Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Legalizing dope creates problems


Recommended Posts

We can probably all agree that addictive and abusive behavior can be found in virtually any substance including food examples. There are laws that apply to those behaviors. And prohibition has not been successful in preventing them.

 

Soon every state will follow CO/WA example as now 26 states have done for medicinal use. Just like concealed carry permits have expanded to nearly 50 states dispite the Brady et al prononcements of blood in the streets; pot, gambling, lotto, lottery have all proven that the benfits of legalization far outweigh the unmitigated disaster that has been the war on drugs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

We can probably all agree that addictive and abusive behavior can be found in virtually any substance including food examples. There are laws that apply to those behaviors. And prohibition has not been successful in preventing them.

 

Soon every state will follow CO/WA example as now 26 states have done for medicinal use. Just like concealed carry permits have expanded to nearly 50 states dispite the Brady et al prononcements of blood in the streets; pot, gambling, lotto, lottery have all proven that the benfits of legalization far outweigh the unmitigated disaster that has been the war on drugs.

 

Aside from health concerns (and to say there are none is fantasy) - legalized pot in the USA has only been around for a year or so - there really is no data to actually conclude "legalization far outweigh the unmitigated disaster that has been the war on drugs." - at least regarding dope. In a about a decade we will know the real cost/benifit of this social experiment.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Actually, Cannabis is illegal in Denmark and pretty much everywhere except for Uruguay and North Korea! Maybe that's why you haven't seen any societies destroyed lately. People frequently point to Europe as an example of legal grass. It's a myth.

Drug use would be fine if it only affected the user,. Unfortunately it does not. It tears families apart and degrades communities.

Freedom of choice where drugs are concerned simply will not work. Human nature gets in the way.

Communism sounds great on paper too, except for that damn human nature thing again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_country

 

 

Bob, Freedom of choice works pretty much everyplace it is allowed. We can choose to murder, most do not legal or not. We can choose to use drugs, alcohol, tobacco the list is endless. Making something illegal has never precluded its use. If we want to be consistent I would agree that tobacco and alcohol should be illegal as we know the toll they take on families and the community. That damn human nature you speak of is exactly why prohibition of anything has never worked. In fact I would argue that in some personality types being forbidden fruit is exactly what makes them attractive

 

To others, Regarding sin taxes and hurting the poor. That is a bunch of liberal poppycock. Sin Tax is the wrong word, Stupid tax is more appropriate. The more stupid you are the more taxes you pay. They only hurt the poor if the poor chose to use them. I'm not quite on the poverty list but I choose not to gamble, take drugs or smoke, therefore I don't lose the grocery money, shoot the rent money into my arm, or spend over $4 a pack for cigarettes. Every poor person can also make those choices. Just because someone has a low income does not mean he or she is somehow required to smoke, drink, gamble, and shoot up. Stupid taxes only hurt the poor if the poor choose to let them. Asd adults they make choices just as each of us does. Trying to make choices for them by legislation doesn't work, never has, never will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Aside from health concerns (and to say there are none is fantasy) - legalized pot in the USA has only been around for a year or so - there really is no data to actually conclude "legalization far outweigh the unmitigated disaster that has been the war on drugs." - at least regarding dope. In a about a decade we will know the real cost/benifit of this social experiment.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

So now you want the government to be able to create criminality based on health risks? Sorry, GG, but to state the obvious (only because this is America) you, I and everyone on this forum is out of shape and overweight. The proven health risks from obesity are at least 1000 times higher than any substance abuse. Let's get the government out of the control of our choices... and into the prosecution of how those choices might directly endanger others. At least that's the argument we constantly use against gun control and the 2nd amendment.

 

Careful what you ask for.... because you'll be on the First Lady's the school lunch program and they'll take away that grill I know you love so much.

 

This is a spurious argument on it's face. And the facts.... sorry to trouble you with those pesky facts....are that NO ONE in the history of mankind has every died as a direct result of the use of marijuana....ever....as in NEVER. Had a car wreck...maybe...etc. etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now you want the government to be able to create criminality based on health risks? .

Didn't quite say that guy ;) sorry that the pesky facts about dope use and it's health deficits bother you and the pro- dope crowd who want across the board legalization.

