easily as misguided as the war in Iraq, the so-called War on Drugs is one of the biggest problems going in this country; it is a problem larger even than the actual drugs themselves. It boils down to a war on the poor, and on basic liberties that would otherwise be protected by the constitution if we hadn't let the government strip them away in the name of the good fight. Kinda like the War on Terrorism...America is willing to let the government do anything in the fight against these two bogey men.
Now we have a thread to discuss this particular American Horror.
I'll start with this example of jack booted government drug warfare...
http://reason.com/blog/show/126284.html?redux
Opposing this racist and hideously ineffective 'war' is a hopeless cause because there is no justifiable logic to it in the first place. Nearly every drug law that has ever been passed has been rooted in racism, not any sort of real threat to the common good, which is remarkable given just how many ridiculous laws there are around drugs. And yet, these laws have become so ingrained in our society that the idea of changing them or dropping them altogether sends people into a tizzy of righteous indignation.
As long as people anywhere consider it immoral to alter your consciousness this type of pointless, expensive, idiotic crusade will continue.
So what you're saying is....delete thread?
it aint a war on the poor its a war on minorities
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-05.htm
VII. RACIALLY DISPROPORTIONATE DRUG ARRESTS
The disproportionate rates at which black drug offenders are sent to prison originate in racially disproportionate rates of arrest.72 Contrary to public belief, the higher arrest rates of black drug offenders do not reflect higher rates of drug law violations. Whites, in fact, commit more drug crimes than blacks. But the war on drugs has been waged in ways that have had the foreseeable consequence of disproportionately targeting black drug offenders.
Of course it's a war on minorities, but that puts it a little too simply. Poor people are targeted, middle class and wealthy people are not.
I know it's impossible for you to wrap your monomaniacal mind around, vigy, but it is nevertheless true that racism is not the reason for every bad thing ever.
Actually, a war on the poor is far more accurate if you look at the history of drug laws. It manifests itself in being a war on minorities these days because South American and Black folks make up much of the lower class right now. But in the past laws have been passed to fight substance use of the Chinese and Irish, both of which made up much of the lower class at the times of the laws passing.
Racism, by and large, has very little to do with race. It is almost always a rich man/poor man thing. Not that I expect you to believe that.
the poor by far are more likely to go to jail for drugs but there isnt a war on the poor its just where the most arrests can be made and of course minorities are disproportionatly lower income dwellers
if youre a middle/upper class minority your drug sentance is going to be much more severe than if youre a poor white
That burns my ass reading stories like that. There are too many cops out there, SWAT and DEA, who are on nothing but a power trip, and they aren't made to suffer the consequences of thier mistakes. They are given' free rein to fight drug abuse. It's the whole "police brotherhood" thing.
Having said that, it's not drug use thats hurting this country, it's drug abuse, and the way the gov. goes about having to fight it. The government is so hypocritcal on the issue of drugs, it makes me sick. Alcohol and cigarettes are the perfect example. Cigarettes kill more people and are more addictive than any drug out there, but as long as the government is making money off of them they don't care.
Alcohol is probably the second or third most addictive drug out there. It's legal. Every liquor store or bar you go into, they have a license issued by the state making it legal to sell booze. But the state puts no limit on how much you can buy at a liquor store or how much a bar tender can serve you. Drink over what is the legal limit, and walk out of a bar, and you stand a good chance of getting arrested, wether your walking, riding a bike, or whatever.
The same people who provided the license for the vendor to sell you the alcohol and collect the taxes off it, are the same people who will prosecute you for drinking too much.
I'm not saying that drinking and driving is not wrong, but c'mon. If the state is so damn worried about you drinking and driving, why do they allow bars to operate, or drive in liquor stores? Farging hypocrites.
And then, the guy or gal who wants to relax after work or before a big game with a few tokes off a joint has the possibility of going to jail with thieves, rapist, murderers, and all types of thugs in general. For the life of me I don't know what screams hypocrites any more than the government that allows it's people to kill themselves smoking cigarettes and driving drunk while they get rich, but yet wants to prosecute and lock up a person for smoking a joint. Goddamn farging hypocrites.
Still, the drug abuse is a terrible thing and something needs to be done. Meth, Heroin, and Crack Cocaine is some serious shtein, and ruins the lives of the people addicted to it as well as their families. I don't think kicking doors in and shooting people is the answer, and I don't have the answer. All I know is the way the government is going about it is not helping anyone, and thats what the addict needs is help.
The war on drugs is a war the U.S. will never win. Mainly because they are going about it the wrong way. They allow their officers to abuse authority in the name of the law. And judges, prosecuters, and most of the media are all on thier side. It's the casual user who being no different than the cigarette smoker or happy hour drinker, is the one who loses out.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/25/national/main575007.shtml
This happened here 11 years ago
our jail systems are overloaded with inmates because of the war on drugs. doesn't the US have more inmates than any other country? oh yea, and our tax dollars pay for them to rot in jail. this war on drugs is totally awesome
Quote from: mussa on May 09, 2008, 10:17:46 AM
our jail systems are overloaded with inmates because of the war on drugs. doesn't the US have more inmates than any other country? oh yea, and our tax dollars pay for them to rot in jail. this war on drugs is totally awesome
"The War on Taxpayers" By the way...they love to bust the rich here and confinscate all the property they can. The "rich" are like free money to the police depts.
There was a guy from the NY Times on NPR the other day who did a study comparing our prison system to the rest of the world. Shocking thing was that the US has more prisoners then any other country in the world. By a lot! This includes China and India with larger populations. The biggest difference that he could tell all comes from the war on drugs.
Not only does the US arrest dealers but users as well. Most other countries rehab and rehabilitate. Another part is that the US prison system is now only interested in punishment and does not actually reform or get anyone in the system ready to rejoin society so it becomes a vicious circle.
In the early 1900's the US prison system was a model to the rest of the world and many countries came to learn and copy our system. Now everyone agrees we're farged.
Quote from: Phanatic on May 09, 2008, 11:39:22 AM
There was a guy from the NY Times on NPR the other day who did a study comparing our prison system to the rest of the world. Shocking thing was that the US has more prisoners then any other country in the world. By a lot! This includes China and India with larger populations. The biggest difference that he could tell all comes from the war on drugs.
Not only does the US arrest dealers but users as well. Most other countries rehab and rehabilitate. Another part is that the US prison system is now only interested in punishment and does not actually reform or get anyone in the system ready to rejoin society so it becomes a vicious circle.
In the early 1900's the US prison system was a model to the rest of the world and many countries came to learn and copy our system. Now everyone agrees we're farged.
The prison system/drug laws are a big source of civil service jobs so those groups lobby for $ and expand.
just like agriculture or construction or car making....prisons are an industry and a huge one
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/US_correctional_population_timeline.gif)
More than 1 in 100 American adults were incarcerated at the start of 2008.
As the consequence of "three strikes laws," the increase in the duration of incarceration in the last decade was most pronounced in the case of life prison sentences, which increased by 83% between 1992 and 2003.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, as of December 31, 2006, American prisons held 2,258,983 inmates. In recent decades the U.S. has experienced a surge in its prison population, quadrupling since 1980, partially as a result of mandated sentences that came about during the "war on drugs." Violent crime and property crime have declined since the early 1990s.
As of 2004, the three states with the lowest ratio of imprisoned to civilian population are Maine (148 per 100,000), Minnesota (171 per 100,000), and Rhode Island (175 per 100,000). The three states with the highest ratio are Louisiana (816 per 100,000), Texas (694 per 100,000), and Mississippi (669 per 100,000).
Currently, considering local jails as well, almost one million of those incarcerated are in prison for non-violent crime.
In 2002, 93.2% of prisoners were male. About 10.4% of all black males in the United States between the ages of 25 and 29 were sentenced and in prison, compared to 2.4% of Hispanic males and 1.3% of white males.
In 2005, about 1 out of every 136 U.S. residents was incarcerated either in prison or jail. The total amount being 2,320,359, with 1,446,269 in state and federal prisons and 747,529 in local jails.
The percentage of prisoners in federal and state prisons 55 and older increased by 33% from 2000 to 2005 while the prison population grew by only 8%.
Under U.S. law convicted felons lose their eligibility to apply for Medicare and Medicaid. Housing one prisoner costs a state between $18,000 and $31,000 annually, $33 per day for the average prisoner and $100 per day for an elderly prisoner.
Half of all persons incarcerated under state jurisdiction are for non-violent offenses, and 20% are incarcerated for drug offenses.
I'm all for locking up the violent criminals and throwing away the key. Actually, I'm all for the killing of violent criminals. Drug dealers, in high percentages, fit in that category. However, the victimless criminals (users, Johns, etc) have no place in federal prisons. Legalization is the only thing that can change this trend, but as rjs mentioned, hoping for that is a useless waste of time in today's society. Legalize it, tax it, control it. It solves so many problems. And this opinion is brought to you by a non-drug user.
QuoteLegalize it, tax it, control it
the first 2--sure
your third--see ya
I don't know if I can bring myself to be for legalizing drugs.
There are drugs that are already legal.
Quote from: shorebird on May 09, 2008, 12:35:23 PM
There are drugs that are already legal.
yep...theres 100 commericals a day on televison for them
Quote from: Phanatic on May 09, 2008, 12:33:51 PM
I don't know if I can bring myself to be for legalizing drugs.
That's either because you think there is something morally wrong with drugs (in which case there's no way to ever change your mind) or you have never researched the matter thoroughly. It is almost impossible to find research that points to any type of prohibition having any kind of positive impact. It costs money in a place where money could actually be made AND most importantly it's 100% ineffective. It doesn't stop anyone from taking drugs, it only serves to make those that do into criminals.
Outside of Alcahol are there any other recreational drugs that are legal?
The only difference between prescription pain killers and weed is that one has the support of multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical companies and one does not.
Oh, and one is addictive while the other is not...
So yes, there are plenty of 'recreational' drugs that are perfectly legal and as easy to obtain as walking into any suburban home and raiding the bathroom medicine cabinet.
Quote from: rjs246 on May 09, 2008, 12:41:17 PM
Quote from: Phanatic on May 09, 2008, 12:33:51 PM
I don't know if I can bring myself to be for legalizing drugs.
That's either because you think there is something morally wrong with drugs (in which case there's no way to ever change your mind) or you have never researched the matter thoroughly. It is almost impossible to find research that points to any type of prohibition having any kind of positive impact. It costs money in a place where money could actually be made AND most importantly it's 100% ineffective. It doesn't stop anyone from taking drugs, it only serves to make those that do into criminals.
but one of the reasons so many people find drugs to be morally wrong and thus dont take them is
because they are illegal...in certain cases i agree with what youre saying...weed for example should absolutely 100% be legal...but to say that making drugs illegal stops no one from doing them isnt true....if you have a strong desire to use you can and will...but there are definitely people who would do them were they legal that dont do them now
for example even tho prohibition was an overall disaster theres no doubt that making alcohol illegal significantly lowered the usage of it
Quote from: rjs246 on May 09, 2008, 12:41:17 PM
Quote from: Phanatic on May 09, 2008, 12:33:51 PM
I don't know if I can bring myself to be for legalizing drugs.
That's either because you think there is something morally wrong with drugs (in which case there's no way to ever change your mind) or you have never researched the matter thoroughly. It is almost impossible to find research that points to any type of prohibition having any kind of positive impact. It costs money in a place where money could actually be made AND most importantly it's 100% ineffective. It doesn't stop anyone from taking drugs, it only serves to make those that do into criminals.
