points of view as well as sarcasm returned for treating me like Im stupid.

And now you are on a tangent about seat belt law. You are presenting a question to which you have a point but are trying to bait me into responding otherwise due to the tangential nature of the question.

Not my tangent, that was Dakryns. Im not baiting, I really want everyone to think about it and come to the correct answer as to why that law came into play. It does have relevence to this subject regarding legalities, liability, money, lobby groups and why the government does some of the things it does, such as this illegal drug issue. It is good food for thought. Just think about why and how the seatbelt law came into effect. It was about alot more than simply saving lives or reducing injury... though that is still the bottom line. Think about who bears the financial burdon of liability in an auto accident. Remember nothing is as simple as a basic principle... in todays world.

Unless you want to re-clarify your 'questions' so I can try to address them and you have every intention on supporting your own claims with more than 'nuh-uh', 'im not listening' and 'i think', then I'm out of here as you are wasting time I will never get back. I will NOT reply to you, just as the others have done.

Its rare that one replys to me even when they are running their mouth through the keyboard, nothing new there.

"I think" all the time, its my character, something people have to deal with.

If "nuh-uh" and "I'm not listening" is what you are getting from my posts... well... I feel badly for those of minimal sight.

I fully support my concerns and any claims I make. No one has yet to show me things work differently than they do.

I cant see why I should have to continue repeating myself post after post and you should still say I need to make you a list. Is half of what I have addressed not made it to your computer screen ?

I think we have similar opinions on a lot of things and that this discussion has just gotten out of hand. I will try to address some things, but I will not listen to you insult me anymore. Let's just discuss this like adults please.

The card of respect is always in the hand of my adversary, I only deal what I recieve. In this topic I was immeadiately attacked by Varis... right out of the clear blue for having my extensive vision of the obstacles regarding legalization. You too came in ready to slay me seemingly because "Im not on your side". Make no mistake

the discussion is out of hand because no one will address the problems I see and want to put it all on me, which tells me they can not come up with the answers, which is fine, I cant either but I would want that stuff addressed first, rather than saying to the country, "OK drugs are legal, go fuck yourselves up. But guess what you will still lose your job by pissing in a cup. You will still have your licence pulled by pissing in a cup. We are putting a 40% sin tax on weed. You will be harassed by the IRS and jailed for tax evasion if we suspect you are selling dope. You will still go to jail if we find you are growing more than one plant. If you buy weed you need to sign this reciept, sheet... ect."

By this I only see one bureaucratic nightmare replaced by another.

Dont laugh at me, I bet you guys might be unaware that when buying kerosene they want people to sigh a sheet that states you are not using it for "highway" use, because they have a hard-on that someone might put it in a diesel truck and drive down the road free of the highway use tax that is appied to diesel.... do you know this ? Do you know they dyed kero just so they can dip the tank of a truck to catch someone not using the "proper fuel"... for tax evasion

Im being honest when I say from what I have seen these assholes do in my life time that I truely believe they will make a total mess out of marajuana if legalized so as its nothing but a PITA and everyone keeps doing it the illegal way anyhow.

Hey, I could be wrong, but wont be surprised if Im right.

Agreed whole heartedly. However, my concern is the legalization of cannabis, not what the government does after that point.

Oppositely, I want to know exactly whats in their heads before hand and how the process is going to work, before I have to watch those asshole throw out another smoke and mirrors catch 22, bureaucratic boondoggle. Any lack of sanity I may have I can directly connect to governmental agencies dancing to the tune of special interests groups.

Like you, I hate all governments foreign and domestic, probably for the same or similar reasons you do. I would agree that there is a FAR more heinous mechanism at work at this very moment, and that focusing all our effort towards 'legalization' rather than the greater matter at hand is dubious, however that is for another time and place of discussion, which I would absolutely love in fact.

Shit, talking politics is far more volatile than this topic.

However, I don't see anything wrong with doing ANYTHING that puts a dent in or slows progression of the gradual mass manipulation and intentional de-evolution and enslavement, however minute it may be.

This is the beauty of smoking dope illegally, one great big "fuck you" to "the man"

For myself, it isn't a matter I'm concerned about. It is already effectively (in practice) decriminalized here, and for that matter, nobody really cares (well the odd asshole but hey.) But there's nothing to say that people who cannot for one reason or other concern themselves with the greater matters at hand effectively, can't help in their own way, even if it seems insignificant. And honestly, I don't think they would make much from it as people would grow their own anyways or obtain it elsewhere, as has been discussed previously.

This sounds like the illegal activity Im saying would take place in a legalized world, am I right ?

Still Varis point about users getting "jailed" for small possesions is a valid concern. However again my bet is that those statistic about "jailed for marajuana" are primarily one night stays in the local lock-up, not "time" federal jails.