 

BTW: doesn't the government already 'create criminality' base on health risk - seat belts, motorcycle helmets, kids bike helmets, smoking in bars or too close to a building, smoking with a child in the car, etc...not saying it's right, but am simply pointing out that it's already being done.

 

GG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What will it take for you and others similarly situated to begin to see that you want it both ways? Here's a rude awakening on just one of the list you quote that is certainly counter intuitive but factual nonetheless:

 

After an almost 2 decade long battle among motorcyclists and state/local governments over helmet mandates on motorcycles the data indicates that fatalities are HIGHER in helmet mandatory states than non helmet mandatory states.

 

Turns out that physics doesn't care about your sentiments. A helmet transfers blunt force trauma to the next weakest point: The neck. What is true is that traumatic brain injury rates are lower in helmet mandate states, which BTW is a great reason to wear a lid.

 

We could go on and on and on, and simply the question has little to do with health, wealth, prohibition, criminalization or prosecution: It's about control...always was, always is and always will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the topic line: "Legalizing dope creates problems"

 

 

Just answer the question. Yes/No. Cutting to the chase, the simple answer is yes.

 

 

Brother King,

 

 

If someone wants to ride a very potential dangerous and basically non essentical machine called a motorcycle w/o helmet, fine by me, but I don't want to pay (possible higher personal insurance premiums or state funded programs by taxation for ones that can not pay) for the riders rehab or care for possible life, because of head/neck trama from accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What will it take for you and others similarly situated to begin to see that you want it both ways? Here's a rude awakening on just one of the list you quote that is certainly counter intuitive but factual nonetheless:

 

After an almost 2 decade long battle among motorcyclists and state/local governments over helmet mandates on motorcycles the data indicates that fatalities are HIGHER in helmet mandatory states than non helmet mandatory states.

 

Turns out that physics doesn't care about your sentiments. A helmet transfers blunt force trauma to the next weakest point: The neck. What is true is that traumatic brain injury rates are lower in helmet mandate states, which BTW is a great reason to wear a lid.

 

We could go on and on and on, and simply the question has little to do with health, wealth, prohibition, criminalization or prosecution: It's about control...always was, always is and always will be.

 

That's right - the government wants 'control' of the dope trade so they can tax it - I get it :rolleyes:

 

Reckon this is one of those Saloon topics that won't change anyone's mind - just posted it as an example of what problems will creep up with legalizing dope regardless whether one is pro-dope or anti-dope. Just a fact.

 

Now - where did the 'High Times' magazine go and that NORML card? :unsure:

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the topic line: "Legalizing dope creates problems"

 

 

Just answer the question. Yes/No. Cutting to the chase, the simple answer is yes.

 

 

Brother King,

 

 

If someone wants to ride a very potential dangerous and basically non essentical machine called a motorcycle w/o helmet, fine by me, but I don't want to pay (possible higher personal insurance premiums or state funded programs by taxation for ones that can not pay) for the riders rehab or care for possible life, because of head/neck trama from accident.

 

You've made about 5 assertions for which you have no evidence. 1) More car accidents by year than bikes 2) more people die from guns than recreational motorcycles 3) less die from work related transportation use than gun deaths. 4) ALL gun control freaks are now making the same arguments about your guns.

 

You and GG want it both ways. Beware the trap of using your argument...as it will be used against you.

 

Bet you don't want to lose your homeowner's insurance because you have guns in the house, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That's right - the government wants 'control' of the dope trade so they can tax it - I get it :rolleyes:

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Nice try, won't fly..... the government has had control of the dope trade in most of this hemisphere for the last 50 years. We have had complete control of the poppy trade in Afghanistan for 14 years. There is still opium and heroine even though over 3/4's of the world supply comes from there. HMMMMM......

 

When you build strawman arguments the 'up in smoke' takes on a whole new meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice try, won't fly..... the government has had control of the dope trade in most of this hemisphere for the last 50 years. We have had complete control of the poppy trade in Afghanistan for 14 years. There is still opium and heroine even though over 3/4's of the world supply comes from there. HMMMMM......

 

When you build strawman arguments the 'up in smoke' takes on a whole new meaning.

