General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Ray Charles
 
First off, nowhere in my post was I arguing the legalization issue at all. I have my views on that, but my post concerned your claims of death and destruction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid
You must have missed the part about police comonly busting into the wrong house and shooting innocent people who had nothing to do with marijuana at all. No one should die for marijuana and police shouldn't be busting into peoples homes because they might <gasp> be growing a plant there. Police have better things to do than to get shot at or shoot people over a plant, like protecting people from those who want to harm them, not protecting people from what they want to do to themselves in the privacy of their own home.

Police errors would be there wether or not the target was a Marijuana grower. Wether the police screwed up while they were raiding a marijuana grower or a crackhouse doesn't matter. You saying that the police have more important concerns than marijuana addresses legalization, which I'm not arguing right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid
There is no such thing as a legitimate marijuana dispensery according to the federal government and if they have their way there never will be. They DO NOT CARE if you are abiding by state law, they don't want those state laws to stand. They have raided numerous dispenseries that were operating under state law including many licensed personal grow operations that were only supplying medical marijuana to between one and a handful of fully state licensed medical marijuana users. They do not care about legitimacy under local law they only care about enforcing their view, that any and all marijuana use is a clear and present danger to our nation. You act as though they were given a fair chance, this is not a fair game. The rules are stacked in the government's favor and they are going to do everything they can get away with to keep it that way.

In that case, they fall under the previous category. They were breaking federal laws. This could turn into a States' Rights discussion, but I won't go into that. Once again, it's stupid to break federal law and expect to get away with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid
What do you think the feds would do to these people given the chance? They would lock them in prison and let them die without medecine because they claim they were drug kingpins because they dared to grow plants in their own home for their own consumption to aleviate symptoms of some disease. Then when they take you to court they don't even allow you to mention medical conditions, state laws you were complying with, or medical marijuana at all so you have no defense.

Once again, people breaking the law shouldn't complain when they get hammered. You're agruing legalization again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid
No, prohibition creates the problem and prohibition perpetuates the problem. Prohibition laws have decided that it is more illegal for you to grow your own plant at home than it is to continue to support the black market and criminal enterprise. The penalties for growning your own weed are far more stiff than they are for being caught in possesion of the final product pretty much anywhere.

The demand is high because people like altering their state of consciouisness and people like weed but the supply is limited because of prohibition which is what makes it so lucrative. If it were a legal product it would be grown openly in large fields and it would cost about as much as other fresh organic produce: SEVERAL DOLLARS PER POUND. Prohibition is what makes something that actually does GROW ON TREES in abundance cost as much as precious metals ounce for ounce. There is no reason for marijuana to cost upwards of $400 an ounce except for prohibition.

I said in my earlier post that legalization would solve those problems. The fact remains that with the way it is now, the people buying the pot are supporting this activity that you blame on prohibition. It's Supply and Demand because there are two factors. If Demand is low then no matter how much supply there is it won't be a good way to make money. People wanting to smoke pot doesn't have to be a fact of life. If stopping this violence is that important to you then you can make a difference right now by quitting smoking. All I'm saying is don't just complain about a problem that you can do something about stopping.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid
Now you are just being silly. I wasn't around in 1937, nor was I a member of congress at that time, as such I had nothing to do with marijuana being made illegal for racist, ignorant reasons. I did not write for newspapers at the time making up bogus stories of mexicans and negros going on rampages after smoking a little of the devil weed. I had absolutely no part in causing the problem and if it were up to me I would end the problem (prohibition), sadly it is not up to me. The only thing that will stop this is educating the people so they will demand that this nonsense be ended.

And this notion that everyone should just stop doing what they want to their own bodies so everyone else can just be happy is a load of shit too. An individuals right to govern their own internal body and the basic functioning of their own mind is beyond the government's authority. Where the government seeks to regulate the chemical operations/interactions that are going on inside my brain while I sit in the privacy of my own home they overstep their bounds. There has never been a good reason for marijuana to be illegal. It is a safer drug than alcohol or tobacco and the people who choose to use it should not be penalized for their personal choice for no good reason.