Until the current random drug test problem is resolved, that of pissing in a cup, which shows positive on weed for a minimum of 11-14 days and upward to a month for heavy smokers... there will be no gains in the area of employment. THIS IS WHERE I WOULD FOCUS FIRST

As far as I'm concerned they already do make money from drug and other questionable commodities and therefore to me the point does not need to be debated.

Yes, but they are doing it illegally, which gives leverage to shake in their face. If legal they become accessories to drug dealing... I just cant wrap my head around that... sorry

First? Sugar, caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, marijuana. I'd say out of those five marijuana is usually the last.

You got me on sugar and tobacco, probably caffeine because its in soda and "power drinks" (lol) right ? I wouldnt argue either way on alcohol but its common for teens to start smoking grass at 14, even heard examples of 11.... gawd, has no one any shame anymore ?

Exactly as they are now. Nothing would need to change. Whether I'm stoned behind the wheel before legalization or after legalization it makes no difference. Whether its legal or not its still illegal to be under the influence while driving. Testing would stay as it is now, and non-existent on roadside stops as it is now (unless the technology is developed which shouldn't be hard, and would be phased in just like tasers were etc.)

Im suggesting that if its legalized they WILL start pressing hard to see if someone is stoned. Dont know why I think that way, perhaps because all the years of usage has made me paranoid... or perhaps because I try to keep my thinking one step ahead of the government so I dont go totally nuts when they pull their latest stunt... I expected it.

I would also say, make no mistake, lobby groups would press harder for this kind of testing if legalized, same as they have been responsible for lowering the acceptable alcohol levels the past 20 years, and introducing "0 tolerance" ideals.

"developed technology" regarding the determination of someones current THC level I am very sceptical about. Due to what I know from the urine tests. Somehow the stuff sticks in the system far longer than anything else. Im not sure if it can accurately be breath tested, seems it could be as its inhaled. I know you can smell someone that just got done smoking but Im not sure if it lasts long on the breath, easily masked by a cigarette... or what. Alcohol is easy and has proven so. If it comes to blood tests, this is a serious personal intrusion as well a pricy.

Irrelevent but BTW, I dont think there is anything wrong with driving stoned, its not imparing to me though stats say otherwise

As it stands there is no need for the kind of testing you are suggesting. There is no evidence to suggest that this would change just because legalization has occurred, as there is no evidence or model for it to be set against, (actually you could use portugal and the netherlands model, but lets leave that be for simplicity's sake)and why is that? Surely not because people haven't been driving while high.

I just coverd this didnt I. I think theres some things there to be concerned about (special interest lobbies)

(Studies even show that prescription drugs are far more a hazard than marijuana when it comes to driving, and they don't test for prescription drugs during roadside stops. In fact, a diabetic attack, heart attack and prescription induced state are almost always mistaken for drunk drivers)

Good point, not to support bureaucracy but it almost seems wrong that they let this go... no ?

As far as employment testing goes, I don't understand what you mean. Some companies do test for drugs as you've said. I do not agree with it at all. If it's legal then the companies would have to just ignore marijuana test results. Just like you may not know if someone is drunk or on coke or whatever in the workplace, you wouldn't necessarily know someone is high on ganja. This is always taken on a case by case basis. Drug testing in companies is done on say a monthly or annual basis, or whatever the case may be and obviously alcohol cannot be tested for using this method. The drug tests detect the metabolite of the drug in the system, not the drug level itself. They do not determine 'highness' they determine 'history of highness'.

Just covered this too but my understanding in regards to your "companies would have to just ignore marijuana test results"... is that its one test and results are simply positive, negative or inconclusive on all drugs. It does not seperate one from the other. Hey if Im wrong and its that simple, I'd be happy, but that is not my understanding. Frankly I just want to see random drug testing go away, its really not the rite of the employer what an employee does off the job, illegal or not. Legal matters belong in the hand of the State, not employers.

As far as education goes here, its just like the government handles all its other 'education'. It's pretty much tantamount to fear mongering. People are kept completely in the dark when it comes to drugs, and are fed propaganda and told they would go to jail. Not only is this unacceptable, but it doesn't work. For the most part when people come in contact with marijuana and find out its not the baby-killer that it's made out to be, and they've been lied to, and then they are prompted to try other things. To ME, that's the real gateway there. Bottom line, the current education 'approach' is not only a farce, it is a financial disaster setting itself up.

Maybe how its handled by the system, I cant say, but I believe the facts and scenerios are out there... especially in todays awareness world that let people know that if the like the wrong thing too much and do it too often, they WILL be fucked... yet, sadly it happens all too frequently.

This is another reason I would hesitate to have my government condone drug use of any kind.

Let me know what you think.

