Legalize it!

[DNAprotection]

What is illegitimate about the law?

If you have to ask you wouldn't understand...

Bullshit! You are saying you can't make a case.

The case is easily made, its just that not enough people have done so in court.

 

[Dubya]

If you have to ask you wouldn't understand...

Bullshit! You are saying you can't make a case.

The case is easily made, its just that not enough people have done so in court.

Why don't you read the Constitution and figure out the government does have a right to enter treaties?

This nonsense will never get to SCOTUS and is another case of someone interpreting the Constitution with their desires. If the government can ban a chemical, it can ban a plant. The right to keep and bear pot is not in the Constitution.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Bullshit! You are saying you can't make a case.

The case is easily made, its just that not enough people have done so in court.

Why don't you read the Constitution and figure out the government does have a right to enter treaties?

This nonsense will never get to SCOTUS and is another case of someone interpreting the Constitution with their desires. If the government can ban a chemical, it can ban a plant. The right to keep and bear pot is not in the Constitution.

While I understand the point of view you're coming from, you don't seem to have a firm grasp on what the Constitution actually DOES. (Or is SUPPOSED to do...)

It doesn't GIVE us our rights, it restrains the Government from INFRINGING on them.

Let me give you a quote...

Amendment IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[DNAprotection]

Bullshit! You are saying you can't make a case.

The case is easily made, its just that not enough people have done so in court.

Why don't you read the Constitution and figure out the government does have a right to enter treaties?

This nonsense will never get to SCOTUS and is another case of someone interpreting the Constitution with their desires. If the government can ban a chemical, it can ban a plant. The right to keep and bear pot is not in the Constitution.

Ok here's another quote for ya...

"Additionally, I want to address the analogy of growing tomatoes. Obviously an ordinance which declares growing more than X number of tomato plants outdoors in plain view to be a nuisance would be unconstitutional, That’s certain.”

How could such a conclusion be made if you are correct?

 

[Dubya]

The case is easily made, its just that not enough people have done so in court.

Why don't you read the Constitution and figure out the government does have a right to enter treaties?

This nonsense will never get to SCOTUS and is another case of someone interpreting the Constitution with their desires. If the government can ban a chemical, it can ban a plant. The right to keep and bear pot is not in the Constitution.

While I understand the point of view you're coming from, you don't seem to have a firm grasp on what the Constitution actually DOES. (Or is SUPPOSED to do...)

It doesn't GIVE us our rights, it restrains the Government from INFRINGING on them.

Let me give you a quote...

Amendment IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You are the one without a firm grasp on what the Constitution says.

Try reading the Articles of the Constitution, which gives government the authority it has! SCOTUS is not going to rule the government doesn't have the authority to make pot illegal. Take it from someone with a background in Chemistry, there are plenty of very dangerous substances that are controlled substances and they aren't all drug related. The government is allowed to prohibit the general population from owning things, because of public safety issues.

 

[Dubya]

The case is easily made, its just that not enough people have done so in court.

Why don't you read the Constitution and figure out the government does have a right to enter treaties?

This nonsense will never get to SCOTUS and is another case of someone interpreting the Constitution with their desires. If the government can ban a chemical, it can ban a plant. The right to keep and bear pot is not in the Constitution.

Ok here's another quote for ya...

"Additionally, I want to address the analogy of growing tomatoes. Obviously an ordinance which declares growing more than X number of tomato plants outdoors in plain view to be a nuisance would be unconstitutional, That’s certain.”

How could such a conclusion be made if you are correct?

Your argument that plants are exempt from government regulation is ridiculous. A biological WMD weapon can be a plant.

It's unconstitutional in your own mine. Just remember, you can smoke all the tomatoes you want!

 

[MikeK]

So it seems to be the majority opinion that pot should be legalized. I could almost jump on the wagon IF I could hear people speaking of the possible down sides to it. Y'all are making it sound like we're legalizing candy.

