Discussion: Legalizing Marijuana

[moraldeficiency]

He handled it well, but he got the answer wrong. Less money in prisons plus an item you could tax as heavily as cigs (one of the most taxed items on this planet) equals a better economy, it's really a no-brainer.

[Ace of Knaves]

This is the Anthem of our cause!!! :grin:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8HcXcYlF3_0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8HcXcYlF3_0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Marx]

He handled it well, but he got the answer wrong. Less money in prisons plus an item you could tax as heavily as cigs (one of the most taxed items on this planet) equals a better economy, it's really a no-brainer.

I'm telling you, you want to stimulate the economy, start a serious reform in immigration.

[moraldeficiency]

I'm telling you, you want to stimulate the economy, start a serious reform in immigration.

Well that's true as well, there are probably millions of decent ways to stimulate the economy I'm just saying legalization is clearly one of them and for obama to say it wouldn't is just him straight up lying cause that man is smart enough to know better. He just doesn't want to deal with the issue. It wasn't like he explained why it wouldn't stimulate the economy because there's no actual reasoning there.

[Marx]

FUNDRAISING JUMP FOR MARIJUANA GROUP AFTER OBAMA SNUB
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/27/fundraising-jump-for-marijuana-group-after-obama-snub/

Marijuana backers aren't laughing about President Obama's flippant dismissal of a pot-related question during Thursday's online town hall meeting — and the country's leading marijuana advocacy group, The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, has seen its donations quadruple over the last 24 hours.

Allen St. Pierre, the executive director of NORML, told CNN "our donation boxes started to flood" after Obama laughed off a Web question about whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation. St. Pierre said traffic to the group's Web site has "increased precipitously" since Thursday.

"About half of the donation comments have a reference to Mr. Obama's comments," St. Pierre said. "As far as I'm concerned, he could show up every single day and rag on marijuana."

Admittedly, the group isn't a fundraising juggernaut: NORML averages about $900 in donations daily, a total that jumped to $3,500 in the 24 hours since Obama joked about pot at the town hall.

But St. Pierre said the anger among marijuana legalization advocates is real.

"Many of them were profoundly disappointed because many of them with great enthusiasm supported Obama from the point of his announcement to when he became president," he said.


St. Pierre acknowledged that marijuana legalization is "by no means at the top of national concerns" like two wars and a troubled economy. However, he said the online question was a serious one, arguing that marijuana legalization would help law enforcement officials cut costs. He also said a legal marijuana industry, like tobacco and alcohol, would create billions in tax revenue for the government.

St. Pierre believes the president and his attorney general, Eric Holder, will be friendlier to marijuana advocates than the previous administration, but he said he knows the topic remains "political dynamite" for any elected official.

"Obama does not want to be dragged down and become the point of cultural jokes and cultural digs because he is giving deference to a subject matter to that this date has been thought of as less than serious," he said of the president's town hall answer. "However, I think what he is probably going to find out, through his handlers, is that he really, really disappointed people in a way that he maybe has never done as politician."

[souvlaki]

Well that's true as well, there are probably millions of decent ways to stimulate the economy I'm just saying legalization is clearly one of them and for obama to say it wouldn't is just him straight up lying cause that man is smart enough to know better. He just doesn't want to deal with the issue. It wasn't like he explained why it wouldn't stimulate the economy because there's no actual reasoning there.

He didn't explain why because he didn't take the question seriously. It irks me, but any question about legalization is not going to be taken seriously now because it would be political suicide for any sitting President a couple months into their administration to support legalization. If the question had been related to medicinal uses for marijuana it probably would have received a more reasonable response. It's unfortunate the question is not taken more seriously but really, as a California citizen I've been pretty happy with how he's handled the marijuana issue. Saying the DEA would not prosecute medicinal sellers as long as they abide by state laws is already a huge step in the right direction.

[souvlaki]

Really, if the question had to address legalization for recreational use the question should have phrased like this:

"In 2004 you said you supported decriminalization of marijuana. Do you still stand by that statement?"

Not only is decriminalization a little more reasonable than complete legalization, but it would have put Obama on the hot seat by addressing the fact that he's supported decriminalization in the past.

[souvlaki]

edit- double post

[dnno1]

Really, if the question had to address legalization for recreational use the question should have phrased like this:

"In 2004 you said you supported decriminalization of marijuana. Do you still stand by that statement?"

Not only is decriminalization a little more reasonable than complete legalization, but it would have put Obama on the hot seat by addressing the fact that he's supported decriminalization in the past.

Can't we just be satisfied with just the $100 fine and the option to go to drug treatment instead of jail time instead of being place in prision or a mental institution as it was in the past?

[Zar25]

Legalizing pot politically is a bad move for Obama so I understood why he answered in such a manner. However it still annoyed me that he couldn't at least answer the question seriously. A no comment would be fine enough. Flippant was not cool :(

[BlackLantern]

Pot still has a serious social stigma....any politician that ventures into that territory is on thin ice, regardless of who he is

[theShape]

It's very sad that there is still so many misconceptions about marijuana. Last night on DL Hughley's CNN show (that man has a show on CNN?!?!) he was talking with some kind of cop that said ridiculous things (marijuana is addictive, it's a gateway drug, marijuana use is at an all-time low). I wanted to call in and give the guys some real facts, because Hughley didn't know squat.

This is an issue that should be taken seriously, especially when it has the potential to boost our economy bigtime.

[Spidey-Bat]

Pot still has a serious social stigma....any politician that ventures into that territory is on thin ice, regardless of who he is

So does prostitution and marital infidelity.

[BlackLantern]

So does prostitution and marital infidelity.

Prostitution is still illegal in 49 of 50 states and marital infidelity is essentially a breach of contract

[Ace of Knaves]

People who compare weed to other hard drugs or call it a "gateway" drug should be forced to suck down a crack pipe :up: Then we'll see if they think there is a link between the two.

[Spidey-Bat]

Prostitution is still illegal in 49 of 50 states and marital infidelity is essentially a breach of contract

My point was those have social stigmas as well but how often is a politician caught doing them? They don't avoid pot just because of the social stigma, they also avoid it b/c they're too ignorant about the issue to give a crap.

[moraldeficiency]

So does prostitution and marital infidelity.

or evolution and gay rights. Oddly education on the issue would clear up hemp, evolution and gay rights pretty well. I'll leave fixing prostitution and marital infidelity to you.

[theShape]

People who compare weed to other hard drugs or call it a "gateway" drug should be forced to suck down a crack pipe :up: Then we'll see if they think there is a link between the two.

Weed can only be considered a gateway drug because of its illegality. If it were legal and sold in stores, no one would have to go to a drug dealer to get it, and subsequently there would be many, many less drug dealers active in the U.S.

Therefore, the connection to cocaine, herione, etc. would most likely be lost for many people. In order for kids to get weed, it would be more along the lines of the way it is now for kids to get alcohol: fake I.D., older person buying it for them, etc. Either way, MUCH safer.

[BlackLantern]

People who compare weed to other hard drugs or call it a "gateway" drug should be forced to suck down a crack pipe :up: Then we'll see if they think there is a link between the two.

That's a little much....I think it's a tough argument to make either way....maybe for some people it is and some it isn't......

[moraldeficiency]

Weed can only be considered a gateway drug because of its illegality. If it were legal and sold in stores, no one would have to go to a drug dealer to get it, and subsequently there would be many, many less drug dealers active in the U.S.

Therefore, the connection to cocaine, herione, etc. would most likely be lost for many people. In order for kids to get weed, it would be morealong the lines of the way it is now for kids to get alcohol: fake I.D., older person buying it for them, etc. Either way, MUCH safer.

Dead on right. You look at the commericals and you see that pot makes you rape/get raped, run over small children and dooms your and your family's existence. Then you see the reality of the matter and how many people use it and none of those things happen and it makes you think the stuff about other drugs must be ******** too, and that's where the problem lies. If people would stop lying about some drugs the truth about others would be far more believable.

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea i was joking about the crack pipe thing. But it does my head in. You have people thinking you are a junkie for smoking a bit of peng you know what i mean?

[theShape]

Dead on right. You look at the commericals and you see that pot makes you rape/get raped, run over small children and dooms your and your family's existence. Then you see the reality of the matter and how many people use it and none of those things happen and it makes you think the stuff about other drugs must be ******** too, and that's where the problem lies. If people would stop lying about some drugs the truth about others would be far more believable.

That's a good point, dude. :up:

[BlackLantern]

Yea i was joking about the crack pipe thing. But it does my head in. You have people thinking you are a junkie for smoking a bit of peng you know what i mean?

but some people have generated a serious mental addiction....I have a very good friend who refuses to go through any day without smoking up....Ive seen him get physically agitated if he goes a significant amount of time without......I view it just as bad a habit as smoking or drinking....

[Spidey-Bat]

Dead on right. You look at the commericals and you see that pot makes you rape/get raped, run over small children and dooms your and your family's existence. Then you see the reality of the matter and how many people use it and none of those things happen and it makes you think the stuff about other drugs must be ******** too, and that's where the problem lies. If people would stop lying about some drugs the truth about others would be far more believable.

I'm not sure what it's called, but there are groups where people who are very sick smoke pot together. It was on an episode of Penn and Teller's Bulls**t. I remember one woman was so sick that she couldn't smoke it herself; someone had to blow the smoke in her face. They should show a commercial of that.

[moraldeficiency]

I'm not sure what it's called, but there are groups where people who are very sick smoke pot together. It was on an episode of Penn and Teller's Bulls**t. I remember one woman was so sick that she couldn't smoke it herself; someone had to blow the smoke in her face. They should show a commercial of that.

I had a friend die of cancer pretty young and pot was one of the only things that made her last months bearable. That's why I get pissed when anyone says stupid **** like it has no medicinal value. **** that, I've seen it help people.

********'s a great show.

There's a great movie out called In Pot We Trust which is dead on about this stuff.

[Mr. Wooden Alligator]

If we legalized pot, there goes a portion of the War on Drugs; its one more thing we don't have to worry about.

So legalize it so I don't have to look over my shoulder in fear everytime I see a cop!

[theShape]

but some people have generated a serious mental addiction....I have a very good friend who refuses to go through any day without smoking up....Ive seen him get physically agitated if he goes a significant amount of time without......I view it just as bad a habit as smoking or drinking....