No my problem with legalizing drugs is that they are highly addictive substances. How do you leaglize a substance like Heroin where you take one hit and morgage your house to get more because it's that good? Crack? How do you legalize that? Then you have companies making and marketing it? Users are victims in most cases because it's a chemical addiction. It's all a slippery slope either way.
To add Pot should probably be legal.
At IGY: Fine, it lowered usage overall, but it also meant that 100% of the people who did use were, by definition, criminals. Which is ludicrous.
As far as thinking that something being illegal makes it immoral, you're right, it's part of a cycle that has been put in place that will keep drugs from ever being decriminalized.
Yep - I was just posting the same question - where do you draw the line?
I think I'd be more inclined to decriminalize possession and use, and tightly control manufacture/sale. I don't think it would change the landscape though, because you can't legalize everything.
(I think pot should be legal, subject to current smoking restrictions)
If you were really interested in curbing usage of the harder drugs rather then sending addicts to prison (criminal trade school) send them to rehab and do what you can to get them off the drugs. Right now they go to jail, get the same drugs while in prison and make better contacts for when they get out.
Quote from: Father Demon on May 09, 2008, 12:19:55 PM
Legalize it, tax it, control it. It solves so many problems. And this opinion is brought to you by a non-drug user.
Yup! And Tax it again! Set some money aside for rehabs and use the windfall to pay down the debt. (a real lock box this time). Drug users get a photo id card and it's on their drivers license. They buy it form state operated stores and each sale is recorded. Users agree to giving blood samples for driving offenses if needed. Users must have yearly doctors exam or there buyer registation privledges expire. Employers have the right to check and see if potential or current employees are registered (for safety reasons).
NOW THAT"S CHANGE :yay :yay :yay
Quote from: Phanatic on May 09, 2008, 12:47:25 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on May 09, 2008, 12:41:17 PM
Quote from: Phanatic on May 09, 2008, 12:33:51 PM
I don't know if I can bring myself to be for legalizing drugs.
That's either because you think there is something morally wrong with drugs (in which case there's no way to ever change your mind) or you have never researched the matter thoroughly. It is almost impossible to find research that points to any type of prohibition having any kind of positive impact. It costs money in a place where money could actually be made AND most importantly it's 100% ineffective. It doesn't stop anyone from taking drugs, it only serves to make those that do into criminals.
No my problem with legalizing drugs is that they are highly addictive substances. How do you legalize a substance like Heroin where you take one hit and mortgage your house to get more because it's that good? Crack? How do you legalize that? Then you have companies making and marketing it? Users are victims in most cases because it's a chemical addiction. It's all a slippery slope either way.
Nicotine is highly addictive, and kills people every day. You don't mortgage your house to get it because it's controlled by the government and easily available. Make it illegal and see what happens. Beer, and liquor while not quite as addictive still kills people every day. Alcohol is as much a part of society as hot dogs and apple pie.
It's all about the money, I'll never think otherwise.
Quote from: rjs246 on May 09, 2008, 12:49:39 PM
At IGY: Fine, it lowered usage overall, but it also meant that 100% of the people who did use were, by definition, criminals. Which is ludicrous.
i totally agree...im just saying making something illegal does keep people from using/doing it
Quote from: Cerevant on May 09, 2008, 12:50:23 PM
(I think pot should be legal, subject to current smoking restrictions)
no way...it should be closer to the current alcohol restrictions
The U.S. has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population.
Quote from: Phanatic on May 09, 2008, 12:47:25 PM
No my problem with legalizing drugs is that they are highly addictive substances. How do you leaglize a substance like Heroin where you take one hit and morgage your house to get more because it's that good? Crack? How do you legalize that? Then you have companies making and marketing it? Users are victims in most cases because it's a chemical addiction. It's all a slippery slope either way.
Cigarettes and alcohol are legal and federally controlled. Fedreal regulation would bring prices down significantly and make rehabilitation easier. The mortgage your house scenario becomes nearly non-existant (people do still lose their shtein to alcohol of course but it isn't exactly an epidemic).
Well cig companies increasing Nicotine in their product is a whole different discussion and it's exactly why I'd worry about legit companies marketing a now legal substance. Capitalism has no conscious and will sell anything for a profit as long as it's legal. Once there's money to be made government regulation is sold to the highest bidder.
Nicotine levels in Cigarettes has been on the rise in brands most popular with young folks and minorities. Legalizing drugs just gives the racists and profiteers another way of getting the job done...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/30/AR2006083001418.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/30/AR2006083001418.html)
Quote from: fansince61 on May 09, 2008, 12:57:29 PM
Quote from: Father Demon on May 09, 2008, 12:19:55 PM
Legalize it, tax it, control it. It solves so many problems. And this opinion is brought to you by a non-drug user.
Yup! And Tax it again! Set some money aside for rehabs and use the windfall to pay down the debt. (a real lock box this time). Drug users get a photo id card and it's on their drivers license. They buy it form state operated stores and each sale is recorded. Users agree to giving blood samples for driving offenses if needed. Users must have yearly doctors exam or there buyer registation privledges expire. Employers have the right to check and see if potential or current employees are registered (for safety reasons).
NOW THAT"S CHANGE :yay :yay :yay
You should move to Utah, where they do much of this for alcohol sales. The big difference there is that if you are a "registered drinker" you get kicked out of the Mormon church. Maybe for the feds, being a "registered druggie" could put you on the terrorist watch list or something.
Quote from: Phanatic on May 09, 2008, 12:47:25 PMNo my problem with legalizing drugs is that they are highly addictive substances. How do you leaglize a substance like Heroin where you take one hit and morgage your house to get more because it's that good?
There is no such thing as a "one hit and you're addicted" drug. That's a mythical concept. Government figures (http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k8/newUseDepend/newUseDepend.htm) (and remember the government has motive to play up the addictive properties of drugs):
The percentage of people who became "dependent" on various drugs within two years of trying them:
Inhalants: 0.9%
Tranquilizers (nonmedical use): 1.2%
Psychedelics: 1.9%
Sedatives (nonmedical use): 2.4%
Painkillers (nonmedical use): 3.1%
Alcohol: 3.2%
Cocaine Powder: 3.7%
Stimulants (nonmedical use): 4.7%
Marijuana: 5.8%
Crack Cocaine: 9.2%
Heroin: 13.4%
Quote from: Diomedes on May 09, 2008, 01:01:12 PM
The U.S. has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population.
And if you dig into the numbers you'll find that the huge increase in US prison population isn't due to increased crime or even increased number of arrests. It basically boils down to longer sentences, fueled by "getting tough on" the drug war.
they should legalize prostitution while they're at it.
just sayin'. . .
Well, duh.....
If I can grow it in my garden, it should be legal.
If I could grow prostitutes in my garden, I'd be ho-ing all day long.
Quote from: Phanatic on May 09, 2008, 01:22:55 PM
Well cig companies increasing Nicotine in their product is a whole different discussion and it's exactly why I'd worry about legit companies marketing a now legal substance. Capitalism has no conscious and will sell anything for a profit as long as it's legal.
Capitalism is also producing a wide range of much less harmful nicotine delivery systems, such as dip, snus, electronic cigarettes (http://www.gazette.com/articles/electronic_36002___article.html/indoor_around.html), and other innovations. After all, the nicotine itself isn't what's killing people, so there's definitely a market for nicotine addicts who want to get their fix without dooming their health. By the way, more nicotine in your cigarette means you smoke less cigarettes and inhale less of the tar and other shtein that kills you. That's why lights aren't any safer -- people smoke more of them.
The market won't get a chance to revolutionize the nicotine industry though. Most anti-smoking activists hate safer nicotine alternatives, as a lot of them are, at their core, drug warriors who are horrified at the prospect of people being addicted to a drug, even if the drug is low-risk and keeps people away from having to use more dangerous products. [They have some selfish motives also. Their ability to generate scary statistics -- and hence funding -- would be greatly compromised if cigarettes weren't as bad for you as they currently are.]
Not only do these acitivists have much support in the FDA and throughout government, but so does Big Tobacco, which (if you haven't noticed) LOVES embracing new tobacco regulation these days. Why? Because it gives them the opportunity smother any potential competition in its crib!
Example: This year's Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1108:), which seems to enjoy broad support in Congress, gives the FDA broad discretion to ban any new nicotine products (including safer-than-cigarette products).
QuoteHence the bill instructs the FDA to approve a "modified risk tobacco product" only if it would "benefit the health of the population as a whole taking into account both users of tobacco products and persons who do not currently use tobacco products."
To make that judgment, the FDA is supposed to consider "the increased or decreased likelihood that persons who do not use tobacco products will start using the tobacco product that is the subject of the application" as well as "the increased or decreased likelihood that existing users of tobacco products who would otherwise stop using such products will switch to the tobacco product that is the subject of the application." In other words, the FDA could decide to keep a demonstrably safer cigarette off the market because it might attract new smokers or dissuade current smokers from quitting.
Worse, an existing product can be deemed a "modified risk tobacco product" subject to FDA approval if its manufacturer indicates on the package, in advertising, or in any other forum that it's less hazardous than cigarettes. If an executive at a smokeless tobacco company mentioned in a TV interview or an op-ed piece that his products were much safer than cigarettes, which is indisputably true, those products could suddenly be considered illegal.
Source: http://www.creators.com/opinion/jacob-sullum/fda-approved-cancer-sticks.html
The legislation is supported by anti-smoking activists (http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/fda/)
and by Philip Morris USA (http://www.altria.com/media/press_release/03_02_pr_2007_02_15_01.asp).
Quote from: Father Demon on May 09, 2008, 02:36:34 PM
If I could grow prostitutes in my garden, I'd be ho-ing all day long.
That's bad....
Dio you've really started one of the more animated thread of late on this board.
The Columbian Cartles or the Internationa Assoc. of Gonja Growers will have to start funding studies if the risks/benifits are to be looked at honestly. Red wine makes the news at times and cigarette smoking helps alzheimers patients but thats about it
Quote from: Father Demon on May 09, 2008, 02:21:19 PM
Well, duh.....
I meant female prostitution. Sorry to leave your persuasion out, Demon.
All this talk of drugs and the prison system reminds me Prison Song.
Minor drug offenders fill your prisons
You dont even flinch
All our taxes paying for your wars
Against the new non-rich
Minor drug offenders fill your prisons
You dont even flinch
All our taxes paying for your wars
Against the new non-rich
I buy my crack, my smack, my bitch
Right here in hollywood
(The percentage of americans in the prison system
Prison system, has doubled since 1985)
Theyre trying to build a prison
Theyre trying to build a prison
Theyre trying to build a prison
(for you and me to live in)
All research and successful drug policy show
That treatment should be increased
And law enforcement decreased
While abolishing mandatory minimum sentences
All research and successful drug policy show
That treatment should be increased
And law enforcement decreased
While abolishing mandatory minimum sentences
Utilizing drugs to pay for secret wars around the world
Drugs are now your global policy now you police the globe
I buy my crack, my smack, my bitch
Right here in Hollywood
Drug money is used to rig elections
And train brutal corporate sponsored dictators
Around the world
I don't care for drugs, I don't smoke....the only way I'd do pot is if it was in a special brownie, and I haven't done that yet. Don't really plan to. So I don't really care about legalizing drugs.