I don't quite understand what you mean by, ". . . if I could hear people speaking of the possible downsides to it." The only downside to marijuana I'm aware of is it (along with alcohol or any other recreational substance) can be harmful to adolescents because their brains, along with the rest of their bodies, are not fully developed and are therefore susceptible to possible short-term memory damage. Aside from that there is no downside to using marijuana -- unless it is stupidly overdone (abused). But the same may be said for anything else, including food.

What you should know is marijuana was made illegal in 1937 on the basis of a number of deliberate lies, among which was the assertion that it makes negroes go crazy and rape White women. The anti-marijuana propaganda disseminated by a number of special interests was so strong and pervasive that its lasting effect has prevailed right up to today. But the fact is marijuana, when used responsibly by adults, is absolutely benign. There is no record anywhere in the annals of medical science of anyone dying from or being made sick by marijuana. It is not possible to overdose on it and it is an established medical fact that it is not addictive.

If you doubt anything I'm telling you here, let me know and I'll be happy to help you research the facts via responsible and entirely credible sources. Don't allow yourself to be misled by "Reefer Madness" propaganda. There are many special interests, including the emerging prison industrial complex, which stands to lose big if America comes to its senses and legalizes this relatively harmless recreational substance.

 

[Dubya]

So it seems to be the majority opinion that pot should be legalized. I could almost jump on the wagon IF I could hear people speaking of the possible down sides to it. Y'all are making it sound like we're legalizing candy.

I don't quite understand what you mean by, ". . . if I could hear people speaking of the possible downsides to it." The only downside to marijuana I'm aware of is it (along with alcohol or any other recreational substance) can be harmful to adolescents because their brains, along with the rest of their bodies, are not fully developed and are therefore susceptible to possible short-term memory damage. Aside from that there is no downside to using marijuana -- unless it is stupidly overdone (abused). But the same may be said for anything else, including food.

What you should know is marijuana was made illegal in 1937 on the basis of a number of deliberate lies, among which was the assertion that it makes negroes go crazy and rape White women. The anti-marijuana propaganda disseminated by a number of special interests was so strong and pervasive that its lasting effect has prevailed right up to today. But the fact is marijuana, when used responsibly by adults, is absolutely benign. There is no record anywhere in the annals of medical science of anyone dying from or being made sick by marijuana. It is not possible to overdose on it and it is an established medical fact that it is not addictive.

If you doubt anything I'm telling you here, let me know and I'll be happy to help you research the facts via responsible and entirely credible sources. Don't allow yourself to be misled by "Reefer Madness" propaganda. There are many special interests, including the emerging prison industrial complex, which stands to lose big if America comes to its senses and legalizes this relatively harmless recreational substance.

Remember the couple who ate too many brownies and called to report they were overdosing? They were sick, but it could have been the brownies. I think injesting too much pot would make you sick, just like injesting too much of anything.

 

[MikeK]

Prohibition just doesn't work. I haven't touched mj in over 30 years, no intention of doing so. With that said, in all likelihood, it is every bit of the carcenogenic that tobacco is, so what? As for poisoining oneself with it, all I can say is either you don't know anyone that does a lot of it, or you ignore it for some reason.

Collect the taxes, take it off the black market.

You are quite mistaken in your belief that marijuana is "every bit as carcinogenic as tobacco" (presumably referring specifically to cigarettes). That notion was promoted by the NIDA back in the sixties on the basis of their own "laboratory tests." It was later learned that their tests were conducted on batches of marijuana which were siezed by the DEA from illegal "grows," virtually all of which are contaminated with insecticides and growth-inducing hormones. In fact, one batch was grown in a dump which was contaminated with radioactive chemicals.

You should know that all of the tobacco sold today, especially that which is used in cigarettes, contains a variety of chemicals, including those which enhance the effect of nicotine, all of which can be damaging to the lungs when burned. If you closely examine any commercially available cigarette you will see a progression of faint gray rings encircling its entire length. This is dried potassium nitrate. It is there to keep the cigarette burning. It is carcinogenic when burned.