Or needing a cup of coffee every morning...

[BlackLantern]

Or needing a cup of coffee every morning...

pretty much.....some people seem to think that legalizing weed will erase the social stigma it has and they are wrong.....I hate it enough when people walk by my desk reeking of cigarette smoke, I don't want to have to deal with people reeking of weed as well.....one POV is that the people what want it legalized have weed as a part of their regular lives....most of us don't and don't really care whether its legalized or not.....it is slowly being decriminalized state by state....I guess that's a start

[Kelly]

It does smell nasty.....makes me feel like puking when I smell it.

[Ace of Knaves]

You have been smelling some crap weed then my friends. What sorta **** do you have over there?

[Kelly]

You have been smelling some crap weed then my friends. What sorta **** do you have over there?

Cigarettes do the same thing, and I can only handle a few cigars. So doesn't matter the quality, it stinks.

People can smoke it all they want at their own home....but I don't want it anywhere near my pub or restaurants that I frequent.

[BlackLantern]

You have been smelling some crap weed then my friends. What sorta **** do you have over there?

You're missing the point, Ace....regardless of how good or bad it is, some people just DO NOT LIKE the smell of weed.....

[Ace of Knaves]

Well why should people who smoke have to smoke at home? Why should they have to cater for non smokers?

I'm a smoker but I hate it when people smoke around me when i'm eating. But if I've got a problem with that I haven't got the right to tell them to go smoke at home. I'll just have to go eat in the non smoking section. That's tough ****.

Why should people who smoke be discriminated against? If I wanna smoke, I'll smoke and no one will tell me otherwise. But obviously i'm not a arsehole so I know not to blow smoke over someone who is eating, I don't need rules and laws to tell me that.

[BlackLantern]

Well why should people who smoke have to smoke at home? Why should they have to cater for non smokers?

I'm a smoker but I hate it when people smoke around me when i'm eating. But if I've got a problem with that I haven't got the right to tell them to go smoke at home. I'll just have to go eat in the non smoking section. That's tough ****.

Why should people who smoke be discriminated against? If I wanna smoke, I'll smoke and no one will tell me otherwise. But obviously i'm not a arsehole so I know not to blow smoke over someone who is eating, I don't need rules and laws to tell me that.

here in the states, most establishments have become non smoking period....no such thing as a 'smoking' or 'non-smoking' anymore

[Ace of Knaves]

You're missing the point, Ace....regardless of how good or bad it is, some people just DO NOT LIKE the smell of weed.....

My tongue was in my cheek there man. But seriously, weed, REAL high grade weed smells beautiful, even my mum says it smells nice and she frickin hates the stuff :D

That's fair enough. But you know, I don't like the smell of body odour or some aftershaves/perfumes, it doesn't give me the right to tell them to piss off, or to tell them where to go.

[Ace of Knaves]

here in the states, most establishments have become non smoking period....no such thing as a 'smoking' or 'non-smoking' anymore

Yea I know, just using that as an example.

I used to hate that. I would be sitting in the smoking section of a pub, smoking away. Then you get some prick who is like "Do you mind not smoking?" or whatever. Errr...no mate, if you have a problem YOU move, YOU go into the non smoking section, don't sit here in the smoking section and expect me to cater to non smokers.

[theShape]

pretty much.....some people seem to think that legalizing weed will erase the social stigma it has and they are wrong.....I hate it enough when people walk by my desk reeking of cigarette smoke, I don't want to have to deal with people reeking of weed as well.....one POV is that the people what want it legalized have weed as a part of their regular lives....most of us don't and don't really care whether its legalized or not.....it is slowly being decriminalized state by state....I guess that's a start

Well, it just seems like you're uptight. If you're against weed being legalized partly so that you don't have to withstand a second of catching the scent walking past your desk, then you've got issues.

The way I see it is that people need to be trusted with marijuana. Despite what some want to believe or claim to know, marijuana is not a dangerous drug and is far less of a hazard than alcohol, yet we are trusted to drink responsibly, even though many folks don't. If marijuana WERE to be legalized, it would follow the same guidelines as alcohol: must be 21 to legally purchase, cannot drive under the influence, could carry it in your vehicle but not in a way that it is ready to be smoked, cannot burn marijuana in public unless in a designated area (smoking section of a bar, etc.), cannot sell/distribute...

Marijuana can be easily regulated. I feel like many people fear that if weed were to be legalized, things would change all of a sudden and everyone would be walking around lighting up blunts, stinking of weed, and being high all the time. I'm sorry, but no way. Very little would change. The main differences would be that the act of buying and using marijuana would be safer and easier, innocent people would be kept out of jail or from having criminal records (do you really consider a person that smoked a joint to be a criminal?), there would be less drug violence/drug dealing, and our economy would be boosted.

[Ace of Knaves]

Well, it just seems like you're uptight. If you're against weed being legalized partly so that you don't have to withstand a second of catching the scent walking past your desk, then you've got issues.

The way I see it is that people need to be trusted with marijuana. Despite what some want to believe or claim to know, marijuana is not a dangerous drug and is far less of a hazard than alcohol, yet we are trusted to drink responsibly, even though many folks don't. If marijuana WERE to be legalized, it would follow the same guidelines as alcohol: must be 21 to legally purchase, cannot drive under the influence, could carry it in your vehicle but not in a way that it is ready to be smoked, cannot burn marijuana in public unless in a designated area (smoking section of a bar, etc.), cannot sell/distribute...

Marijuana can be easily regulated. I feel like many people fear that if weed were to be legalized, things would change all of a sudden and everyone would be walking around lighting up blunts, stinking of weed, and being high all the time. I'm sorry, but no way. Very little would change. The main differences would be that the act of buying and using marijuana would be safer and easier, innocent people would be kept out of jail or from having criminal records (do you really consider a person that smoked a joint to be a criminal?), there would be less drug violence/drug dealing, and our economy would be boosted.

Great post man. :up:

Anyone who considers a person who smoked a joint to be a criminal is a muppet and deserves a slap.

[Kelly]

Great post man. :up:

Anyone who considers a person who smoked a joint to be a criminal is a muppet and deserves a slap.

Or, they simply have a different opinion than yours....

I could care less if its legalized or not.......I look at it the same as ycigarettes, I don't smoke either so it really doesn't matter to me.....but if people see it in that way, so? That's their opinion.

[theShape]

Or, they simply have a different opinion than yours....

I could care less if its legalized or not.......I look at it the same as ycigarettes, I don't smoke either so it really doesn't matter to me.....but if people see it in that way, so? That's their opinion.

Yes, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I get a little bothered when it's a misinformed opinion. Whenever someone says, "Well, weed is addictive. I don't think it should be legalized", I cringe.

How can anyone say that a guys like Montel Williams, who has MS, is a criminal for smoking weed? How can anyone say that about someone that wants to smoke a blunt and get a little high on a Saturday night, just like people got to bars to get a little buzz? The logic behind it doesn't make sense. Some people equate it to shooting heroin.

[Ace of Knaves]

I don't wanna get into a argument about it Kel but I'm gonna stand my that post.

Anyone who thinks someone is a criminal for just smoking a bit of weed is naive, delusional and doesn't really know what the real world is like. The ones who think that are probably either religious zealots who scream "Y'all shall burn in hell!" or people who have been so sheltered, so protected from the REAL world they don't have their priorities right.

There is millions of things worse than smoking a bit of weed. The focus should be on real CRIMINALS not stoners. Why waste precious police resources arresting some kid because he was smoking a bifta when those same resources could go on arresting a rapist or a thief or a peedo? See, people need to get their priorities straight.

[Ace of Knaves]

Some people equate it to shooting heroin.

Seriously, I actually fill with rage whenever people think like that. How can anyone be so naive and ignorant? I can actually feel myself about to explode, then I take another puff of the reefer and it's all good! :D

[Kelly]

I don't wanna get into a argument about it Kel but I'm gonna stand my that post.

Anyone who thinks someone is a criminal for just smoking a bit of weed is naive, delusional and doesn't really know what the real world is like. The ones who think that are probably either religious zealots who scream "Y'all shall burn in hell!" or people who have been so sheltered, so protected from the REAL world they don't have their priorities right.

There is millions of things worse than smoking a bit of weed. The focus should be on real CRIMINALS not stoners. Why waste precious police resources arresting some kid because he was smoking a bifta when those same resources could go on arresting a rapist or a thief or a peedo? See, people need to get their priorities straight.


Lol, what is the argument, you think it smells fine.....I think it smells nasty.

Not really a big deal....:cwink:

Everybody can have their opinion.....not a major problem for me.


BTW, as I have said several times in this thread, I'm fine with legalization. And tax the hell out of it.....:word: Help take care of state's deficits....

[Carcharodon]

BTW, as I have said several times in this thread, I'm fine with legalization. And tax the hell out of it.....:word: Help take care of state's deficits....This is one of the primary logistical problems with legalization: if it becomes too heavily taxed, then we'll still see a massive occurrence of illegal suppliers and dealers.

There really needs to be a balance with respect to the taxation, or else the benefit of not having to bust suppliers may be nullified and the costs of regulation may not actually go down.

[Ace of Knaves]

I don't understand how in America there is a push for it to be legalized, but over here they have bumped it up from class c to class b. Makes no sense.

My only fear with legalization is that the stuff the government sells will be "watered down" **** stuff. We want the proper stinky **** man! :D

[Spidey-Bat]

Tax it the same as cigarettes.

[BlackLantern]

I never called anyone a criminal or junkie.....I'm just not fond of the smell....if you think Im uptight because I don't like the smell, then maybe you need a hug

[Kelly]

This is one of the primary logistical problems with legalization: if it becomes too heavily taxed, then we'll still see a massive occurrence of illegal suppliers and dealers.

There really needs to be a balance with respect to the taxation, or else the benefit of not having to bust suppliers may be nullified and the costs of regulation may not actually go down.


I agree, as was just posted......taxing the same as cigarettes would be fine.

[Ace of Knaves]

Maybe you need a big fat spliff of some white rhino? :hehe:

[Kelly]

Nah, my vice is the nice liquor.....*smiles* I'll stick with that.

[theShape]

This is one of the primary logistical problems with legalization: if it becomes too heavily taxed, then we'll still see a massive occurrence of illegal suppliers and dealers.

