Questions on Decriminalization/Legalization movement

[emilynghiem]

Here’s my stance Rocko – prohibition doesn’t work. It’s certainly not discouraging anyone from using the drug given the frequency and sheer popularity of pot in the US today. So I say lets regulate it so that the people selling it are forced to check ID, forced to make sure that there were no harmful pesticides used, etc because currently the “gatekeepers/sellers” of pot do not check IDs. It’s easier for a kid in high school to get his hand on a joint vs a beer for this reason.

Lets approach this with consistency, common sense, and reason.
.

What has proven effective is using various methods of "spiritual healing" to address root causes of disease, abuse and addiction.

If I saw that more people who have experienced, believe in or promote the effectiveness of spiritual healing were also pushing for legalization, I might listen to their arguments that are not based on supporting any profit off drug use.

Chuck Colson who started the Justice Fellowship and Prison Fellowship did advocate for legalization. Clearly his motive was to help more people get out and stay out of trouble with the law.

So I think those advocates might gain respect where these other arguments fail from people distrusting the political motives of the source. Once they distrust your reasons or motives, no matter what you say, the bias can override all else.

If our motives conflict, I'm not sure any arguments we may cite are going to change that.

 

[emilynghiem]

Here’s my stance Rocko – prohibition doesn’t work. It’s certainly not discouraging anyone from using the drug given the frequency and sheer popularity of pot in the US today. So I say lets regulate it so that the people selling it are forced to check ID, forced to make sure that there were no harmful pesticides used, etc because currently the “gatekeepers/sellers” of pot do not check IDs. It’s easier for a kid in high school to get his hand on a joint vs a beer for this reason.

Lets approach this with consistency, common sense, and reason.
.

What has proven effective is using various methods of "spiritual healing" to address root causes of disease, abuse and addiction. Once you get rid of the cause of the internal conflict, there is no need to use external substances so the demand drops.

Such methods can never be forced on people, or they don't work; they are all based on free choice, so govt cannot mandate or force these corrections on people which is spiritual.

If I saw that more people who have experienced, believe in or promote the effectiveness of spiritual healing were also pushing for legalization, I might listen to their arguments that are not based on supporting any profit off drug use. For example, Chuck Colson who started the Justice Fellowship and Prison Fellowship did advocate for legalization. Clearly his motive was to help more people get out and stay out of trouble, not promoting drugs.

So I think those advocates might gain respect where these other arguments fail from people distrusting the political motives of the source. Once they distrust your reasons or motives, no matter what you say, the bias can override all else.

If our motives conflict, I'm not sure any arguments we may cite are going to change that.
We might do better sticking to where are motives agree, and then backing up those points.

 

[KevinWestern]

Maybe I'm just old fashioned. And given enough time, we old folks who were brought up old fashioned will die out, and the next generations who don't worry about "old fogey stuff like we do" can just take over and run things any which way. Maybe it's just a matter of time, and there won't BE anyone left to have these arguments with. We'll be out the way of the dinosaurs! if the drug wars don't kill us all first.

Wow you write a lot! Don’t mean that in a bad way, just pointing out that I might not be able to hit on all points.

I believe you’re saying that I’m sort of unfairly pushing the “it’s harmless, or at least not worth the dollars we spend policing it” argument because a lot of older (or old-fashioned folks) truly believe that legalizing the drug would cause usage to go up, and for society to experience a major negative impact as a result. Fair enough – totally understand and I respect your opinion.

And you’re also saying that as a compromise (to the crowd who holds the opinion described above) we provide some sort of a method to treat people addicted to pot before making the drug legal. Again, that’s fair enough.

However, (and I’m going to be brutally honest here) I strongly feel that it will take a lot less effort to just “wait it out” and allow things to work it course. As time marches on, the older generation will increasingly become less active in politics & marijuana prohibition laws will increasingly have less defenders. Inevitably – I believe – we’re going to see 100% legalization in the next 10-20 years everywhere. Way too many young people support this, and (just due to the way of things) they’re going to be the ones running things soon enough.