But the whole war on drugs is retarded beyond belief. The government has a lot more important things it should be worrying about than catching a dude with some weed. Like catching that guy with that whole terrorist organization backing him, and how he attacked us like 7 years ago. Yeah, that guy's still out there. But hey, lets arrest Jamal because he got a little high. Mission Accomplished.
I tell you what Bobby Bouchet, its post like these that you might want to consider getting high more often
Boucher*
After my heart attack, I openly talked about *marijuana use to help me quit tobacco, as I had done years before. While the doctor could not openly endorse the use of pot, he agreed the benefits of quitting tobacco thru *pot use far exceeded the risks. I quit tobacco that day.
* - temporary :paranoid
nicotine and cigarettes are by far more addicting and dangerous than pot.
The FDA is a farging joke.
Quote from: troyhstewart on May 09, 2008, 03:52:44 PM
After my heart attack, I openly talked about *marijuana use to help me quit tobacco, as I had done years before. While the doctor could not openly endorse the use of pot, he agreed the benefits of quitting tobacco thru *pot use far exceeded the risks. I quit tobacco that day.
* - temporary :paranoid
nicotine and cigarettes are by far more addicting and dangerous than pot.
The FDA is a farging joke.
did your baby find your stash? (http://www.concretefield.com/uploads/Mad-Lad/tstewart_01.gif)
Pharmacologist says HI!
Actually, smoking pot is really no worse than smoking tobacco, and in a lot of ways better. It's the least addictive of "those" drugs, where nicotine is the most addictive substance on the planet.
I have to disagree with you RJS on legalizing all that shtein. First, comparing morphine to pot is horribly wrong. Recreational use of any opiate is very bad for the user, and these drugs should be regulated. Heroin is a nightmare, as is meth. Legalizing these would be extremely dangerous.
The hallucinogens, however, well, whatever. Shrooms and acid have pretty low addiction liability, you might be able to make a case for those.
Personally, I've never used anything outside of alcohol, and am a little prideful about it. You want to legalize (and tax the shtein out of) pot, fine. But not opiates, not cocaine in any form, and sure as hell not meth. While I agree, the "war on drugs" is ludicrous and completely ineffective, legalizing the latter doesn't solve problems, just exchanges old ones for new ones.
I, of course, disagree. The argument that addictiveness should determine legality could be made except for the fact that the two major legal drugs in this country are as addictive as it gets. The only reason alcoholics are tolerated while heroin addicts are not is because we have arbitrarily decided that alcohol is legal and have made it available at respectable businesses throughout the country. The reason we think that heroin is so awful is because it is only available through professional criminals, is cut with anything and everything and is almost universally socially stigmatized.
As I said in my first post, the idea of some drugs being ok while others are not is so deeply ingrained in our psyche that I don't ever expect to change anyone's mind, but from a strictly logical point of view, no one has ever been able to explain to me how alcohol can be legal while other addictive inebriating substances are not.
Quote from: QB Eagles on May 09, 2008, 02:40:51 PM
Quote from: Phanatic on May 09, 2008, 01:22:55 PM
Well cig companies increasing Nicotine in their product is a whole different discussion and it's exactly why I'd worry about legit companies marketing a now legal substance. Capitalism has no conscious and will sell anything for a profit as long as it's legal.
Capitalism is also producing a wide range of much less harmful nicotine delivery systems, such as dip, snus, electronic cigarettes (http://www.gazette.com/articles/electronic_36002___article.html/indoor_around.html), and other innovations. After all, the nicotine itself isn't what's killing people, so there's definitely a market for nicotine addicts who want to get their fix without dooming their health. By the way, more nicotine in your cigarette means you smoke less cigarettes and inhale less of the tar and other shtein that kills you. That's why lights aren't any safer -- people smoke more of them.
The market won't get a chance to revolutionize the nicotine industry though. Most anti-smoking activists hate safer nicotine alternatives, as a lot of them are, at their core, drug warriors who are horrified at the prospect of people being addicted to a drug, even if the drug is low-risk and keeps people away from having to use more dangerous products. [They have some selfish motives also. Their ability to generate scary statistics -- and hence funding -- would be greatly compromised if cigarettes weren't as bad for you as they currently are.]
Not only do these acitivists have much support in the FDA and throughout government, but so does Big Tobacco, which (if you haven't noticed) LOVES embracing new tobacco regulation these days. Why? Because it gives them the opportunity smother any potential competition in its crib!
Example: This year's Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1108:), which seems to enjoy broad support in Congress, gives the FDA broad discretion to ban any new nicotine products (including safer-than-cigarette products).
QuoteHence the bill instructs the FDA to approve a "modified risk tobacco product" only if it would "benefit the health of the population as a whole taking into account both users of tobacco products and persons who do not currently use tobacco products."
To make that judgment, the FDA is supposed to consider "the increased or decreased likelihood that persons who do not use tobacco products will start using the tobacco product that is the subject of the application" as well as "the increased or decreased likelihood that existing users of tobacco products who would otherwise stop using such products will switch to the tobacco product that is the subject of the application." In other words, the FDA could decide to keep a demonstrably safer cigarette off the market because it might attract new smokers or dissuade current smokers from quitting.
Worse, an existing product can be deemed a "modified risk tobacco product" subject to FDA approval if its manufacturer indicates on the package, in advertising, or in any other forum that it's less hazardous than cigarettes. If an executive at a smokeless tobacco company mentioned in a TV interview or an op-ed piece that his products were much safer than cigarettes, which is indisputably true, those products could suddenly be considered illegal.
Source: http://www.creators.com/opinion/jacob-sullum/fda-approved-cancer-sticks.html
The legislation is supported by anti-smoking activists (http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/fda/) and by Philip Morris USA (http://www.altria.com/media/press_release/03_02_pr_2007_02_15_01.asp).
Dude you are so off-base, I don't even know where to begin. Nicotine is a surrogate for a neurotransmitter, located all over your brain. In fact, the receptor is called "nicotinic" because it was identified as binding nicotine. The actual transmitter is acetylcholine, and you'll find that receptor everywhere, including controlling blood pressure, lung function, etc.
There was a paper published by Ken Kellar a few years ago showing brain slices of smokers v. non-smokers. Smokers had a massive upregulation in receptor expression in the brain, but the caveat: none of them work. Sure, tar is the big carcinogen in cigs, but nicotine is hardly safe.
As for snus: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18412245?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Quote from: rjs246 on May 09, 2008, 06:48:07 PM
I, of course, disagree. The argument that addictiveness should determine legality could be made except for the fact that the two major legal drugs in this country are as addictive as it gets. The only reason alcoholics are tolerated while heroin addicts are not is because we have arbitrarily decided that alcohol is legal and have made it available at respectable businesses throughout the country. The reason we think that heroin is so awful is because it is only available through professional criminals, is cut with anything and everything and is almost universally socially stigmatized.
As I said in my first post, the idea of some drugs being ok while others are not is so deeply ingrained in our psyche that I don't ever expect to change anyone's mind, but from a strictly logical point of view, no one has ever been able to explain to me how alcohol can be legal while other addictive inebriating substances are not.
There is no logical explanation except social acceptance. However, from a scientific standpoint, heroin is way worse than alcohol. Look at the list posted earlier, trying to argue no one becomes single user to addict. 1 in 7 people who tried heroin became an addict. The ratio for alcohol is 1:30. Heroin escalates much faster, has way more health related issues (immune suppression, changes in brain chemistry and cognition, cardiovascular and pulmonary issues). And it's not just because the compound isn't regulated enough. It's farging dangerous, 30x more potent than morphine. Every effect I listed above is due to heroin, it doesn't even begin to consider whatever else is in the shtein sold on the street.
Again, where does it stop? You want fentanyl on the street? Fentanyl patches come with instructions which include: when removing from patient, fold patch in half and flush down the toilet. Know why? Because if a kid (or a non-tolerant adult) touches the drug side of that patch, they could die of pulmonary failure.
The other problem I have is that aren't there enough impaired drivers now. You think if coke and heroin and meth were legalized, that would get better, or worse?
See, I learn something new every year on this board!
That's all great information about the h train, and persuasive. My main remaining problem is with how heroin addicts/users are treated because of the way the laws are set up around it.
I have some issue as well with lumping coke, heroin and meth into a group and saying that legalizing them would somehow open the floodgates of farged up drivers and make our roads unsafe. Sadly, I don't have any fancy science talk to back up my protestations so I'll just say I don't believe that would happen because a)plenty of people do those drugs now and b)the penalties would (theoretically) be the same for driving with a straw in your nose as they would for driving drunk so it would be illegal to do that and would carry penalties, blah blah blah.
SCIENCE!
Honestly, I have no science to back up the driving issues either, just a gut feeling.
I also have to agree that the policing is horribly unfair, there is just no arguing with those statistics. I just don't know what the hell to do about it.
Just so noone accuses me of being full of shtein:
(http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/vol289/issue3/images/small/pt0690368003.gif)(http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/vol289/issue3/images/small/pt0690368004.gif)(http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/vol289/issue3/images/small/pt0690368006.gif)
the paper (http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/full/289/3/1545)
What if I want to accuse you of being full of shtein anyway?
Join the club.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on May 09, 2008, 06:48:53 PMSure, tar is the big carcinogen in cigs, but nicotine is hardly safe.
As for snus: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18412245?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
So explain again why when I say "less harmful", you interpret that as me saying "safe"?
Quote from: rjs246 on May 09, 2008, 07:19:45 PM
See, I learn something new every year on this board!
That's all great information about the h train, and persuasive. My main remaining problem is with how heroin addicts/users are treated because of the way the laws are set up around it.
I have some issue as well with lumping coke, heroin and meth into a group and saying that legalizing them would somehow open the floodgates of farged up drivers and make our roads unsafe. Sadly, I don't have any fancy science talk to back up my protestations so I'll just say I don't believe that would happen because a)plenty of people do those drugs now and b)the penalties would (theoretically) be the same for driving with a straw in your nose as they would for driving drunk so it would be illegal to do that and would carry penalties, blah blah blah.
SCIENCE!
I agree with all of this. However, I would still be completely opposed to legalizing drugs like coke, heroin, meth, etc simply because of the damage that they do to your body. And eventhough the gov't could (theoretically) legalize and regulate the drugs, what they can't do is regulate the method in which the users use them. IE: sharing needles, etc. So while legalizing them would reduce drug "crimes" it still wouldn't eliminate many of the residual side effects from drug use that plague society. Heroin junkies will still share dirty needles and pass the HIV around. Homeless crackheads will still do anything for a $10 rock.....except now that rock costs $20.
I just think that the effects that the "hardcore" drugs have on people are too much to overlook in order to legalize them. Pot, shrooms, etc, are fine with me. If a couple stoners want to lock themselves in the basement and toke up, eat twinkies and watch The Wall for 12 hours, then that's fine with me......just as long as they aren't doing this (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iTd5wxU_En1QGaNCbdtxfTYqXVIgD90HV2N81).
That's not only wrong...it's depressing...
Police believe the grave is that of an 11-year-old boy who died in 1921
MMH said everything I couldn't. Really I don't think users should be treated as criminals given the science behind the addiction. That is all.
I think the laws need to be orient toward the harm that an action does to others, not the harm one does to one's self.
That being said, drug abuse does do a lot of harm to others, and users categorized as "victims" are not accountable for that harm. Who is responsible for the damage done to families who's breadwinner is now in rehab? Who is responsible for the damage done by an impaired driver who is not insured?