There really needs to be a balance with respect to the taxation, or else the benefit of not having to bust suppliers may be nullified and the costs of regulation may not actually go down.

I don't think it will be too heavily taxed, and even so, it will be so much easier to produce and distribute, a gram of weed would still cost less than it does now if you were to buy it from a dealer.

Also, I'm willing to bet the quality of the weed will be great. I can imagine it now. People will be able to walk into a shop and pick out their favorite brands and strains, just as they do for cigars and wine.

[BlackLantern]

I think there would still be a strong underground market......people still steal cigarettes....

http://www.connpost.com/ci_12024313

[theShape]

I think there would still be a strong underground market......people still steal cigarettes....

Well, there would certainly be a black market for some time after legalization. It's naive to think that once weed is legalized, all drug dealers will say, "I quit!".

But it's very logical to believe that in time, the legalized weed sold in stores would eventually put the underground market out of business. Why buy a gram of weed from a drug dealer illegally that costs $20, could be laced with something else, and is probably not even a legit gram (a .7 or .8) when you could buy a gram in a store that you KNOW is actually a full gram, cheaper, safe, and most of all...legal?

The stores will put the dealers out of business, no doubt about it. Maybe not all dealers, but the number will definitely plummet. You may even think to yourself that kids under 21 who couldn't buy weed legally would still use drug dealers, but I think not. It would be just like the way kids acquire alcohol, either with a fake I.D. or from an older person that purchased it for them, which in my book, is still safer than buying from a dealer.

[Carcharodon]

Maybe you need a big fat spliff of some white rhino? :hehe:Speaking of, excuse me.

[Spidey-Bat]

The stores will put the dealers out of business, no doubt about it. Maybe not all dealers, but the number will definitely plummet. You may even think to yourself that kids under 21 who couldn't buy weed legally would still use drug dealers, but I think not. It would be just like the way kids acquire alcohol, either with a fake I.D. or from an older person that purchased it for them, which in my book, is still safer than buying from a dealer.

Exactly. There are no "alcohol dealers" that sell to underage people. You just have someone old enough to get it for you.

[moraldeficiency]

I never called anyone a criminal or junkie.....I'm just not fond of the smell....if you think Im uptight because I don't like the smell, then maybe you need a hug

I feel that blue cheese should be illegal for this same reason. One of the only foods that I get physically sick from just being near that smell. How the **** do people put that in their mouths?


Or, they simply have a different opinion than yours....

I could care less if its legalized or not.......I look at it the same as ycigarettes, I don't smoke either so it really doesn't matter to me.....but if people see it in that way, so? That's their opinion.

While that's true and people are entitled to their own opinions some opinions are just wrong. For example the belief that women shouldn't be educated, allowed to have a job or an opinion in politics. That's a fairly common belief in some parts of the world and while I try to respect other cultures, that's just petty ******** designed to keep a group down to maintain a silly status quo. Weed is like this. It's damn near completely harmless. It would make a fortune in taxes as well as help reduce non dangerous criminals in prison keeping them from actually institutionalizing into real criminals and it would allow police to focus on other more important matters. Win, win, win, win, bloody win. The only reason it's illegal is so plastics wouldn't have to compete in the US market. It's not like it was made illegal for legitimate reasons. A great deal of our founding fathers smoked and they did alright.

So with weed legal we get:

More tax dollars
Less overcrowding in prison with less nonviolent criminals there
Better allocation of police time/resources
An alternative to plastics that's completely natural and biodegradable and cheap
A new crop for farmers
And a little justice for a time when hearst and Dupont decided to lie to everyone claiming weed was worse than heroin
No more stupid anti pot adds making ludicrious claims like it makes you rape people (I don't care if bobby the serial rapist was at some party, if he was high as **** you ain't raping anyone other than a box of krispy kremes [and they were asking for it]

^there are just too many positives and too few (if any) negatives to chalk this up to personal opinion. In comes down to uninformed prejudice on the issue and eventually that always comes down.

[Ace of Knaves]

Blue cheese? :hehe: Ironically, there is a strain of skunk round my way called Blue Cheese.

[theShape]

BTW, as I have said several times in this thread, I'm fine with legalization.

Your first post in this thread:


For recreational use? no. For use by "some" cancer patients within the medical context....yes.


This would indicate that you are not fine with legalization. Making weed legal for "some" cancer patientes (whatever the hell that means) is not legalization.

[Ace of Knaves]

I thought weed was already legal for some cancer sufferers?

I'm bunnin a big fat blunt right now! Sour Apple flavour :up: It's NECKLE!

[Spidey-Bat]

I thought weed was already legal for some cancer sufferers?

I'm bunnin a big fat blunt right now! Sour Apple flavour :up: It's NECKLE!

I believe it depends on the state.

[moraldeficiency]

The rule was it was legal to possess it if you had the card, but illegal to buy or sell it. It was a fun way of making it legal without making it legal. Yay, lawyers!

[Ace of Knaves]

I believe it depends on the state.

I see, thanks. :up:

Does anyone else think it's strange that in Britain cannabis has been put up a class to B, whilst in the US there is talk of legalization? There seems to be a complete different stance on policy.

I'm not really sure how much legalization will change that much over here in terms of economy, I think we are ****ed already and it ain't gonna get better for a while.

But for me legalization would change my blazing both positively and negatively. Obviously my friends and I wouldn't get any heat, that's a good thing. But then if the government is supplying weed it isn't gonna be the same. You ain't gonna get no high grade stinka, it'll be watered down so to speak. I can't be having that! :grin:

[moraldeficiency]

I see, thanks. :up:

Does anyone else think it's strange that in Britain cannabis has been put up a class to B, whilst in the US there is talk of legalization? There seems to be a complete different stance on policy.

I'm not really sure how much legalization will change that much over here in terms of economy, I think we are ****ed already and it ain't gonna get better for a while.

But for me legalization would change my blazing both positively and negatively. Obviously my friends and I wouldn't get any heat, that's a good thing. But then if the government is supplying weed it isn't gonna be the same. You ain't gonna get no high grade stinka, it'll be watered down so to speak. I can't be having that! :grin:

Actually I disagree on that, I think it'll be like cigars with the grade a quality ranging from white owls to cohibas. And that would kick ass.

[Ace of Knaves]

Actually I disagree on that, I think it'll be like cigars with the grade a quality ranging from white owls to cohibas. And that would kick ass.

What in England? No way, the government would never do that. I suppose we could still try and get it imported though.

[moraldeficiency]

What in England? No way, the government would never do that. I suppose we could still try and get it imported though.

Oh, definately. England would be a **** place to grow hemp outdoors anyway. You'll get it imported from the US and south america. But I think the quality grade will be similiar to cigars with some dirt weed being cheap and some fine dank being pricey (though probably less than what we pay now).

[Ace of Knaves]

Oh, definately. England would be a **** place to grow hemp outdoors anyway. You'll get it imported from the US and south america. But I think the quality grade will be similiar to cigars with some dirt weed being cheap and some fine dank being pricey (though probably less than what we pay now).

Na man, we wouldn't need to get it from America. Just from Amsterdam, that's where we get all our ****. Then if you can get some seeds just grow loads of it, have a whole grow room or something :hehe: And you can never get done for supplying because you can say it's all personal use.

[moraldeficiency]

That might change if it was legalized in several nations. I'd say if the US legalizes it the UK will be a few years behind once they see the lack of national disaster.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Once they see the world has not imploded...perhaps the rest would follow. hmm.

[theShape]

Once they see the world has not imploded...perhaps the rest would follow. hmm.

That's exactly how it would be.

[Carcharodon]

Salvia is going to be made illegal in Ohio.

[theShape]

Salvia is going to be made illegal in Ohio.

Salvia's alright with me only to be used every so often, but even that is much more dangerous than weed and it's legal! Bothers me.

[Carcharodon]

Salvia's alright with me only to be used every so often, but even that is much more dangerous than weed and it's legal! Bothers me.My girlfriend and I once bought the "ADVANCED" salvia because we had no idea what we were doing. Stupid, stupid, STUPID. We were almost tripping balls for a while (not quite), and the come-down SUCKED.

[xisaacx]

Salvia's alright with me only to be used every so often, but even that is much more dangerous than weed and it's legal! Bothers me.


My girlfriends roommates called me a few months ago cause she was tripping out on salvia and thought people were in the room that weren't.

[Cunning Stunts]

Ace, you'll love me for this... But the stress I've succumbed to this semester is making me want to find the most local dealer.

[Ace of Knaves]

:hehe: Na man it ain't good being stressed out. It's up to you innit man. :D

[Johnny Drama]

*looks at poll*

Haha! I knew it! The whole Hype is high on teh herb! I feel more welcomed here now more than anywhere else.

[Ace of Knaves]

69%!! Get in there!! :D

[Marx]

WHITE HOUSE TRIES TO COMBAT DRUG DEMAND WITH REHAB
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/18/white-house-tries-to-combat-drug-demand-with-rehab/

As President Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon talk tough about cracking down on the deadly drug war, the United States is changing tactics in the battle against illegal narcotics at home.

The man Obama picked to be the new "drug czar," Gil Kerlikowske, has made it clear that the United States is going to do a better job of treating addicts to try to reduce the demand for narcotics.

Kerlikowske, 59, is a military veteran with 36 years of law enforcement experience. The drug czar oversees an agency that sets the country's drug-control strategy.

The White House and Congress want to see more drug courts, and increased funding for the program 250 percent in the spending bill signed in March.

It's a campaign pledge that the Obama administration thinks will give nonviolent offenders "a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior," according to the White House Web site.

[Sawyer]

I just kind of feel it's hipocrisy to make marijuana illegal when the country sells tobacco and alcohol to anyone over the age of 18 and 21. I'd rather pass someone smoking pot on the street, than smoking cigarettes.

[StorminNorman]

I feel its hippocritical.

[gap5ewl]

I just kind of feel it's hipocrisy to make marijuana illegal when the country sells tobacco and alcohol to anyone over the age of 18 and 21. I'd rather pass someone smoking pot on the street, than smoking cigarettes.

Ah yes but HYPOCRISY is what America is all about. This is one of my favorite's though. Can't smoke pot but you can smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol which are far more destructive than smoking teh herb.

