# Should Congress Legalize ALL Drugs, Including Meth?



## mal (Dec 2, 2009)

Amid recession, meth menace evolves - The Elkhart Project- msnbc.com

^And Old Story in my Hood and in my Own Family, but I want to Know who here Supports ALL OUT LEGALIZATION of ALL Drugs, including Meth.

Then I'd like to Discuss with those who want Meth Legalized, what the Rationalization is, Aside from the Cost on Society in the Prison System when these Animals are Finally Put Away for what they have Done on Meth.

My Opinion... There is NO Safe or Secure Person who is doing Meth... There is NO Social Use of Meth.

Let's Talk.



peace...


----------



## Shogun (Dec 2, 2009)

I vote no.


----------



## mal (Dec 2, 2009)

Shogun said:


> I vote no.



Now there's a Poll for that Condition!



peace...


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 2, 2009)

Legalize em all and prescription drugs as well.  Let the consumer decide!

Give me liberty or give me death!


----------



## DavidS (Dec 2, 2009)

uscitizen said:


> Legalize em all and prescription drugs as well.  Let the consumer decide!
> 
> Give me liberty or give me death!



Then why do you have a picture of Rush Limbaugh and a prescription drug on your screen, which is in effect judging Rush for taking drugs?


----------



## nodoginnafight (Dec 2, 2009)

uscitizen said:


> Legalize em all and prescription drugs as well.  Let the consumer decide!
> 
> Give me liberty or give me death!



Can we take a poll on which one you get?


----------



## mal (Dec 2, 2009)

DavidS said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Legalize em all and prescription drugs as well.  Let the consumer decide!
> ...





Because he's a Liberal, and that's how they are...

First Big Catch! 



peace...


----------



## G.T. (Dec 2, 2009)

I think if you're admitting that society can't control something on its' own, than you're admitting Big Brother necessarily plays a part in parenting.


----------



## judyd (Dec 2, 2009)

Personally, I think they should either legalize the drugs or put the dealers and users away for 20 years for every offense--no excuses.  I am sick to death of the resultant crime from drug users and/or dealers, which usually results in a suspended sentence, no matter how many times the person has been arrested.   Perhaps people would take their "rehab" more seriously than they do now if they knew they were going to jail for the bulk of their lives.


----------



## noose4 (Dec 2, 2009)

booze , tobacco, caffeine, and marijuana are the drugs that should be legal, the rest cause too much damage to the user and society.


----------



## G.T. (Dec 2, 2009)

noose4 said:


> booze , tobacco, caffeine, and marijuana are the drugs that should be legal, the rest cause too much damage to the user and society.



 Booze and Tobacco cause plenty of damage. No, I'm not for making them illegal, though.


----------



## noose4 (Dec 2, 2009)

G.T. said:


> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> > booze , tobacco, caffeine, and marijuana are the drugs that should be legal, the rest cause too much damage to the user and society.
> ...



They sure do but the cat is already out of the bag regarding those drugs as they are already legal.


----------



## ihopehefails (Dec 2, 2009)

THere is another option that people forget and that is is that the federal government has no power to illegalize drugs.   I've checked the constitution's powers and that does not exist in there.   With that being said we should restore the constitutional limits of federal power which would legalize drugs on the federal level but individual states would then have the choice to legalize or illegalize depending on their own states.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 2, 2009)

DavidS said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Legalize em all and prescription drugs as well.  Let the consumer decide!
> ...



Umm, what day of the week is it?


Besides they are not legalized yet.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 2, 2009)

nodoginnafight said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Legalize em all and prescription drugs as well.  Let the consumer decide!
> ...





Sure have at it.


----------



## kwc57 (Dec 2, 2009)

DavidS said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Legalize em all and prescription drugs as well.  Let the consumer decide!
> ...



Giving people the personal freedom to do something and thinking their choice is wise are two entirely different things.  Libertarians think you should have the freedom to choose what you put in your body while at the same time thinking you are a moron for doing so.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 2, 2009)

The federal government doesn't have the authority to legalize all drugs.  The states should regulate drugs as they see fit.

I believe that all drugs should be legalized, however.  If we accept the notion of self-ownership then how can we support drug prohibition?  You should be able to do whatever you want to your own body.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 2, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The federal government doesn't have the authority to legalize all drugs.  The states should regulate drugs as they see fit.
> 
> I believe that all drugs should be legalized, however.  If we accept the notion of self-ownership then how can we support drug prohibition?  You should be able to do whatever you want to your own body.



Yep the problem is keeping stoners from damaging my body by driving badly and such.  Or drug addicted parents abusing/neglecting their children.

A quandry on Liberty.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 2, 2009)

uscitizen said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > The federal government doesn't have the authority to legalize all drugs.  The states should regulate drugs as they see fit.
> ...



Yet we allow people to drink.


----------



## MajikMyst (Dec 2, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Actually it wasn't a catch.. It is as always to point out the hypocrisy of Lush Limbaugh.. You either don't listen to him or to brain washed to notice or hear his tirades about the issue.. 

As it is, it seems hardly applicable to point out someone's avatar making a statement about reality, and then applying it to a statement in a forum.. His statements about Lush Limpnoodles has nothing to do with feelings on drugs.. Even though Lush is the poster boy for drugs and stupidity..


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 2, 2009)

I think that marijuana should be legal.  I cannot see a reason why it is criminalized any more than alcohol.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 2, 2009)

G.T. said:


> I think if you're admitting that society can't control something on its' own, than you're admitting Big Brother necessarily plays a part in parenting.



Kinda of misses the point. That people will abuse freedom is simply a by product of having freedom. 

The libertarian in me says, yes all drugs including meth and if you fuck up your life don't come crying to me. The OP a I believe wanted someone to rationalize that in the face higher prison costs etc. Well since there are so many people in prison for illegally using drugs and drugs would now NOT be illegal I would think the cost would go down. Yes there would still be crime from people doing stupid things under the influence, but how is that any different from doing stupid things under the influence of alcohol. 

My overall point is that I have no problem if such a freedom was given as long as everyone was willing to accept the consequences.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 2, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The federal government doesn't have the authority to legalize all drugs.  The states should regulate drugs as they see fit.
> 
> I believe that all drugs should be legalized, however.  If we accept the notion of self-ownership then how can we support drug prohibition?  You should be able to do whatever you want to your own body.



Agreed. I'm not a believer in laws of which the sole purpose is to protect people form their own stupid selves (i.e. seat belt laws).


----------



## mal (Dec 2, 2009)

G.T. said:


> I think if you're admitting that society can't control something on its' own, than you're admitting Big Brother necessarily plays a part in parenting.



So Legalize Meth?...



peace...


----------



## mal (Dec 2, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> I think that marijuana should be legal.  I cannot see a reason why it is criminalized any more than alcohol.



I Concur, you Shit... 



peace...


----------



## mal (Dec 2, 2009)

MajikMyst said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> > DavidS said:
> ...



Rush is a Hypocrite about Addiction to Drugs Prescribed by Doctors?...



peace...


----------



## Oscar Wao (Dec 2, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> MajikMyst said:
> 
> 
> > tha malcontent said:
> ...


He condemned (or condemns still) people addicted to drugs, as if they were nothing more than abominations vomitted out by a nation.

However, he HIMSELF was addicted to a drug.  Doesn't matter if it's prescribed/legal.

Like Matthew says, take the mote out of your eye before taking out someone else's...


----------



## Bill O'Olberman (Dec 2, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > I think if you're admitting that society can't control something on its' own, than you're admitting Big Brother necessarily plays a part in parenting.
> ...



I mean why not? The War on Drugs and the fact that drugs are illegal has done nothing to hinder the availability of meth, and other illegal drugs, and those who really desire to use meth, or cocaine, heroine, etc, would do so whether its legal or illegal. Seriously, I can go down to the VCU campus almost any time of the year and get almost any drug I want.


----------



## chanel (Dec 2, 2009)

No. Period. End of discussion.(I've seen too much damage)


----------



## Charles Stucker (Dec 2, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Yet we allow people to drink.



Only because the alcohol consumers refused to follow the law and thus created a profitable market for bootleggers. Bootleggers who were part of violent organized criminal groups.
The same holds for illegal drugs - anyone who uses them contributes to the general lawlessness in the country surrounding their distribution. 
The only excuse for legalizing them, solely for adults, would be to eliminate the economic incentive which rewards pushers who prey on children. Legalize, regulate and execute anyone who gives them to people under 18. Incarcerate for life anyone 18 to 21 using drugs or providing drugs to persons in that age group.
There would be a need to create locations where people could use drugs safely. Any drug with long term effects would have to have special restrictions. 

Sounds simpler to make dealing a capital offense, right alongside abuse of public trust (crooked police, judges, etc) - these people are killing children and destroying lives, so the death penalty seems appropriate.


----------



## 2Parties (Dec 2, 2009)

I wish every politician/government worker in Washington DC would legalize freedom by simultaneously inserting pistols into their mouths and blow their own brains out.


----------



## Oscar Wao (Dec 2, 2009)

2Parties said:


> I wish every politician/government worker in Washington DC would legalize freedom by simultaneously inserting pistols into their mouths and blow their own brains out.


You still hate violence, eh?


----------



## del (Dec 2, 2009)

2Parties said:


> I wish every politician/government worker in Washington DC would legalize freedom by simultaneously inserting pistols into their mouths and blow their own brains out.



good thing you hate violence, mouthbreather.


----------



## Bill O'Olberman (Dec 2, 2009)

Charles Stucker said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Yet we allow people to drink.
> ...



Even more simple would be to realize that prohibition of drugs doesnt work and is always going to be an extremely expensive and highly ineffective policy.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 2, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > I think that marijuana should be legal. I cannot see a reason why it is criminalized any more than alcohol.
> ...


 
However, the other illicit drugs?  NO WAY!

They make the people who use them absolutely crazy and sometimes dangerous.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 2, 2009)

Charles Stucker said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Yet we allow people to drink.
> ...



They refused to follow an immoral law, nothing wrong with that.  Why in the world would you put people in jail for life if they use drugs, and why only that specific age group?  The prisons are already too crowded and you want to put more people in jail for longer periods of time.  That's ridiculous.


----------



## chanel (Dec 2, 2009)

People don't do drugs in jail.  At least they aren't hurting the people they love.  And hate.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 2, 2009)

chanel said:


> People don't do drugs in jail.  At least they aren't hurting the people they love.  And hate.