Perhaps if marijuana had been made illegal because of some public harm it was actually causing and not because it was associated with certain groups and made illegal just to harrass those groups then you would have a good argument that it is the users causing the problem. Unfortunately for you the reason marijuana was made illegal was because it was associated with mexicans and white people thought there were a few too many of them around during the depression. Then marijuana was associated with black people and white people had a problem with them too. Then it was associated with anti-war hippies and the counter culture and we know how dangerous that lot is with their peace and love crap so we had to keep it illegal despite repeated presidential studies saying there was no reason for it to be illegal. If there is no good reason for the law in the first place then there is no good reason for it now. Saying it should be supported just because it is the law is unamerican and silly. There is no good reason to support an unjust law.

The fact of the matter is that prohibition brings suffering and death to people all over the world. This is a fact. Whether you think those people who are suffering and dying are worth your consideration is up to you. Personally I wouldn't blame the people who are victimized by our unwillingness to abolish a meritless prohibition for causing the problem. The blame lies squarely with those who are unwilling to admit that it was a mistake and that it should end immediately.

Marijuana wasn't profitable until it was prohibited and was high in demand. Once again, there are two ways to solve that problem. Everything else you're saying is arguing for legalization, which I'm not doing right here.
__________________
"You're pretty brave in cyberspace, flame-boy." -- Scott Adams
Gen[M]ay Pro Audio Club
Old 01-11-2006, 06:19 PM Ray Charles is offline  
Reply With Quote
#301  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
The fact remains that with the way it is now, the people buying the pot are supporting this activity that you blame on prohibition. It's Supply and Demand because there are two factors. If Demand is low then no matter how much supply there is it won't be a good way to make money. People wanting to smoke pot doesn't have to be a fact of life. If stopping this violence is that important to you then you can make a difference right now by quitting smoking. All I'm saying is don't just complain about a problem that you can do something about stopping.
Sure, if everyone would just stop smoking pot then there would be no problem. However, it seems people smoking pot is just as much a fact of life as our current legal situation. I could stop smoking pot but the difference it would make would be neglegeble, there are millions of regular smokers. It would take everyone stopping smoking pot to make a difference and that doesn't seem very likely to happen as not even 70 years of prohibition has done that. Insisting that the solution to americas drug problem is that everyone should just stop using drugs ignores the fact of life that people use drugs. People wanting to smoke pot doesn't have to be a fact of life but it is, just like prohibition. Hence the debate about what should change...

You seem to feel that human nature should change to fit the law and I think that our laws should be changed to fit human nature in this case. Perhaps in another case, like murder, or a crime where there is an actual victim, then I would agree with you. But, if the only victim involved is the person who acted upon themself I don't see how that can be a crime. That is like arresting people for masturbation on a rape charge. The violence involved with the illicit marijuana trade is a product of prohibition, not an innate quality of marijuana commerce. That is why I say our ineffectual prohibition of marijuana causes violence, because it brings violence to where it once was not. Prohibition creates the very black markets it purports to destroy. It fosters the drug kingpins and cartels it is supposed to do away with. We've tried it for 70 years now and things have not gone the way they were supposed to. Something has to change...

Which do you think is more likely to change first, one of the laws of a nation that has existed for 229 years or the nature of humans to seek to alter their consciousnes which has existed since pre-history?
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street

Last edited by pyramid; 01-12-2006 at 03:38 AM..
Old 01-12-2006, 03:18 AM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#302  

Ray Charles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid
Sure, if everyone would just stop smoking pot then there would be no problem. However, it seems people smoking pot is just as much a fact of life as our current legal situation. I could stop smoking pot but the difference it would make would be neglegeble, there are millions of regular smokers. It would take everyone stopping smoking pot to make a difference and that doesn't seem very likely to happen as not even 70 years of prohibition has done that. Insisting that the solution to americas drug problem is that everyone should just stop using drugs ignores the fact of life that people use drugs. People wanting to smoke pot doesn't have to be a fact of life but it is, just like prohibition. Hence the debate about what should change...