I don’t mean this in a rude way or anything like that, and I do think you have valid concerns. However I just don’t feel like this is an issue that’s going to require a lot of “compromise” as time rolls on. In my view, it was a shaky law forged in racism/lies/propaganda (in the 1930's) and just doesn't have a whole lot of solid footing to rest upon when there are no longer any supporters backing it up. It's almost like you just need to step back and watch it crumble - you know what I mean?

But again, do I support addiction counseling and whatnot, of course, and I do believe (most) of the people supporting prohibition do so with good intentions.

 

[emilynghiem]

Give me a break!

People get addicted to the high marijuana gives you. It may not be psychically addictive, but it is an addictive substance nonetheless. Case closed.

By that logic, shopping, gambling and co-dependent relationships aren't physically addictive, but people do get psychologically addicted to the high those activities generate.

Should we ban shopping, gambling, and co-dependency as well?

1. I still believe it is important not to "underestimate or downplay" the RISKS of getting addicted to the chemical substances in MJ. Yes, I also believe if people are addicted to "retail therapy" where it is endangering them, this should not be downplayed either.

2. as for why some things are legal or illegal, and under what conditions people do or don't agree to change the policies the other way:

this is a matter of consensus, on what policies or conditions people agree to or not.

so yes, if people in a state or city all had similar fears as with drugs, that shopping would be abused or promoted WITHOUT adequately controls or enforcement against abuse,
SO MUCH that they would rather pay millions more for problems caused by banning it,
I would take the same approach of finding out what is causing the fear or objections, and what better ways to address the abuse issue if that is what is fueling public fear. I would still try to organize agreements on "agreed conditions" to end problems on all sides.

I believe the resulting consensus would not only solve the problem at hand, but a lot of other issues, so the benefits to the community or society would be on multiple levels.

 

[KevinWestern]

Here’s my stance Rocko – prohibition doesn’t work. It’s certainly not discouraging anyone from using the drug given the frequency and sheer popularity of pot in the US today. So I say lets regulate it so that the people selling it are forced to check ID, forced to make sure that there were no harmful pesticides used, etc because currently the “gatekeepers/sellers” of pot do not check IDs. It’s easier for a kid in high school to get his hand on a joint vs a beer for this reason.

Lets approach this with consistency, common sense, and reason.
.

What has proven effective is using various methods of "spiritual healing" to address root causes of disease, abuse and addiction.

If I saw that more people who have experienced, believe in or promote the effectiveness of spiritual healing were also pushing for legalization, I might listen to their arguments that are not based on supporting any profit off drug use.

Chuck Colson who started the Justice Fellowship and Prison Fellowship did advocate for legalization. Clearly his motive was to help more people get out and stay out of trouble with the law.

So I think those advocates might gain respect where these other arguments fail from people distrusting the political motives of the source. Once they distrust your reasons or motives, no matter what you say, the bias can override all else.

If our motives conflict, I'm not sure any arguments we may cite are going to change that.

Let me say this. I believe that ultimately none of us should require drugs and that we should be able to reach these spiritual heights naturally. I will also note that legalization isn't the government condoning drug use. Not to any stretch of the imagination. There's a lot of things that are legal that lawmakers don't "condone" - like watching mindless, slobbering reality TV.

I believe however that you don't teach people to "grow" by taking away "all the bad things". That just makes people avoid something because they're afraid of going to jail, rather than truly know that they don't need the drug.

I believe we aught to have the freedom to do what we want (and I'm talking things that don't harm others) as adults and not have the government play the role of total nanny. Give adults the opportunity to make their own mistakes, and learn from their experiences. That's true growth.

You know?

 

[emilynghiem]

Maybe I'm just old fashioned. And given enough time, we old folks who were brought up old fashioned will die out, and the next generations who don't worry about "old fogey stuff like we do" can just take over and run things any which way. Maybe it's just a matter of time, and there won't BE anyone left to have these arguments with. We'll be out the way of the dinosaurs! if the drug wars don't kill us all first.

