Legalize it!

[Dubya]

Not in order of posting, but to my mind, in order of making sense:

We've done this already, but ok.

Legalize it, it's really stupid not to.

Agreed.

If you're talking about tobacco and alcohol, I don't agree with you. We have cake too but there are still people who eat until their asses can't fit through a standard doorway. Plus, unlike alcohol, it's impossible to poison yourself to death with pot, which means it's safer than stuff we already have legalized. Not to mention, I've never heard of a documented case of cancer caused by smoking marijuana. The only evil I see is the imprisonment of thousands just because the government says it's an illegal substance. The market for it is huge so tax revenue from its sale would be as big as or bigger than what the government gleans from tobacco sales. I say "why not?"

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.

As long as pot isn't sprayed with harmful chemicals, I doubt it would be very carcinogenic, if at all.

The best way to destroy the black market and benefit the economy is to just have a sales tax, if it's retailed. I would rather have pot cheap so people could spend their money on other products. It can be grown cheaper than tobacco. Tobacco products and pot should be sold like liquor in stores that remove it from the general public, so children are denied access to even seeing it. It's tobacco that is dangerous and it's use should be highly discouraged from the time a person is very young.

I want pot legalized for the economic benefits and it isn't that hard for people to grow their own and not have to buy it. I don't want to smoke it if it's free. It shouldn't be imported or exported.

 

[Dubya]

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.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU6AVtQethw]Cop Eats Pot Brownies, Calls 911 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[editec]

The legal premise by which the FEDERAL Government lays claim to controlling POT has to do with their theory that any POT grown anywhere COULD BE sold interstate.

Ergo, they reason, they have the right to control it, as they have the constiutional right to control interstate commerce.

If you think that's a rather thin legal argument, you're right, but the SCOTUS does not agree.

 

[NoNukes]

At this POINT, DRUGS are so READILY AVAILABLE that those who do not want to use drugs should form communities where they may treat users with any degree of protection they wish to take and let the users kill themselves off. This includes self defense laws that give extra protection against actions taken against someone under the influence. Denying medical care to users.

I notice there was another drug success this morning with the death of Mindy McCready.

Putting pot smokers with hard drug users is ridiculous and dangerous. Look at the Dutch example.

Yes look at the Dutch example and why they started cracking down. If we looked at the Dutch example, we would understand they are trying to make right now, the wrong they did in the past.

This has been reversed. As usual, you are posting bullshit.

 

[DNAprotection]

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!

You haven't addressed the point and what you have posted is worthless to the conversation.
Why does that judge insist growing tomato plants is a constitutional right? Or more correctly stated how does the constitution protect such self evident rights?

 

[NoNukes]

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.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU6AVtQethw]Cop Eats Pot Brownies, Calls 911 - YouTube[/ame]

Sounds like they used some really good shit.

 

[Katzndogz]

Putting pot smokers with hard drug users is ridiculous and dangerous. Look at the Dutch example.

Yes look at the Dutch example and why they started cracking down. If we looked at the Dutch example, we would understand they are trying to make right now, the wrong they did in the past.

This has been reversed. As usual, you are posting bullshit.

I notice that you give no support to your assertion. If you looked it up, you would know that the only reversal was the total ban on drug tourism. All of the other limitations remain in place with a total ban on the strongest strain of marijuana called "skunk".

 

[ima]

We should outlaw alcohol instead.

 

[NoNukes]

Yes look at the Dutch example and why they started cracking down. If we looked at the Dutch example, we would understand they are trying to make right now, the wrong they did in the past.

This has been reversed. As usual, you are posting bullshit.

I notice that you give no support to your assertion. If you looked it up, you would know that the only reversal was the total ban on drug tourism. All of the other limitations remain in place with a total ban on the strongest strain of marijuana called "skunk".

The total ban on drug tourism was the main issue. I live in Europe and visit Amsterdam, I know what is going on first hand.

 

[longknife]

I posted something about the total dysfunction of Yemen due to its people chewing on Quat [or something like that] which has all the same effects as smoking of grass. It just might explain the dysfunction in our institutions of higher education which I have a feeling are similar.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

Thank you, oh Great and Mighty Oz, for telling me what I am saying! Idiot.

In an agrarian society, which is what we were once upon a time, the idea that it could be illegal for a man to grow a plant on his own property for his own use would have been laughed out of the public square. The concept would have been utterly foreign.

Kind of like how the concept of functioning, firing synapses is foreign to you.

Take a look at the idiotic way people are supporting pro legalization of marijuana! Let's start off with you. China was an agrarian society when it outlawed opium, which comes from a plant, so they weren't allowed to grow fields of poppies.

Let's just say the....

....BUSH/PRESCOTT families....

.......got a LITTLE greedy.


​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

Thank you, oh Great and Mighty Oz, for telling me what I am saying! Idiot.

In an agrarian society, which is what we were once upon a time, the idea that it could be illegal for a man to grow a plant on his own property for his own use would have been laughed out of the public square. The concept would have been utterly foreign.

Kind of like how the concept of functioning, firing synapses is foreign to you.

Hemp paper is six times more expensive than paper made from wood.​

Gee.....I'm really convinced.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Yes look at the Dutch example and why they started cracking down. If we looked at the Dutch example, we would understand they are trying to make right now, the wrong they did in the past.

This has been reversed. As usual, you are posting bullshit.

I notice that you give no support to your assertion. If you looked it up, you would know that the only reversal was the total ban on drug tourism. All of the other limitations remain in place with a total ban on the strongest strain of marijuana called "skunk".

.

.

"...the strongest strain of marijuana called "skunk"."

.

.

.