You seem to feel that human nature should change to fit the law and I think that our laws should be changed to fit human nature in this case. Perhaps in another case, like murder, or a crime where there is an actual victim, then I would agree with you. But, if the only victim involved is the person who acted upon themself I don't see how that can be a crime. That is like arresting people for masturbation on a rape charge. The violence involved with the illicit marijuana trade is a product of prohibition, not an innate quality of marijuana commerce. That is why I say our ineffectual prohibition of marijuana causes violence, because it brings violence to where it once was not. Prohibition creates the very black markets it purports to destroy. It fosters the drug kingpins and cartels it is supposed to do away with. We've tried it for 70 years now and things have not gone the way they were supposed to. Something has to change...

All you're doing is rationalizing it. There's nothing stopping you from continuing to work towards legalization while holding off the actual smoking in the meantime.

I agree that there's nothing inherently violent about marijuana. The fact remains that buying marijuana supports this violent activity.

I believe neither of those things about the laws in America. The law in America is whatever the majority of voters want it to be. Right now marijuana is illegal because more people want it that way than for it to be legal. That's how the system works. I have my own ideal set of laws to govern the country, and you have yours. If you can convince enough people, then you can get your way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid
Which do you think is more likely to change first, one of the laws of a nation that has existed for 229 years or the nature of humans to seek to alter their consciousnes which has existed since pre-history?

Again, rationalization. Get marijuana legalized and then you can smoke with a clear conscience.

Also again, the need for people to alter their consciousness must not be that great or else people would have legalized marijuana already.
__________________
"You're pretty brave in cyberspace, flame-boy." -- Scott Adams
Gen[M]ay Pro Audio Club
Old 01-12-2006, 08:12 AM Ray Charles is offline  
Reply With Quote
#303  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Charles
All you're doing is rationalizing it. There's nothing stopping you from continuing to work towards legalization while holding off the actual smoking in the meantime.
Yes, I could, and the difference would be meaningless. Call it rationalization if you want, I call it reality. If everyone stopped smoking weed the government would not legalize it, they would claim victory and make more stuff illegal. No thanks.

Quote:
I agree that there's nothing inherently violent about marijuana. The fact remains that buying marijuana supports this violent activity.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Marijuana was here first, people have been using it for thousands of years without issues. Then came marijuana prohibition, then came the problems. As I have already explained, and you apparently agree with me, there is nothing inherently violent about growing a plant and selling the flowers. Our laws make it a violent business. They also make it more of a crime to grow your own plant than to continue to support black markets. That will never succeed in doing away with the black market, NEVER.

Prohibition causes the violence, prohibition should end. Why should we stop doing the thing that even you admit is not the source of the problem? Do you fix a leak in your house by shutting off the water to the house and just going without water? No, you fix the problem and continue to enjoy having running water.

http://www.pyramid-tech.net/media/Did_I_say_that.wmv

Quote:
I believe neither of those things about the laws in America. The law in America is whatever the majority of voters want it to be. Right now marijuana is illegal because more people want it that way than for it to be legal. That's how the system works. I have my own ideal set of laws to govern the country, and you have yours. If you can convince enough people, then you can get your way.
First, America is not majority rules, there are rules and limits on power ala the constitution. Second, no one ever voted for marijuana prohibition. It was thrust upon us by lies and trickery, including how the law was originally enacted, WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BTW... see case of timmothy leary vs. US, 1969.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Marijuana_Tax_Act

Third, any vote about marijuana legalization/criminalization where citizens actually got to vote that went either way in any state is totally meaningless according to the federal government. It doesn't matter if we vote for it or against it. They don't care. We will have marijuana prohibition regardless accrding to the feds.