Yes, they do, and they aren't hurting anyone doing drugs in their homes either.  Any crimes committed while on drugs would still be crimes, but it shouldn't be a crime to do something to your own body.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 2, 2009)

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with ALL drugs being legal if they could only be consumed in regulated locations...  but, the flaw in the logic behind legalizing all drugs is the assumption that they all equally affect the individual user similarly and don't, according to specific substance, cause different reactions to users.  There is a giant difference between how a coke or meth user reacts to their drug than a pot smoker.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 2, 2009)

Shogun said:


> I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with ALL drugs being legal if they could only be consumed in regulated locations...  but, the flaw in the logic behind legalizing all drugs is the assumption that they all equally affect the individual user similarly and don't, according to specific substance, cause different reactions to users.  There is a giant difference between how a coke or meth user reacts to their drug than a pot smoker.



Well we all know that drugs are bad, and have very negative consequences.  But if somebody wants to take that risk who are we to tell them they can't?


----------



## kwc57 (Dec 2, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> MajikMyst said:
> 
> 
> > tha malcontent said:
> ...



He was circumventing the law to get what he wanted to feed his addiction rather than what he needed for his affliction.


----------



## noose4 (Dec 2, 2009)

chanel said:


> People don't do drugs in jail.  At least they aren't hurting the people they love.  And hate.



Drugs are widespread in prison.


----------



## 2Parties (Dec 2, 2009)

Oscar Wao said:


> You still hate violence, eh?



It would end all of the murder, oppression, theft, and violence they inflict.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 2, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with ALL drugs being legal if they could only be consumed in regulated locations...  but, the flaw in the logic behind legalizing all drugs is the assumption that they all equally affect the individual user similarly and don't, according to specific substance, cause different reactions to users.  There is a giant difference between how a coke or meth user reacts to their drug than a pot smoker.
> ...



but, again, not all drugs are AS bad as the rest.  I can give you a bail of pot and you won't go out robbing people for more pot.  Do you think that would be the same if I gave you a brick of coke?  

I guess a better question to ask if you've ever had first hand experience with anyone high on coke or meth versus high on pot.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 2, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



Not that I'm aware of.  Regardless, if they commit a crime then they should be charged for that crime.  But doing drugs in and of itself shouldn't be a crime.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 2, 2009)

Shogun said:


> I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with ALL drugs being legal if they could only be consumed in regulated locations...  but, the flaw in the logic behind legalizing all drugs is the assumption that they all equally affect the individual user similarly and don't, according to specific substance, cause different reactions to users.  There is a giant difference between how a coke or meth user reacts to their drug than a pot smoker.



I don't see the flaw in the logic. Most people intuitvely understand that concept. We know that is true in the drugs that are legal (i.e. alcohol, pain pills).


----------



## chanel (Dec 2, 2009)

noose4 said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > People don't do drugs in jail.  At least they aren't hurting the people they love.  And hate.
> ...


 
Not as widespread as in the hood.

Do you people think that drug addiction is a victimless crime?  These people procreate for God's sake!  Their families are victims too and guess what?  Drug addicts cost the social service system zillions.

I would approve only with voluntary sterlization.  Give us your gonads; and you can smoke all the crack you like.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 2, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with ALL drugs being legal if they could only be consumed in regulated locations...  but, the flaw in the logic behind legalizing all drugs is the assumption that they all equally affect the individual user similarly and don't, according to specific substance, cause different reactions to users.  There is a giant difference between how a coke or meth user reacts to their drug than a pot smoker.
> ...



then, again, i'll ask you; how many coke heads have you ever dealt with personally lit up like a fucking neon light after a personal 8 ball?  And, if you actually have a positive answer maybe you'd like to compare their behaviour to that of a pothead.


----------



## noose4 (Dec 2, 2009)

chanel said:


> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> > chanel said:
> ...



You people? The only non legal drug that I said should be legal is marijuana, and I am well acquainted with drug addiction, I have 2 dead brothers, a dead brother in law, and a nephew serving 10 in the penitentiary all thanks to addiction.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 2, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



No offense, but that is a very naive answer.  drugs are not universally affective and lumping every substance together under the moniker of "drugs" just to tow a political line is dangerous.  


...and i'm a giant pot head!  Who, consequently, HAS seen enough coked out motherfuckers to realize that treating pot smoking the same as coke consumption is crazy on it's face.


----------



## chanel (Dec 2, 2009)

I'm so sorry noose. I meant the people who believe drugs are harmless. I should have worded that better. I apologize. I work with throwaway children whose parents would rather get stoned or drunk than sign them up for Little. League. They'd rather waste their unemployment checks on weed than school supplies. I feel very strongly that addicts should not raise children. And no one plans on being an addict.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 2, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



It comes down to the same thing, however.  If you own yourself then you should be able to do whatever you want to yourself.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 2, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



but, it's not merely "the same thing" when making a distinction between different affects and reactions to DIFFERENT substances.  Heavy drugs are not merely a flag to wave in the name of libertarianism.  If you ever acquire first hand experience with cracked out coke fiends you might understand what i'm talking about...  letalone meth.


----------



## kwc57 (Dec 2, 2009)

The question is this, if you legalize drugs, does that mean use will skyrocket?  Doubtful.  Those attracted and using will still be attracted and using.  Those who think taking drugs is stupid will continue to think it is stupid.  What will change is the cost to society that was used to house these "criminals" and that those who became wealthy in the blackmarket will lose what was once a lucrative source of income.


----------



## noose4 (Dec 2, 2009)

chanel said:


> I'm so sorry noose. I meant the people who believe drugs are harmless. I should have worded that better. I apologize. I work with throwaway children whose parents would rather get stoned or drunk than sign them up for Little. League. They'd rather waste their unemployment checks on weed than school supplies. I feel very strongly that addicts should not raise children. And no one plans on being an addict.




I mostly agree.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 2, 2009)

kwc57 said:


> The question is this, if you legalize drugs, does that mean use will skyrocket?  Doubtful.  Those attracted and using will still be attracted and using.  Those who think taking drugs is stupid will continue to think it is stupid.  What will change is the cost to society that was used to house these "criminals" and that those who became wealthy in the blackmarket will lose what was once a lucrative source of income.



I disagree.  Compared to the years of prohibition the use of alcohol today IS inflated to skyrocket proportions.  Likewise, were drugs, ALL DRUGS, legal then the use of such would, when compared to illegal use now, skyrocket.  This is why I don't advocate the legalization of all drugs.  Increased consumption of pot will not produce the same kind of social reaction as the increased consumption of coke and meth.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 2, 2009)

My two cents on the issue of Hard Drugs (Coke, Meth): The problem isn't the fact that the drugs exist. Because if they didn't exist, the user would just find another hard drug or solution to their problem. What's wrong with The War on Drugs today is that it's a racket for several groups. And a problem that stems from that is we focus too much on jailing the people with addictions then even trying to get them some kind of rehab. 

No, it doesn't work for everyone. However, throwing people in Jail for 10-15 isn't the solution either. All you're doing is delaying that problem and creating a new one.


----------



## Luissa (Dec 2, 2009)

just legalize marijuana


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 2, 2009)

Luissa said:


> just legalize marijuana



or at least decriminalize posession of small amounts like they did here in Mass.


----------



## judyd (Dec 2, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> My two cents on the issue of Hard Drugs (Coke, Meth): The problem isn't the fact that the drugs exist. Because if they didn't exist, the user would just find another hard drug or solution to their problem. What's wrong with The War on Drugs today is that it's a racket for several groups. And a problem that stems from that is we focus too much on jailing the people with addictions then even trying to get them some kind of rehab.
> 
> No, it doesn't work for everyone. However, throwing people in Jail for 10-15 isn't the solution either. All you're doing is delaying that problem and creating a new one.



I really disagree with this.  In Maryland, at least, they give far too many "chances" to these jerks to go through rehab.  The repeat offenders are unending and so are the crimes that they commit to support their habits.  If they're not going to legalize drugs, then they should really make stiff --20 years--for drug use.  The rest of the community shouldn't have to be subject to the crimes of these wimps.   There would be a lot less criminal drug use if the penalties were really harsh and there was no chance for "rehab" instead.


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 2, 2009)

kwc57 said:


> The question is this, if you legalize drugs, does that mean use will skyrocket?  Doubtful.  Those attracted and using will still be attracted and using.  Those who think taking drugs is stupid will continue to think it is stupid.  What will change is the cost to society that was used to house these "criminals" and that those who became wealthy in the blackmarket will lose what was once a lucrative source of income.



Of course it will.  Otherwise you are positing that laws have no effect on behavior, which is patently false.

The only realistic solution is to give addicts the best state of the art treatment there is.  And if they are found abusing again, you give them summary execution.  Drug dealers get summary execution right off.
This worked fine for the Chinese, who were nearly destroyed by opium.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 2, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



Eh a couple times. Had a meth head beg me for my change the other day. You are right about everything you said so far. Different behaviors for different drugs and people etc. I revert to my earlier statement. I don't see the point in laws designed to protect people from their own stupidity. Might it cause altercations with other people? Sure. isn't gonna compare to the frequency said altercations occur with a legal drug (alcohol)? Not even close.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 2, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I'm not interested in protecting people from themselves.  This is why I mentioned open legalization only in the even that such behaviour was heavily restricted.  I don't care if a coke head blows his own brains out or ods.  however, I do think that society at large would suffer from legal coke and legal meth in a fashion that just would not be the case with legal pot.  Indeed, even legal alcohol impacts our collective society worse than, i believe, legal pot would.  I do think that legal coke would have a lot worse of a social impact than what we see with legal alcohol too.  In the words of the late Rick James, Cocaine is a hell of a drug.  


Now, i'm a little less stringent about hallucinogens.  Even Extacy could be considered in my book.. but coke, meth and heroin, for me, bust the whole concept of umbrella legalization.


Have a great evening, Bern!


----------



## Shogun (Dec 2, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > The question is this, if you legalize drugs, does that mean use will skyrocket?  Doubtful.  Those attracted and using will still be attracted and using.  Those who think taking drugs is stupid will continue to think it is stupid.  What will change is the cost to society that was used to house these "criminals" and that those who became wealthy in the blackmarket will lose what was once a lucrative source of income.
> ...



you are fucking crazy.  It's no wonder why you take the opinions that you do regarding the middle east.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 2, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



It doesn't matter what the substance is, or what the reactions to that substance are.  If it's your body you should be able to do whatever you want to it.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Dec 2, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > ...and i'm a giant pot head!
> ...