This doesn't even touch on the costs of health care. Even if you ignore the fact that subsidized health care in the US is on the horizon, every person insured is "taxed" for the care of those whose health costs are exceptional.
So, who is going to pay for all this freedom?
Quote from: Sgt PSN on May 10, 2008, 03:34:32 PM
If a couple stoners want to lock themselves in the basement and toke up, eat twinkies and watch The Wall for 12 hours, then that's fine with me......just as long as they aren't doing this (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iTd5wxU_En1QGaNCbdtxfTYqXVIgD90HV2N81).
That is a terrible goulish story. Those kids should be caned.
Quote from: Cerevant on May 11, 2008, 08:39:14 AMSo, who is going to pay for all this freedom?
The same people who are paying for all of that already, plus prisons, cops, courts, etc.?
7.2 million Americans either in jail, on probabation, or on parole
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/11/AR2008061103458.html?hpid=topnews
QuoteThe number of people under supervision in the nation's criminal justice system rose to 7.2 million in 2006, the highest ever, costing states tens of billions of dollars to house and monitor offenders as they go in and out of jails and prisons.
According to a recently released report released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, more than 2 million offenders were either in jail or prison in 2006, the most recent year studied in an annual survey. Another 4.2 million were on probation, and nearly 800,000 were on parole.
The cost to taxpayers, about $45 billion, is causing states such as California to reconsider harsh criminal penalties. In an attempt to relieve overcrowding, California is now exporting some of its 170,000 inmates to privately run corrections facilities as far away as Tennessee.
...
In 1980, about the time that tough sentencing laws, particularly for drug offenses, began to be passed by federal and state legislators, 1.8 million people were in the system and $11 billion was spent on corrections.
so much wrong with this I don't know where to start
farming out prisons to corporations is about as smart as farming out wars to corporations...conservatives just love both ideas
fact: "tough on crime"=big government.
do we REALLY have 7.2 million people who need to be in our criminal system? that's farging hard to believe
on and on
Quote from: Diomedes on June 12, 2008, 09:30:53 PM
do we REALLY have 7.2 million people who need to be in our criminal system?
Agreed. Kill 'em all; let God sort 'em out.
Legalize and tax marijuana so people can spray it into their mouth.
I still have no idea why the gubament doesnt recognize that locking someone up for weed is a waste of taxpayer money. It should have the same laws around it that Alcohol currently has.
Exactly. You want the death penalty to carry weight? Stack rank the prisoners based on criminal history. When we need your bed, you take a dirt nap. That'll teach 'em.
seems like discussing whether weed should be legalized or not would be a pretty interesting debate
I dont even smoke anywhere near where i used to, and i just look at as there is no financial benefit of it being an illegal narcotic. Hell, even if the government said it could only be used recreationally at home, you would see a huge reduction of futile arrests. 2.5 Billion a year is sent to the DEA alone. Its sickening what William Hurst and Harry Anslinger portrayed the drug as, and sold that to Congress. Basically saying that it caused you to kill your family, and made the blacks more dangerous. farging hilarious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Places_that_have_decriminalized_non-medical_marijuana_in_the_United_States
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 13, 2008, 08:20:50 AM
seems like discussing whether weed should be legalized or not would be a pretty interesting debate
I don't think it would be too interesting on this board.
For instance, I'm a "right wing zealout" that doesn't smoke weed, and I'm all for the legalization and regulation of marijuana for both medical and recreational use.
i was joking skipster as it would be aprroximately the 47th time in the last six months that its happened
I think that might be a slight exaggeration.
45?
900%
I think weed should be legal and taxed. And hookers too. But only the pretty ones.
I think the U.S. should have a lot less prisoners. It's nuts to keep this many people in jail, under supervision.
Legalize gambling.
Tax it and that would take a fat chunk outta the national debt.
it is already legal to the point of saturation...from atlantic city to mississippi to vegas to reno to connecticut
not to mention every state has government run numbers games and many have slots, horse tracks, etc.
I'm talking more about sports gambling. Legalize it and make it like the lottery so I can bet whenever and wherever I want to.
So, more government huh? More taxes, more commissions, more panels?
Sounds stupid.
Put it under whoever deals with Vegas and AC and the lotteries. Want to keep taxes low on wages, legalize sports betting.
Nevermind that gambling revenues accrue to the detriment of the poorest and least educated?
And what exactly does this have to do with the country's failed drug policy and (quite literally) war on personal freedom?
Quote from: Diomedes on June 13, 2008, 08:11:12 PM
And what exactly does this have to do with the country's failed drug policy?
coke is rampant around casinos?
Quote from: Diomedes on June 13, 2008, 08:11:12 PM
Nevermind that gambling revenues accrue to the detriment of the poorest and least educated?
And what exactly does this have to do with the country's failed drug policy and (quite literally) war on personal freedom?
Who cares what people spend their money on? Whether it is legal or not, like drugs, people will still buy it or lay down bets. Why not legalize it so the govt gets caked off?
And it has zero to do with drugs, sorry to go off topic. But anyways, poor and the lesser educated buy alot of drugs too. So shouldnt your argument to legalize drugs refelct that too?
Hey, I didn't say it shouldn't be done..I was asking questions.
Thing is, we aren't turning millions of people into criminals on account of gambling being illegal. Our prisons and parole offices are not full of gambling convicts. We're not winnowing away our liberties and pissing away our wealth to fight a holy war against sports betting. See my point?
Some drugs.
Online gambling.
Prostitution.
All should be legalized, taxed, monitored.
What else did I leave off the list?
i did coke last night...don't legalize that shtein
feeling great today aren't you?
Thanks for sharing, winner.
i did pepsi last night...LOLZ
(http://funnypics.free.fr/explorer/public/gifs/lolcano14ts.gif)
:-D :-D
I see your point, Dio. And I agree somewhat on the drug issue as far as guys getting locked up. But the guys who traffic the drugs, kill people for drugs and things like that should be locked up no doubt. Some guy with a few joints? Not locked up.
holy farging shtein, what a story
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/07/mayor.warrant/index.html
QuoteMayor wants federal probe after SWAT raids house, kills dogs
(CNN) -- A Maryland mayor is asking the federal government to investigate why SWAT team members burst into his home without knocking and shot his two dogs to death in an investigation into a drug smuggling scheme.
"This has been a difficult week and a half for us," Cheye Calvo, mayor of Berwyn Heights, Maryland, said Thursday. "We lost our family dogs. We did it at the hands of sheriff's deputies who burst through our front door, rifles blazing."
The raid last week was led by the Prince George's County Police Department, with the sheriff's special operations team assisting, after a package of marijuana was sent to Calvo's home.
Authorities say the package was part of a scheme in which drugs are mailed to unknowing recipients and then intercepted.
Calvo said he had just returned home from walking his two Labrador retrievers, Chase and Payton, when his mother-in-law told him a package had arrived for his wife, Trinity Tomsic.
Moments later, Calvo was in his room changing for a meeting when he heard commotion downstairs.
"The door flew open," he said. "I heard gunfire shoot off. There was a brief pause and more gunfire."
Calvo said he was brought downstairs at gunpoint in his boxer shorts, handcuffed and forced onto the floor with his mother-in-law near the carcass of one of dead dogs. VideoWatch Calvo describe the raid »
"I noticed my two dead dogs lying in pools of their own blood," Calvo said.
Calvo said his mother-in-law is still recovering from the incident.
"She got the worst of it," Calvo said. "She was literally in the kitchen, cooking a lovely pasta dish, and they brought down the door and shot our dogs."
While he was being held, Calvo said, he told police he is the town's mayor, but they didn't believe him.
Berwyn Heights has its own police force, he said, but Prince George's County police did not notify the municipal authorities of their interest in his home or the package.
"They didn't know my name. All they knew was my wife's name. They matched that to the registration of the car," Calvo said. "It was that lack of communication that really led to what has really been the most traumatic experience of our lives."
After the raid, arrests were made in the package interception scheme.
The incident has prompted the couple to call for a federal investigation because, they say, they don't believe police are capable of conducting an internal investigation.
"They've said they've done nothing wrong," Calvo said. "I didn't sign up for this fight, but I think what we have to do now is make changes to how Prince George's County police and Prince George's County sheriff's department operate."
Calvo said authorities entered his home without knocking and refused to show him a warrant when he requested one.
But Prince George's County Police Department spokeswoman Sharon Taylor said legal counsel had informed her that "no-knock" warrants do not exist in Maryland. VideoWatch authorities defend their actions »
Taylor said authorities were acting on a warrant issued based on information available to them at the time.
"This warrant was for permission to search the premises," she said. "The special operations team that supported us made a decision about the necessity of entry at the point of being on the scene."
"No-knock" warrants have drawn criticism before. In Atlanta, Georgia, Kathryn Johnston, 92, was shot to death by police in a botched drug raid involving such a warrant in November.
Taylor, a self-described dog lover, expressed sympathy for the loss of Calvo's dogs, but stopped short of apologizing for the incident.
"We've done these similar kinds of operations over and over again, to the tune of removing billions of dollars of drugs from the community and without people or animals being harmed," she said. "We don't want any of our operations to result in the injury or loss of anybody, and certainly not animals."
The deputies have said they killed the two animals because they felt threatened.
"I would say that the dogs presented a threat, I would imagine, to the special operations situation," Taylor said.
Meanwhile, Calvo and his wife said members of the community have expressed sympathy and concern about the incident.
At a news conference Thursday, Tomsic tearfully recalled a recent encounter with a neighbor who used to wave at the couple as they walked Payton and Chase.
"She gave me a big hug," Tomsic said. "She said, 'If the police shot your dogs dead and did this to you, how can I trust them?' "
Goddamn.
That is ridiculous.
Oh man, somebody might even get suspended over this one.
PG county cops at their finest.
Quote from: General_Failure on August 07, 2008, 08:49:14 PM
Oh man, somebody might even get suspended over this one.
Probably promoted
email from the mayor to his friends recounting the police invasion of his home
QuoteMayor Cheye Calvo describes raid in e-mail to friends
Dear Friends and Neighbors-
Yesterday evening, as my mother-in-law prepared dinner and I changed clothes hurrying to head to a community meeting, a heavily-armed county SWAT team burst through our living room door and shot and killed both of our dogs. There were loud voices. In the sights of two high-caliber weapons, I was ushered downstairs in only my boxer shorts before I was bound and forced to kneel on the floor. My mother-in-law was bound face down in the kitchen. The dead body of my bigger and older dog, Payton, laid in a pool of blood on the other side of the living room.
It was some time before someone spoke to me other than to yell orders. I was told there was a warrant but was never shown one. After many questions and much anger, I was told that they had intercepted a package addressed to our house that contained 32 pounds of marijuana. The large, white box, which I just had retrieved from the front porch, sat unopened on a living room table.
The county police then proceeded to turn our house upside-down. I was moved to the kitchen, where I could see my little dog, Chase, lying in his own pool of blood. My mother-in-law watched them shoot him while he was running away. After about 90 minutes, they finally removed my restraints, which tied my hands behind my back. About the same time, Animal Control came to remove our dogs. Emotions overtook me; I broke down and sobbed.