Skippy, Skippy, Skippy.....whatta we gonna do, with you?????

"skunk" is an old, old slang term (for home-grown), from clear-back in the '80s....due to it's acrid-scent....something people never really noticed, UNTIL indoor-growing exploded, back in the early-'80s!!!!!

Ask someone old-enough to (actually) remember.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU6AVtQethw]Cop Eats Pot Brownies, Calls 911 - YouTube[/ame]

Sounds like they used some really good shit.

Actually, there's (always) a marginally-significant percentage of THC that's inactive, until heated.

We used to take any-and-ALL greenery (from an indoor-plant), after the buds were taken off.....dry-it-out, until it would crumble.....then mix a quarter-cup into a 9X9 pan o' brownies. It was a high that lasted much-longer than smoking!!​

 

[MikeK]

All drugs should be legal and there should be no penalty at all for taking a user out of gene pool.

You're a waste of time and space, so off you go to my Ignore List.

 

[Dubya]

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!

You haven't addressed the point and what you have posted is worthless to the conversation.
Why does that judge insist growing tomato plants is a constitutional right? Or more correctly stated how does the constitution protect such self evident rights?

A farmer tried to appeal having his wheat crop destroyed in 1940 on the grounds he was using it to feed his own chickens and the wheat wasn't used for interstate commerce. The Supreme Court decided it did involve interstate commerce, because his chickens would require wheat from elsewhere. If the Supreme Court is going to decide that about wheat, what are they going to decide about pot? What some Judge says about tomatoes isn't making case law of the land, so unless you can come up with a Supreme Court decision reversing previous case law, your plant defense isn't going to cut it. Judges can decide whatever, but that doesn't make it the law of the land. Only the Supreme Court can reverse their case law. The Supreme Court is not going to tell Congress that it can't make a law prohibiting a plant with obvious drug effects. There are wild plants that grow in America that are illegal to possess or intentionally cultivate.

The issue here is also one of property rights. Governments are allowed to prohibit ownership of certain properties, such as chemicals, animals, plants, bacteria and viruses. When a law is made prohibiting owning that property, you can't legally own it to claim it as your property. Even property that is legal to own can be deprived from a person by due process.

The law isn't about what you think it is, what you think it should be or what you want it to be. The law is what it is and the government does have the constitutional right to make pot illegal to own, just like coca or opium poppies. The issue with pot is whether it's worth making it illegal. Having pot illegal is making it worth hundred of times it's value and feeding a black market that wouldn't be there if it was legal. Quality pot is probably worth around $20 to $30 a pound. It can easily be harvested, dried and frozen to last a year. Having pot illegal is just a big waste of law enforcement and criminal justice efforts and has negative economic consequences. If it was easily available and cheap, it might deter people from using more harmful drugs and make Sergeant Joe Friday badge #714 turn over in his grave.

 

[MikeK]

Amsterdam has become a pit of filth and criminality. They will soon have to clean it back up. Legalizing all drugs is a magnet to addicts and criminals.

I don't know about "a pit of filth and criminality," but Amsterdam does have a problem with so-called drug tourism emanating mainly from the U.S. but also from some European countries. Aside from that, marijuana has been freely available to adults in Amsterdam since 1976 with absolutely no negative effects on the population. In fact, use by adolescents has decreased significantly -- along with the national crime rate.

You should know that marijuana was decriminalized throughout the seventies in New York City, which attracted some pot tourism from neighboring states but nothing of any significant mention. In fact the situation in New York during that period is best described as a model for legalization, which in all probability would have occurred by now were it not for Ronald Reagan and his quaalude-addicted dink of a wife, Nancy.

As for Amsterdam, what I've heard is they've now restricted sales to citizens and are prosecuting bootleggers. As soon as the word gets out that marijuana is no longer freely available to tourists that problem will solve itself. So it's no big deal.

 

[Dubya]

Thank you, oh Great and Mighty Oz, for telling me what I am saying! Idiot.

In an agrarian society, which is what we were once upon a time, the idea that it could be illegal for a man to grow a plant on his own property for his own use would have been laughed out of the public square. The concept would have been utterly foreign.

Kind of like how the concept of functioning, firing synapses is foreign to you.

Hemp paper is six times more expensive than paper made from wood.​

Gee.....I'm really convinced.

The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 didn't apply to the whole world, so why isn't hemp paper popular? I understand the only real market for it is cigarette paper. Hemp needs to be harvested before it flowers and that means there is usually only one crop per year in most of the world. Paper is used all year long, so hemp paper has large additional storage costs. It also has less than half the cellulose of wood.

I think you types want to believe a fantasy and refuse to examine facts. There was no giant conspiracy to make pot illegal. Once it's commercial usefulness ended, many societies prohibited it's use as a drug.

 

[MikeK]

Look at the downturn in our society since pot smoking began to be socially acceptable in the 60's..

Please be more specific about what you mean by "downturn."

 

[MikeK]

I'm completely pro-legalization of marijuana.

I'm for the government staying the hell out of consensual activity between adults. I don't care if you smoke cannabis or choose to shoot gasoline into your vein.

Yes bath salts sold at the convenience store is an example of great it can be.

Just think if you could get some crystal methamphetamine with your loaf of bread and lottery tickets.

First, it is foolish and pointlessly ignorant to compare marijuana with methamphetamine.

Last, anyone who is sufficiently self-destructive to use crystal meth and has the cash to buy some will have no trouble locating a source. So what you need to understand is drug laws don't work. All they do is create a street market, elevate prices, and foster the emerging Prison Industrial Complex.

The solution to the drug problem is sensible public education and realistic legal controls over availability.

Again, drug laws don't work. You should know that by now.