That was a MUCH better conversation............

 

[Satanstoenail]

I'm not getting involved in the quote-a-thon, but was having a read and just wanted to add some info you guys seem to not be aware of; We have random roadside drug testing here in Victoria, have done for years. A world first apparently. They test your saliva by placing an absorbent swab in your mouth. It will show your THC, methamphetamine and MDMA levels. I have no doubt that this procedure would be implemented in any country where cannabis use was legalised/decriminalised.

http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=4084

 

[razoredge]

I'm not getting involved in the quote-a-thon, but was having a read and just wanted to add some info you guys seem to not be aware of; We have random roadside drug testing here in Victoria, have done for years. A world first apparently. They test your saliva by placing an absorbent swab in your mouth. It will show your THC, methamphetamine and MDMA levels. I have no doubt that this procedure would be implemented in any country where cannabis use was legalised/decriminalised.

http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=4084

Thanks, thats what I was probing for but apparently nobody knew of anything. So are you saying this thing is accurate and non discriminate as urine tests are ? As in if you smoked 2 hours ago and were now perfectly straight, this test is not going to send you to jail, loose your licience, ect. ?

I'll read your link later, gotta go.

 

[razoredge]

Did read it, scarry, this validates that one concern of mine though it will eventually take place whether weed is legal or not. THis shows how the bureaucracy and such lobbys are getting tighter not looser as many here are hopeing for.

Nothing in there about how long it takes before any given drug it out of your system before it throws you to the dogs.

In this counrty and Canada this kind of testing would screw the trucking industry up big time. Trucking companies push drivers so hard I dont know when those guys even get a chance to sleep, I suspect the percentage of amphetamine usage amounst truck drivers to be suprizingly high.

Funny how our social and financial structure has pushed people for more more more yet wants to spank everyone for the final results of such a thought process.

 

[Satanstoenail]

No, it will only test the levels in your system, it can't test when you last smoked. Apparently THC stays in your system for a couple of days, so it's a pretty flawed test imo. I don't think someone who smoked pot 2 hours ago is "perfectly straight" though either. I've never been tested, so I'm not sure of the exact procedure, but apparently if you test positive to the first test they detain you and test you again at some point, not sure how long they wait though.

Drug bus:

 

[razoredge]

No, it will only test the levels in your system, it can't test when you last smoked. Apparently THC stays in your system for a couple of days, so it's a pretty flawed test imo. I don't think someone who smoked pot 2 hours ago is "perfectly straight" though either. I've never been tested, so I'm not sure of the exact procedure, but apparently if you test positive to the first test they detain you and test you again at some point, not sure how long they wait though.

Drug bus:

Christ , see it doesnt sound good does it ? Stir up trouble and you get trouble.

I dont think after two hours your still messed up, unless someone really hits it hard. This testing is no good, you'd still be hung to the wall, for driving down the road over what you did yesterday..... last night

Dont like it

 

[PhantoMPhones]

Christ , see it doesnt sound good does it ? Stir up trouble and you get trouble.

I most certainly hope that you aren't (and haven't been) implying that we should just keep quiet, lest we poke the bear.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

I most certainly hope that you aren't (and haven't been) implying that we should just keep quiet, lest we poke the bear.

See why it is best to put this halfway-senile codger on your ignore list? There is no reason to be jousting at windmills....he does not argue against or debunk, all he does is fling poo.

 

[razoredge]

theres that little squeaking sound again

 

[razoredge]

I most certainly hope that you aren't (and haven't been) implying that we should just keep quiet, lest we poke the bear.

A little dissappointed that this was all you replied to after the informations just given

To answer your question. I have said I like the drug laws the way they are now, for reasons I addressed.

I have a larger concern than issues of legality

My largest concern being that of drug testing for employment and these sobriety road tests, being addressed first to stop this discrimination against something that WAS decriminalized in the 70's

Another poster just came on and gave some information that showed some validity to what I was talking about, that were not logically responded to in four pages of bitching at me.

I dont care on a personal basis, what reason or approach someone else takes in petitioning our government but they should be aware that many times they have equal opposition.

 

[Dak]

After readin this page of a quote-a-thon I am done trying to explain this. The bottom line is, government doesn't have any business telling me what I can and can't do to myself. Regardless of the supposed reasons/benefits/etc.

If I want to wear no seatbelt, snort some coke, and drive myself off a cliff it is my right. It's is none of YOUR damn business, or anyone elses for that matter.

I don't condone any of the above, but the problem is that as soon as we start restricting personal freedoms, it becomes a slippery slope until we are at the point we are at now, or where they are in England where every thing you do is under a microscope.

TBH my opinion of people with your apparent general opinion that the government needs to be a big babysitter is a big "Fuck Off".