Wow you write a lot! Don’t mean that in a bad way, just pointing out that I might not be able to hit on all points.

I believe you’re saying that I’m sort of unfairly pushing the “it’s harmless, or at least not worth the dollars we spend policing it” argument because a lot of older (or old-fashioned folks) truly believe that legalizing the drug would cause usage to go up, and for society to experience a major negative impact as a result. Fair enough – totally understand and I respect your opinion.

And you’re also saying that as a compromise (to the crowd who holds the opinion described above) we provide some sort of a method to treat people addicted to pot before making the drug legal. Again, that’s fair enough.

However, (and I’m going to be brutally honest here) I strongly feel that it will take a lot less effort to just “wait it out” and allow things to work it course. As time marches on, the older generation will increasingly become less active in politics & marijuana prohibition laws will increasingly have less defenders. Inevitably – I believe – we’re going to see 100% legalization in the next 10-20 years everywhere. Way too many young people support this, and (just due to the way of things) they’re going to be the ones running things soon enough.

I don’t mean this in a rude way or anything like that, and I do think you have valid concerns. However I just don’t feel like this is an issue that’s going to require a lot of “compromise” as time rolls on. In my view, it was a shaky law forged in racism/lies/propaganda (in the 1930's) and just doesn't have a whole lot of solid footing to rest upon when there are no longer any supporters backing it up. It's almost like you just need to step back and watch it crumble - you know what I mean?

But again, do I support addiction counseling and whatnot, of course, and I do believe (most) of the people supporting prohibition do so with good intentions.

Thanks KW. I think your assessments are very fair, and truly appreciate your insights and posts here.

I think we could see these problems resolved sooner, by proving the beneficial effects and methods of spiritual healing on physical and mental illness.

I am not as willing to wait another 10-20 years, as I have had enough of the problems.

I am hoping we could reach "agreement" on approach with this upcoming election cycle,
and start investing funds directly into "agreed solutions or studies" instead of wasting another billion dollars here and there on parties fighting against each other's approaches.

And if it takes 5 years, 10 or 20, and 50 years to apply these solutions, that will come in time. I am mainly concerned we reach an agreement on where to focus the reforms.

I cannot tell you enough how much I appreciate your willingness to accommodate the opinions of people you disagree with, and hope such an approach proves to reach your goals sooner.

I believe your being open to work with opposing views, even if they are wrong and people just need to see X Y and Z for totally unfounded reasons, then people will respond likewise to you the same way, despite disagreement. I believe that goes a LONG WAY to building trust and working relations, instead of misreading each other's intentions.
And I hope to see more and more of that in politics, where we no longer fear conflicts has to mean imposition or compromise.

I have faith we will sooner get what we want by including instead of blocking each other.

Thanks Kevin, you and others have also opened up my mind on different points also.
So I hope that helps the larger process we are part of to move forward in general.

Kudos to you and best wishes on your outreach. Thanks for all your help here!

 

[Harry Dresden]

I think all drugs should be legal, so as you said from that perspective we have no disagreement.

Just on the use of pot though, I would agree that for people who truly only smoke it on a Friday night with friends instead of drinking, I don't see a difference. However, it's a poor analogy to your examples of books, biking, ... For regular pot users, they are using pot to retard their natural mental development. I see people who use pot and say it's the same, but they smoke it in the morning and during the day on weekdays. Only serious alcoholics do that. Other than true, social pot smokers, I think pot smokers are deluding themselves.

However, again, that is not an appropriate choice for government any more than the decision to have cake and ice cream for dinner.

i dont know how many parties i went too were the people there were sitting in the living room smoking pot with maybe a beer or two or something else .....and how many Frat parties i went to where they had a Keg of Beer in the back and just about everyone was getting buzzed.....guess which one the cops got called too every time, because of the noise and sometimes because of the fights that broke out?.....