If you do smoke pot like a giant pothead then you too may become stupid enough to believe that pot is not dangerous.

If the US legalizes drugs it will cause a lot of problems. 
Instead we should start executing corrupt police, judges etc. who make sure the problem continues because they profit from it. 
And execute drug using legislators as well.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 2, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



oh but it does matter.  Especially when coked out motherfuckers start robbing people for cash to buy another gram of a drug that physically affects the user like coke does.  go get an 8 ball to share with your buddies this weekend and then tell me you walk away from it the same way you can pot.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 2, 2009)

Charles Stucker said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



spoken like a true dipshit.  

I'll tell you the same as your team jersey stooge above: you are fucking crazy and it's telling that you both support the death penalty for drugs like you do the same racist bullshit in the mid east.


----------



## DiamondDave (Dec 2, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Nothing is stopping you from doing them now.. you want to, go for it... however, you get caught you pay the piper with society's price...

I like the status quo... no legalizing other bad substances/drugs that are currently illegal...


----------



## Missourian (Dec 2, 2009)

I am definitely of two minds on this subject.

On the one hand I totally agree with Kevin and the argument for self determination in regards to ones own body.

But on the other hand,  as a person who struggled with nicotine addiction,  I know first hand how difficult it was to break the cycle of addiction.

But as a smoker,  I could still function as a productive member of society.

Addiction to the harder drugs often impairs a persons ability to function in society,  causing their lives to spiral out of control.

Unemployed but still addicted, these people often turn to crime to feed their addiction.

And that is where there personal freedom interferes with my rights.

So,  while I would be open to legalizing marijuana and some prescription drugs,  we'll need to find a way to negate the effects of addiction before I can in good conscience endorse the legalization of all drugs.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 2, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



I wouldn't know what walking away from pot is like to compare it to, so I think I'll pass.  At any rate, robbery would still be a crime, so anyone that robbed somebody would still be convicted on that basis.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 2, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



What right does "society" have to tell me I can't do drugs?


----------



## Paulie (Dec 2, 2009)

Missourian said:


> I am definitely of two minds on this subject.
> 
> On the one hand I totally agree with Kevin and the argument for self determination in regards to ones own body.
> 
> ...



But isn't this kind of like the gun argument?  If we outlaw guns, outlaws will be the only ones with guns because they will still find a way to get them.

Drugs being illegal certainly isn't stopping those who want them, from obtaining them.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 2, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



Who said you get to be the arbitrary decider of what constitutes a 'bad' substance. Is alcohol a 'bad' substance in your book? None of these drugs are 'bad' in of themselves. It is the abuse of them by PEOPLE that results in negative consequences. Saying pot is bad is about as illogical as saying guns are bad.


----------



## judyd (Dec 2, 2009)

Shogun said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Why is that crazy?  Do you realize all the time and money that goes into coddling these worthless drug addicts???  When I was in school in the 60's, they didn't talk about drugs at all--they weren't a problem.  But there aren't ANY kids these days who haven't heard the specific dangers of all drugs from the time they're in elementary school.  If they're still stupid enough to get into them, then I have absolutely no sympathy for them.  They can spend the rest of their days in jail as far as I'm concerned.  Most of them only go into rehab to get a suspended prison sentence and then they go right back to the drugs and crime.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 2, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



and yet coke promps robbery moreso than pot.  I can tell you this because I've seen both first hand.  I invite you to do some research before wielding ignorant opinions.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 2, 2009)

judyd said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



yea..   drugs sure weren't a problem in THE SIXTIES.  



I don't really give a shit who you are sympathetic for.  But, to advocate the death penalty for drug use is just retarded.  If you agree with his opinion of such then.. hey... batshit crazy seems to be en vogue.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 2, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



Getting drunk causes some people to commit crimes too, but we don't outlaw alcohol.  I'm sure people commit crimes while high on marijuana, but yet you think that should be legal.  You seem to have some arbitrary line of how many crimes could be committed while on a substance and that's your criteria for legalizing a drug.  Well that's pointless.  Either you own your own body, or you don't.  I happen to think we should all be responsible for ourselves, and not have the government telling us what to do in any way shape or form.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 2, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > just legalize marijuana
> ...



Here in Missouri too.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 2, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



actually, we once DID criminalize alcohol.  

and, "being sure" that people commit crimes while high on pot isn't even close to personally comprehending what the hell you are talking about when slinging opinions left and right about substances that you have no experience with.  Esepcially when trying to equate all drugs in relation to common criminal behavour.

Trust me, when you go smoke a giant bowl of the reef and then compare it to 4 of 5 lines of uncut powder you'll understand the cavernous difference that I'm talking about.

knowing the effects of both drugs and how they effect a person is by no means arbitrary.  What is three shades of retarded is wielding goofy little libertarian talking points without nary the slightest comprehension about what you are talking about.  You may own your own body... but when you are all coked out at 4am and are desperate for more coke because you just snorted your last nice and all of a sudden robbing a motherfucker sounds like a good idea AS OPPOSED TO getting high, watching Up In Smoke and microwaving a hot pocket then you will be able to make an informed observation that is worth something.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 2, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



And it didn't work, just like drug prohibition doesn't work.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 2, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



it worked to a degree.  How many drunk driving fatalities do you think we saw during prohibition?  By your standard should we also legalize child porn just because some sick fucks will create a black market for it?  I don't think it's wise to separate actual specifics for the sake of a blanket talking point.  In fact, this is one of the reasons libertarians have their own flavor of batshit crazy to get over.  

I believe in maximized personal liberty, be sure.  But, I don't advocate ignoring the reality of the differences of drugs for the sake of a talking point mantra.  Like I said, go bump a few lines and smoke a bowl and come back and tell me which one literally made you fiend for MORE.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 2, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



Doing drugs is stupid, and while you may think I'm stupid I'd rather not prove you right.

How many people were driving during the Prohibition era?  Not that many compared to today.  My standard does not lead one to assume that child porn should be legalized.  Child abuse is a crime against the liberty of the child, and the liberty of the child's parents if they're not the ones engaged in the crime.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 2, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



I don't really care if you choose to do drugs or not.  But, it's glaringly obvious that your expertise is limited to mantras and baseless talking points.  Drugs are not for everyone.  However, neither, it seems, is factual insight regarding the vast differences between substances.


by all means.. if you want to dig up the stats and do the math then so be it.  But, some silly "not as many people were driving" caveat won't make it less so that banned alcohol limited drunk driving deaths compared to our modern annual statistic.

and, by your logic and focus on all things considered personal liberty, if there is a black market and a tenacious consumer base then prohibition has failed.  After all, who are you to tell a person what they can and cannot watch with their own eyes, RIGHT?  After all... who is to say that the child in the video is not complicit?  AGAIN, a personal liberty, YES?  Who are you to tell a 15 year old kid that they cannot take a pic of themselves sucking a dick on their camera phone, RIGHT?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 2, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



I'm not anyone to say that.  Their parents, on the other hand, are.  Parents have a responsibility to protect their children from that, and anyone engaged in that behavior is guilty of child abuse.  The same way I can say someone who kills someone is guilty of murder.  You don't have the freedom to do something that infringes on another person's freedom.  Child porn, and child abuse of any form, infringes on somebody else's freedom.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 2, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



which, by your own focus on the prerogative of the parents, essentially nullifies the necessity for a LAW, right?  After all, you know that EVERY SINGLE PARENT will give a shit, RIGHT?

uh, how is self-created CP a restriction of anyone's freedom?  Do you think all those kids taking pics of themselves with camera phones are infringing on someone else's rights?  Whose, exactly?


But, I digress.  the people grinding their teeth after reading this thread about coke compared to pot know better.  If mantras work for you then so be it.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 2, 2009)

I have a friend and we just found out he is a heroin addict.  Why?  If it were socially acceptable, he would just do it in the am, on break, at lunch, on second break and when he gets home.  No problem so long as he is getting his job done.  But its illegal so its expensive.  Make it a new product and create a whole new industry for citizens to spend their disposable incomes on.  

And the government will get some!!!  And we'll free up the prisons.  

Drunks are the same as junkies.  Only one is legal.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 2, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



Why would it nullify the necessity of a law?  You are violating the rights of the parents and of the child if you engage in child pornography, therefore there is a law stating that it is illegal.  A child does not have the full freedom an adult has, they can't because they can't necessarily make a fully informed decision on their lives.


----------



## Paulie (Dec 2, 2009)

This whole debate is moot.

Heroin is already legal.  It's called opioids.

Meth is already legal.  It's called Adderall.

Oh yeah, that's different though, because some pharmaceutical company gets to sell it as a pill to 'treat' you.

Drugs aren't illegal because they hurt you.  They're illegal because the street forms are _competition_.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 2, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



because parental concern is not universal, dude.  True story:  Traci Lord's father brought her to her first porn gigs.  Underage.

and, don't you think it's a little disingenuous to talk about personal liberty on a cross... and then validate staggered personal liberty depending on arbitrary ages?


----------



## Modbert (Dec 2, 2009)

Paulie said:


> This whole debate is moot.
> 
> Heroin is already legal.  It's called opioids.
> 
> ...



Not to invoke Godwin's law, but you make a great point Paulie. Heroin without the high is legal as you said, it's called Methadone for example.

Just to give everyone a idea, it was developed by Nazi Germany and they use to test it on people then not give it to them to see the withdrawal effect which is brutal.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 2, 2009)

Shogun said:


> *because parental concern is not universal, dude.  True story:  Traci Lord's father brought her to her first porn gigs.  Underage.*
> 
> and, don't you think it's a little disingenuous to talk about personal liberty on a cross... and then validate staggered personal liberty depending on arbitrary ages?



Tis true: Urban Dictionary: Wing-mom


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 2, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



Arbitrary ages is a different discussion.


----------



## PixieStix (Dec 2, 2009)

NO! They would just let the FDA put MORE chemicals in it and tax it, better off in the hands of the criminals


----------



## judyd (Dec 3, 2009)

Shogun said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



I graduated in 65.  So, no, they hadn't reached Main Street and they didn't have classes focused on the dangers of drugs.  Later in the 60's use of marijuana and hashish became more prevalent, and then cocaine and LSD came into focus with a lot of "educated" support for them.   So I would say that the kids in the 60's didn't really know what they were getting into.  Later in the 70's they started having drug programs in the schools, and have ever since, so I really don't see any excuse for young people to use them today.  They have received more than enough information.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 3, 2009)

Missourian said:


> I am definitely of two minds on this subject.
> 
> On the one hand I totally agree with Kevin and the argument for self determination in regards to ones own body.
> 
> ...