[Carcharodon]

I feel its hippocritical.http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x246/M0nkeyB0ne/Hippo.jpg

:huh:

[StorminNorman]

That's the best hippo picture ever.

[Johnny Drama]

The title of this thread seems to suggest it's not a matter of "If" but more or less a matter of "when"

[StorminNorman]

I think that's a fair way of putting it though.

[snakeinthegear]

I'm telling you, if weed was legalised, d'you know how it'll upset so many financial infrastructures? As much as weed is a problem, governments such as the UK and US need the problem to exists. It's madness.

[moraldeficiency]

I'm telling you, if weed was legalised, d'you know how it'll upset so many financial infrastructures? As much as weed is a problem, governments such as the UK and US need the problem to exists. It's madness.

You own a lumber concern, don't you?

[terry78]

Edit

[moraldeficiency]

Such a great episode. I loved how they explained the history of why weed became illegal and peter answered with a fart. That's exactely how I feel most people respond to me when I mention the reason weed is illegal, they just disregard facts and truth and talk out their asses.

[Alastor]

There is no reason that weed should be illegal and demonized the way it is, when alcohol is widely available. That stuff is way worse than pot, and I don't particularly care for it, tho' I like beer. I know its a tired argument, but it seems like common sense to me.

[theShape]

There is no reason that weed should be illegal and demonized the way it is, when alcohol is widely available. That stuff is way worse than pot, and I don't particularly care for it, tho' I like beer. I know its a tired argument, but it seems like common sense to me.

Demonization is a good point. People act like weed is way worse than it really is, especially when compared to all illegal drugs and some legal drugs.

[Alastor]

Exactly, I can understand saying its something that you should probably avoid, but acting like its a gateway drug or is anywhere near as dangerous as everything out there is pure bs.

[theShape]

Exactly, I can understand saying its something that you should probably avoid, but acting like its a gateway drug or is anywhere near as dangerous as everything out there is pure bs.

It's unfair that it's lumped in the same category as the others. It has been since the early 1900's.

[gap5ewl]

And to they not realize how it could help states economies (CALIFORNIA) and could severely hurt the drug cartels since their biggest supply is marijuana?

[souvlaki]

Schwarzenegger: Time To Debate Legalizing Pot

In the last week or two, proposals to legalize medical marijuana have advanced in Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.

But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken a significant step further, saying on Tuesday that it's time to debate legalizing marijuana for recreational use in California.

"I think it's time for debate," he said in response to a reporter's question. "I think all of those ideas of creating extra revenues -- I'm always for an open debate on it."

Thanks to a 1996 ballot measure, medical marijuana is already legal under California law, though local officials have substantial discretion. Although that conflicts with federal law, the Obama administration has chosen not to target California medical marijuana dispensaries.

"Most Californians support the idea of making marijuana legal," Aaron Smith, the California policy director for the Marijuana Policy Project, told CBSNews.com. "Right now, the state is in a budget fiasco that not going to go away soon... It's about time they look outside the box at ways of generating revenue."

State legislator Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco Democrat, introduced a bill in February to legalize recreational marijuana. Bill AB 390 would license "commercial cultivators of marijuana" and establish a complicated web of regulations and tax rules they and retailers must follow.

It could raise over $1.2 billion a year in new tax revenues, assuming a $50-an-ounce tax, according to one analysis.

"This is only going to increase the governor's popularity," Smith said. "We have solid polling data showing that a majority of Californians are ready for this. It's a good political move, though I don't think he necessarily did it for those reasons alone."

A Field poll (PDF) released on April 30th found that 56 percent of the state's registered voters support legalizing marijuana and taxing its proceeds.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/06/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4996114.shtml

:yay:

[El_Citrus]

There is no reason that weed should be illegal and demonized the way it is, when alcohol is widely available. That stuff is way worse than pot, and I don't particularly care for it, tho' I like beer. I know its a tired argument, but it seems like common sense to me.

QFT. It has so many benefits if it is made legal. Alcohol seems to only cause problems, but yet it's a nice way to help someone relax in moderation. Same goes for weed, it's just that Congress is too stuck up on it's high horse of "The system doesn't need any changing" that they don't want to think progressively about it.

[theShape]

Schwarzenegger: Time To Debate Legalizing Pot



http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/06/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4996114.shtml

:yay:

$50-an-ounce tax?!?!

[Wiseman]

I say legalize and tax the hell out of it. That's the American way. Anyone I've ever known that wanted to smoke weed regardless of if they were 12 or 70 has been able to get ahold of it whenever they wanted. Why not put some money towards the deficit on their behalf

[Wiseman]

QFT. Alcohol seems to only cause problems

I'm sick of people who want weed legalized using alcohol as an example of something worse that's legal. I have no problem with weed being legalized but leave my drug of choice out of the negative spotlight damn it.

[El_Citrus]

I'm sick of people who want weed legalized using alcohol as an example of something worse that's legal. I have no problem with weed being legalized but leave my drug of choice out of the negative spotlight damn it.

I mentioned an upside to alcohol as well, that with moderation it helps people relax and can even be healthy in some cases, but it often gets out of hand. I have a bit of personal bias as alcohol consumption always seems to end badly whenever I'm around people who are drinking. Cigarettes are a better example of a drug with no positive upside. Weed has its downsides, but far more upside that leaves it with no reason why it shouldn't be legal

[souvlaki]

I'm sick of people who want weed legalized using alcohol as an example of something worse that's legal. I have no problem with weed being legalized but leave my drug of choice out of the negative spotlight damn it.

Why does it matter? Alcohol will never be illegal again no matter how many people complain about it being worse than marijuana (and it is). The whole reason why people make that argument is not because they want or expect alcohol to be outlawed, but because they think weed should be legalized as well.

[Crazy Flakes]

I say legalize and tax the hell out of it.
QFT. And keep it out of public areas, because that **** smells nasty.

I don't think weed should be illegal, but I don't think it should be easy access either. My grandparents are certified nutzos whose brains have been royally ****ed up due to drugs, and weed was the thing that started it all. Say what you will about it being less harmful than other drugs, but weed does have a negative effect on the body and the brain and there's no question that it's a gateway drug...but smoking and alcohol cause similar problems. Plus maybe if it were legalized people wouldn't make such a big deal out of it.

[Carcharodon]

QFT. And keep it out of public areas, because that **** smells nasty.

I don't think weed should be illegal, but I don't think it should be easy access either. My grandparents are certified nutzos whose brains have been royally ****ed up due to drugs, and weed was the thing that started it all. Say what you will about it being less harmful than other drugs, but weed does have a negative effect on the body and the brain and there's no question that it's a gateway drug...but smoking and alcohol cause similar problems. Plus maybe if it were legalized people wouldn't make such a big deal out of it.Um, yes, there are MANY who question that idea.

[Wiseman]

Um, yes, there are MANY who question that idea.

I agree, I've never smoked weed(just never was my thing) yet I've done blow, acid, x, and sizzurp in my past.

[Crazy Flakes]

Um, yes, there are MANY who question that idea.
Well, I don't mean it in the sense of "oh, I want a better high" (even though that may be true in some cases), but rather the thrill of doing something illegal and rebellious and wanting to add onto that because, let's face it, a good amount of stoners are just teenagers who want to rebel against their parents, teachers, etc. and impress their friends. And hopefully if pot were legalized it would cut back that risk.

[CelticPredator]

I have never wanted to do anything other then weed.


Well...maybe someweaponized hallucingin , but thats another story.

[theShape]

I'm sick of people who want weed legalized using alcohol as an example of something worse that's legal. I have no problem with weed being legalized but leave my drug of choice out of the negative spotlight damn it.

No offense to alcohol, cause I love it, but it's a fair point. It shows the ludicrousness of our society, that something like weed is demonized and frowned upon when something like alcohol is accepted, despite all of its negative aspects.

[cerealkiller182]

No offense to alcohol, cause I love it, but it's a fair point. It shows the ludicrousness of our society, that something like weed is demonized and frowned upon when something like alcohol is accepted, despite all of its negative aspects.

You act as if Prohibition never happened. Alcohol was demonized and outlawed for a time.

But alcohol is seen as a long-standing often recession-proof industry heavily regulated by the government (due to prohibition) and consumed by most of the population without issue. This is what needs to be pushed by weed lobbyers, cause everytime I hear someone fight for it, no offense, I only hear "come on man."

I think weed should be legalized, but its not the simple. Someone with some actual validity needs to fight for it on a national scale, not Phish fans, because they just look like douchebags and nobody likes them except other Phish fans.

[Paradyme]

I think if it is legalized it should be regulated similar to alcohol and the punishments with driving while intoxicated should apply, etc.

[Ion Kenshin]

I think if it is legalized it should be regulated similar to alcohol and the punishments with driving while intoxicated should apply, etc.
I agree and I am sure some rules would be put in place such as not being able to do it in public and such.

[Paradyme]

I agree and I am sure some rules would be put in place such as not being able to do it in public and such.

Exactly. That would really to me, if it is legalized, be the most logical way to regulate it. If you get into a wreck and are found to have smoked pot earlier then you are punished similarly.

[moraldeficiency]

QFT. And keep it out of public areas, because that **** smells nasty.

I don't think weed should be illegal, but I don't think it should be easy access either. My grandparents are certified nutzos whose brains have been royally ****ed up due to drugs, and weed was the thing that started it all. Say what you will about it being less harmful than other drugs, but weed does have a negative effect on the body and the brain and there's no question that it's a gateway drug...but smoking and alcohol cause similar problems. Plus maybe if it were legalized people wouldn't make such a big deal out of it.

The gateway thing is an unproven theory not a fact. They've been trying damn hard for over twenty years to make this conclusive and so far nothing, which leads me to believe it's ********. I know you have a personal example by way of your bat**** crazy grandparents, but that doesn't mean they are a good example of a constant.

[Paradyme]

The gateway thing is an unproven theory not a fact. They've been trying damn hard for over twenty years to make this conclusive and so far nothing, which leads me to believe it's ********. I know you have a personal example by way of your bat**** crazy grandparents, but that doesn't mean they are a good example of a constant.

I have a friend who used to smoke pot and then went into cocaine and is now clean but he believes its a gateway drug. Whether or not it is for everyone is debateable.