Again you are being neive if you think the system is fair. Numerous cases have been tried and won to no avail, one of the most notable was the case where marijuana was to be rescheduled from schedule 1 (no known medical use, high probability of abuse). The case was won and the judge concluded that it would be "arbitrary and capricious" to keep marijuana at schedule one. Unfortunately, winning the case didn't actually mean shit because the ruling was overturned by the DEA administrator. You might be wondering why have a case at all if the outcome is meaningless, I certainly did.
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki..._United_States

By the criteria the government lays out for marijuana, alcohol should be even more restricted.

There was also the Leary case where marijuana prohibition ala the tax act was found unconstitutional. Strangely that didn't make it go away. Marijuana prohibition was rationalized legally and it stayed. Interestingly this time it was still because of who marijuana was associated with not because of any problems it actually caused. This was the late sixties and early seventies when marijuana was synonymous with long hair and anti-establishment attitudes. Well, guess what. The establishment doesn't like anti-establishment attitudes so guess what had to stay illegal...
http://www.medicalcannabis.com/press/pr_6_98.htm

Quote:
Again, rationalization. Get marijuana legalized and then you can smoke with a clear conscience.
So, you are saying that everyone who would like to smoke marijuana should just stop and deal with the fact that there is an unfair, unconstitutional limit on our personal freedoms and until such time as we can finally counter 70 years of government and media lies, unconstitutional behaviour and unfair practices? We should all just stop smoking otherwise we wouldn't be able to smoke marijuana without feeling guilty about the whole fucked up situation we didn't create? Is that correct?

So, I should just wait until never comes around and the government decides that it's OK for me to use my god given ability of self determination to decide what is OK to put inside my own body? Sure, I'll get right on that. And maybe if I get reincarnated I might get to enjoy the benefits of the government finally coming to it's senses. Again, no thank you. Marijuana may not be legalized in my lifetime so I think I'll take my chances and enjoy this life while I have it instead of waiting to find out if I can legally smoke weed in the next.

It's not that I don't work towards legalization/decriminalization but I'm not holding my breath until it happens. I donate to various orgs and debate online and talk to people when I have the chance. I just wish more people who feel like I do would do the same. Unfortunately, especially knowing the history, it looks like an unwinnable batte at times. I think that disuades people from speaking out but also our laws disuade people from speaking out. No one wants to put themselves in the spotlight when they believe there could be serious ramifications if they do so.

Quote:
Also again, the need for people to alter their consciousness must not be that great or else people would have legalized marijuana already.
If no one needed to alter their consciousness with weed then between one third and roughly one half the country wouldn't have smoked weed at one point or another in their lifetimes.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/druguse.htm
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street

Last edited by pyramid; 01-12-2006 at 09:50 PM..
Old 01-12-2006, 06:06 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#304  

Ray Charles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid
Yes, I could, and the difference would be meaningless. Call it rationalization if you want, I call it reality. If everyone stopped smoking weed the government would not legalize it, they would claim victory and make more stuff illegal. No thanks.

You seem to think that you're powerless to change the laws in this country. That's not the case. It's just that not that many people agree with you. Like I said, if you're all right with supporting violent activity then by all means go for it. It's not on my conscience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Marijuana was here first, people have been using it for thousands of years without issues. Then came marijuana prohibition, then came the problems. As I have already explained, and you apparently agree with me, there is nothing inherently violent about growing a plant and selling the flowers. Our laws make it a violent business. They also make it more of a crime to grow your own plant than to continue to support black markets. That will never succeed in doing away with the black market, NEVER.

Prohibition causes the violence, prohibition should end. Why should we stop doing the thing that even you admit is not the source of the problem? Do you fix a leak in your house by shutting off the water to the house and just going without water? No, you fix the problem and continue to enjoy having running water.

http://www.pyramid-tech.net/media/Did_I_say_that.wmv

I said that there's nothing inherently violent about Marijuana. I didn't say it wasn't the cause of the problem. The problem exists because the marijuana trade is highly profitable, and appeals only to people who are willing to break the law. This situation has two causes. Prohibition makes marijuana expensive, and there are people willing to buy marijuana. Without one, the other is meaningless because there's no reason to try and sell marijuana. Blame is to be shared by all for creating this situation. The government takes some blame, for prohibition. You and other smokers take some blame, for supporting the violent trade. Even I take some blame, for supporting the prohibition which is part of the cause of these problems.