This is exactly where the entire concept of freedom comes into play. One _could_ argue, (not that I am here neccessarily) that if you can't except the negative consequences or will only accept it with some caveats, then you aren't really for freedom in the first place. 

The argument we shouldn't legalize the hard drugs because of what an addict might do while he's high just doesn't make a lot of sense when you consider the laws for analogous things. We don't ban all guns because of what someone MIGHT do to someone else with one (though many argue we should ban them for that reason). We punish the PERSON when they behave irresponsibly with one. I don't know why we wouldn't do the same where drugs are concerned. Just like guns people will know there are consequences to misusing them. The health risks, the legal risks, etc.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 3, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



not when you seem to be relying on them in order to situationally validate your opinion about the onset of personal liberty in relation to CP and drug consumption. .....


----------



## Shogun (Dec 3, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > I am definitely of two minds on this subject.
> ...



When you shoot a gun, bern, do you physically fiend to shoot another bullet?  Seriously, all this talk from people who don't know about the subject they are talking about cracks me up.  I mean, really dude.  When you go hunting do feel physically compelled to keep killing after your first blood?  I can assure you that after snorting your first line of good coke you WILL scheme for more.  Your analogies need some work.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Dec 3, 2009)

I said yes....that way all of the stupid ass motherfuckers who do drugs will hopefully move on to the more powerful stuff and slowly kill themselves or OD outright.  It's natures way of culling the herd of weaklings.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 3, 2009)

PatekPhilippe said:


> I said yes....that way all of the stupid ass motherfuckers who do drugs will hopefully move on to the more powerful stuff and slowly kill themselves or OD outright.  It's natures way of culling the herd of weaklings.



I would bet a pinky toe that you are not, yourself, totally drug free.  Bravo on your e-thug reaction though.  I know I'M impressed by the tough guy act.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Dec 3, 2009)

(((yawn)))


----------



## Shogun (Dec 3, 2009)

that's what I said after reading your post too, tough guy.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Dec 3, 2009)

(((pfffffaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrtttttt)))  (((Belch)))


----------



## Shogun (Dec 3, 2009)

Is that the reaction you are used to seeing after you participate in a thread?  Can't say that I'm shocked.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Dec 3, 2009)

Shogun said:


> that's what I said after reading your post too, tough guy.



Lighten up...stop trying to pick an eFight....it's quite childish.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Dec 3, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Is that the reaction you are used to seeing after you participate in a thread?  Can't say that I'm shocked.



You mean this reaction?


> I would bet a pinky toe that you are not, yourself, totally drug free. Bravo on your e-thug reaction though. I know I'M impressed by the tough guy act.


No...it's not entirely unexpected from someone like you....I've seen some of your posts pal....and you are no saint.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 3, 2009)

yea.... I know.. I call for the deaths of people all the time for activity such as smoking a bowl of marijuana.




sure thing, kid.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 3, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



I understand there is an addiction component to drugs not inherent to guns. But doesn't that go back to my orginal point (which you agreed with)? Why should we make laws protecting people from their own stupid behavior? Doing meth is a stupid behavior, a likely consequence of which is addiction. Yes I understand an addiction can get to the point where it's barely even a choice anymore to keep using. But it sure as hell is a choice to start in the first place. AND as you alluded to before everyone is going to be afected differently by the use of those drugs. Some have more addictive personalities than others. The best way I can say it is sometimes you can't choose to break an addiction, but you sure as hell can choose to start one.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 3, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



because that very addictive behavior equates to a broader social reaction.  Again, I don't care if a coke head is in his house fiending for coke.  But, until you've sold coke to fiending cokeheads who knock at your door at 4am trying to score another gram after stealing money for it.. well... My concern is the social manifestations of coke and how they would reflect on pot's legalization even though it's not pot heads out robbing grannies for coke money.  I bring up the physical component to illustrate the differences between both substances AND THE SOCIAL REACTIONS OF THEIR USERS, respectively.   Again, I don't care about a fiending coke fiend who stays his ass in his own house and doesn't actively search for more coke come hell or high water.  But, I've dealt with enough coked out motherfuckers to know that this is not the reaction, generally, to being out of coke... nor the desperate options a coke fiend will take in order to score more coke.  The illegal nature of crack is not what makes crack such a horrible drug.  AND, when comparing it to pot via some generalized "legalize all drugs" talking point there is not clarification between the broader social results of legalization.  I have no doubt that a society where coke and meth are legal would degrade.  The same cannot be said for pot.

enjoy some levity.
Master Debaters: Pot vs Meth // Current


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 3, 2009)

Some thoughts on Marijauan and the law...
Marijuana is a schedule I drug.  Schedule I drugs are deemed (by Federal Law) to have no medicinal value and, therefore, may not be legally prescribed, possessed, used, etc.  in the United States.
If Marijuana were to be removed from Schedule I, and the possession, growth, use, sale, etc. is left to the seveal states, revenue used for enforcement would go down, and revenue in terms of taxes or licenses would increase.
Much as alcohol is restricted by the several states, so might Marijuana.
Health risks are associated with the use of alcohol and tobacco; health risks exist for the smoking of marijuana too.  I've read no studies on how brownies seasoned with Marijuana effect ones long term health. 
Ask any cop if he would rather deal with a drunk or a stoner (100% will say the stoner).
Testing for the use of THC (the active element in marijuana) is as accurate today as testing for alcohol.
Why is tobacco not a schedule I drug?


----------



## Missourian (Dec 3, 2009)

Paulie said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > I am definitely of two minds on this subject.
> ...



That's a very astute analogy Paulie...carried a step further, guns like drugs have been misused by a minority of citizens to cause harm to society.

That misused plagues the conscience of those that support gun rights,  but at the same time you cannot legislate based on the exception, to the detriment of law abiding citizens.

I'll have to give your observation some serious thought,  but already I am leaning towards changing my vote.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Dec 3, 2009)

Shogun said:


> yea.... I know.. I call for the deaths of people all the time for activity such as smoking a bowl of marijuana.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



  Thanks for proving my point.  Your intelligence is evidenced by your immature reply...perhaps you should put down the bong now and step back into reality.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Dec 3, 2009)

Anyone who actively seeks out drugs for a "high" has got other issues they need to be dealing with.  Personally I could care less if they removed pot from the schedule 1 drug list.  If kids want to smoke it let them...they will end up dying from it one way or another.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 3, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



Undoublty instances like that will occur. Will their be more of that type of societal impact if said drugs were legal? Probablly not much if at all because an awful lot of people commit those acts on society already when the drugs are illegal. To believe that there would be a drastic increase in that type of societal impact woud require a belief that the only thing keeping an awful lot of people from using drugs is the legality of it. I just don't buy that. I just don't think a lot of people are on the fence about drug use because they fear getting caught. Despite these hard drugs being illegal they remain fairly easy to acquire in terms of avoiding the law.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 3, 2009)

indeed, cocaine feels GREAT.  If it were legal, more people would use it.  Likewise, we saw more people use alcohol after prohibition was lifted.  The assumption that drug users are already using on par with use after legalization is absurd.  What kept Joe Blow from drinking a beer after work during prohibition?  the legality.  Once legal, the door to the stall opens and more people use than those willing to leap through black market hoops to use.  You think the majority of binge drinking college kids WONT snort a legal line before going to the bar and conveying how responsible they are with legal alcohol?  Come on, dude.  And thats just one example.  Every time you see the growing market trend of energy drinks go ahead and remind yourself that this is exactly the pattern that would happen were coke legal.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 3, 2009)

Deliberately deceptive wording of the question.

The feds no longer prosecuting their stupid and failed "war" on (some) drugs would not be defacto legalization....That decision would be left to the several states.

Even though there is no federal policy prohibiting the sales of liquor, there are still dry counties. Also, you still cannot drink without ordering food unless you're in a "private club" in the whole state of Utah.


----------



## Luissa (Dec 3, 2009)

PatekPhilippe said:


> Anyone who actively seeks out drugs for a "high" has got other issues they need to be dealing with.  Personally I could care less if they removed pot from the schedule 1 drug list.  If kids want to smoke it let them...they will end up dying from it one way or another.



besides maybe causing a car accident while stoned, tell me one way someone will die from marijuana?


----------



## DiamondDave (Dec 3, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



No one is saying you can't, even if it is illegal.. except that if you are caught, you pay society's punishment for an action that is detrimental to society.. and yes, the use of drugs by you individually has more of a scope than someone just sitting and smoking their pot while whacking off into a cheetos bag in mommy's basement


----------



## DiamondDave (Dec 3, 2009)

Luissa said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who actively seeks out drugs for a "high" has got other issues they need to be dealing with.  Personally I could care less if they removed pot from the schedule 1 drug list.  If kids want to smoke it let them...they will end up dying from it one way or another.
> ...



Then tell me ways people will die from cigarettes? Funny, laws against smoking them in public now... and ways someone will die from drinking 4 beers, oh wait, illegal to drive after that many beers now...

The fact is that you can hinder the freedoms of others, like with cigarettes if you smoke in public... the fact is that you can also become impaired as much or more-so than people using alcohol...

Besides you or someone else wanting to get high.. there is no reason to legalize this drug (and don't give me the debunked medicinal argument.. when we have nebulized and ingested drugs such as Marinol that already give the beneficial effects that are sought after without having the high or the smoking delivery system that is never approved by the FDA)


----------



## Paulie (Dec 3, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > This whole debate is moot.
> ...



You don't understand.  Opioids are opium-derived pain killing medications. 

Percocet, Vicodin, etc.

They're basically heroin in a pill, with a little acetaminophen added.

And Adderall is an amphetamine based pill given to _little kids_ who have "ADD".  I've taken them before.  The effects are the _exact same thing_ as taking speed.


----------



## Missourian (Dec 3, 2009)

Missourian said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Upon further reflection,  I'm going to stick with my original opinion.

While there can be correlations drawn between the gun rights debate and the legalized drug debate,  one important difference defines the argument.

Firearms serve many positive rolls in society to include self defense/protection,  hunting, and sport/competition.