Also, consider the average cigarette smoker inhales between 20 and 30 cigarettes a day, while the average "regular" marijuana smoker inhales less than ten joints in a week. Also, the only reason smoking is presently the most common means of usage is its illegal status. Smoking is not the only way to use marijuana, nor is it the best way. If it were legal it would be available in a variety of baked and cooked goods -- as it presently is found in medical marijuana dispensaries.

The bottom line here is if you would take the time to research the facts and the truth about marijuana you will find you have been grossly misled. Unadulterated marijuana is not carcinogenic. It is a perfectly benign, natural plant.

 

[MikeK]

True---guess I maybe have seen too many people waste thier lives using the stuff. My opinion may be a bit jaded

Pot and lethargy go hand in hand. The question is, does pot make people lethargic, or do lethargic people gravitate towards pot? I think more the latter than the former, therefore legalize it. Smart people won't burn themselves out on the stuff and losers are losers whether or not their drug of choice is legal.

Marijuana is a benign euphoric tranquilizer. It causes tranquility, not lethargy. The problem is some users overdo it and become overly tranquilized. The reason for this is when buying bootleg marijuana one rarely knows the potency level or how much to use to produce the desired effect, a situation which is comparable to buying bootleg booze during Prohibition.

If marijuana were legal it would be dispensed in known potencies and measured quantities -- as is the booze sold in liquor stores.

 

[MikeK]

Pot and lethargy go hand in hand. The question is, does pot make people lethargic, or do lethargic people gravitate towards pot? I think more the latter than the former, therefore legalize it. Smart people won't burn themselves out on the stuff and losers are losers whether or not their drug of choice is legal.

And the criminals who deal in pot ? Are they all going to get a day job or continue to try to shove stuff on our weak and ignorant ?

In spite of the technical designation, everyone who deals in pot is not a "criminal" type in the accepted sense of the word. Many of the lower level dealers will participate in legal retail distribution. Others will just be out of business, as were the major bootleggers during alcohol prohibition.

 

[MikeK]

It is relatively difficult to grow your own quality tobacco or distill your own alcohol, compared to marijuana. Any high-school dropout can grow their own pot. This limits government's ability to tax it--if a pack of joints were taxed as high as cigarettes, people would just grow their own. People ask "well if the war on drugs is just about government getting big budgets, why don't they legalize it and tax the hell out of it?"...it may be because they can't.

You have the right idea but let me assure you not everyone is able to grow their own marijuana for one reason or other. City residents are one example, as is the typical well populated suburb. And there are many who just don't wish to be bothered with the necessary attention required. (It's not as easy as some might think.)

 

[MikeK]

Government - "Hey mister dope seller. We have just made marijuana a legal substance. We are now going to require you to give us 30% of your profits and fill out a ton of paper work that will be a complete pain in the ass. You will also be subject to commerce and trade laws and any other regulations with your product we see fit."

Dope seller - "Yeah right!, I will continue to take my chances and sell illegally."


The idea that any significant amount of tax revenue would be inccurred is absurd. Not to mention that the bureaucratic apparatus put in place for such activity would soon require even more funding, without realizing any spending cuts in law inforcement of continued illegal drug selling.

You should know beverage alcohol once was Prohibited, during which time a number of criminal syndicates engaged in bootlegging illegally manufactured booze. Then alcohol Prohibition ended and now you can buy all the certified clean and accurately measured booze you want in any of many thousands of liquor stores -- and the liquor industry is quite profitable in spite of considerable tax revenue paid to the government and individual states.

So is there any need for illegal liquor sellers?

 

[MikeK]

Fair enough Mr P.

I was mostly responding to this arguement.

I'm completely pro-legalization of marijuana. The gov. could step in and sell pot making huge amounts of rev. in taxes, which can help pay off our debt.

Just how much pot is consumed? Would are nation be better off if more people smoked pot?