Let me make a clarification here: I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong for buying marijuana. That's a value judgement that you can only make for yourself, wether smoking is worth the harm it causes. I'm simply trying to make you see that the government isn't the only one responsible, as you seem to believe.

And by the way, you usually have to turn the water off in order to fix the pipes

Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid
First, America is not majority rules, there are rules and limits on power ala the constitution. Second, no one ever voted for marijuana prohibition. It was thrust upon us by lies and trickery, including how the law was originally enacted, WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BTW... see case of timmothy leary vs. US, 1969.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Marijuana_Tax_Act

Third, any vote about marijuana legalization/criminalization where citizens actually got to vote that went either way in any state is totally meaningless according to the federal government. It doesn't matter if we vote for it or against it. They don't care. We will have marijuana prohibition regardless accrding to the feds.

The power in America rests with the people. Should you and enough other people believe that this issue is important enough, you can elect people into office who will support legalization. The fact that it can't be done at the state level simply means that you need to get your people into the federal government. It may be frustrating that it's an indirect process, but that's the nature of the system.

Regardless of the way the bill was originally passed, if there are enough people today who want to legalize the drug then it's possible for you to do so. If the prohibitionists are acting on misinformation then its your job to inform them to gain support for your cause.

The fact that the law that merely laid the framework for eventual prohibition was found to be unconstitutional means nothing. The fact that it was found to be unconstitutional on a technicality (it conflicted with a law created later, not because it violated your right to self-determination or anything as lofty as that ideal) makes it mean even less. The fact that There is now another, constitutionally valid, law prohibiting marijuana makes it mean absolutely nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid
So, you are saying that everyone who would like to smoke marijuana should just stop and deal with the fact that there is an unfair, unconstitutional limit on our personal freedoms and until such time as we can finally counter 70 years of government and media lies, unconstitutional behaviour and unfair practices we should all just stop smoking otherwise we wouldn't be able to smoke marijuana without feeling guilty about the whole fucked up situation we didn't create? Is that correct?

So, I should just wait until never comes around and the government decides that it's OK for me to use my god given ability of self determination to decide what is OK to put inside my own body? Sure, I'll get right on that. And maybe if I get reincarnated I might get to enjoy the benefits of the government finally coming to it's senses. Again, no thank you. Marijuana may not be legalized in my lifetime so I think I'll take my chances and enjoy this life while I have it instead of waiting to find out if I can legally smoke weed in the next.

Let's not play the victim, mmkay? If you want to risk breaking the law to smoke then by all means go ahead. I won't stop you. As someone pointed out earlier, you don't need to smoke marijuana. If it makes you feel guilty then stop smoking. It's not like you're stealing bread to feed your starving family. It's ultimately your choice to smoke marijuana or not and the consequences are yours to deal with.

Though I'm repeating myself, you're partially to blame for the problems, for reasons I went into above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid
If no one needed to alter their consciousness with weed then roughly half the country wouldn't have smoked weed at one point or another.

Again you are being neive if you think the system is fair. Numerous cases have been tried and won to no avail, one of the most notable was the case where marijuana was to be rescheduled from schedule 1 (no known medical use, high probability of abuse) to schedule 3, where it should be. The case was won and the judge concluded that it would be "arbitrary and capricious" to keep marijuana at schedule one. Unfortunately, winning the case didn't actually mean shit because the ruling was overturned by the DEA administrator. You might be wondering why have a case at all if the outcome is meaningless, I certainly did.

There was also the Leary case where marijuana prohibition ala the tax act was found unconstitutional. Strangely that didn't make it go away. Marijuana prohibition was rationalized legally and it stayed. Interestingly this time it was still because of who marijuana was associated with not because of any problems it actually caused. This was the late sixties and early seventies when marijuana was synonymous with long hair and anti-establishment attitudes. Well, guess what. The establishment doesn't like anti-establishment attitudes so guess what had to stay illegal...