What redeeming societal qualities do illegal drugs possess to balance their destructive qualities?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 3, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



I'm not relying on an arbitrary age at all.  In the eyes of the law the adult age is 18, and that's the age that society would likely stick with.  Is it arbitrary?  Certainly in some cases.  In others it may be more accurate.  And still in others it may be too low.  That's the problem when we try to define something by a certain number, we group people together as if they're all the same when they're not.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 3, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



But that's exactly what it means.  If "society" gives itself the right to use force against me if caught smoking weed then "society" is telling me that I'm not allowed to do that, which also implies that "society" has a controlling interest in my body over my own free will.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 3, 2009)

PatekPhilippe said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > yea.... I know.. I call for the deaths of people all the time for activity such as smoking a bowl of marijuana.
> ...



yea, something was proven alright, tiger.




tell me more about being immature after calling for KILLING drug users.  wow.  I guess wisdom really doesn't necessarily come with old age.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 3, 2009)

PatekPhilippe said:


> Anyone who actively seeks out drugs for a "high" has got other issues they need to be dealing with.  Personally I could care less if they removed pot from the schedule 1 drug list.  If kids want to smoke it let them...they will end up dying from it one way or another.






yea!  just look at all those marijuana OD's all over the place!





again, WOW.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Dec 3, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > But, I don't advocate ignoring the reality of the differences of drugs for the sake of a talking point mantra.  Like I said, go bump a few lines and smoke a bowl and come back and tell me which one literally made you fiend for MORE.
> ...


Kevin you are quite correct; Shogun is a professed expert on the effects of using both cocaine and marijuana. I don't doubt him for a moment, he shows all the classic mental lapses of a drug addled idiot. 

Legalizing drugs should only be done if it can be done in such a way that it would reduce the number of children who use the drugs. Otherwise society will eventually find itself overwhelmed by brain damaged fools like Shogun.


----------



## Paulie (Dec 3, 2009)

Missourian said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



Well, pharma companies have harnessed opium, amphetamines, and cocaine, into medical use.  Opium is where narcotic pain killing medications are derived...amphetamines are where drugs like Adderall and Ritalin are derived.  And something as simple as Lidocaine and Novacaine are derived from cocaine.

And then you have the many different redeeming medicinal qualities of marijuana.  No one will ever argue their case successfully to me that marijuana doesn't have medicinal value.  My father was diagnosed with cancer in '92 and was given 6 months to live.  He smoked marijuana and it kept his appetite up and kept a smile on his face, and he live almost another 2 years beyond those 6 months.  Had he not smoked, he probably would not have eaten NEARLY as much, and would have withered away much sooner.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 3, 2009)

Shogun said:


> indeed, cocaine feels GREAT.  If it were legal, more people would use it.  Likewise, we saw more people use alcohol after prohibition was lifted.  The assumption that drug users are already using on par with use after legalization is absurd.  What kept Joe Blow from drinking a beer after work during prohibition?  the legality.  Once legal, the door to the stall opens and more people use than those willing to leap through black market hoops to use.  You think the majority of binge drinking college kids WONT snort a legal line before going to the bar and conveying how responsible they are with legal alcohol?  Come on, dude.  And thats just one example.  Every time you see the growing market trend of energy drinks go ahead and remind yourself that this is exactly the pattern that would happen were coke legal.



Except alcohol and energy drinks don't exactly have the same negative stigma that coke, heroin and meth do. More people used alcohol after prohibition because of that stigma or lack of it. Alcohol simply isn't considered the fuck-up-your-life drug that cocaine is. You can't tell me that all of the people, or even half of them, that head to happy hour on Friday after work would also be snorting coke if it were legal.  I don't consider myslef to be out of the ordinary behaviorally and despite advocating that most if not all drugs be legal I have zero desire to use any of them if they actually did become legal and I would guess I am probably in the majority there.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 3, 2009)

Charles Stucker said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



My post was not an attempt to insult Shogun for what he may or may not have done, that's his own business.  I don't think it's intelligent to use drugs, and Shogun was suggesting that I do drugs to experience their potency for myself, though I think he was mostly joking, before I comment on them.  So I simply replied that I would never try them.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 3, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > PatekPhilippe said:
> ...




wtf are you even talking about?  No one is demanding that legal marijuana be smoked in public.  No one is insisting that driving while inebriated is a good idea.  Sometimes you silly fuckers miss your mark by a mile.

I'd bet jacks, joes and dominoes that you've never taken either pot OR marinol and have no frame of reference for either.  But hey, don't let that keep you from acting like a fucking expert on medical options!


----------



## Shogun (Dec 3, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



sure you are.  By making a distinction between access to liberty according to a socially derived age and role (adult and parent) you've just staggered access to liberty along a rather arbitrary line.  Indeed, you started your paragraph with one statement while finishing it with a whole other admittance.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 3, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



Whatever you say bud.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 3, 2009)

Charles Stucker said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



oh now cocksucker don't let your jew rage trip you up in threads that have nothing to do with supporting israel blindly.  hell, even with my experiences it's pretty damn clear which of us speaks valid while the other knee jerks himself with standard issue talking points.   I COULD point out how many time my adversaries in this thread have stated the truth in my postings but.... lord knows I don't have anything to prove to an empty dipshit like yourself so...


----------



## Shogun (Dec 3, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > indeed, cocaine feels GREAT.  If it were legal, more people would use it.  Likewise, we saw more people use alcohol after prohibition was lifted.  The assumption that drug users are already using on par with use after legalization is absurd.  What kept Joe Blow from drinking a beer after work during prohibition?  the legality.  Once legal, the door to the stall opens and more people use than those willing to leap through black market hoops to use.  You think the majority of binge drinking college kids WONT snort a legal line before going to the bar and conveying how responsible they are with legal alcohol?  Come on, dude.  And thats just one example.  Every time you see the growing market trend of energy drinks go ahead and remind yourself that this is exactly the pattern that would happen were coke legal.
> ...



YET.  Have you seen any crack downs on sugary, caffeinated beverages within the last 4 years?  With sleep deprivation and energy drinks?  It's not cocaine's REPUTATION that makes is less apparent how great it feels to snort a line, dude.

and, with as many alcoholics and drunk driving deaths EVERY YEAR it's pretty silly to claim that alcohol doesn't also have the potential to fuck up a life.  Potential that is made apparent by a vast myriad of sources.  

and yes, I CAN tell you that people would certainly cut out lines that turn them into percieved social superstars if legal.  Don't you remember DISCO or the 80s at all?  Shit wasn't legal then but you sure as hell knew what was going on in studio 54, didn't you?

I disagree.  Chances are, you've tried alcohol.  hell, chances are, you've even smoked a cigarette in your life.  I'm sure you drink caffeine and i'd be willing to bet you've had a sugar high at some point in your life.  I attribute the majority of your opinion to flat out ignorance due to non-exposure to the substance you are commenting on.  That is not condemnation; it's true that drugs are not for everyone.  HOWEVER, to look at our medicated society and assume legal coke wouldn't hit like wildfire is three shades of naive.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 3, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



I wouldn't tell you that you should do drugs; however, it's pretty obvious that someone who has done them might know a bit more about their relative impact than someone who hasn't.  It's kinda like how I don't comment on the best brand of anal lube when Charles "The cock" Sucker makes a thread about lubrication.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 3, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



bolded above.  You've made a distinction between the liberties of a child and the same for parents.  Which is why I reminded you that not all parents care the same way.  check..


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Dec 3, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



Like I said, I wasn't relying on that arbitrary age, because I agree in some cases that the legal adult age certainly is arbitrary.


----------



## Paulie (Dec 3, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



I have to agree with this.

This country is PLAGUED by the use of the Prozacs and the Percocets of the world.  While not STREET legal, they are certainly much easier to obtain since they only require something as simple as a doctor's autograph.

Coke is a dopamine, seratonin, and norepinephrine reputake inhibitor.  And incidentally, so are most prescription depression medications like Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.  As well as narcotic pain killers such as Percocet.

There's really not much difference between those prescribed drugs, and coke, at the end of the day.  With both, the user becomes 'addicted' and can typically not safely stop use spontaneously, without negative effects on the neuro-transmitter process.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 3, 2009)

Paulie said:


> I have to agree with this.
> 
> This country is PLAGUED by the use of the Prozacs and the Percocets of the world.  While not STREET legal, they are certainly much easier to obtain since they only require something as simple as a doctor's autograph.
> 
> ...


Not always true.

Lots of people who shot smack in 'Nam came back home and never touched the stuff again. There are also lots of people who can use pot, cocaine, etc. recreationally and not become physically dependent.

I'm in the Dr. Thomas Szasz camp on this one..."Addiction" (as it has become colloquially known) is a symptom, not a cause in and of itself.


----------



## Paulie (Dec 3, 2009)

Dude said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > I have to agree with this.
> ...



Well, I put quote marks around the word addicted for this reason.  I don't accept the term in the same way others do.  The neurotransmitters are affected though, and its up to how strong your will power is to be able to put down the rolled up benjamin.

Also, there is an IMMEDIATE-term period where you are 'addicted', so to speak.  It's the brain telling you after you sniff your first line that you need more or you're going to hate life.  That's what I was most referring to.

What sets people apart is how you handle your actions the next day when the initial 'feen' process has worked its way out.  Some choose to keep using, others can go about their life and not touch it again for months.

Also though, someone who's been on a depression med for a long time will most likely battle similar withdrawal symptoms after stopping cold turkey, as someone who's been booting dope.  

My whole point in all of this, is that the issue of legality has nothing to do with 'health'.  If coke, heroin, and speed were legal, pharma companies would lose BILLIONS.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 3, 2009)

Shogun said:


> YET.  Have you seen any crack downs on sugary, caffeinated beverages within the last 4 years?  With sleep deprivation and energy drinks?  It's not cocaine's REPUTATION that makes is less apparent how great it feels to snort a line, dude.



If it feels so great why are you insisting there are all these one time users that won't touch the stuff for fear of getting caught? Especially when the chance of getting caught is so low.



Shogun said:


> and, with as many alcoholics and drunk driving deaths EVERY YEAR it's pretty silly to claim that alcohol doesn't also have the potential to fuck up a life.  Potential that is made apparent by a vast myriad of sources.



I never said one should have a different stigma than the other. The simple reality is that it does. Pot shouldn't have a worse stigma than alcohol. The reality is that it does. Same as with coke and alcohol.  