I'm not sure the difference in those scenarios was really pot versus alcohol though

i was sure Kaz.....at the one where there was a houseful of people sitting around smoking and casually drinking with some music on as compared to a Frat party with a nice big Keg in the back yard and everyone there filling their belly with beer and getting louder by the hour.....parties dominated by Alcohol get loud and sometimes violent and the Cops were always called by the neighbors....and there was always people under 21 too to make matters worse....

 

[Harry Dresden]

I'm not sure the difference in those scenarios was really pot versus alcohol though

True, but...

I won't speak for all people, but must say (however) that via my own personal experiences with the two is that I generally will do and say many more things that I will "regret" later while drinking. I would like to believe that people will tend to agree with me on this.

Anyone else?

i agree....Alcohol makes many turn into their asshole im a brave motherfucker persona....i have seen people talk more after smoking Pot but never like they are now some brave asshole thats going to kick everyone's ass.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

There's an interesting study on water to come out recently. It was concluded that all people need to drink water to survive. Go figure. The inconvenient truth for some of the potheads here is there is a proven link between psychosis and pot, in particularly regarding people suffering from schizophrenia. Do some research on the subject. As a matter of fact is very possible that pot contributed to the actions of jared loughner and many more like him.

But Rocko, I don't suffer from Schizophrenia. In fact, a very small percentage of the population does.

Why should an everyday taxpaying citizen be fined or arrested by a police officer because he/she decides to smoke marijuana in his/her freetime? The "other" laws are not suspended if I were to smoke, lol; if I raped, pillaged, stole, murdered, or kidnapped while under the influence I will be thrown in jail - I assure you.

But arrested simply for purchasing the plant? Arrested for smoking peacefully?

That is absurd.

You may not suffer from it, but a lot of people do, and if one of them stab you after being in a pot induce psychotic episode, then it becomes everyone's problem, doesn't it?

you know what Rock?...some people are affected by Rambo type movies.....not many,but some....so should Rambo type movies be banned because 1 person out of 100 million might go berserk and shoot someone?...

 

[Harry Dresden]

Some would disagree.

Psychology Today:



National Institute on Drug Abuse

But, lonestar is the "addictiveness" of something generally the key reason for making it illegal? For locking people up because they used it?

I don't think so, and I think that method of approach is faulty and would most definitely be met with numerous contradictions if it were to be applied to all laws.

Coffee can be highly addictive, sex can be highly addictive, video games can be highly addictive, tobacco can be highly addictive, alcohol can be highly addictive, mayonnaise can be highly addictive, etc.

Get my point?

I'm not arguing either way. I was just pointing out the fact that there are some people that say it is addictive.

it can be mentally addictive.....when i quit after 30 years....i felt nothing physical at all....it was mostly a mental thing with me,like after a week you would not mind kicking back and puffing on a fatty.....but there was none so you put that urge out of your mind....maybe a few weeks later same thing.....eventually it was a thing of the past....

 

[Harry Dresden]

As long as you do not have children or pets, there nothing prohibitive about smoking pot while confined. No going out in public while it's in your system. deadly force against a pot user is always acceptable.

geezus you must be a wonderful person to be around....nothing like a closed minded paranoid fuck.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

You may not suffer from it, but a lot of people do, and if one of them stab you after being in a pot induce psychotic episode, then it becomes everyone's problem, doesn't it?

First of all, if you stab someone and it's not self defense you're going to jail. There's already a law designed to prevent that. We don't need another "layer" of law.

As I mentioned, why am I - a hardworking, taxpaying American - not allowed to smoke marijuana in the comfort of my own home? Again, if I break the law while smoking I'll be content with going to jail. The laws still apply. But to smoke peacefully? Why is that prohibited?

The benefit from granting people like you the freedom to smoke a joint doesn't outweigh the harm caused to society by mentally ill people smoking. Besides smoking pot is bad for everyone. Yes it does have a few medicinal purposes, and should be used in those rare circumstances, but by in large it's harmful to everyone.

Rocko....would you be for banning Alcohol and Cigarettes because of the harmful effects they have on everyone?......