Oh - it flies alright ;) under the 'legal' monoker it's alright now - taxation makes it 'okay'...keep on 'tokin' :rolleyes: your arguments are floatin' in bong water.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh - it flies alright ;) under the 'legal' monoker it's alright now - taxation makes it 'okay'...keep on 'tokin' :rolleyes: your arguments are floatin' in bong water.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Now you're making it personal. I'm sure that you didn't mean to accuse me of doing anything illegal. To suggest that to be opposed to the senseless War On Drugs and specifically the criminalization of marijuana which actually has far more benefits than health risks unless it is abused (like almost anything else) one must be hittin' the high note or using an illegal substance is simply rude.

 

Further, 26 states have now adopted de-criminalization legislation and 15 will likely follow in the next election, Michigan included. It's like the nationwide adoption of concealed carry laws; suddenly every single state has it....even DC on the last challenge last week. It happened slowly and then gained momentum. Face it, the larger electorate is dropping the asinine religious right prohibition BS and has begun to realize that they have been held hostage for years. Like the entire GOP has by abortion and other social issues that are all becoming personal rather than proscriptive.

 

I understand that much of your position comes from the fear of raising a young teen. I raised 3 to become competent adults who are all in their 20's graduated college, got jobs, have successful lives and undoubtedly smoked pot. They also knew what the ol' man would do if it got in my radar. It's not acceptable for kids and those who throw kids, message, and their own religious beliefs into the mix will only get crushed by the reality of the change that has been underway for over 25 years now.

 

We have much more important battles to fight and we'll likely need all the tax revenue we can get since we now have to support all of South America who want to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you're making it personal. I'm sure that you didn't mean to accuse me of doing anything illegal. To suggest that to be opposed to the senseless War On Drugs and specifically the criminalization of marijuana which actually has far more benefits than health risks unless it is abused (like almost anything else) one must be hittin' the high note or using an illegal substance is simply rude.

 

Further, 26 states have now adopted de-criminalization legislation and 15 will likely follow in the next election, Michigan included. It's like the nationwide adoption of concealed carry laws; suddenly every single state has it....even DC on the last challenge last week. It happened slowly and then gained momentum. Face it, the larger electorate is dropping the asinine religious right prohibition BS and has begun to realize that they have been held hostage for years. Like the entire GOP has by abortion and other social issues that are all becoming personal rather than proscriptive.

 

I understand that much of your position comes from the fear of raising a young teen. I raised 3 to become competent adults who are all in their 20's graduated college, got jobs, have successful lives and undoubtedly smoked pot. They also knew what the ol' man would do if it got in my radar. It's not acceptable for kids and those who throw kids, message, and their own religious beliefs into the mix will only get crushed by the reality of the change that has been underway for over 25 years now.

 

We have much more important battles to fight and we'll likely need all the tax revenue we can get since we now have to support all of South America who want to come.

 

Goodness gracious - never accused you of partaking - just having a little fun with this thread and the pro-MJ'ners - if you were offended I apologize.

 

Unfortunately I come from a family of 10 kids and have seen some sad things happen with certain members (MY real life facts) with various things - including alcohol - that I can't really expose in public here. Tough times and affected some people. I'll leave it at that.

 

In high school and theatre I saw some who more affected than others with dope and stuff - my conclusion is it's a problem that will expose issues....and those issues will come and hopefully go - again, we will see what this social experiment does...

 

but like you said in an earlier post " If y'all are gonna act 'high' you might as well join them & burn one" :D

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW: there is still plenty of black market for the dope. The taxes make it too high of price for lower- middle class citizen.

 

Well, that's just because the government is stupid and I'm guessing the people who got this passed don't grasp basic market principals. Was it liberals or conservatives who did this in colorado? You have to start with super low taxes to run the black market suppliers out of business. Then, a few years down the road you tax the hell out of it if you want to kill it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bet is that nothing anyone here might say is going to change anyone else's opinion on the subject of Marijuana. But perhaps a bit of education is possible.

 

Marijuana laws started as racism against mexican immigrants and people of color-do your own research. Here is a link that while not definitive will give you a starting point

 

http://io9.com/anti-marijuana-laws-were-based-on-racism-not-science-1500321449

 

Whatever your opinion, arm yourself with ALL the facts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bet is that nothing anyone here might say is going to change anyone else's opinion on the subject of Marijuana. But perhaps a bit of education is possible.