Shogun said:


> and yes, I CAN tell you that people would certainly cut out lines that turn them into percieved social superstars if legal.  Don't you remember DISCO or the 80s at all?  Shit wasn't legal then but you sure as hell knew what was going on in studio 54, didn't you?



Sure, and look at things now. Far fewer people are recereational drug users comparing then to now and the legality of the issue didnt change at all. The stigma is what changed. The legal negativity of absuing the substance hasn't changed in that time. The negativity associated with the substance itself has and as ar result there are fewer users.



Shogun said:


> I disagree.  Chances are, you've tried alcohol.  hell, chances are, you've even smoked a cigarette in your life.  I'm sure you drink caffeine and i'd be willing to bet you've had a sugar high at some point in your life.  I attribute the majority of your opinion to flat out ignorance due to non-exposure to the substance you are commenting on.  That is not condemnation; it's true that drugs are not for everyone.  HOWEVER, to look at our medicated society and assume legal coke wouldn't hit like wildfire is three shades of naive.



But who is really likely to use it? The peopel that already are of course in which case legality is irrelevant. Then there's the people that tried it once but decided their not trying it again because it's not legal. I would find pretty naive to believe there are many people in that group. Lastly there's everyone else who has simply heard about the stuff. You can count me in that group and you can tell me how great it is til your blue in the face, I have zero desire to try it, legal or not. Why? because of what I have been exposed to. All I know about coke is that apparently it feels good to use. I also know it's pretty easy to misuse, can drain you financially, can cause your nose to cave in, and generally fuck your life up. Given those negatives the negativity of going to jail for using it is a non-factor in my decision. If I'm the most naive guy on the block as you imply obviously everyone else can impart a lot more logical reasoning than little old me is capable of and will come to the same conclusion I have about using coke a lot faster.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 3, 2009)

/
*
If it feels so great why are you insisting there are all these one time users that won't touch the stuff for fear of getting caught? Especially when the chance of getting caught is so low.*

I've never stated that at all.  I think it's a matter of availability and the chance of getting busted.  for some it's easy to get but for the vast majority they are not able to go find 8 balls without knowing someone.  However, I promise you, in a college town when the availability is rampant and the risk for getting busted is slim then people will do drugs.  Ever wonder why colleges are bastions of drug activity?

*

I never said one should have a different stigma than the other. The simple reality is that it does. Pot shouldn't have a worse stigma than alcohol. The reality is that it does. Same as with coke and alcohol.  *


Again, the flaw in your arguement is that you assume that all substances affect a person equally.  They don't.  Pot is less than alcohol but coke IS worse then both pot and alcohol.  Social stigmas are nothing more than the social construct of a reputation applied regardless of actual reality.  There is no way that alcohol, while worse than pot, is itself worse than coke.  REGARDLESS of social stigma.  

*
Sure, and look at things now. Far fewer people are recereational drug users comparing then to now and the legality of the issue didnt change at all. The stigma is what changed. The legal negativity of absuing the substance hasn't changed in that time. The negativity associated with the substance itself has and as ar result there are fewer users.*

Uh, are you kidding me?  CRACK in the 80s didn't strike you as an uptake of lethality?  METH doesn't strike you are more lethal?  Cracks lethal stigma is a direct result of it's impact on society at large in the 80s.  Does the term CRACK BABY ring a bell?  yes, the method of consumption and lethality of such did change.  People didn't tend to smoke rock in the 60s.  

and, if you think that LESS people smoke pot and there is MORE stigma associated with drugs then it must boggle your mind during the entire series run of That 70s Show, Friday, Harold and Kumar, School Daze, Road Trip and every other instance where the consumption of pot has been rationalized as normal enough to be accepted openly as cool.

*

But who is really likely to use it? The peopel that already are of course in which case legality is irrelevant. Then there's the people that tried it once but decided their not trying it again because it's not legal. I would find pretty naive to believe there are many people in that group. Lastly there's everyone else who has simply heard about the stuff. You can count me in that group and you can tell me how great it is til your blue in the face, I have zero desire to try it, legal or not. Why? because of what I have been exposed to. All I know about coke is that apparently it feels good to use. I also know it's pretty easy to misuse, can drain you financially, can cause your nose to cave in, and generally fuck your life up. Given those negatives the negativity of going to jail for using it is a non-factor in my decision. If I'm the most naive guy on the block as you imply obviously everyone else can impart a lot more logical reasoning than little old me is capable of and will come to the same conclusion I have about using coke a lot faster.[/QUOTE]
*


You are simply wrong.  a LOT of people are equally potentially willing to become users of a legal substance.  Again, in 1984 no one consumed guarana based energy drinks with ramped up caffeine.  NOW?  Go to a truck stop and ask yourself why all those yellowjacket and minithins are behind the counter yet legal.  Hell, even after ephedera was banned the product STILL retained their markets.  I don't think it's the stigma of the drug that confounds you so much as it is your schema of those who use drugs.. which, in this day and age of over medication and prescription pill abuse, pretty much blows that whole demographic wide open.


Again, I don't care if you have a desire to try it.  What you might want to consider is that, despite my position against legalization, I'm admitting that coke is a wonderfully feeling drug.   I'm not trying to convince you to go snort a line; but I AM being brutally honest about a subject that you clearly have limited insight on.  It's easy to be a paladin about trying substance from behind the veil of complete unknowing ignorance.  Perhaps you should go find your one semi-shady buddy from back in the day and ask him his opinion on the subject matter.  Like I said before, I'm willing to bet that those who have used cocaine before are grinding their teeth while reading a thread like this.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 3, 2009)

Shogun said:


> I've never stated that at all.  I think it's a matter of availability and the chance of getting busted.  for some it's easy to get but for the vast majority they are not able to go find 8 balls without knowing someone.  However, I promise you, in a college town when the availability is rampant and the risk for getting busted is slim then people will do drugs.  Ever wonder why colleges are bastions of drug activity?



Again if you've tried it once, you got it from somewhere so chance are it won't be real difficult for you to find it again. That leaves the people that have never tried it, like me. Do you really think I'm in the minority of that group of people because I have zero interest in trying the stuff?

I would imagine I'm less removed from college than you are and all I can tell is no the college I went to was not full of drugies, The college my sister went to wasn't and she's less removed than I am. My brother's wasn't and even less removed than her. You have pretty much implied this whole time stating I am ignorant on the issue that at one point in your life you indeed did have a coke habit. Did you ever consider that you're position is at the very least as naive as you claim mine is. Maybe the reason I didn't see all this drug use is because I didn't surround myself with users. Maybe the reason you think they are bastions of drug activity is because you did and you were one yourself.  As you so aptly stated before ones experiences shape their opinion which may or may not coincide with reality. And it shouldn't be rocket science to figure out which of the two groups (users and non-users) is more DEtached from reality.



Shogun said:


> Again, the flaw in your arguement is that you assume that all substances affect a person equally.  They don't.  Pot is less than alcohol but coke IS worse then both pot and alcohol.  Social stigmas are nothing more than the social construct of a reputation applied regardless of actual reality.  There is no way that alcohol, while worse than pot, is itself worse than coke.  REGARDLESS of social stigma.



Again with the again. I think if you read a few posts back I said I was keenly aware that drugs affect people differently. As such I don't follow the point you are trying to make here.  




Shogun said:


> Uh, are you kidding me?  CRACK in the 80s didn't strike you as an uptake of lethality?  METH doesn't strike you are more lethal?  Cracks lethal stigma is a direct result of it's impact on society at large in the 80s.  Does the term CRACK BABY ring a bell?  yes, the method of consumption and lethality of such did change.  People didn't tend to smoke rock in the 60s.



I'm talking about the number of illegal drugs users, not what they use or their lethality.



Shogun said:


> and, if you think that LESS people smoke pot and there is MORE stigma associated with drugs then it must boggle your mind during the entire series run of That 70s Show, Friday, Harold and Kumar, School Daze, Road Trip and every other instance where the consumption of pot has been rationalized as normal enough to be accepted openly as cool.



Not mind boggling at all. just because it's more socially acceptable doesn't mean more people are doing it.




Shogun said:


> You are simply wrong.  a LOT of people are equally potentially willing to become users of a legal substance.  Again, in 1984 no one consumed guarana based energy drinks with ramped up caffeine.  NOW?  Go to a truck stop and ask yourself why all those yellowjacket and minithins are behind the counter yet legal.  Hell, even after ephedera was banned the product STILL retained their markets.  I don't think it's the stigma of the drug that confounds you so much as it is your schema of those who use drugs.. which, in this day and age of over medication and prescription pill abuse, pretty much blows that whole demographic wide open.



Fewer people consumed Garauna in drinks thnn because it simply wasn't as available as it is today. Monster, Amp, Red Bull, none of them were around in the 80s. You couldn't find energy drinks at a gas station. There weren't any 'users' of Gaurana because there were almost no supplies.

I think what confounds you is that you and I associate with very different people. I know zero coke heasd or meth addicts. One or two prescription pill abusers and a few pot head. I'm guessing in the circles of life you have been exposed to over the course of yours you have been exposed to a lot more. Just because you've been around more drugs and drug abuse than I have doesn't inherently mean that what you've been exposed to constitutes the generally true reality of the world. At best it is no more valid than mine.




Shogun said:


> Again, I don't care if you have a desire to try it.  What you might want to consider is that, despite my position against legalization, I'm admitting that coke is a wonderfully feeling drug.   I'm not trying to convince you to go snort a line; but I AM being brutally honest about a subject that you clearly have limited insight on.  It's easy to be a paladin about trying substance from behind the veil of complete unknowing ignorance.  Perhaps you should go find your one semi-shady buddy from back in the day and ask him his opinion on the subject matter.  Like I said before, I'm willing to bet that those who have used cocaine before are grinding their teeth while reading a thread like this.



that you state I have limited exposure to it implies that you have had some if not considerable exposure to it. Why is it you presume your existance has been more normal or status quo with regard to drug use than mine?


----------



## Polk (Dec 3, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> I think that marijuana should be legal.  I cannot see a reason why it is criminalized any more than alcohol.



Agreed.


----------



## BolshevikHunter (Dec 3, 2009)

Paulie said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



You make some good points in this post, only the pharm companies would not lose billions, they would make trillions. Surely the FDA and their androids would regulate these substances as well. Which would include the goverment in regards to the deal they have with them concerning Obama's suicidal health care bill. ~BH


----------



## Luissa (Dec 3, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > PatekPhilippe said:
> ...


so make it illegal to drive while stoned and why would I name ways you can die from cigarettes when it doesn't apply to marijuana. No one has ever developed lung cancer from marijuana and if having an asthma attack some doctors believe smoking marijuana can be more effective than most inhalers. No one has ever died from marijuana unless it was due to an accident such as a car accident.