 

[Harry Dresden]

As long as you do not have children or pets, there nothing prohibitive about smoking pot while confined. No going out in public while it's in your system. deadly force against a pot user is always acceptable.

Doesn't it stay in your system for weeks?

you are not high for weeks Rocko.....you are not high even the next day.....Rock you ever smoke Pot?....or are you like Katz....clueless.....

 

[emilynghiem]

Here’s my stance Rocko – prohibition doesn’t work. It’s certainly not discouraging anyone from using the drug given the frequency and sheer popularity of pot in the US today. So I say lets regulate it so that the people selling it are forced to check ID, forced to make sure that there were no harmful pesticides used, etc because currently the “gatekeepers/sellers” of pot do not check IDs. It’s easier for a kid in high school to get his hand on a joint vs a beer for this reason.

Lets approach this with consistency, common sense, and reason.
.

What has proven effective is using various methods of "spiritual healing" to address root causes of disease, abuse and addiction.

If I saw that more people who have experienced, believe in or promote the effectiveness of spiritual healing were also pushing for legalization, I might listen to their arguments that are not based on supporting any profit off drug use.

Chuck Colson who started the Justice Fellowship and Prison Fellowship did advocate for legalization. Clearly his motive was to help more people get out and stay out of trouble with the law.

So I think those advocates might gain respect where these other arguments fail from people distrusting the political motives of the source. Once they distrust your reasons or motives, no matter what you say, the bias can override all else.

If our motives conflict, I'm not sure any arguments we may cite are going to change that.

Let me say this. I believe that ultimately none of us should require drugs and that we should be able to reach these spiritual heights naturally. I will also note that legalization isn't the government condoning drug use. Not to any stretch of the imagination. There's a lot of things that are legal that lawmakers don't "condone" - like watching mindless, slobbering reality TV.

I believe however that you don't teach people to "grow" by taking away "all the bad things". That just makes people avoid something because they're afraid of going to jail, rather than truly know that they don't need the drug.

I believe we aught to have the freedom to do what we want (and I'm talking things that don't harm others) as adults and not have the government play the role of total nanny. Give adults the opportunity to make their own mistakes, and learn from their experiences. That's true growth.

You know?

Yes and sorry for where I misread your intent as not caring.

I believe as we show we can unify on reforms
and take responsibility directly, not keep relying on parties to bully or force policy on others
(which I am STILL working on, and don't find a lot of people willing to try this),
then we WILL be rewarded with more local self-government.

Even the very liberal criminal justice reformist I spoke with yesterday
DID NOT TRUST States Rights to be enough, but insisted we NEEDED federal govt.

So we are not there yet. Whatever it takes to remove the FEAR from the equation that crime cannot be controlled locally and internally, or that "other groups have some conflicting political agenda to be FEARED" -- I think that FEAR, when it gets projected collectively, is the root of all evil, all abusive and oppressive tactics.

With the insights I gained here, I will keep urging people from all parties to work together on points of reform we can actually agree on. And trust that will dispel the fears separating us.

I think all these "wars" locally and abroad are the consequences of our projected fears.
So we will see less and less of that as we confront our own fears and build bridges instead.

I do believe the governments will follow the direction the people take, so it is up to us.
It is "natural law" that the government reflects the consent of the people, so it is critical to unite and express a unified position so we no longer suffer from being "divided and conquered" by political interests taking advantage of conflicts. The more responsibility we take back, government policy will surely follow. Thanks everyone! You've been wonderful!

 

[Harry Dresden]

Have you noticed people can murder people too? Guess we better make that legal

tapatalk post

so why are you avoiding my simple little question i asked you a while back?...

When did you stop beating your wife?

tapatalk post

geezus....hey if you dont want discuss this topic....what the fuck are you doing here?....you are just another person who's only experience with Pot is what you have read about or heard 2nd hand....just another paranoid clueless mother fucker.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

so why are you avoiding my simple little question i asked you a while back?...