[Ion Kenshin]

It may be for some but not all. I have been smoking pot for about 7-8 years now and have never gone near any other drug and trust me I have had many an opportunity

[moraldeficiency]

I have a friend who used to smoke pot and then went into cocaine and is now clean but he believes its a gateway drug. Whether or not it is for everyone is debateable.

Would that be like me saying I knew a black guy that was a drug dealer so most black people probably deal drugs?

Knowing a guy or a few people doesn't really validate much of anything. Scientist have been trying hard to prove this as a fact for decades with all that sweet federal money and so far, nada. That should show something right there.

Could it just be that people with addictive personalities are more apt to use any drugs?

[SuperT]

I don't think maurijuana is a "gateway drug" or makes people want to try other drugs, that's the choice made by that person so the excuse that is leads to other drug use is flimsy at best.

I smoke weed, and I have never in my life ever wanted to try any other drug out there. I tried shrooms once, but that was before I started weed and I'll never do those again - ick!

[Johnny Drama]

QFT. And keep it out of public areas, because that **** smells nasty.

I don't think weed should be illegal, but I don't think it should be easy access either. My grandparents are certified nutzos whose brains have been royally ****ed up due to drugs, and weed was the thing that started it all. Say what you will about it being less harmful than other drugs, but weed does have a negative effect on the body and the brain and there's no question that it's a gateway drug...but smoking and alcohol cause similar problems. Plus maybe if it were legalized people wouldn't make such a big deal out of it.

Anything in excess is bad for you. If you eat a jar of marshmellow fluff everyday for the rest of your life I guarantee you it will have a more negative impact than if you smoked a joint or two everyday for the rest of your life.

And how can you say "No question" to it being a gateway drug? I have smoked it since I was 16, that's nearly a decade, and I never once have I done any hard drugs such as coke, heroin, acid, meth, ect.
My mother has been smoking it since the 70's and kicked my little brothers ass when she found vicodin in his bookbag, the same little brother who does oxys and Xanax, yet has only smoked weed once and didn't like it. The "gateway drug" nonsense was cooked up during the Nancy Regan days because they really didn't have anything else to persuade folks to "just say no"

[Paradyme]

It may be for some but not all. I have been smoking pot for about 7-8 years now and have never gone near any other drug and trust me I have had many an opportunity

Exactly. Some people are weaker minded than others.

Would that be like me saying I knew a black guy that was a drug dealer so most black people probably deal drugs?

Knowing a guy or a few people doesn't really validate much of anything. Scientist have been trying hard to prove this as a fact for decades with all that sweet federal money and so far, nada. That should show something right there.

Could it just be that people with addictive personalities are more apt to use any drugs?

I'm not arguing with you hence why I said

I have a friend who used to smoke pot and then went into cocaine and is now clean but he believes its a gateway drug. Whether or not it is for everyone is debateable.

[Crazy Flakes]

Well, I guess it all depends on the person. I'm not gonna take any risks with it since addiction runs in the family, but if you guys smoke weed and nothing negative has happened to you then who am I to judge?

Bottom line, I hope they legalize it, but I don't want it to be too accessible - it isn't harmless, but it isn't as bad as people make it out to be unless it's used in excess.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Is weed prone to addiction?

Because...I've heard nothing on that front.

[Crazy Flakes]

Is weed prone to addiction?

Because...I've heard nothing on that front.
Well, yeah. It's not like hard drugs where you smoke it once and you immediately need more, but you can get addicted to pretty much anything in excess.

[moraldeficiency]

Well, I guess it all depends on the person. I'm not gonna take any risks with it since addiction runs in the family, but if you guys smoke weed and nothing negative has happened to you then who am I to judge?

Bottom line, I hope they legalize it, but I don't want it to be too accessible - it isn't harmless, but it isn't as bad as people make it out to be unless it's used in excess.

Better also avoid sugar, caffenine, nicotine and any medications along with paint and glue fumes just to be safe. All of those are more addictive substances.

I get what you're saying but that said....it is far easier for a kid to get weed right now than it is cigs. They practically throw that at you in middle/high school but smokes are a much harder substance to get your underaged hands on. I'd say legalizing it would be a way to make it less accessable.

[Ion Kenshin]

Is weed prone to addiction?

Because...I've heard nothing on that front.
It has never really been proven to be addicitve like other drugs or nicotine. I think it is mroe mentally addicting. You can get to the point where you feel like you have to be high to get through things. Again I have been smoking for almost every day for like that last 7 or 8 years but if I don't have any or money to buy any I don't go selling my possesions to get another hit of ganja

[Crazy Flakes]

Better also avoid sugar, caffenine, nicotine and any medications along with paint and glue fumes just to be safe. All of those are more addictive substances.

I get what you're saying but that said....it is far easier for a kid to get weed right now than it is cigs. They practically throw that at you in middle/high school but smokes are a much harder substance to get your underaged hands on. I'd say legalizing it would be a way to make it less accessable.
I've already had some issues with painkiller addiction :/ I've just seen my grandparents and uncle go through so much **** because of drugs of all kinds (not just weed even though that's definitely a part of it, but also cocaine and things like that) and I've tried to be extra careful about it. I drink sometimes but I try not to do anything too much because once I start I can't stop. And I've tried weed, but it made me really paranoid and the smell made me feel really sick...it's definitely not for me!

You're definitely right, and that's yet another reason to legalize it. I'm just pretty anal about this stuff because I've had some really bad experiences.

[moraldeficiency]

Cool, man, sorry about your problems.

[Crazy Flakes]

Cool, man, sorry about your problems.
Oh, don't be sorry! I'm being really stuck up in this thread...I'm the one who should be apologizing :oldrazz:

[theShape]

You act as if Prohibition never happened. Alcohol was demonized and outlawed for a time.

Right, for like 10 years. Marijuana prohibition is still in effect for the most part, and has it been at all successful? No. Millions of people all over the country use marijuana, and more often than not, people understand that it's harmless. There's an entire subculture that exists for marijuana -- bongs and other types of paraphernalia are sold everywhere, despite being illegal. Guidebooks and classes are taught about how to grow marijuana. It just doesn't make sense that it's illegal.

But alcohol is seen as a long-standing often recession-proof industry heavily regulated by the government (due to prohibition) and consumed by most of the population without issue. This is what needs to be pushed by weed lobbyers, cause everytime I hear someone fight for it, no offense, I only hear "come on man."

Was that a joke? Sure, there are plenty of people that have no problems with drinking alcohol, like myself, but drinking and driving is a HUGE issue in this country, as is alcoholism in general. 50% of all violence-related crimes involve alcohol in some way. Alcoholism has destroyed families, killed millions and millions of people over time, caused people to lose their jobs, given people brain damage, etc. Oh, yeah, and it's totally legal for anyone over 21.

Marijuana, if legalized, could not only be regulated just like alcohol and tobacco products, but would ultimately be more successful and accepted than both of the others once people saw that it is safer and more beneficial...and also ridiculously fun. There are plenty of good reasons to legalize it, and the pros outweigh the cons by a wide margin. I don't think you've been listening to the right lobbyists, dude.

EDUCATION is the key. People need to understand what marijuana really is and what it does, so they can be prevented from speaking out of the asses and coming up with things like, "Weed is addictive!" "If you smoke weed, you'll wind up doing other drugs like heroin!" "Marijuana gives you brain damage!" "Your memory will get worse if you smoke weed!"

Anytime I hear these things, I cringe.

[Alastor]

Just some random thoughts after going over this thread:

You cannot OD on weed. Someone said it early on, and thats just stupid.

I don't think its physically addicting, but it is habit forming, not unlike cigarettes. When I quit I was annoyed, and constantly thought about smoking, but never even experienced a headache.

[Carcharodon]

I don't think its physically addicting, but it is habit forming, not unlike cigarettes.The basis for a nicotine addiction is physical. :huh:

[Alastor]

Ok, youre right, I got mixed up. What I meant was that when my smoker friend goes without he gets nicotine fits, when I quit I didnt get anything similar to that, so I'm saying I dont think that weed isn't physically addicting.

[Carcharodon]

...so I'm saying I dont think that weed isn't physically addicting....which means that you think is IS physically addictive. It's a double negative lol.

[Johnny Drama]

I just hate the fact that I am an upstanding, law abiding citezen (for the most part) yet because of something I do that isn't hurting anyone, I am pegged a criminal.

[Wiseman]

I just hate the fact that I am an upstanding, law abiding citezen (for the most part) yet because of something I do that isn't hurting anyone, I am pegged a criminal.

I know how you feel, I am a nudist and I get judged for it. I'm not hurting anyone

[Johnny Drama]

You too!?!

:shock

[Ion Kenshin]

I would be a nudist

[ChrisBaleBatman]

It has never really been proven to be addicitve like other drugs or nicotine. I think it is mroe mentally addicting. You can get to the point where you feel like you have to be high to get through things. Again I have been smoking for almost every day for like that last 7 or 8 years but if I don't have any or money to buy any I don't go selling my possesions to get another hit of ganja


Well, I was actually wondering more about dependecy. Like cocaine isn't just addicting because people love the high, but because eventually the body will NEED it like it needs water almost...and when it doesn't get it, it'll end up making the user suffer for not using.

I'm wondering if that's the case with weed. Because, I have never really heard of one.

[Ion Kenshin]

Well, I was actually wondering more about dependecy. Like cocaine isn't just addicting because people love the high, but because eventually the body will NEED it like it needs water almost...and when it doesn't get it, it'll end up making the user suffer for not using.

I'm wondering if that's the case with weed. Because, I have never really heard of one.
I believe they have done tests for this and nothing was proven to it making you body have an actual physical dependency to it at least as far as I know

[theShape]

Well, I was actually wondering more about dependecy. Like cocaine isn't just addicting because people love the high, but because eventually the body will NEED it like it needs water almost...and when it doesn't get it, it'll end up making the user suffer for not using.

I'm wondering if that's the case with weed. Because, I have never really heard of one.

Not the case at all, and that's a fact.

[Carcharodon]

Actually, according to all the sources I've read, there IS a physical basis for weed addiction, but the effect is so minor that a "dependence" never usually develops. Maybe I've misinterpreted.

[theShape]

Actually, according to all the sources I've read, there IS a physical basis for weed addiction, but the effect is so minor that a "dependence" never usually develops. Maybe I've misinterpreted.

Right. Check out the chart on this site -- http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/ . Marijuana is most similar to caffeine.