----------



## BolshevikHunter (Dec 3, 2009)

Luissa said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Just curious my friend, but where the hell did you hear this truck load of bullshit? Nothing personal, I was just wondering about it myself? ~BH


----------



## blu (Dec 4, 2009)

BolshevikHunter said:


> Just curious my friend, but where the hell did you hear this truck load of bullshit? Nothing personal, I was just wondering about it myself? ~BH



yea not sure where the lie you quoted gets circulated. everything I have read says that smoking one joint can be as harmful as a pack of cigarettes wrt to lungs. 

I still think it should be legal though. keeping thousands of people in jail and having 16 and 17 year olds caught with a joint losing all chance to get college assistance is really fucking stupid.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 4, 2009)

noose4 said:


> booze , tobacco, caffeine, and marijuana are the drugs that should be legal, the rest cause too much damage to the user and society.



I agree.

Meth should never be legal.  That's a terrible drug.  The same for it's designer cousin, ecstasy, which punches holes in people's brains.

I don't think they should legalize cocaine, but I do think the mandatory crack sentences should match cocaine, since it's a one step acid/base reaction that doesn't only changes the composition (and not mechanism) of the drug.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 4, 2009)

Luissa said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



I can't find any good scientific evidence to support that.  I find a lot of anecdotal.  

I am also not sure that you can state that no one has ever developed lung cancer from smoking pot.

One thing that does annoy me is when people compare joints to cigarettes.  Unless you are chain smoking joints, it's really not a good analogy.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Dec 4, 2009)

Luissa said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



All you have to do is look at your bong water or that roach your smoking.  See all of that brown shitty goop on or in the water?  Well smoke a few joints a day and tell me what your lungs will look like after a year....not to mention you won't have any glaucoma problems but you will be so fricken dumbed down that seeing anything normally won't matter.

Like I said...go ahead...smoke all you want....do it in your own house...do it with all your friends....when you need to get all of that brown goopy shit pumped out of your lungs because you can't climb one flight of stairs without passing out from lack of oxygen don't ask me to pay your medical bills.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Dec 4, 2009)

> No one has ever developed lung cancer from marijuana



Wow...I had no idea you were an oncologist specializing in lung cancers and their respective causes.

You know that heavy burning sensation from inhaling marijuana smoke?....and then you laugh and call it cheap mexican dirt weed?...well anytime you feel like your throat and lungs are ON FIRE that's not normal.



> Myth: Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco. Marijuana smokers are at a high risk of developing lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema.
> 
> Fact: Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, *marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens*. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, _the risk of serious lung damage *should* be lower in marijuana smokers._



Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...
This website is one of those marijuana "myth buster" sites....and even they say they don't have a clue about the effects of marijuana smoke...they say it doesn't cause cancer but they're not sure.
Myths and Facts About Marijuana

There is another study out there done at UCLA that says marijuana smoking in of itself doesn't cause cancer...but that's what they said about cigarettes for 50 years too.

Drugs and Human Performance FACT SHEETS - Cannabis / Marijuana ( D 9 -Tetrahydrocannabinol, THC)


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Dec 4, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



Since the effects of cocaine are short lived one would have to be in the presence of said coke head and more than likely watch them consume the "8 ball".  I personally cannot relate to this scenario but I can with a pothead....the pothead was listless, lazy and babbling incoherently after smoking some "purple hair sinsemilla".  I personally witnessed them consume the entire contents of a freshly stocked refridgerator( at least 20 lb.s) in less than 90 minutes and then when they went back to sit on the couch it looked like they had a basketball under their T-shirt.  I myself didn't smoke any...it was my younger half-brother.  It was quite funny watching him interact with normal society.  He's now in prison for 15 years because he robbed a liquor store to buy drugs.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 4, 2009)

PatekPhilippe said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...




sounds like a real winner.  AND, he is probably a great example of the millions of robberies that happen every year by potheads looking for a fix!





I'd bet money, marbles and chalk that the drug he was robbing to pay for wasn't pot.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Dec 4, 2009)

Shogun said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



Absolutely correct...marijuana was a gateway drug and he was into ice quite heavily by the time he destroyed his life.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 4, 2009)

PatekPhilippe said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > PatekPhilippe said:
> ...



yea dude!  Chances are MILK was the first think to start him on that path...  And oxygen.  Can't forget oxygen.  AND, that nefarious grape flavored cough syrup they give to kids.  Now THAT shit will send you on a path to drug dependence.


your scapegoat mentality reflects the rest of your less-than-impressive input in this thread.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 4, 2009)

PatekPhilippe said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > PatekPhilippe said:
> ...



Alcohol and cigarettes are "gateway drugs".

Lenny Bruce had this silly "gateway drug" talking point nailed in his "zig zag coverups" routine in 1961.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 4, 2009)

PatekPhilippe said:


> All you have to do is look at your bong water or that roach your smoking.  See all of that brown shitty goop on or in the water?  Well smoke a few joints a day and tell me what your lungs will look like after a year....not to mention you won't have any glaucoma problems but you will be so fricken dumbed down that seeing anything normally won't matter.
> 
> Like I said...go ahead...smoke all you want....do it in your own house...do it with all your friends....when you need to get all of that brown goopy shit pumped out of your lungs because you can't climb one flight of stairs without passing out from lack of oxygen don't ask me to pay your medical bills.



Again, it's a poor analogy.  

Few people chain smoke joints.  The 1/2 of THC is vastly higher than nicotine.  That's why cigarette smokers that are hooked "chain smoke".

It's also why the concept of "light" cigarettes is ludicrous.  

I am not saying MJ is good for your lungs, but they are not analogous to cigarettes.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 4, 2009)

PatekPhilippe said:


> > No one has ever developed lung cancer from marijuana
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, this is a drug 1/2 life issue.  That's what drives the "rate" of smoking.  If you smoke one cigarette a day, the odds for COPD and lung cancer are pretty low too.

The problem is, no one just smokes "one cigarette" (discounting social smokers).


----------



## Richard-H (Dec 4, 2009)

Let's see:

I smoked pot habitually from the time I was 14 to the time I was 33. I quit without the slightest problem, just because I was sick of having a group of friends that were obsessive about smoking pot.

I drank heavily from the time I was 16 to the time I was 24. I reduced my drinking without the slightest problem to no more that 3 (sometimes 4) beers or glasses of wine a day. I never drink hard liquor anymore (I loved scotch). I quit becuase I had weird working hours - I'd arrive at bars late at night when I was still dead sober - when I saw how fucking disgusting really drunk people were - I cut my drinking down immediately.

I have tried just about every illegal drug except for herion - none, except pot, ever appealed to me so none ever became a habit.

I have been smoking cigareetes from the time I was 13 to the present (I'm 51 years old). I have tried to quit dozens of times and I can't. I've tried hypnosis, patches, gum...everything. I know that it's going to kill me in a few years - but I still can't quit.

'nuff said....


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 4, 2009)

Legalize pot and prostitution


----------



## rdean (Dec 4, 2009)

Should Congress Legalize ALL Drugs, Including Meth?

I think we should leave it to the experts.  Let's ask Rush Limbaugh and Cindy McCain.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 4, 2009)

Richard-H said:


> Let's see:
> 
> I smoked pot habitually from the time I was 14 to the time I was 33. I quit without the slightest problem, just because I was sick of having a group of friends that were obsessive about smoking pot.
> 
> ...



Don't be too hard on yourself.  Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known to man.

Also, alcohol is one of the few substances that can kill people who are withdrawing.  

Yet, both of these substances are legal.  

Good luck quitting, if you are still trying.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 4, 2009)

> What right does "society" have to tell me I can't do drugs?


The same thing that gives you the right to not have a mob of society come over and kill you.

Really I'd be for legalizing pot because in my heart I agree government belongs out of our bloodstreams.  BUT, it is beyond a reasonable doubt driving under the influence of alcohol or pot is dangerous to others.  So I'd tie that legalization to just ridiculously tougher laws on drunk drivers, high drivers, and the bars that serve them.

We'll see how the pot thing goes over before we start on "x" or others.


----------



## 2Parties (Dec 4, 2009)

Toronado3800 said:


> Really I'd be for legalizing pot because in my heart I agree government belongs out of our bloodstreams.  BUT, it is beyond a reasonable doubt driving under the influence of alcohol or pot is dangerous to others.  So I'd tie that legalization to just ridiculously tougher laws on drunk drivers, high drivers, and the bars that serve them.
> 
> We'll see how the pot thing goes over before we start on "x" or others.



The problem is the government controls the extremely deadly roadways, and the extremely inconsistent courts.

There would be numerous people still driving drunk with the tougher laws.  Some people would get caught, others wouldn't.  For those that got caught the rest of us would be forced to fund the trial, and fund their imprisonment.

Since the government controls all roadways the only way to cut down on drunk drivers is to step up enforcement.  What does that equate to?  Higher taxes, worse economy, and punishment for the innocent.


----------



## PixieStix (Dec 4, 2009)

Commonly Abused Medications :: PrescriptionDrugAddiction.com - A Resource for Individuals and Families


----------



## BolshevikHunter (Dec 4, 2009)

blu said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> > Just curious my friend, but where the hell did you hear this truck load of bullshit? Nothing personal, I was just wondering about it myself? ~BH
> ...



It's complete bullcrap wherever it came from. Anytime one who inhales any carcinogens, they are doing damage to their Lungs and esophagus. In no way whatsover could that help someone suffering an asma attack. What a load of garbage.

I have heard that Pot has more tar than cigarettes, but I have no clue if that is true. As far as lung damage, I believe that cigarettes are far worse than marijuana simply because people smoke more of them. I think the legalization of Marijuana is a good debate, but legalizing the rest of them would be very harmful to society. In no way should marijuana be available for purchase by people under the age of 21. Just my opinion. ~BH


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 4, 2009)

BolshevikHunter said:


> It's complete bullcrap wherever it came from. Anytime one who inhales any carcinogens, they are doing damage to their Lungs and esophagus. In no way whatsover could that help someone suffering an asma attack. What a load of garbage.