 

Marijuana laws started as racism against mexican immigrants and people of color-do your own research. Here is a link that while not definitive will give you a starting point

 

http://io9.com/anti-marijuana-laws-were-based-on-racism-not-science-1500321449

 

Whatever your opinion, arm yourself with ALL the facts

I doubt that it is possible to arm oneself with ALL the facts or attorneys wouldn't have a thing over which to argue. ;) However, JMF makes a point of fact that like so many ideas we have come to embrace as good for society at large, much of the nexis of their being made into law has too often been the result of someone's particular bias, prejudice, bigotry and economy. To wit: it was also a grand coup for the cotton farmers of the southern states to outlaw the use of hemp in countless number of uses that made cotton an easy substitute. Lest we put too fine a point on it, this is how and why big corporations often make huge campaign contributions to both candidates.

 

As to GG's previous BTW in re: the taxes only stoking the black market, I can assure you that the market for Mexican weed has now been rendered virtually nil. This is not conjecture. There literally is an entire culture south of our border that has now had their economy crushed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt that it is possible to arm oneself with ALL the facts or attorneys wouldn't have a thing over which to argue. ;) However, JMF makes a point of fact that like so many ideas we have come to embrace as good for society at large, much of the nexis of their being made into law has too often been the result of someone's particular bias, prejudice, bigotry and economy. To wit: it was also a grand coup for the cotton farmers of the southern states to outlaw the use of hemp in countless number of uses that made cotton an easy substitute. Lest we put too fine a point on it, this is how and why big corporations often make huge campaign contributions to both candidates.

 

As to GG's previous BTW in re: the taxes only stoking the black market, I can assure you that the market for Mexican weed has now been rendered virtually nil. This is not conjecture. There literally is an entire culture south of our border that has now had their economy crushed.

I find that very hard to believe. Very hard. You're saying that because CO and WA legalized marijuana that it's no longer coming across the border and the pot farmers are now in the Mexican unemployment lines? ·:D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt that it is possible to arm oneself with ALL the facts or attorneys wouldn't have a thing over which to argue. ;) However, JMF makes a point of fact that like so many ideas we have come to embrace as good for society at large, much of the nexis of their being made into law has too often been the result of someone's particular bias, prejudice, bigotry and economy. To wit: it was also a grand coup for the cotton farmers of the southern states to outlaw the use of hemp in countless number of uses that made cotton an easy substitute. Lest we put too fine a point on it, this is how and why big corporations often make huge campaign contributions to both candidates.

 

As to GG's previous BTW in re: the taxes only stoking the black market, I can assure you that the market for Mexican weed has now been rendered virtually nil. This is not conjecture. There literally is an entire culture south of our border that has now had their economy crushed.

Right.. That's why dope is still crossing the border. Talk about blinders... The dope black market is indeed alive.

 

http://www.kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_12619.shtml?wap=0

 

GG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's just because the government is stupid and I'm guessing the people who got this passed don't grasp basic market principals. Was it liberals or conservatives who did this in colorado? You have to start with super low taxes to run the black market suppliers out of business. Then, a few years down the road you tax the hell out of it if you want to kill it.

Colorado is technically a blue state thanks to the large liberal population of the Denver metro area. But outside there in the rural areas the people are conservative. This amendment legalizing was heavily financed, supported by liberal politicians and promises of tax monies beyond imagination that would solve all the state's problems. Too many people fell for it. The taxes on it are very high. But the middle class folks who have jobs and tourists who want to do it legally will pay. The other class of smokers still seek out the neighborhood supplier. Of course the local dealerdoesn't have the tasty edibles that the shops do. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colorado is technically a blue state thanks to the large liberal population of the Denver metro area. But outside there in the rural areas the people are conservative. This amendment legalizing was heavily financed, supported by liberal politicians and promises of tax monies beyond imagination that would solve all the state's problems. Too many people fell for it. The taxes on it are very high. But the middle class folks who have jobs and tourists who want to do it legally will pay. The other class of smokers still seek out the neighborhood supplier. Of course the local dealerdoesn't have the tasty edibles that the shops do. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah. Edibles.... Knowing someone in Cali with a Medical Dope card I read on the package: "contains equivalent to 9 grams of high potency marijuana. Be careful. If you feel you have injested too much remain calm and drink plenty of water. Time will relax the symptoms. Try not to become paranoid and eat if you can. Most important is too relax and know that patience and time will help"..... I mean really - c'mon.... A friggin' brownie. Kids can and have got a hold of that crap....