[Marx]

SUPREME COURT DENIES REVIEW OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAW
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/18/high-court-denies-review-of-medical-marijuana-law/

The Supreme Court sidestepped Monday the politically explosive debate over whether federal drug laws trump the use of so-called legalized "medical marijuana."

The decision leaves unclear how local districts must comply if a state law, passed by referendum, allowing the limited use of medical marijuana conflicts with the federal government's tough anti-narcotic stance.

The justices Monday rejected appeals from two California counties, which have balked at accommodating Proposition 213, which legalized cannabis for pain-suffering patients with a prescription.

At issue is whether the federal Controlled Substances Act — which prohibits pot possession for any purpose — supersedes state medical laws, when it comes to enforcement and liability for local districts. A California appeals court found federal oversight was limited since it was designed "to combat recreational drug use, not to regulate a state's medical practices."

If the Supreme Court ever decides to tackle the issue, observers believe the justices will likely insist the Obama administration weigh in with its views of the state-federal tug-of-war.

California is one of 13 states legalizing pot to be grown, distributed, sold and taken for personal "medicinal" use. Users include former television host Montel Williams, who has multiple sclerosis.

[SoulManX]

Ron Paul recently told all 23 members of Air America's listening audience that he is strongly in support of state sovereignty concerning the legalization of the sticky icky pot weed…

He said that he believes that the U.S. Constitution gives the fifty states the right to legalize hemp production or marijuana. He said the issue was a matter of personal liberty but added that drug users should not be entitled to government-funded treatment if they abuse legalized drugs.

Not in a free market America, they shouldn't. That would make them a burden on society. Instead, they should seek treatment on reality television, where their struggles can be put to good use entertaining fellow drug users.

"If drugs are legal and people misuse them, then they do it at their own risk," he said. Bottom line, said Paul: "I do trust individuals to make their own decisions."

And that's when everybody listening to him realized that Ron Paul has never met anybody who has ever been on drugs ever.

I'm in favor of legalizing — or at least regulating — a lot of drugs, particularly marijuana. But I won't even trust my pothead friends to make decisions concerning the CD player most of the time.*

[Johnny Drama]

SUPREME COURT DENIES REVIEW OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAW
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/18/high-court-denies-review-of-medical-marijuana-law/


Man...

[Ace of Knaves]

I say we all just start up a new country and the law is you HAVE to smoke weed to enter!

[moraldeficiency]

I say we all just start up a new country and the law is you HAVE to smoke weed to enter! (and no fat chicks)

^fixed. And I'm down like charlie brown.

[Wiseman]

I say we all just start up a new country and the law is you HAVE to smoke weed to enter!

And we shall call it Amsterdam

[Mr. Wooden Alligator]

We could get everyone on the Hype to light up. We could get our friends and family to light up too. There is no way the Man could take all of us. It would be something like the Tea Parties, but cooler and without a double entendre title.

I support legalization as you can't get a physical addiction to it.

[Bathead]

We could get everyone on the Hype to light up. We could get our friends and family to light up too. There is no way the Man could take all of us. It would be something like the Tea Parties, but cooler and without a double entendre title.

I support legalization as you can't get a physical addiction to it.

I'm in.

[The Riddler]

i have no clue why marijuana isn't legal yet.

there's absolutely no valid argument against it.

[moraldeficiency]

http://www.slate.com/id/2220221/pagenum/all/#p2

A Toke and a Tax
If governments legalize marijuana, how much revenue can they raise from it?
By Jeremy Singer-Vine
Posted Wednesday, June 10, 2009, at 6:31 PM ET
The worse the economy gets, the better marijuana looks—not necessarily for its psychedelic properties, but for its revenue potential. As more cities and states face budget deficits, the idea that legal, regulated marijuana could reel in a bounty of taxes is gaining traction. This development has confounded legalization advocates, rendering their FAQs nearly irrelevant and plunging them into an unfamiliar debate: OK, say we legalize pot. How should we tax it?

The question is, not surprisingly, popular in California, which has a $24 billion deficit. In February, one lawmaker introduced a bill to tax and regulate cannabis sales to any adult over 21 at any licensed establishment—and in April, a poll found that 56 percent of Californians supported the idea. In May, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said it was "time for debate" about legalizing and taxing marijuana. Other states facing similar fiscal woes, such as Illinois, are considering proposals that would legalize and tax either medical or all marijuana. Sensing opportunity, marijuana-reform lobbyists have enticed legislators with promises of fat tax revenues, as high as $1 billion annually in California.

Reform advocates are nearly unanimous in support of a marijuana tax similar in structure to taxes on tobacco and alcohol if it coincides with the drug's legalization. "This is the only constituency out there that's going to say, 'Bring it on; tax us,' " says Aaron Houston, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project. But that's about where the agreement ends. The debate has been vicious at board meetings of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. "There's a lot of blood all over the table," says Allen St. Pierre, NORML's executive director. "It's probably one of the most contentious issues that the board takes up."

Tax debates often get heated, but a marijuana tax is particularly divisive because it's so speculative. (After 70-plus years of illegality, little is known about the economics of the drug.) A cannabis tax could be like an excise tax (a point-of-sales tax added to any sales tax, as exists in many places for gasoline, alcohol, cigarettes, and, potentially, soda), or it could be a pricey license to sell the product. Either method would increase the cost to consumers, who would in turn buy less of the product—a public health benefit in either instance. And unless people buy drastically less soda or pot, the government will pocket some extra cash. So far, it seems like a win-win situation.

But there are complications. One is the thriving black market for marijuana, with sales valued, albeit shakily, as high as $100 billion a year. A high tax could keep the market underground, robbing the government of tax revenue. The theory is that John Q. Pothead would be willing to pay a premium so he can "go to a regulated establishment that can assure some level of safety and labeling," says Houston of the Marijuana Policy Project. But make the premium too high, he says, and users will just go to "that shady guy" on the corner. The problem is that nobody really knows what the optimum premium is.

Speculation aside, there is one place where a marijuana tax is a reality: Oakland, Calif., which taxes sales of medical marijuana at 9.5 percent, the same rate as other goods in Alameda County. (Technically, 20 states require a tax stamp for marijuana sales, but the purpose of that policy is merely to add tax evasion to the list of penalties for drug dealing.) Additionally, the dispensaries pay a 1.8 percent business-receipts tax, as well as payroll taxes, to the city. Richard Lee, president of a "marijuana business school" called Oaksterdam University, says dispensary owners gain legitimacy by paying taxes. "The more we pay, the more the city needs us and wants us," he says.

Still, even a pro-tax professor at a marijuana business school has his limits. When Oakland proposed an even higher business-receipts tax, Lee and other dispensary owners balked.

Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard economist and proponent of broad drug decriminalization, suggests that we look to alcohol and cigarette taxes as a model for a potential cannabis tax. Even with so-called "sin taxes" of up to 90 percent of the total price, illegal markets, once widespread, account for a tiny fraction of total sales. Miron warns that initial marijuana taxes at such a level "would just be a total mess" due to the expansiveness of the black market and ease of growing marijuana at home. Instead he recommends starting with a low tax—perhaps at 25 percent of the total price—and then gradually increasing it.

Of course, these relative numbers beg the question: What will the initial, untaxed price be? According to Lee, marijuana averages about $300 per ounce in the Bay Area (and the bill currently under consideration in the slate Legislature would tax pot at $50 per ounce—far higher than Oakland's dispensaries are paying now). A few reform advocates have tried to crunch the numbers. Dale Gieringer, who coordinates NORML's California branch, estimated in 1994 that free-market, untaxed pot would cost just 5 cents to 10 cents per joint, a potency-constant measure. Even adjusted for inflation, that's still at least 100 times cheaper than today's marijuana prices, according to Gieringer.

But if history and the proposed soda tax are any guide, marijuana may end up among the most expensive intoxicants. Federal and state health departments have been "nudging" the public for decades to reduce the demand for tobacco, which has decreased roughly 4 percent for every 10 percent increase in price. Politicians and economists defend these Pigovian taxes as balancing the public health costs of cigarettes, as they would for marijuana. (Much of this argument would depend on whether legalizing marijuana causes a rise or a decline in alcohol consumption.)

A steep excise tax would particularly infuriate libertarians, a critical constituency of the reform movement. The general tenet that "the government shouldn't be meddling with our minds, shouldn't be trying to nurture our behavior" extends to marijuana, says David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute and a former NORML board member.

Whatever they do, governments that tax marijuana will have to balance a trio of related goals—reducing budget deficits, eradicating the black market, and improving public health. Inevitably, one goal will get the short end of the spliff. Harvard's Miron predicts that governments will give priority to reducing deficits in the current round of pot-reform debates. It's not the best argument for legalization, says Miron, who has estimated that U.S. governments could save almost $13 billion annually if they no longer arrested, prosecuted, or imprisoned marijuana buyers or sellers. But in an era of falling tax revenue, it may be the most effective one.

[Marx]

RHODE ISLAND WILL LICENSE MEDICAL MARIJUANA SHOPS, OVERRIDING VETO
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/16/rhode-island-will-license_n_216450.html

The Rhode Island legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto of a medical marijuana law Tuesday afternoon by an overwhelming margin, paving the way for state-licensed medical marijuana shops to begin operating. The House voted 68-0 for the pot measure and the senate moved it minutes later by a 35-3 count.

Once the law takes effect, the state will be the first in the nation to have one officially licensed nonprofit center selling marijuana. Over time, the state will license further nonprofit dispensaries.

The bill got a boost in the state after a much publicized incident in which a pot dealer beat up a medical marijuana patient. Proponents of the bill argued that patients shouldn't have to deal with unregulated, unlicensed drug dealers, but deserved a more orderly system.

In March, New Mexico became the first state to grant a state license to a medical marijuana producer.

"We are seeing a historic shift to allowing state-licensed, regulated medical marijuana production and distribution," said Karen O'Keefe of the Marijuana Policy Project after the vote.

Legislators in Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina and Pennsylvania are considering similar legislation. Arizona and Maine voters may soon vote on similar initiatives.

The Rhode Island bill's passage was only made possible by President Obama's announcement that his Justice Department would not raid medical marijuana dispensaries in states where they were following the law.

[StorminNorman]

I expect Florida to pass medical marijuana laws by 2012.