Actually, there is evidence that MJ works as an immunosuppressant.

MARIJUANA and IMMUNITY

In that regard, it would function just like a steroid (as you would find in any maintainance inhaler i.e. advair).  Suppressing the immune system prevents asthma.  

However, even if that's true (which hasn't been fully established) that's a far cry from saying it would beat a standard B2 agonist (like an albuterol inhaler).  Before that could be stated, it would first have to beat a placebo, and there are no controlled studies on the matter.  At best it's a lot of anecdotes, and that is not good science. 

All that ignores the fact that, if you are inhaling smoke (though many patients with lung cancer that use MJ vaporize it), you probably aren't helping your lungs. 

I fully believe that there are medical indications for MJ, and I think they should just legalize it, but the pro-medicinal MJ crowd doesn't help themselves when they make claims that are easily shot full of holes.  

It would be nice if some real work was done on this and they found out that THC vapor that could be put in a standard inhaler was as effective as steroids, because steroids have terrible side effects.



> I have heard that Pot has more tar than cigarettes, but I have no clue if that is true. As far as lung damage, I believe that cigarettes are far worse than marijuana simply because people smoke more of them. I think the legalization of Marijuana is a good debate, but legalizing the rest of them would be very harmful to society. In no way should marijuana be available for purchase by people under the age of 21. Just my opinion. ~BH



I think joints are considered worse than cigs simply because there is no filter on them, but at you pointed out, on the whole, cigs are far worse because you have to chain smoke to maintain your "high".


----------



## BolshevikHunter (Dec 5, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> Actually, there is evidence that MJ works as an immunosuppressant.
> 
> MARIJUANA and IMMUNITY
> 
> ...



Yeah, and I understand that geauxtohell . Actually bro, My Wife uses advair, and in no way whatsover would inhaling marijuana smoke beat that steroid.



> All that ignores the fact that, if you are inhaling smoke (though many patients with lung cancer that use MJ vaporize it), you probably aren't helping your lungs.



Again, I agree. Maybe they are saying when it's in your system? I dunno. That would support THC in a pill form, but not many Marijuana advocates want to hear about that. 



> I fully believe that there are medical indications for MJ, and I think they should just legalize it, but the pro-medicinal MJ crowd doesn't help themselves when they make claims that are easily shot full of holes.



Exactly, and I too know marijuana can help people medically without a doubt as a treatment for nausiation, loss of appetite, stomach illness and sleeping disorders as well.



> It would be nice if some real work was done on this and they found out that THC vapor that could be put in a standard inhaler was as effective as steroids, because steroids have terrible side effects.



Very good point, and one of the best I have ever heard be suggested.



> I have heard that Pot has more tar than cigarettes, but I have no clue if that is true. As far as lung damage, I believe that cigarettes are far worse than marijuana simply because people smoke more of them. I think the legalization of Marijuana is a good debate, but legalizing the rest of them would be very harmful to society. In no way should marijuana be available for purchase by people under the age of 21. Just my opinion. ~BH





> I think joints are considered worse than cigs simply because there is no filter on them, but at you pointed out, on the whole, cigs are far worse because you have to chain smoke to maintain your "high".



Yeah, No filters is another great point. Hell, You're on a role here geauxtohell! Maybe you and I should just stick to Social issues because we seem to agree alot. If you ask me, I personally am more concerned with the medical benefits of the one, than comparing the two. Great discussion though. I know it could help alot of people, but I also know it could hurt alot of very young people. We gotta find a balance and regulate it. ~BH


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 6, 2009)

> The problem is the government controls the extremely deadly roadways, and the extremely inconsistent courts.
> 
> There would be numerous people still driving drunk with the tougher laws. Some people would get caught, others wouldn't. For those that got caught the rest of us would be forced to fund the trial, and fund their imprisonment.
> 
> Since the government controls all roadways the only way to cut down on drunk drivers is to step up enforcement. What does that equate to? Higher taxes, worse economy, and punishment for the innocent.



I'll agree with the inefficient court statement and add unequal courts to it.

I believe the answer isn't just to say "aw heck, this is too complicated to do" or "we've messed up in the past, let's give up".  

The first idea is to tack xx extra onto any conviction received while the defendant is under the influence of any mind altering substance.  Get into a bar fight drunk and break a window?  Have fun with your extra 1000 hours of community service.  Get stoned and run over your neighbor's mail box?  Have fun riding the bus to work for 5 years.  

Another I toy with is the mandatory automotive breathalyzer......well maybe just for anyone who gets convicted of an alcohol/pot related crime.

While I totally dude support anyone's right to fix the boringness of their lives with alcohol or pot I have 0 tolerance for misdeeds done under the influence.  My feeling is you can't negatively affect my life just because you have a right to be stoned.


----------



## PixieStix (Dec 6, 2009)

I am not an advocate for legalizing weed. But I am also not an advocate for keeping it from people who need it. 

This happens to touch my life very personally. I do not want my loved one to lose kidney function nor suffer. This debate tears me. I hate weed, I do not need weed, nor do I need NSAIDS, or steroids. Who am I to claim this would not help some people. The main problem I have is government intervening in it's production. This is very hard for me to post, but I think it is essential

I found this story and wanted to share it

*



			Topic: Ankylosing Spondylitis - NSAID use destroying my kidney function
		
Click to expand...

* 


> I was diagnosed with Ankylosing Spondylitis at age 22. Ankylosing Spondylitis causes the vertebrae in the spine to fuse together over a period of years; it took 20 years in my case for full spinal fusion to occur. The fusion causes extreme pain and inflammation throughout the body and the disease is accompanied by severe muscle spasms in the back.
> My wife and I relocated to East TN about 5 years ago because when ever we vacationed in East TN my arthritis inflammation and my pain always seemed to ease and besides that it is much cheaper to live here than in Ohio when you are retired.
> Ankylosing Spondylitis is a terrible disease to live with and I would not wish it on my worst enemy. By age 40 the Ankylosing Spondylitis had not only fused my entire spine but it had destroyed both of my hip joints and I had to have emergency surgery to replace both hips in one long operation.
> I had worked for 21 years as a railroad clerk/telegrapher operator and this double hip replacement surgery ended my railroad career. The railroad did not want to take a chance that I might fall on their property and end up filing a law suit against them so the railroad had me placed on a total disability pension covered by the Railroad Retirement Board at age 40.
> ...


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 17, 2017)

Time has changed the debate on the use and legality of Marijuana, how much may be seen by comparing the posts above with those today.

I came across this post by Mr. Conservative, W. F. Buckley:

"Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could."
Read more at: William F. Buckley, Jr. Quotes - BrainyQuote

Should AG Session continue the war on drugs, and begin to enforce of MJ as a Schedule I drug?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 18, 2017)

As far as I am concern if you continue the war on drugs then you're no liberterian or even someone that should be arguing against the constitutionality of most things the government does.

You're insane if you do.


----------



## IResist (Apr 24, 2017)

In my opinion they should. The drug war has been a failure. Our prisons are overcrowded and I prefer to see hard criminals locked up than nonviolent drug offenders.


----------



## Divine Wind (Apr 24, 2017)

mal said:


> Amid recession, meth menace evolves - The Elkhart Project- msnbc.com
> 
> ^And Old Story in my Hood and in my Own Family, but I want to Know who here Supports ALL OUT LEGALIZATION of ALL Drugs, including Meth.
> 
> ...


Legalize all drugs.  Legalize euthenasia.  Legalize suicide.  

Too many fucking Liberals want to protect us from ourselves. Nanny Statism. The result is a society where people too stupid to survive in the wild are now not only allowed to survive, but to have more stupid people.  We are truly living the movie "Idiocracy".  

Time to let nature takes it's course and allow people to remove themselves from the gene pool for the betterment of the human race.


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Jun 10, 2017)

mal said:


> Amid recession, meth menace evolves - The Elkhart Project- msnbc.com
> 
> ^And Old Story in my Hood and in my Own Family, but I want to Know who here Supports ALL OUT LEGALIZATION of ALL Drugs, including Meth.
> 
> ...


----------



## yiostheoy (Jun 10, 2017)

Dan Stubbs said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Amid recession, meth menace evolves - The Elkhart Project- msnbc.com
> ...


Why did you bump this old cold dead moldy useless thread ???


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Jun 10, 2017)

Dan Stubbs said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Amid recession, meth menace evolves - The Elkhart Project- msnbc.com
> ...


*Soros and aclu are for it so it can't be all bad.*


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Jun 10, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> > Amid recession, meth menace evolves - The Elkhart Project- msnbc.com
> ...


*You are in support of the Progressive Heath care bill, death to the old and disabled and the young mental s  I see Soros and the Democrats have covered in the Health bill.*


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Jun 12, 2017)

*That sound just like George Soros speech 
The suit reviews some of what is known publicly about the history of Soros’s investments: “In August of 1990, according to Reuters News Agency, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency agents claimed that Banco de Columbia and other banks were conduits for Latin American drug money. In or about August 1994, according to Reuters, Soros acquired a nine percent interest in Banco de Columbia.”
speech *


----------



## Divine Wind (Jun 13, 2017)

Dan Stubbs said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > mal said:
> ...


Dude, please take off your aluminum beanie.  You do not have mind reading skills and I suspect you have a lower than average IQ.  

1) I fail to see how supporting idiots removing themselves from the gene pool is "in support of the Progressive _Heath_ care bill".

2) People have a right to do what they want with their own bodies be it poison themselves with drugs or commit suicide.

3) Your support for the authoritarian, draconian Nanny State is noted.  You've outed yourself, sir.


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Jun 28, 2017)

*You are not wrong, but you are not right.   Age has something to do about it don't you think???*


----------



## Divine Wind (Jun 28, 2017)

Dan Stubbs said:


> *You are not wrong, but you are not right.   Age has something to do about it don't you think???*


Of course.  Legal adults should be where we draw the line.  Now, if we want to raise that age to 25, that's fine with me, but let's do it for driving, the military and voting.


----------



## sartre play (Jul 5, 2017)

Doubt there are many who say my goal in life is to be a drunk or addict. there always has been and always will be people who will find some way to get some thing that alters there reality. people who commit a crime while under the influence should be charged for that crime. if  drugs are made legal 80% of the drug production would stop. money motive removed. billions of dollars could be used for better things than fighting a war on drugs that long ago was lost.


----------



## The Derp (Jul 5, 2017)

Yes.  They should.  The Drug War failed.


----------