They asked questions. Through my anger, hurt, and confusion, I answered them. Trinity came home from work a little after 8:00 pm, and they questioned her outside. We both were and remain in shock. It does not make sense, but shared what we could. About three-and-a-half hours passed before they acknowledged that they had found nothing to connect us to the box, but could not be 100 certain whether or not we were involved. The package alone was enough to arrest us all, they said, but they would not so long as we continued to cooperate.
Then they left. The broken front door remained open and unsecured. Blood from my dogs was pooled and tracked throughout the house. Our belongings were pulled from drawers, closets, and trunks and tossed about, piled in the middle of rooms and on tables and beds.
A Berwyn Heights officer on the scene helped me get the door shut. Just after midnight, I began to clean up the blood. We put a few things back. Trinity and I tried to sleep. Instead, we both laid there through the night as disbelief, fear, and anger played off one another. We try to make sense of it. They invaded our home and killed our dogs! That, above all else, can't be undone.
A friend came this morning to secure the door. People have begun to call, and the outpouring of friendship and support brings tears to my eyes. The media calls have begun, as well.
I wanted to get this out so that you at least hear the story from me. This promises to be a lengthy process, which will involve telling and re-living this story time and again. Hopefully, the healing will begin soon.
Warm regards,
Cheye
No matter if anyone gets in trouble over that, it won't be the SWAT teams getting even more dirty looks when they're out in public in uniform.
I get angry when I read this shtein. It's not bad enough they killed his dogs, broke his door, scared the crap out of him...they ransacked his house too. I mean, farg. Talk about having a bad day.
I was raised by people who got beat up by cops. They hated the hippies. I've never liked or trusted them and I was raised to steer clear of 'em. They are the state's thugs, pure and simple.
Don't talk to them, don't invite them to your house, don't go to theirs. They are the enemy, the other side, the people you shoot first when Obama finally reveals himself as the anti-christ.
Okay, I'm getting carried away now...off to the farmer's market for some organic root vegetables.
Don't ever ever talk to the police. Ever. (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865) This is a long video, but worth watching every minute.
I think this guy's emphasis is "if the police have any reason to suspect you", but he really pushes the point that nothing good can ever come from talking to the police. I wonder how he feels about talking to the police if you are the victim?
One of my closest buddies in my neighborhood is a Chief of Police. He's the best when we go out drinking, because his cop car is also his personal car, so he doesn't get pulled over.
Nice. As long as you don't talk to him, that is.
chief of police getting torqued then driving = neighborhood safety at its finest
the police department is like a crew....it does whatever it wants to do
this is my shtein...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFGvKpKEYq8
awesome song/cd. I bought that the release day the Slim Shady Lp came out
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012302935.html?sub=AR
This time the cops knocked down the wrong door. These people aren't poor, or black. They can't be marginalized and ignored. Their story isn't new, but this time the cops farged up so badly that even the most ardent police state advocates will find reason for concern because it could be them next time.
farg the police.
The amount of money spent on this idiotic drug war and the number of people who have been put in jail or killed or had their lives ruined in its name is enough to make anyone farging sick.
All over a few pounds of marijuana. Geez, the irony. And old woman on the floor with a gun to her head, over a few pounds of marijuana.
Farging pg county police are outta' control, and sad to say, as much as you might like to see someone get their head chopped off for this Dio, it seems our laws allow the police to do just about whatever they want, and all the interviews and tears shed won't matter. I don't see the cops taking any heat over this, they won't bat an eye and will just keep rolling on.
The cops didn't even follow the lax laws we do have for them, and you're happy to throw your hands up in the air over it and say, I for one welcome our new para-military police overlords.
That's the farging problem.
Quote from: Diomedes on February 06, 2009, 01:24:46 PM
The cops didn't even follow the lax laws we do have for them, and you're happy to throw your hands up in the air over it and say, I for one welcome our new para-military police overlords.
That's the farging problem.
No, no, farg no, that is not what I'm saying in the least, for christ sakes. I'm saying that nothing will probably happen to the cops that were involved. If it results in tighter restrictions and policies on home invasions then yes, at least something positive might come from it.
Geez, get some weed soon, maybe you'll chill out a little.
I'll tell you what really chaffs my ass about this kind of thing. All over a few pounds of marijuana, swat teams are utilized, doors are kicked in, animals are shot, and guns are held at the heads of bound up old women. But yet, you can go right down to the local liquor store and purchase drugs that are 10 times more dangerous, when you buy alcohol and tobbacco products.
More of what we already know. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123535114271444981.html)
Is anyone in Washington listening?
I have never supported legalization of pot per se, because it would mean a host of awful shtein. The tobacco companies or some other evil gang of capitalist pigs would quickly corner the market on it and drive price way higher than it ought to be by natural market forces. Just imagine the advertising campaigns. And then there's the taxes. To that point, a bill has been introduced in California that would bestow legal status on weed similar to alcohol. Sounds reasonable, right?
Not so fast. The tax proposed: $50 per ounce.
Yeah, right.
I'm glad the idea that pot is no worse for society than alcohol is being taken more seriously by the day. I think we'll see a major change in the law regarding it in this generation. But I suppose it's too much to hope that the change leans toward de-criminalization rather than legalization, regulation, and the creation of a new market for mega corporations.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/02/23/state/n133531S47.DTL&tsp=1
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29352523/
California is considering legalizing, for tax benefits
No shtein?
what better time. Money is needed, it'll be the new booze
if corporations for their hands on weed, do you know how horrible it will become to smoke?
i'd take illegal and natural over legal and filled with shtein.
Imagine the ad campaigns, the brands they'll dream up, the different flavorings. What a nightmare.
isn't jersey taking this to the state today for legal medical marijuana?
If the Fed's make marijuana legal, how long do you think it would take for farms/growers to get up and running? I don't think it will all be garbage pot. Hell you'll always have the dank, it won't disappear.
Quote from: phattymatty on February 24, 2009, 11:27:23 AM
if corporations for their hands on weed, do you know how horrible it will become to smoke?
i'd take illegal and natural over legal and filled with shtein.
Given the massive backlash against tobacco companies for doing that I'm not sure that you're right about this. Plus, making 1/3 of the US population into criminals for smoking pot is ludicrous. The reduction in marijuana-distribution-related crime alone is enough to justify its legalization. Add in the reduction in wasted government money and the tax the country can collect on the production of a new cash crop and there is no logical sense in keeping it illegal.
I doubt the quality or safety of the product would be decreased and, as with alcohol or cigarettes, I'm willing to pay a tax to have the illegal-drug risk/stigma removed from usage.
Plus, just like with tobacco and cigarettes (and produce), you will be able to pay more to get "all-natural" or "organic" shtein.
you're willing to pay 50 bucks an ounce tax, rjs?
imagine what that figure would rise to over the years if it gets established as the base?
farg that...assuming it wouldn't get me put in jail, I'd actually go to the trouble to grow my own rather than pay that much tax
Quote from: Diomedes on February 24, 2009, 11:46:26 AM
you're willing to pay 50 bucks an ounce tax, rjs?
imagine what that figure would rise to over the years if it gets established as the base?
farg that...assuming it wouldn't get me put in jail, I'd actually go to the trouble to grow my own rather than pay that much tax
If anything, the tax will go down over time. They can propose massive taxes on it now because it is treated as a federally illegal drug. But whatever. The answer is yes, I would be willing to pay it. I'd rather not, but if the country can make some scratch off of legalizing the herb why would anyone complain?
I would start smoking weed again if legal and would be glad to pay "sin" taxes on it.
The reason I don't smoke now is that the career and legal ramifications aren't worth the high. Throw those out the window, and I'll be higher than a kite twice a month at least.
Quote from: Diomedes on February 24, 2009, 11:46:26 AM
you're willing to pay 50 bucks an ounce tax, rjs?
imagine what that figure would rise to over the years if it gets established as the base?
farg that...assuming it wouldn't get me put in jail, I'd actually go to the trouble to grow my own rather than pay that much tax
You'll need a special $500,000 license to grow your own.
so if I grow my own for my own consumption, I'm still a criminal
typical
More like baby-steps.
Do you know anyone that grows their own tobacco?
They all got beaten down by evil tobacco corporations.
But actually, yes, I do. NC represent.
Okay, so the guy in tobacco country grows some. Is it legal for you to do so?
It's not practical to grow your own tobacco, while it is to grow your own pot.
I don't spend much time with either. What makes it impractical?
Quote from: General_Failure on February 24, 2009, 12:19:24 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on February 24, 2009, 11:46:26 AM
you're willing to pay 50 bucks an ounce tax, rjs?
imagine what that figure would rise to over the years if it gets established as the base?
farg that...assuming it wouldn't get me put in jail, I'd actually go to the trouble to grow my own rather than pay that much tax
You'll need a special $500,000 license to grow your own.
I brew beer and make wine at home from kits that are aviaible from stores and over the internet. Know reason this would be the same someday. 8)
Quote from: General_Failure on February 24, 2009, 01:32:07 PM
I don't spend much time with either. What makes it impractical?
You need to plant quite a lot of it for it to grow I think, like corn, and it doesn't grow in a basement. Then you have to dry it, which takes a lot of space..the leaves are huge. Then of course you gotta shred it, etc.
Quote from: fansince61 on February 24, 2009, 01:33:27 PM
Know reason this would be the same someday. 8)
Salient point. Well said.
Quote from: fansince61 on February 24, 2009, 01:33:27 PMI brew beer and make wine at home from kits that are aviaible from stores and over the internet.
Is it legal to distill your own spirits if it's for personal consumption only?
Quote from: Diomedes on February 24, 2009, 01:35:28 PM
Quote from: fansince61 on February 24, 2009, 01:33:27 PMI brew beer and make wine at home from kits that are aviaible from stores and over the internet.
Is it legal to distill your own spirits if it's for personal consumption only?
No. I only ferment for beer and wine..I can't make "hard stuff"
I know it's legal for beer and wine, never thought about making my own spirits. Of course they'd make that illegal.
my friends family used to make pot liquor all the time when we were growing up....good god was it awful
Pot liquor has a good sounding name and can't be any worse than this homemade Rhubbarb wine we had to drink at underaged poker parties
under age poker parties? you rebel
A $50 tax on an ounce of squeef would be hilarious. They might collect $100 total.
I dont think Ive heard anyone refer to weed as squeef
I thought that was a silent pssy fart
rjs calls it squeef all the time
Quote from: ice grillin you on February 24, 2009, 01:54:16 PM
my friends family used to make pot liquor all the time when we were growing up....good god was it awful
Some of the home beer and wine kits are excellent all are very good. Once you get your start up stuff, you are talking about $2-3/bottle for great wine. Its a nice hobby and makes for great Xmas presents. especially if it's from your private "aged collection" :yay
PS - Mousey says he stinkfingered Bunny Cote.
Drugs was a good shtein.
I'm 43 years-old and the term "squeef" has been around since I was in high school.
Whatever, though. Call it bluefish for all I care.
:diobatsignal (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2009/02/23/johnston_sentencing.html)
Dio needs to move to NJ
http://www.nj.com/hobokennow/index.ssf/2009/02/corzine_id_sign_medical_mariju.html
QuoteCorzine: I'd sign medical marijuana bill into NJ law
by Margaret Wednesday February 25, 2009, 11:39 AM
AP file photo
Gov. Jon Corzine, D-Hoboken, says he'll sign the medical marijuana bill into law in New Jersey if the state Assembly passes it. It passed the state Senate on Monday.Gov. Jon Corzine, D-Hoboken, said on Brian Lehrer's radio show this morning that he'll sign the medical marijuana bill into New Jersey law if it passes the state Assembly, according to the Associated Press.