I seriously, honestly, and sincerely believe it would.

 

[MikeK]

Exactly, do we want people going out on their smoke breaks at work or lunch for that matter and smoking a bowl then operating some machinery?

That is all this nation needs is to become a bunch of potheads, think we are bad off now? Wait till that happens, at the very least nothing will get done.

For every person we know that smokes pot there are anotheer thousand who wwould like to but don't want to deal with a scuzball dealer because we know they don't all look like Mary Louise Parker on Weeds, just think what will happeen if you can go to the store and pick up some sensimillia.

It's a shame you have been so pathetically brainwashed. How many workers drink a few shots of tequila on their lunch breaks and then return to operate machinery?

You can do yourself a favor by getting some education on this subject. Your position on marijuana is counterproductive, both for yourself and for the Nation.

 

[MikeK]

Now why do YOU think we shouldn't legalize pot?

Don't you think we have enough legal toxins available to fry our brain and pollute our bodies already?

Marijuana contains no toxins. None. It is a perfectly benign substance.

Truthfully, because I can't stand the stench and gag every time I get a whiff of it and I just don't like being around people who are stoned. Boring.

Then you should just avoid it the way some people, including me, avoid booze.

I don't like the smell, taste, or the effect of it, and I can't stand drunks. So I avoid it. But I know prohibition doesn't work, so the idea of promoting that is simply out of the question.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

The only argument that even gets close to something I might agree with is reduced spending on enforcement. However, I also feel that those same people who are currently participating in perpetuating this criminal activity will just move on to something else that needs enforcement[...]

Such as what?

This is a frequent argument but I've never heard seen or heard an answer to the question of what "something else" did you have in mind as an alternative to illegally selling marijuana. Do you have an answer? If so, what is it?

 

[MikeK]

Here are some more reasons for me to continue supporting NOT legalizing pot.

What are the short-term effects of Marijuana use?

The short-term effects of marijuana use include problems with memory and learning; distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch); difficulty in thinking and problem solving; loss of coordination; and increased heart rate, anxiety, and panic attacks.

I used marijuana on a fairly regular basis throughout the sixties and seventies. So did my late wife, a clinical psychologist. So did most of our friends, including one lawyer, one ranking police official, a newspaper columnist, two nurses and an assistant school principal. In my lifetime I have known many dozens of marijuana users, none of whom reported any of the symptoms listed above. And if you would ask all the psychologically normal marijuana users you know you will find that listing to be nothing but Reefer Madness nonsense.

THC in marijuana is strongly absorbed by fatty tissues in various organs. Generally, traces of THC can be detected by standard urine testing methods several days after a smoking session. In heavy chronic users, traces can sometimes be detected for weeks after they have stopped using marijuana.

Rather than waste a lot of time and space replying to all the misinformation contained in this propaganda piece, let me recommend a very informative book to you. It is, Marijuana, The Forbidden Medicine. It's written by Dr. Lester Grinspoon, MD/Ph.D., Professor of Psychiatric Medicine, Harvard Medical School (available from Amazon).

If you, or anyone else here, is interested in learning the truth about everything mentioned in this propaganda piece, this book will provide a thorough education.

 

[MikeK]

You should go work for big tobacco. They always need new liars.

How many people have EVER gotten lung cancer from pot? How many people have EVER died from smoking pot? Are you always that ignorant?

That kind of ignorance is never temporary.

 

[MikeK]

Remember the couple who ate too many brownies and called to report they were overdosing? They were sick, but it could have been the brownies. I think injesting too much pot would make you sick, just like injesting too much of anything.

I remember it well. The husband was a cop.

The problem is they thought all you need to do to make pot brownies is grind up some leaf or bud and blend it with some brownie mix. That is not how it's done and doing that can cause serious intestinal blockage in addition to some weird cerebral effects.

Doing what they did was analogous to making making and eating scrambled eggs, shells and all. The result will not be the eggs' fault.