 

GG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah. Edibles.... Knowing someone in Cali with a Medical Dope card I read on the package: "contains equivalent to 9 grams of high potency marijuana. Be careful. If you feel you have injested too much remain calm and drink plenty of water. Time will relax the symptoms. Try not to become paranoid and eat if you can. Most important is too relax and know that patience and time will help"..... I mean really - c'mon.... A friggin' brownie. Kids can and have got a hold of that crap....

GG

Proponents of legalization will point out that kids can get hold of alcohol too. But most booze tastes pretty bad to younguns. The mj lollipops however....

And they just realized here maybe there should be some regulation of how much much thc is in the edibles. Some adults have ingested a lot more than thet intended to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dope is for dopes, need I say more,, except for true medicinal purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I am against legalization for recreational use, I am Dontfor the medical community doing research into what the active components can do for treatments. I do believe that prohibition of basically anything seems to just create more problems. The solution lies somewhere in between. The young person that gets caught trying pot then goes to jail and IMHO that person is more likely to commit other crimes when they get out. Decriminalization seems more appropriate. And instead of punishment, how about corrective actions such as community service sentences. In my twenty years of military service I successfully turned the majority of poor soldiers into good soldiers using corrective training. Only the hard cases received punitive actions, most of those would turn around. You're always going to have the ones you can't fix. Those are the ones to remove from society and put in jail. Just my view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've made about 5 assertions for which you have no evidence. 1) More car accidents by year than bikes 2) more people die from guns than recreational motorcycles 3) less die from work related transportation use than gun deaths. 4) ALL gun control freaks are now making the same arguments about your guns.

 

You and GG want it both ways. Beware the trap of using your argument...as it will be used against you.

 

Bet you don't want to lose your homeowner's insurance because you have guns in the house, right?

 

You've made about 5 assertions for which you have no evidence. 1) More car accidents by year than bikes 2) more people die from guns than recreational motorcycles 3) less die from work related transportation use than gun deaths. 4) ALL gun control freaks are now making the same arguments about your guns.

 

You and GG want it both ways. Beware the trap of using your argument...as it will be used against you.

 

Bet you don't want to lose your homeowner's insurance because you have guns in the house, right?

Quit gaming it,,,, by the smoke screen... just answer the original question I posted in #42.... Yes or No??

 

You lose on the bet,, i would gladly do away with "homeowner's insurance because you have guns:.... Now, what 'DO I WIN!!!'???

 

Why are you so defensive on this subject?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice try, won't fly..... the government has had control of the dope trade in most of this hemisphere for the last 50 years. We have had complete control of the poppy trade in Afghanistan for 14 years. There is still opium and heroine even though over 3/4's of the world supply comes from there. HMMMMM......

 

When you build strawman arguments the 'up in smoke' takes on a whole new meaning.

Absolutely not. Hamid Karzai and his cronies and family control the Afghanistan poppy crop. And you know how well he cooperates with us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw what pot did to our Navy and our sailors, marines & families in 70s and the 80s. Far worse than booze. When we began mandatory peeing in the bottle - that was the beginning of our return to competence, excellence, pride in the service, and more personal and family stability, under pressure.

 

The active ingredient in pot, THC, stays in your cells in substantive, easily measurable levels for weeks. Saw families, careers and lives lost with long term behavioural change.

 

When you are responsible for others you depend on, as well as they depend on you for their lives, your observations are heightened. When you make life changing NJP decisions regarding these individuals, your sense of responsibility and accountablity for them is heavy.

 

I'm not saying alchohol is OK - it IS NOT and has had great negative effects, as well. But as UB says, why add another with equal or worse (my experience) societal effect.

 

That's my personal experieince and all I'll say on the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NYTimes is calling for legalization.

And they'r never wrong. So there ya go. I guess I have no argument left. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NYTimes is calling for legalization.

And they'r never wrong. So there ya go. I guess I have no argument left. :rolleyes:

Same here. Let the dopers be.....dopers.

 

Peace out man.

 

GG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dope is for dopes, need I say more,, except for true medicinal purposes.

 

Booze is for drunks. Need I say more!! -_-

 

Spades H. Except for medical purposes :lol: ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not ALL of us BK honey...... <_<<_<<_<

I can vouch for that! Calico is slim and trim and so is Buick! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.