The bill passed the state Senate on Monday and now goes to the Assembly.
New Jersey Gov. Jon S. Corzine says he'll "absolutely" sign a medical marijuana bill for chronically and terminally ill patients if it gets to his desk.
Corzine, a Democrat running for re-election, made the comments Wednesday morning on WNYC radio's "Brian Lehrer Show."
He told Lehrer the law could be structured so patients are comfortable and there are safeguards against abuses.
The Senate approved the bill Monday. It faces an uncertain fate in the Assembly.
Thirteen states have medical marijuana laws on the books. All but four came about because of voter referendums. In New Jersey, the Legislature must change the law.
just get the shtein over with already--get every state on board, let America get high-- its going to happen regardless
QuoteBy Alex Johnson
Reporter
msnbc.com
updated 47 minutes ago
Supporters of programs to provide legal marijuana to patients with painful medical conditions are celebrating Attorney General Eric Holder's statement this week that the Drug Enforcement Administration would end its raids on state-approved marijuana dispensaries.
Federal raids on medical marijuana distributors continued at least into the second week of Barack Obama's presidency, when federal agents shut down at least two dispensaries in California on Feb. 3.
Holder was asked about those raids Wednesday in Santa Ana, Calif., at a news conference that was called to announce the arrests of 755 people in a nationwide crackdown on the U.S. operations of Mexican drug cartels. He said such operations would no longer be conducted.
"What the president said during the campaign ... will be consistent with what we will be doing here in law enforcement," he said. "What (Obama) said during the campaign ... is now American policy."
Obama indicated during the presidential campaign that he supported the controlled use of marijuana for medical purposes, saying he saw no difference between medical marijuana and other pain-control drugs.
"My attitude is if the science and the doctors suggest that the best palliative care and the way to relieve pain and suffering is medical marijuana, then that's something I'm open to," Obama said in November 2007 at a campaign stop in Audubon, Iowa. "There's no difference between that and morphine when it comes to just giving people relief from pain."
White House spokesman Nick Shapiro hinted at the policy shift shortly after the California raids, telling The Washington Times that the dispensaries were legal in California and that the Obama administration's stance was that "federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws."
Major shift in federal policy
The new policy represents a significant turnabout for the federal government. During the Bush administration, DEA agents shut down 30 to 40 marijuana dispensaries, the agency said.
The Web site of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy had yet to catch up to the policy shift as of Friday afternoon, and was still prominently featuring a " Medical Marijuana Reality Check" declaring that "marijuana is not considered modern medicine" and arguing that "no animal or human data support the safety or efficacy of smoked marijuana for general medical use."
Thirteen states allow the cultivation, sale and use of medical marijuana.
Armentano said the shift would add momentum to campaigns in states that are considering their own medical marijuana laws. The New Jersey Senate approved such a bill Monday, and Gov. Jon Corzine said he would sign it if it cleared the state Assembly.
Prohibition doesn't work. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html)
Squeef.
QuoteProhibitions breed disrespect for the law because despite draconian penalties and extensive enforcement, huge numbers of people still violate prohibition. This means those who break the law, and those who do not, learn that obeying laws is for suckers.
Ha
Another CNN article about Legalization (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/31/cafferty.legal.drugs/index.html) I'm beginning to think this is really gonna happen at some point here
It'll probably happen the day after I die. Sonsofbitches
Well hurry up and die already, we'll use some of that tax money to build a monument. Not to you, of course.
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on April 01, 2009, 11:21:11 AM
Another CNN article about Legalization (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/31/cafferty.legal.drugs/index.html) I'm beginning to think this is really gonna happen at some point here
QuotePeople will use this stuff whether it's legal or not. Just like they do booze. And you could make the argument that in some cases alcohol is just as dangerous as some drugs. I know.
What does he mean with this line? Is Cafferty a drunk or something?
Quote from: General_Failure on April 01, 2009, 11:31:43 AM
Well hurry up and die already, we'll use some of that tax money to build a monument. Not to you, of course.
I'm working on it
We all are.
Quote from: Diomedes on April 01, 2009, 12:02:15 PM
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on April 01, 2009, 11:21:11 AM
Another CNN article about Legalization (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/31/cafferty.legal.drugs/index.html) I'm beginning to think this is really gonna happen at some point here
QuotePeople will use this stuff whether it's legal or not. Just like they do booze. And you could make the argument that in some cases alcohol is just as dangerous as some drugs. I know.
What does he mean with this line? Is Cafferty a drunk or something?
got busted for drunk driving
I figured it was something like that.
A big farg you to any writer whose articles assume the reader is following his personal life.
There is more than one way to wage a war on "sin." (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1)
don't get me started on taxing tobacco...black market here I come
i know two people who switched over to rolling their own in the past year to cut costs
Quote from: Diomedes on April 01, 2009, 03:28:06 PM
don't get me started on taxing tobacco...black market here I come
That's racist.
That's where you buy menthol, right?
How did you know I smoke menthol? Creepy.
Quote from: Diomedes on April 01, 2009, 06:03:14 PM
How did you know I smoke menthol? Creepy.
Kool's would be to easy, you work outside and everyone i worked with diggin holes smoked Newports, so im guessing Camel Mentols
I started out on regular cigarettes as a kid, twelve years old. Switched to menthol--and yes, Kool's, never liked Newports---in '94 and smoked those until I quit in '05. Since starting back up again last fall, I'm on the American Spirit Menthols. Whatever chemicals they put in the Kools made the addiction worse; I was around a pack and a half to two a day for decade or so. Now that I'm smoking the chemical free johnsons, I'm at about a half pack.
And my old lady is just farging thrilled.
nice man. I'm a farging weirdo and don't get addicted to cigs. I decided it was time to stop a month ago and havent thought about one other than when I was watching Band of Brothers
Part of why I switched over to menthol was that the kids at my college who were always bumming cigarettes were too farging spoiled to actually take a menthol, so I actually smoked an entire pack I paid for rather than only 17 or 18 of 'em, without being a scrooge and telling these kids to farg off. Sure, you can have a cigarette...produce green package....oh, no thanks? Kool.
The other part was menthol taste a farg lot better and as we all know once you go black, you never go back.
Menthol > Non-menthol
Actually, actual, in actuality!!
Actuarial.
been smoking newports for about 15 years now. and like dio, i bum out much fewer smokes because of it. had a buddy of mine when i was in the grunts who smoked reds and was constantly bumming them out to people so i'd give him an empty pack of newports and he'd transfer his reds into it and found that he was also bumming them out less often as well.
anyone seen these new camel crush cigarettes they got out? apparently they aren't really new, but i've never smoked them before. anywho they've got something in the filter that you have to "crush" and then roll it between your fingers before lighting. the more you roll, the more menthol flavor you get, which is good if you prefer a little less menthol in your cancer. the downer to it though is that you look like a moron trying to crush it and then rolling it.
but if you're curious to know what it would taste like if you ate an entire pack of halls, crapped it out, rolled it up and smoked it, then i you should definitely try them.
You can crush it after it's lit too. They're not too bad if you're into that sort of thing.
The good thing about Kool's is you can order them by asking for "a pack of what I am"
I need to find the black market cigs or start a tamacco farm
Ha. Tomacco is the shtein.
Quote from: Tomahawk on April 02, 2009, 11:43:03 AM
The good thing about Kool's is you can order them by asking for "a pack of what I am"
I didn't know they sold douche in packs.
Pad. (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/StockInvestingTrading/a-budget-cure-marijuana-taxes.aspx?gt1=33002)
Seriously. Get it done.
What happens if they legalize weed - will employers still be allowed to test for drugs?
Sure, they can test for illegal drugs. They shouldn't and they're still iceholes if they do, but they still could.
I would think if youre an owner you might want to test, legal or not
its no secret (and was never the case for me unless it was some good shtein--but even that wore off in an hour at best), weed makes you lethargic. If you can function normally blazed and have the same amount energy and alertness as when youre sober god bless you
legalize freedom
People aren't allowed to be drunk at work (well I am, but most people aren't) why would anyone tolerate them being high? They wouldn't. But what they do at home in their personal time isn't anyone's business. farg the bullshtein.
you guys hiring?
rjs owns and operates Zombiebusters out of Boston.
I watched the NatGeo Explorer: Marijuana Nation. Good shtein, and the hot azn broad who hosts it almost orgasm d on tv when she was smelling some sweet BC Bud
Quote from: rjs246 on May 06, 2009, 08:41:40 PM
People aren't allowed to be drunk at work (well I am, but most people aren't) why would anyone tolerate them being high? They wouldn't. But what they do at home in their personal time isn't anyone's business. farg the bullshtein.
yep, pretty much. i'm sure it's been said in this discussion before but i'll say it again though, there are certain professions that i don't think weed has any place in......cops, military, dr's and nurses, pilots, bus drivers, etc. but if youre some office schlub or computer geek or burger flipper then i really don't give a shtein.
I don't care if cops, military, doctors nurses bus drivers, etc. smoke grass when they're not working. How could you?
Quote from: Diomedes on May 07, 2009, 06:18:15 AM
I don't care if cops, military, doctors nurses bus drivers, etc. smoke grass when they're not working. How could you?
Exactly. This argument has been drilled into people heads for so long that it won't come unstuck. "Would you want a doctor operating on your who was high? Would you want to fly in a plane if the captain were high? Well then marijuana shouldn't be legal!"
It's stupid. I wouldn't want a doctor who was drunk to operate on me either. Should alcohol be illegal? What about prescription pain killers? What about Robitussin? People should be able to do whatever the farg they want in their free time as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. That doesn't give them carte blanche to get stoned and operate heavy machinery. The logical jump people are making there is stupid.
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100813/NEWS01/100813010/Newark-area-man-charged-with-trafficking-marijuana-candy
QuoteNewark area man charged with trafficking marijuana candy
By TERRI SANGINITI • The News Journal • August 13, 2010
Comments (7) Recommend Print this page E-mail this article Share Del.icio.us Facebook Digg Reddit Newsvine Buzz up!
Twitter FarkIt Type Size A A A A Newark area man who opened his apartment door to state drug and probation officers was charged with trafficking marijuana candy after officers saw some of the weed out in plain sight, police said today.
Alex R. Osgood, 23,, of the Hunters Crossing Apartments on Fairway Road, was charged late Tuesday with trafficking marijuana, possession with intent to deliver marijuana, maintaining a dwelling for drugs, and possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia.
The arrest unfolded as members of the Governor's Task Force were at the complex checking curfews on probationers when they smelled a strong aroma of burnt marijuana coming from an unrelated apartment, said state police spokesman Cpl. Jeffrey Hale.
Task force members, consisting of state troopers and probation and parole officers, then saw two men walk out of the apartment reeking of marijuana.
The officers knocked on the door where the men had just exited, and Osgood answered and let them into the premises, Hale said.
After seeing the marijuana out in the open, troopers got a warrant to search the apartment.
A search netted 6.6 pounds of marijuana – 4.1 pounds of it bagged in individual packages as candy, that you eat rather than smoke, Hale said.
Troopers also seized 1.1 grams of hashish, a marijuana pipe and bong, a digital scale and $3,560 in suspected drug money.