[Ion Kenshin]

This was the cover story in the AMNY yesterday

Is is high time for new marijuana laws?

By Jason Fink (jfink@am-ny.com)
Are the pungent winds of change wafting into New York, carrying a new momentum for loosening marijuana laws?
“Support has increased substantially,” said Gabriel Sayegh, a New York director for the Drug Policy Alliance, which is pushing for reform of pot laws. “The time for broader discussion of these issues is finally here”
For Kenia Rodriguez, 21, of Brooklyn, the answer is clear.
“People do it regardless, so the government might as well” legalize it, she said.
With 13 states approving medical marijuana and bills pending in five more - including New York - many legalization advocates say these are heady days. In fact, a national poll shows close to half of adult Americans are open to legalizing pot altogether.
Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Ron Paul (R-Texas) co-authored a bill that would reduce federal penalties for possession. And with a drug war raging in Mexico, state budgets in crisis and a president who said, “Yes - I inhaled” arguments to legalize the drug are gaining traction.
In New York, the assembly has twice passed bills to legalize the drug for medicinal purposes and one is currently pending in both chambers, though the chaos in the senate may imperil its chances this year.
“There is overwhelming public support for medical marijuana,” said Assemb. Richard Gottfried (D-Manhattan), a co-sponsor of the current bill and author of the 1977 law that decriminalized possession of less than 25 grams. “I think it is long overdue for New York law to catch up with the people and with medical science.”
A spokesman for Staten Island District Attorney Daniel Donovan, the head of the state’s DA association, is “open to discussion” on the medical marijuana bill co-sponsored by state Sen. Diane Savino (D-Staten Island).
Both Savino and Gottfried also said they are open to dropping restrictions against recreational marijuana use, although Gottfried said such legalization is not now on the agenda in New York.
According to estimates by Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron, legalization of marijuana could save the country at least $7.7 billion in law enforcement costs and generate more than $6 billion in revenue if it were taxed like cigarettes and alcohol.
Of course, not everyone is in favor.
“We think it's the wrong message to send our youth,” said Russell Laine, president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
The Drug Enforcement Administration remains opposed, saying in one document that it would "create dependency and treatment issues, and open the door to use of other drugs, impaired health, delinquent behavior, and drugged drivers."
Nicole Wilson, 20, of Brooklyn, had her own reasons for opposing it.
“It shouldn't be legal because it makes people do stupid things,” she said.




Man I love the song on that broken record.

[Ace of Knaves]

I haven't smoked a spliff for over a week now. I'm not going cold turkey or having any detrimental effects. And I've been blazing for nearly 10 years. So that "dependency" thing is absolute ******** as far as I'm concerned.

[Ion Kenshin]

I haven't smoked a spliff for over a week now. I'm not going cold turkey or having any detrimental effects. And I've been blazing for nearly 10 years. So that "dependency" thing is absolute ******** as far as I'm concerned.
Taking a break from the chiba?

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea man. Funds a little tight at the mo.

[Ion Kenshin]

Yea man. Funds a little tight at the mo.
I hear ya. I know all about that

[Marx]

CALIFORNIA TAX BOARD: LEGAL POT COULD GENERATE $1.4 BILLION
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/256/story/71927.html

California could see a nearly $1.4 billion per year increase in state revenues were it to legalize marijuana, the state Board of Equalization says in an analysis of pending legislation to to do that.

The bill (Assembly Bill 390) by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, is still awaiting its first committee hearing and is likely not to be considered until next year. It would impose not only sales taxes but a $50 per ounce fee on marijuana sales, which would be licensed by the state much as alcoholic beverages are regulated.

Today, although considered illegal by federal authorities, California allows limited sales of marijuana for medicinal purposes, subject to local control, in accordance with a ballot measure approved by voters in 1996. And the state imposes sales taxes on those pot transactions. But wider sales would, under the Ammiano bill, be dependent on federal permission.

California is considered by federal authorities to be the nation's top marijuana producing state with 8.6 million pounds a year, valued at $13.8 billion, making it one of the state's largest agricultural crops, much of which is exported to other locales.

[enterthemadness]

This was the cover story in the AMNY yesterday


Man I love the song on that broken record.

Yeah, cause alcohol is worse than weed. Seriously, u drink to much and get drunk u do stupid **** or worse...drive drunk.

[Wiseman]

ETM you shouldn't be in this thread

[Nivek]

Stupid hypocritical law.

[The Riddler]

almost forgot how it felt...been a long time before yesterday.

i don't understand whytf they're so slow to legalize such a harmless drug.

[enterthemadness]

ETM you shouldn't be in this thread

Dude, I smoke and do spitless tobacco (camel snus), so yeah, I can be in this thread duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurr:cmad::o

[The Riddler]

hahahah.

[Hobodeluxe]

It's past time. Draconian prohibition is all it is. Politicians fearing their re-election chances are the biggest obstacles. Every state needs to put this issue on a referendum ballot.

[Marx]

OAKLAND VOTERS PASS LANDMARK POT TAX TO BOOST CITY
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/22/oakland-voters-pass-landm_n_242634.html

Oakland residents overwhelmingly voted Tuesday to approve a first-of-its kind tax on medical marijuana sold at the city's four cannabis dispensaries.

Preliminary election results showed the measure passing with 80 percent of the vote, according to the Alameda County Registrar of Voters.

The dispensary tax was one of four measures in a vote-by-mail special
election aimed at raising money for the cash-strapped city. All four measures won, but Measure F had the highest level of support.

Scheduled to take effect on New Year's Day, the measure created a special business tax rate for the pot clubs, which now pay the same $1.20 for every $1,000 in gross sales applied to all retail businesses. The new rate will be $18.

Oakland's auditor estimates that based on annual sales of $17.5 million for the four clubs, it will generate an estimated $294,000 for city coffers in its first year.

Pot club owners, who openly sell pot over the counter under the 1996 state ballot measure that legalized medical marijuana use in California, proposed Measure F as a way to further legitimize their establishments.

"It's good business and good for the community," said Richard Lee, who owns the Coffee Shop SR-71 dispensary and Oaksterdam University, a trade school for budding dispensary workers.

[Nivek]

Personally, I see the DEA and other misguided law enforcement agencies getting involved in this, and until we have a national referendum and smokers come out and make their voices heard, nothing will change.

[chaseter]

They are too lazy to come out of the basement and voice their concern:D

[StorminNorman]

Hopefully I am going to be able to hijack the movement in Orlando, Fl. I think having someone who can speak to conservatives, has some political intelligence and isn't a stereotypical stoner will help the cause earn some credibility.

[moraldeficiency]

They are too lazy to come out of the basement and voice their concern:D

I smoke on my back porch, thank you.

[moraldeficiency]

Hopefully I am going to be able to hijack the movement in Orlando, Fl. I think having someone who can speak to conservatives, has some political intelligence and isn't a stereotypical stoner will help the cause earn some credibility.

I tried this in south florida, didn't work out. Too many crazy law enforcement types just brand you as a subversive out to destroy all the children and people don't care about things like facts and truth anymore. I still try from time to time but it seems like the more you rationalize why it's idiotic and hurtful on multiple levels to keep hemp illegal the more people shut down on listening. Good luck though, brother, if you can change one mind, you've accomplished something important. Just try not to get discouraged.

[StorminNorman]

I tried this in south florida, didn't work out. Too many crazy law enforcement types just brand you as a subversive out to destroy all the children and people don't care about things like facts and truth anymore. I still try from time to time but it seems like the more you rationalize why it's idiotic and hurtful on multiple levels to keep hemp illegal the more people shut down on listening. Good luck though, brother, if you can change one mind, you've accomplished something important. Just try not to get discouraged.

I am not expecting an easy battle, but I plan on creating an image that will make it hard to paint me as the image people tend to paint marijuana reformers in. For one, the fact I don't smoke any more will be to my benefit - being able to take a piss test whenever anyone asks will, I believe, give me a tad bit of credibility. Being an active member of the Republican community will also help. I may even join a church down there to bolster my image.

I have actually had success framing the argument with hardcore conservatives, who were shocked that I had such a liberal stance on the issue. I believe (if for no other reason than the fact that confidence is vital to any chance of success), that I can present the argument in a way that most marijuana people have not.

The thing is that I think, in Florida, the votes for marijuana reform are there - it doesn't require more education. Most Americans support medical marijuana (which would be my first goal - possibly by 2010 even) and I think that the gay marriage issue has a lot of cross over with medical marijuana supporters. Gay marriage supporters are clearly more socially liberal individuals. Then when you take into account that a great portion of the opposition comes from Democrat voting minorities (where the stigma of marijuana is dramatically different than the stigma of homosexuality) I think success can be had immediately.

The key is identifying these voters, making sure they vote - all of this, of course, relying on the idea of getting the referendum on the ballot.

I get frustrated with most marijuana (and overall drug reform) groups simply because none of them understand politics. They spend money on things like hand outs and booths at fairs - and not on things like political polling and large scale fund raisers.

[moraldeficiency]

Agreed they don't do too much. I've always felt education into the benefits should convince people. With hemp legal, I don't believe in using the word marijuana as it was coined by the dupont corporation to take away from the positive word hemp, you get:

Tax money, lots of it, billions people
Less violent offenders in jails, less recitivism, which equals more money
A drug which tones down hyper behavior, if only those columbine kids toked up
Hemp replacing plastics in so many products, much more environmentally friendly, easy to grow, biodegradable and would cut down our oil dependence
Cheaper paper with less forests being slaughtered
Hemp oils used in foods, highly nutritious
A good alternative to many pain killers, and highly beneficial to cancer patients

There's just no real down side to it except the myth of a gateway drug, which it couldn't concievably be if legal. I agree it's a gateway but only because after hearing so many lies about the substance when you find out the truth it becomes hard to believe the actual truth about dangerous drugs so you might experiment.


Again, good luck and if you need any resources or papers on the subject let me know, I've got tons.

[Marlboro Man]

I've smoked weed a few times, and it's not as bad as getting drunk. I've never thrown up or blacked out on pot. I've never woken up the next morning unable to remember much from the night before.

I do think it is time to repeal a lot of marijuana laws on the books. Look at the prison system and how it is so overcrowded with drug users who possessed marijuana. Taxpayers waste a lot of money to keep people in jail on marijuana charges, while other criminalls are being let go because there's no room to house them.