When did you stop beating your wife?

tapatalk post

I have never beat my wife or any woman in my life.

Now, your question has been answered, how about answering his....

he wont because he has never even seen a Joint in person.....but he knows all about pot....practical experience....

 

[Harry Dresden]

It's not just about stabbing sprees, although more incidents would occur if pot was decriminalized/made legal. I personally don't know anyone harmed by schizophrenic, but I'm sure such cases exist.

I never said it's a non issue. I don't know where you got that from. The fact is Pot makes mentally unstable people more dangerous to society. It is a big issue in that regard.

If the # of accidents is to be our criteria on whether or not a substance should be illegal, are you willing to prohibit alcohol as well given that it is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths - far more than marijuana - each year from people behind the wheel?

If you're consistent, I can respect that

.

The whole point of smoking weed is to get high. A person can drink alcohol responsibly. It is true that there are a significant amount of alcohol and pot related automobile deaths. So is your plan to make things worse by legalizing weed and having more people drive stoned.

Rock....why do guys come home from work and drink a few beers?......why do they drink watching a game?.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

[...]

With that said, I can't speak for everyone but I think the drug can be beneficial if you use it correctly. You've got to realize that a lot of people who smoke and are successful use the drug somewhat covertly - in the comfort of their home - and (wisely) do not advertise it due to many of the negative stigmas hanging out there right now. I think that's an important thing to remember.

I agree.

Saying "Pot-smokers I've known . . ." is comparable to saying "Booze-drinkers I've known. . . ." There is a distinctly negative implication in either example.

There really is no reason why anyone other than close friends and those who share common social attitudes and habits should be acquainted with one's private recreational preferences. It follows that anyone who is known to be either a "pot-smoker" or a "booze-drinker" clearly has a problem.

Mike if you and i were at the same party and we were both partaking in a joint with a few other people.....i would then think you and the others are...."Pot- Smokers"....it does not mean you have a problem.....

 

[MarcATL]

Your ignorance of how drugs addiction effects more then just you is astounding. ...... this country isn't ready for legal pot because of people like you

tapatalk post

Being an asshole affects more than just you. That does not mean that there are victims involved. Are you incapable of coherent thought?


There are no victims with drug abuse, that is a cold hard fact - one that those advocating locking people up for harming themselves simply cannot come to grips with.

the fucker never answered my question either.....i wonder why?...

Because he has no answer...that would benefit his ideological claims & lies.

 

[MarcATL]

[...]

I'm anti-pot. It may not be physically addictive, but it's certainly mentally addictive. However, I actually meant it when I said I want government to allow us make our own choices over our own lies and our own bodies, and I meant it if we make the right or the wrong choices...

You've got it almost right, so let's trim the rough edge.

Marijuana is "mentally addictive" -- but only where those affected by the addictive personality are concerned. These are individuals who are inclined to addiction and will throughout their tormented lives become addicted to everything from chocolate to alcohol, sex, and/or opiates. And somewhere along the line they will pick up on marijuana.

The infamous "gateway drug" notion is attributed to this category because it is assumed their addictive progress began with marijuana when in fact it could have started with Hershey bars, cigarettes, beer, or any number of things. I knew someone who once drove fifteen miles to an all-night convenience store at 3AM to buy Coca Cola. She also was "addicted" to marijuana and cocaine. I will assume that by now, presuming she's still alive, she has progressed to heroin and amphetamines.

Fortunately the addictive personality is uncommon. So to think of marijuana as being mentally addictive in the general sense is a mistake.

Good point, Mike. I like you don't really buy the gateway drug argument, and for that reason. BTW, I smoked pot in High School and for a couple years in college. It was the seventies, pot was everywhere. I also do believe what they say and that it's a lot more potent now. I never did any other drugs and had no interest in doing so. However, I do think my starting to grow up and quitting smoking pot are not unrelated.

Does that same argument apply to alcohol for you, or anyone else, as well?

Is drinking a childish thing that tapers off and ultimately stops once one "grows up?" Should it be?