Osgood was committed to the Young Correctional Institution after failing to post $6,000
(http://cmsimg.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=BL&Date=20100813&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=100813010&Ref=V1&MaxW=318&Border=0)
So the Task force was checking probation on other people, smelled mj, and went in without a warrant. Then filed for one later. Board Lawyers, will that hold up? Is someone smelling something probable cause?
Read it again.....the cops knocked and the guy let them in. Drugs were in plain sight so they went and got a warrant. This might not be a story if dumbass didn't actually let the cops in.
However, I do believe that smelling mj is probable cause (I know it is if you're driving and a cop pulls you over and smells it) so it's probably a moot point anyway.
It would be the same thing as plain sight, I would guess. But, I'm gonna guess that the initial search was illegal.
Nothing illegal about that search at all.
Theres stuff out there that doesn't have to be burning to smell. I've seen stuff double bagged and put in glad seal tight containers, and you could still smell it.
Quote from: shorebird on August 14, 2010, 09:51:55 PM
Theres stuff out there that doesn't have to be burning to smell. I've seen stuff double bagged and put in glad seal tight containers, and you could still smell it.
welcome to america
LOL
I don't get it.
shorbird, i'm like a cheebahawk. I can smeel good stuff 2 blocks over. Its a skill i've gotten over the years. you're just getting exposed to stuff outside the mexicano garbage you've probably had for years. The Business has changed slightly
you trying to educate people that weed smells when not lit is precious
potheads....potential buyers....drug sniffing dogs...aware parents....florists and anyone with a nose says hi
Precious? I'm glad you think so.
my goal is to open a shop the second that its legalized. shtein my family is in immediate need as far as the medicinal purposes. Cancersucks, vaporizers rule
Every major study has shown that whites use marijuana more than blacks, yet blacks are arrested for marijuana crimes at between twice and four times the rate whites are.
Thread title now changed.
Eh.
I'd say probably 4/5ths of my white friends smoke weed. I've also never seen them smoke it in public. It's usually at a friends house, or in a car. I've seen more black people that I don't know just walking down the street with a blunt in their hand then I've seen white kids that I do know smoking it out in the open like that. And of course suburbanite white kids will get caught less, they don't live in the inner city where the cops roll by every 15 minutes.
Not saying I disagree with the numbers, and I agree that race probably place a part, but I can't sit here and say I agree that it's the biggest contributor to those numbers.
the worst was in the 80's when it was perfectly acceptable on wall street to have your secretary set up lines of yay on your desk for you while posession of a crack rock got you 20 to life
I think you're discounting how great the North Pole was to work at, i wish i worked for Maidhoff
Quote from: Munson on August 23, 2010, 03:18:42 PMyadda yadda ya
You make solid points.
Even if the policy is not intentionally racist, the result is that black people are arrested/convicted/imprisoned at far too high a rate. And since felons are permanent second class citizens--can't vote, can't work, can't collect government food or housing assistance, can't own a gun, etc.--what you've got is Jim Crow part deux.
With sentencing guidelines that make crack 20x worse than powder (recently amended down from 100x worse by those crazy liberals), the disparity is made all the more glaring.
If the result is racially skewed, the policy is racist by definition.
Quote from: Diomedes on August 23, 2010, 03:26:28 PM
If the result is racially skewed, the policy is racist by definition.
That's actually not true, but far be it from me to side with Munson on an argument, so please carry on.
I thought it might not be true, but it sounded good.
What is it then when the results of a policy are grossly racially unfair?
Unfortunate and in need of serious adjustment. Racism implies intent.
Unfortunate is too weak, and perhaps racist too strong.
Criminal is what I'd call it.
Sure, that probably works more often than not.
Quote from: rjs246 on August 23, 2010, 03:54:30 PM
Unfortunate and in need of serious adjustment. Racism implies intent.
Then it's discriminatory
Check out the big brain on this dickbag.
T-hawk to the rescue!
Proof that thread title change was appropriate
(http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/24/dea.ebonics/)
(http://i.imgur.com/8HpWg.jpg)
Nice
Happy holiday friends.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/brazil-drug-dealers-ban-crack_n_1822870.html
http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/06/pot-plans-efforts-surge-in-congress-to-reform-marijuana-laws/?hpt=hp_t2
NUMBERS:
QuoteThere were 1.5 million drug arrests made in the U.S. in 2011, according to the FBI. Of those arrests, over 660,000 were for possession of marijuana. The enforcement of federal marijuana laws, including incarceration, costs at least $5.5 billion annually, according to a study by the Cato Institute. In New York State alone, the estimated cost of marijuana-related arrests surpasses $75 million every year, according to the Drug Policy Alliance, a nonprofit that supports drug-policy reform.
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/06/pot-plans-efforts-surge-in-congress-to-reform-marijuana-laws/#ixzz2KE3V7i4N
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/420-protester-pennsylvania_n_3148450.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009&utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
Some bible thumper is pissed off because police decide not to arrest pot smokers at a weed rally on Saturday. Props to the cops for staying out of Hamsterdam.
Related note: I tried weed for the 1st time on Saturday after a long time friend's wedding. Definitely enjoyed it and I was pretty farged up. At the same time though, it's probably not going to be a regular recreational activity for me. Glad I gave it a go, though. You're next, crack.
And I thought I'd be the oldest person I know to try weed for the first time.
I still don't know if I'll ever do it, but maybe someday.
I think if I ever did a drug, I'd wanna do shrooms so I can hallucinate.
Quote from: Sgt PSN on April 25, 2013, 09:59:12 AM
Glad I gave it a go, though. You're next, crack.
you was fly once now you losin all your fronts.....started off light on the tip of hootie blunts.....now you gained a stripe and graduated to the pipe...took a long pull...hype....yeeeeeah head crack head crack...you smoked up that stack and admitted you was wack...ayo x wasnt that your man?....yeah i had to drop him....cause he caught on the plastic and i just couldnt stop em
Shut up and gimme the glass d!ck.
Quote from: Munson on April 25, 2013, 10:09:04 AM
And I thought I'd be the oldest person I know to try weed for the first time.
I still don't know if I'll ever do it, but maybe someday.
I think if I ever did a drug, I'd wanna do shrooms so I can hallucinate.
Nah... never had it, never will.
It's no big deal but you're not missing out either. Nice job Geo.
Quote from: hbionic on April 25, 2013, 08:21:31 PM
It's no big deal but you're not missing out either.
Pretty much. My stoner friends in high school were always talking about how great it was getting high and my stoner friends today are always talking about how great it is getting high. And while I certainly didn't hate it, I don't feel like I've cheated myself or missed out for waiting as long as I did. It was really farging cool and I felt funny.
But weed is a lot of work. I didn't realize how much prep work went in to smoking it. Sorting buds or whatever the hell my boy said he was doing. Rolling the joint or packing a pipe or whatever. Farg that. Cigarettes are 100000x easier. I just rip off the wrapper (so it's kind of like opening a Xmas present every day of the year) and light it. So I'll probably just be a scavenger smoker and puff on other people's shtein once they've got it rolled or packed in a pipe. No wonder potheads are lazy. They put in a lot of work beforehand.
geo do you not want to do it because its "illegal" or because you just dont want to do it
second question--have you ever smoked cigs
You should almost be sent to gay-jail for calling them "cigs" but I get the feeling that's what they call them, so, I think you got lucky. (They being cool people).
Quote from: MDS on April 26, 2013, 02:21:52 AM
geo do you not want to do it because its "illegal" or because you just dont want to do it
second question--have you ever smoked cigs
For the first question: Primarily because I have a long history of addiction in my family and addictive traits in my own personality. It's also why I don't drink. Most of the addiction in my family was alcohol, but I did have a cousin die when I was in college from a cocaine overdose. I just made a conscious decision to not start using that stuff.
For the second question: No. My mother, my sister and my grandfather all did, and I could never stand the smell of the smoke. Never had the slightest interest in picking it up.
i spent most of the 90's drinking malt liquor smoking weed and listening to beats....god what a great time....then around the turn of the century i more or less stopped cold turkey and dont miss it at all...which is the great thing about weed
however if i didnt/couldnt drink id off myself....id rather drink myself to death at age 50 then live alcohol free until 75
Is it normal to forget what people are saying as soon as the words hit your ear drum when you're high? Because that's what was happening to me. Either that shtein hit me really hard since I have no tolerance or I really suck at getting high. Because if my lone experience is any indication, had I smoked all through the 90s then I'd have forgotten pretty much everything about the 90s.
IGY....why'd you stop? Personal choice or is this about the time you got a gov't job and had to start randomly pissing in a cup?
my govt job doesnt piss test...it wasnt a concious or reasoned decision....just a maturation thing....got older and stopped going to hip hop clubs and big house parties
i was never a big sit on the couch with a bag of cool ranch and play madden smoker...or sit around with a couple buddies on a stoop and smoke...or smoke in a car before going into a movie....i would never just smoke to smoke....i would puff when something "big" was going and it was always centered around beats....naturally as we all get older those big things happen less and less...
since around 2000 ive probably smoked about 30 times and 25 of those were at eagle tailgates
Haha....some dude who tailgates with/next to Sus offered me a hit at one of the games I went to last year, but I declined. Trying it has been on my list of things to do since the day I got out of the military but I wanted my 1st time to be farging special, not hitting off some strange dude's j in the WFC parking lot. I'll lick spilled bourbon off the ground there but I wasn't popping my weed cherry in that shtein hole. I've got standards.
So one of my oldest friends is getting married on 4/20. Only seemed logical to give it a go. So instead of the WFC parking lot, I popped my cherry with an old friend on the 6th floor of the Conshohocken Residence Inn. shtein was lovely.
Quote from: Sgt PSN on April 26, 2013, 12:03:40 AM
But weed is a lot of work. I didn't realize how much prep work went in to smoking it. Sorting buds or whatever the hell my boy said he was doing.
your friends are smoking garbage then. i haven't had to pick out a seed since college.
That's because blow doesn't have seeds in it.
Quote from: phattymatty on April 26, 2013, 12:41:21 PM
Quote from: Sgt PSN on April 26, 2013, 12:03:40 AM
But weed is a lot of work. I didn't realize how much prep work went in to smoking it. Sorting buds or whatever the hell my boy said he was doing.
your friends are smoking garbage then. i haven't had to pick out a seed since college.
I've probably got my terminology wrong then. My boy's been smoking for over 20 years and he isn't cheap about it. He had a jar full of it and was crumbling it up. I assumed he was picking something out of it but maybe not.
Quote from: Sgt PSN on April 26, 2013, 02:20:18 PM
Quote from: phattymatty on April 26, 2013, 12:41:21 PM
Quote from: Sgt PSN on April 26, 2013, 12:03:40 AM
But weed is a lot of work. I didn't realize how much prep work went in to smoking it. Sorting buds or whatever the hell my boy said he was doing.
your friends are smoking garbage then. i haven't had to pick out a seed since college.
I've probably got my terminology wrong then. My boy's been smoking for over 20 years and he isn't cheap about it. He had a jar full of it and was crumbling it up. I assumed he was picking something out of it but maybe not.
20 years doing something doesn't mean he's been doing it right. He could be paying good cash for cheap shtein and not know the difference. Either way, you're a loser.
I am. But dude's a weedologist. I'll not have his good name tainted by the likes of you.
But he's also a loser because winners don't do drugs. :)
Smoked once when I was 18...hated it.