I never said the system is fair, you have an uphill battle to fight, but that's because everyone else wants it that way or is apathetic to your cause. Deal with it.

Everything else is whining, but hey, all those hippies are the ones in power right now. Maybe you'll get your wish.
__________________
"You're pretty brave in cyberspace, flame-boy." -- Scott Adams
Gen[M]ay Pro Audio Club
Old 01-12-2006, 09:20 PM Ray Charles is offline  
Reply With Quote
#305  

Junkie Mod
totensiebush
shit the needle broke off in my ass cheek
 
Junkie Mod's Avatar
 
Ray Charles: You seem to believe that the problem with marijuana is the violence created by trade in it. In that case, do you think that it should be legal to grow in your own home for personal use only, removing any aspects of trade and therefore violence?
Old 01-12-2006, 10:20 PM Junkie Mod is offline  
Reply With Quote
#306  

Ray Charles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMNobody II
Ray Charles: You seem to believe that the problem with marijuana is the violence created by trade in it. In that case, do you think that it should be legal to grow in your own home for personal use only, removing any aspects of trade and therefore violence?

Well, marijuana wouldn't be legalized for home growers only, so it's sort of a moot point. It would be complete legalization (aside from age restrictons) or nothing, discounting the possibility of legalization for medical use only (which wouldn't drastically affect the marijuana economy). Either of those paths would remove one of the causes of the violence anyway. The only reason you might think to do that would be to make it more palatable politically, which could actually be a pretty good move. Regardless, I was really just calling out a few talking points of theirs that I found to be questionable. It's been focusing on that topic for a while now, I suppose because that's just the path the argument took.

Anyway, I said earlier I didn't really want to argue about the legalization question (I only have so much time to kill online ). I will say though that I support prohibition, but not for any of the reasons I've been arguing over (so someone may have said it earlier in the thread, I didn't follow the whole thing).
__________________
"You're pretty brave in cyberspace, flame-boy." -- Scott Adams
Gen[M]ay Pro Audio Club
Old 01-12-2006, 11:17 PM Ray Charles is offline  
Reply With Quote
#307  

lawlzkekeke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Charles
Well, marijuana wouldn't be legalized for home growers only, so it's sort of a moot point.
And you know this how? Right now, the only place it's legal is in the home.
__________________
abf1f166d804cd4795f910ec03abb1ae
Old 01-13-2006, 08:42 AM lawlzkekeke is offline  
Reply With Quote
#308  

ry_goody
 
ry_goody's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRasch
Ever been to the Netherlands (Holand)?


is there any evidence to support this?
__________________
SOMEONE ELSE GAVE ME THIS AVATAR
Old 01-13-2006, 10:35 AM ry_goody is offline  
Reply With Quote
#309  

Ray Charles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawlzkekeke
And you know this how? Right now, the only place it's legal is in the home.

From what everyone else is saying, it's not legal at all. That's also the impression I've been under.

Anyway, what I was saying was that it wouldn't make much sense to allow only partial legalization in order to eliminate the bad effects of the black market. That could be accomplished more easily with complete legalization. Making it "home only" would just add complexity and needless rules to the whole thing.
__________________
"You're pretty brave in cyberspace, flame-boy." -- Scott Adams
Gen[M]ay Pro Audio Club
Old 01-13-2006, 01:40 PM Ray Charles is offline  
Reply With Quote
#310  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Charles
You seem to think that you're powerless to change the laws in this country. That's not the case. It's just that not that many people agree with you.
Indeed. I try to change the laws through legal groups as well as debating on the internet when I have the chance. It may not necessaruly be true that not that many people agree with me, many votes for legalizing/decriminalizing pot come fairly close to 50/50 and as time progresses they only seem to get closer and closer. There are even some small victories here and there like denver's recent vote, although most of these initiatives still ignore the fact that the marijuana has to come from somewhere and with no legitimate source that means our laws are still helping to support illicit markets.

Quote:
Like I said, if you're all right with supporting violent activity then by all means go for it. It's not on my conscience.
Indeed, it is something to consider. Even if we did not create the situation things are the way they are.

Quote:
Even I take some blame, for supporting the prohibition which is part of the cause of these problems.
What about the criminal prohibition of certain drugs makes it seem like a good idea to you?

Quote:
And by the way, you usually have to turn the water off in order to fix the pipes
But that is not the entire solution, was my point.
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street
Old 01-13-2006, 04:03 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#311  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawlzkekeke
And you know this how? Right now, the only place it's legal is in the home.
The only place it's even questionably legal to possess marijuana in the united states is up to an ounce in denver, CO for people 21+ and up to four ounces in your home in alaska. There may be a few other small local places with extremely lenient local laws regarding pot but I think in most places that it has been decriminalized it is to a lower charge like a ticket/fine or misdemenor or perhaps even set as the lowest enforcement priority, like in seattle, but it is still illegal nonetheless. No where is it legal under state rules to grow your own weed except in a handful or two of states and that is only with a medical marijuana license/doctors recommendation and whatever else the state requires before hand.

All of these laws are supposedly superceded by the federal laws which say that none of this is legal anywhere. Not even in the privacy of your own home.

Quote:
Originally Posted by turd sculptor
is there any evidence to support this?
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm
http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/dru.../thenetherlan/
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street
Old 01-13-2006, 04:28 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#312  

ry_goody
 
ry_goody's Avatar
 


The netherlands is very different than the US in alot of ways. Why would what worked there work in the US?
__________________
SOMEONE ELSE GAVE ME THIS AVATAR
Old 01-13-2006, 05:36 PM ry_goody is offline  
Reply With Quote
#313  

Ray Charles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid
What about the criminal prohibition of certain drugs makes it seem like a good idea to you?

Well, as a matter of priciple, I have a problem with altered states of consciousness. I don't think that pot is gonna make you go crazy but it does make you percieve things differently and respond to them differently. I don't like that. That's the same reason I support laws against public drunkeness. Alcohol in moderation is fine with me but as far as I know there's no way to do that with marijuana.

So, I don't want that in my society and the best way to get rid of it as far as I know is prohibition, though not necessarily in the form we have now. Seeing how pot really isn't the evil to end all evils I don't support jail time for users. The farthest I would go would be a hefty fine for repeat offenders.

Distributors on the other hand are enabling lots of people to break the law, so I would toss them in jail. The big problem is legally distinguishing a distributor from a regular user, especially given that it's so easy to grow your own for personal use. I'm not that familiar with the subject, though, so there may be a good way to tell that I don't know about.

That being said, I think the best way to do something like prohibition is to go after the distributors because it interferes the least with private citizens who are doing something on their own time, in their own home. I might not like them doing it, but realistically I can't stop everybody.
__________________
"You're pretty brave in cyberspace, flame-boy." -- Scott Adams
Gen[M]ay Pro Audio Club
Old 01-13-2006, 05:40 PM Ray Charles is offline  
Reply With Quote
#314  

Junkie Mod
totensiebush
shit the needle broke off in my ass cheek
 
Junkie Mod's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Charles
Well, as a matter of priciple, I have a problem with altered states of consciousness. I don't think that pot is gonna make you go crazy but it does make you percieve things differently and respond to them differently. I don't like that. That's the same reason I support laws against public drunkeness. Alcohol in moderation is fine with me but as far as I know there's no way to do that with marijuana.
yes, there is definately a way to do that. you have public intoxication laws that apply to both alcohol and marijuana. i think that the two should be treated the same: you don't get to go to work drunk, if you wander around on the streets drunk enough you might get arrested, the same shoud be true for marijuana. i am a very occasional smoker (ie ive smoked twice in the past 6 months), and even with as little tolerance as i have (ie none), it is possible to smoke a small amount and be at the same level of intoxication as with a couple drinks.
Old 01-13-2006, 07:17 PM Junkie Mod is offline  
Reply With Quote
#315  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:26 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.