I stopped smoking weed when I went in the Navy. It had been about 10 years and the girl I was seeing was a big time pothead. She had the same weed that won the cannabis cup the year prior. Two hits and I was done. Once I got out I figured I'd puff here and there but I've only smoked once. Don't miss it.
How do you make it through high school without at least trying weed?
Cannabis Cup? lol there's such a thing?
As for me...I was all about sports and wouldn't take anything to screw that up. I drank but never had any desire to smoke.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on April 27, 2013, 10:28:17 AM
I was all about sports and wouldn't take anything to screw that up. I drank
Hahaha what the farg?
Quote from: rjs246 on April 27, 2013, 03:37:31 PM
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on April 27, 2013, 10:28:17 AM
I was all about sports and wouldn't take anything to screw that up. I drank
Hahaha what the farg?
lol
his train to stardom would not be derailed
Not a chance but the people I hung out with were all sports nuts and not potheads. All we did in our spare time was play ball. The drugs were never around the scene I was involved with.
As for drinking - it's not like I was drunk every day but when a party would happen we'd booze it up.
I hate drugs too. I was always raised to not mess with any drugs so I never really did.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on April 27, 2013, 04:31:44 PM
Not a chance but the people I hung out with were all sports nuts and not potheads. All we did in our spare time was play ball. The drugs were never around the scene I was involved with.
cue vince lombardi....what the hell is goin on out there??
i played every sport imaginable and no one didnt smoke
Only in our post-Nancy-Reagan society can someone be totally serious when they say in one sentence that they've been 'boozing it up' since pre-legal high school age, and in the next sentence say that they hate drugs.
Quote from: ice grillin you on April 27, 2013, 04:39:57 PM
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on April 27, 2013, 04:31:44 PM
Not a chance but the people I hung out with were all sports nuts and not potheads. All we did in our spare time was play ball. The drugs were never around the scene I was involved with.
cue vince lombardi....what the hell is goin on out there??
i played every sport imaginable and no one didnt smoke
Yep, your bowling team was a bunch of potheads.
no athletes smoke...EVER
I never said that.
However, not EVERY DAMN PERSON EVER has smoked either.
Quote from: Geowhizzer on April 27, 2013, 05:29:41 PM
I never said that.
However, not EVERY DAMN PERSON EVER has smoked either.
you havent
I didn't smoke anything at all until I was 19...and now at 25, the only things I can say I've inhaled area few puffs of friends black and milds. When I was 19.
Just never saw the appeal.
i smoked weed once in the last three years (did it a handful of times before that in college) and it cost me an summer internship at the FBI because i told them that after they gave me the offer. Honesty and all that goes far in our government.
I am still entertained by the lines being drawn between alcohol, which, while awesome, is infinitely more addictive and physically worse for you than weed, and marijuana. The arbitrary nature of laws governing how we get farged up and the resulting opinions that people form based on those arbitrary rules makes me sad.
Both yogurt and soda contain alcohol, which is why I've stopped smoking both of them.
i think i hate all of you.
Quote from: SD on April 27, 2013, 08:27:03 AM
I stopped smoking weed when I went in the Navy. It had been about 10 years and the girl I was seeing was a big time pothead. She had the same weed that won the cannabis cup the year prior. Two hits and I was done. Once I got out I figured I'd puff here and there but I've only smoked once. Don't miss it.
How do you make it through high school without at least trying weed?
That must have been cool banging her while she's all folded and you were sober. Talk about in control. Sounds pretty cool.
Quote from: SD on April 27, 2013, 08:27:03 AM
How do you make it through high school without at least trying weed?
Try growing up in Hawaii.
weirdos
Quote from: phattymatty on April 28, 2013, 10:43:32 AM
i think i hate all of you.
This could not be more accurate.
% of population that is in prison...
1. usa
2. seychelles
3. saint kitts
4. us virgin isle
5. cuba
6. rwanda
7. anguila
8. russia
9. uk virgin isle
10. belarus
Quote from: rjs246 on April 28, 2013, 09:21:41 AM
I am still entertained by the lines being drawn between alcohol, which, while awesome, is infinitely more addictive and physically worse for you than weed, and marijuana. The arbitrary nature of laws governing how we get farged up and the resulting opinions that people form based on those arbitrary rules makes me sad.
Actually, studies show that not only does alcohol
in moderation have health benefits, but it is becoming apparent that people who drink
in moderation (for men up to 2 drinks a day, for women one) live longer than people who don't drink at all, even when correcting for life style differences.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/index.html
Credible voice speaking to the arbitrary nature of marijuana laws and the medicinal benefits of the junk
sour diesel is nice
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/nyregion/drug-use-and-arrests-accompany-phishs-madison-square-garden-shows.html?ref=arts
How much money did the City of New York piss away on busting a bunch of farging hippies with excruciating taste in music last night?
This country sucks and the fascist dickfaces who run it deserve to spend some time in the farging holes they routinely toss non-violent offenders into.
smoked for the first time in a while last night
i miss weed!
Quote from: Rome on January 01, 2014, 04:00:09 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/nyregion/drug-use-and-arrests-accompany-phishs-madison-square-garden-shows.html?ref=arts
How much money did the City of New York piss away on busting a bunch of farging hippies with excruciating taste in music last night?
This country sucks and the fascist dickfaces who run it deserve to spend some time in the farging holes they routinely toss non-violent offenders into.
crime is big bidness
steal 5 thousand bucks, you're a criminal
steal 5 billion, you're a businessman
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2014/01/21/pmt-ann-coulter-pot-debate.cnn.html
Is she ever not awful?
BREAKING NEWS: Ann Coulter says something to bring attention to her latest book/get her a paid television appearance/give Bill Maher ammo for their next hatefarg session.
ILL legalized medical dope. I'm pretty sure I have at least 25% of the ailments that'll get a prescription.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/anne-arundel/annapolis/bs-md-ar-police-chief-20140225,0,2160126.story
Synopsis, Maryland is considering Decriminalization/Legalization since its Medical program is a joke. Various state and county police officials are up in arms over losing what amounts to 10 million in forfeitures per year which is divied up between the agencies. Not to mention an easy way to lock up the unwanted. So the genius in the story below when asked about Colorado's legalization, stated that 30 people died from overdoses on the day it was legalized. Great homework bro!
QuoteAnnapolis police chief apologizes for marijuana misspeak
Pristoop says he obtained inaccurate data regarding deaths related to Colorado marijuana legislation
By Sean Welsh, The Baltimore Sun
6:49 PM EST, February 25, 2014
Advertisement
Annapolis Police Chief Michael Pristoop issued an apology Tuesday for inaccurate statements he made about deaths related to the legalization of marijuana in Colorado.
Pristoop, in testimony regarding legalization of marijuana, stated that overdoses on marijuana led to more than 30 deaths on the first day the drug was legalized in Colorado. That data was based upon a hoax story that ran on satirical and comedy websites.
"I apologize for the information I provided concerning the deaths. I believed the information I obtained was accurate but I now know the story is nothing more than an urban legend," the chief said in a statement. "This does not take away from the other facts presented in opposition to legalization or the good work of the Maryland Chiefs and Maryland Sheriffs associations."
Pristoop was speaking before the Maryland Senate Judiciary Committee, opposing the decriminalization and legalization of marijuana, according to the statement from Annapolis police. His testimony was stopped by those on the committee who recognized the error.
According to the statement from the police department, Pristoop discovered the data was "an urban myth" while following up on the report after the meeting.
During the testimony Tuesday, police chiefs, sheriffs and states attorneys said loosening marijuana laws in Maryland would undermine drug enforcement — though they said their opposition did not extend to making medical marijuana more readily available to those who need it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/27/jason-hernandez-obama-crack-cocaine_n_4509236.html
All I can say is it's about farging time.
i was reading another story and there was a prisoner in it talking about how all the time he would have to watch inmates that were kiddie rapists or cold blooded murderers walk past his cell on their way to being released while he was doing life for selling some drugs to put food on the table for his kids
ill be hanging with some khalifa kush tonight .... >:D
edit - for the record, this was - A++++++++
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-warns-america-marijuana-grocery-store_us_58b58d8de4b0a8a9b7863d93?section=politics (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-warns-america-marijuana-grocery-store_us_58b58d8de4b0a8a9b7863d93?section=politics)
LOVE THIS PART ...
On Monday, Sessions decried marijuana legalization to reporters at the Justice Department, claiming "real violence" can be attributed to the "current levels of THC in marijuana."
QuoteOn Monday, Sessions decried marijuana legalization to reporters at the Justice Department, claiming "real violence" can be attributed to the "current levels of THC in marijuana."
"I don't think America is going to be a better place when people of all ages, and particularly young people, are smoking pot," Sessions said. "I believe it's an unhealthy practice, and current levels of THC in marijuana are very high compared to what they were a few years ago, and we're seeing real violence around that."
real violence ?
Lying farging jackasses. Christ - talk about Fake News.
Quote
"I don't think America is going to be a better place when people of all ages, and particularly young people, are smoking pot,"
it's already happening you farging moron.
From the perspective of chocolate chip cookies and tortilla chips, the weed epidemic seems a holocaust.
Ha. Clueless.
Quote from: smeags on February 28, 2017, 02:50:55 PM
Quote
"I don't think America is going to be a better place when people of all ages, and particularly young people, are smoking pot,"
it's already happening you farging moron.
Is this a Jefferson Sessions quote? That guy needs to die screaming.
The feds have been saying stupid shtein about weed for a century. Let's see what they actually try to do about it. Somehow I doubt my local recreational weed stores are going anywhere anytime soon, regardless of what that law and order jerkoff says.
yeah but all that violence that's been happening because of the higher THC levels !
it must be stopped.
Weed sales in Colorado reached $1 Billion last year. Good luck shutting down a Billion dollar industry.
how is weed leading sports gambling in the legalization race
Quote from: SD on February 28, 2017, 03:26:06 PM
Weed sales in Colorado reached $1 Billion last year. Good luck shutting down a Billion dollar industry.
the issue is trillion dollar industries are lobbying to shut it down.
Quote from: ice grillin you on February 28, 2017, 03:36:31 PM
how is weed leading sports gambling in the legalization race
HALLELUJAH
HAVAS FOR PRESIDENT
Quote from: ice grillin you on February 28, 2017, 03:36:31 PM
how is weed leading sports gambling in the legalization race
Ask Sheldon Adelson.
well I am going home to enjoy some mother nature. hopefully I wont get violent and go on a rampage, cause you know, THC.
So to recap, weed and clean water are the nation's biggest problems today according to the Trump regime.
Jeff Sessions can get farged.
Quote from: rjs246 on February 28, 2017, 07:40:05 PM
Jeff Sessions can get farged.
No, he can't. That's his main problem.
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53cf3578e4b04d5b97d0ef89/t/5507adaee4b03d87d0ce498f/1426566575808/MilkChocolate_225?format=500w)
:paranoid
i'm paying less and less. Anyone else noticing falling prices?
Legalization has cratered prices out here to the point where the growers are losing big money. I wouldn't be shocked if some of our extra supply is making it out your way.
D.C. is legal, so that's got to be putting downward pressure on prices, and now MD has a medicinal program up and running, so folks with a script can leave the illegal market, and that too must be at play.
I suppose I ought not be surprised, but I am. "Rates have gone down," is not a phrase I ever expected to hear from a dealer and now it's happened twice in six months.
"IF" I smoked, I'd say yes, I would have noticed the slight drop on the last pen i would've purchased. :paranoid