I don't know if I support full legalization right away. Decriminalization should be the first step, just to test whether society can 'handle' it. I hope to see marijuana fully legal in my lifetime.

[moraldeficiency]

What's even worse is you put a drug user in jail and what do you think the time in does to them? They enter just normal people that enjoy a harmless drug and they leave either victims or something much much scarier because of the environment they had to adapt to. Society handled it just fine for over a hundred years when washington and franklin were toking up and growing hemp, it'll be fine now once people get over the lies.

[StorminNorman]

Agreed they don't do too much. I've always felt education into the benefits should convince people. With hemp legal, I don't believe in using the word marijuana as it was coined by the dupont corporation to take away from the positive word hemp, you get:

Tax money, lots of it, billions people
Less violent offenders in jails, less recitivism, which equals more money
A drug which tones down hyper behavior, if only those columbine kids toked up
Hemp replacing plastics in so many products, much more environmentally friendly, easy to grow, biodegradable and would cut down our oil dependence
Cheaper paper with less forests being slaughtered
Hemp oils used in foods, highly nutritious
A good alternative to many pain killers, and highly beneficial to cancer patients

There's just no real down side to it except the myth of a gateway drug, which it couldn't concievably be if legal. I agree it's a gateway but only because after hearing so many lies about the substance when you find out the truth it becomes hard to believe the actual truth about dangerous drugs so you might experiment.


Again, good luck and if you need any resources or papers on the subject let me know, I've got tons.

The argument, at it's most simple, can be worded like this:

Who should profit from the revenue of marijuana? Drug dealers or teachers?

[The Riddler]

The argument, at it's most simple, can be worded like this:

Who should profit from the revenue of marijuana? Drug dealers or teachers?

additionally, legalizing pot will allow the government to better regulate underage kids from getting pot.

finding weed is easier then getting alcohol these days if you're underage. drug dealers don't card.

[BlackLantern]

to say its NOT a gateway drug is a bit idealistic, if not naive....for some people it is, for most probably not

[StorminNorman]

to say its NOT a gateway drug is a bit idealistic, if not naive....for some people it is, for most probably not

Pot is no more a gateway drug than alcohol.

Find me anyone that goes on to harder drugs that doesn't drink.

[BlackLantern]

Pot is no more a gateway drug than alcohol.

Find me anyone that goes on to harder drugs that doesn't drink.

I agree...I just find it a bit silly when people say that pot is NOT a gateway drug at all, making it sound as if 100 percent of pot smokers don't move on to harder drugs....

I have a good friend who is a huge pot smoker and occasional coke user....doesn't drink, won't touch alcohol...its odd

[StorminNorman]

I agree...I just find it a bit silly when people say that pot is NOT a gateway drug at all, making it sound as if 100 percent of pot smokers don't move on to harder drugs....

I have a good friend who is a huge pot smoker and occasional coke user....doesn't drink, won't touch alcohol...its odd

The biggest gateway aspect in pot is the fact it's illegal.

The transition from pot to harder drugs is made significantly easier and more common when you are buying your marijuana from drug dealers. Drug dealers, being typically good businessmen, would love to get you hooked on some of their other products.

You legalize pot - you take away the true gateway effect.

[Paradyme]

The biggest gateway aspect in pot is the fact it's illegal.

The transition from pot to harder drugs is made significantly easier and more common when you are buying your marijuana from drug dealers. Drug dealers, being typically good businessmen, would love to get you hooked on some of their other products.

You legalize pot - you take away the true gateway effect.

:up:Excellent statement. I agree with this. My friend moved on to harder drugs after smoking pot for a few years. So, this to me makes a lot of sense.

[StorminNorman]

As California looks for solutions to its ongoing budget problems, 47% of voters in the state say marijuana should be legalized and taxed.

But nearly as many (42%) oppose the state legalizing and taxing the drug to help fix the state’s budget problems, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of California voters. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure which course to follow.

Nationally, 41% of voters think the United States should legalize and tax marijuana to help solve the nation’s fiscal problems, but 49% are opposed.

[Hobodeluxe]

The argument that more people would smoke it if it was legal is not a good one. For the most part it's widely available and has been for decades. if you were interested you could find some with little effort. personally I think the whole "it's cool because it's illegal" aspect of it would see less interest in it. some people see it as their way of rebelling against authority. so that whole demographic is taken away.

[StorminNorman]

That whole demographic doesn't exist. No one smokes pot just because it isn't legal.

[BlackLantern]

if it was legal, as long as they treat it in the same regard as regular smoking, Im fine with it

[StorminNorman]

I would want it treated more like drinking in regards to where you can do it.

[Paradyme]

Mexico decriminalizes small-scale drug possession

MEXICO CITY — Mexico decriminalized small amounts of marijuana, cocaine and heroin on Friday — a move that prosecutors say makes sense even in the midst of the government's grueling battle against drug traffickers.

Prosecutors said the new law sets clear limits that keep Mexico's corruption-prone police from extorting casual users and offers addicts free treatment to keep growing domestic drug use in check.

"This is not legalization, this is regulating the issue and giving citizens greater legal certainty," said Bernardo Espino del Castillo of the attorney general's office.

The new law sets out maximum "personal use" amounts for drugs, also including LSD and methamphetamine. People detained with those quantities no longer face criminal prosecution.

Espino del Castillo says, in practice, small users almost never did face charges anyway. Under the previous law, the possession of any amount of drugs was punishable by stiff jail sentences, but there was leeway for addicts caught with smaller amounts.

"We couldn't charge somebody who was in possession of a dose of a drug, there was no way ... because the person would claim they were an addict," he said.

Despite the provisions, police sometimes hauled in suspects and demanded bribes, threatening long jail sentences if people did not pay.

"The bad thing was that it was left up to the discretion of the detective, and it could open the door to corruption or extortion," Espino del Castillo said.

Anyone caught with drug amounts under the new personal-use limit will be encouraged to seek treatment, and for those caught a third time treatment is mandatory.

The maximum amount of marijuana for "personal use" under the new law is 5 grams — the equivalent of about four joints. The limit is a half gram for cocaine, the equivalent of about 4 "lines." For other drugs, the limits are 50 milligrams of heroin, 40 milligrams for methamphetamine and 0.015 milligrams for LSD.

Mexico has emphasized the need to differentiate drug addicts and casual users from the violent traffickers whose turf battles have contributed to the deaths of more than 11,000 people since President Felipe Calderon took office in late 2006.

But one expert saw potential for conflict under the new law.

Javier Oliva, a political scientist at Mexico's National Autonomous University, said the new law posed "a serious contradiction" for the Calderon administration.

"If they decriminalize drugs it could lead the army, which has been given the task of combating this, to say 'What are we doing'?" he said.

Officials said the legal changes could help the government focus more on big-time traffickers.

Espino del Castillo said since Calderon took office, there have been over 15,000 police searches related to small-scale drug dealing or possession, with 95,000 people detained — but only 12 to 15 percent of whom were ever charged with anything.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iP1GlMCOzYSi8kbAUY1lLDdqc4vAD9A763HO0


....

[moraldeficiency]

The biggest gateway aspect in pot is the fact it's illegal.

The transition from pot to harder drugs is made significantly easier and more common when you are buying your marijuana from drug dealers. Drug dealers, being typically good businessmen, would love to get you hooked on some of their other products.

You legalize pot - you take away the true gateway effect.

Damn well said. Add to that the element of distrust you feel about antidrug statements once you find out how harmless hemp really is. It's standard thought process, "well if you lied that much about pot being bad, maybe this coke isn't all that either..."

[xisaacx]

One way for the government to bring us out of recession. Legalize and tax it.

[chaseter]

The argument that more people would smoke it if it was legal is not a good one. For the most part it's widely available and has been for decades. if you were interested you could find some with little effort. personally I think the whole "it's cool because it's illegal" aspect of it would see less interest in it. some people see it as their way of rebelling against authority. so that whole demographic is taken away.
How is that not a valid argument? Sure people that do it are still going to do it if it is illegal, but to think that other people would not try it because it would then be legal is wrong. With all the undercover cops and the fear of being thrown in jail, first timers would now not be averted by laws. I guarantee you that pot use would rise and more people would smoke it.

[StorminNorman]

It won't be a significant increase.

[Kelly]

Well, that is actually something we just don't know until its happens....

[chaseter]

I don't know the size of the increase but there would be an increase.

[moraldeficiency]

Come on anyone that wants to find pot now can find it pretty easily. It's not like it isn't out there. It wouldn't be a billion dollar industry if it wasn't accessable. Making it legal would only see an increase in the people that ADMIT to smoking pot, that's about all.

[Johann Krauss]

A Radical Solution to End the Drug War: Legalize Everything

One cop straight out of The Wire crunches the numbers with Esquire.com's political columnist (http://www.esquire.com/archive/the-side/richardson-report/0/10/) to discover that America's prohibition of narcotics may be costing more lives than Mexico's — and nearly enough dollars for universal health care. So why not repeal our drug laws? Because cops are making money off them, too..
.
.
.
We've heard a lot about the terrible death toll Mexico has suffered during the drug war — over 11,000 souls so far. This helps to account for the startling lack of controversy that greeted last week's news that Mexico had suddenly decriminalized drugs (http://features.csmonitor.com/globalnews/2009/08/24/mexico-quietly-decriminalizes-drug-use/) — not just marijuana but also cocaine, LSD, and heroin. In place of the outrage and threats that U.S. officials expressed when Mexico tried to decriminalize in 2006 was a mild statement (http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/07/30/us_drug_czar_well_wait_and_see_on_mexican_decrimin alization_bill), from our new drug czar, that we are going to take a "wait and see" approach.
Still, we've heard nothing about the American death toll. Isn't that strange? So far as I can tell, nobody has even tried to come up with a number.
Until now. I've done some rough math, and this is what I found:
6,487.
To repeat, that's 6,487 dead Americans. Throw in overdoses and the cost of this country's paralyzing drug laws is closer to 15,000 lives.
I'm basing these numbers on an interview with a high-ranking former narcotics officer named Neill Franklin. A member of the Maryland State Police for 32 years, Franklin eventually rose to the position of commander in Maryland's Bureau of Drug Enforcement. As he puts it, he was a classic "good soldier" in the drug war.
Franklin's turning point came in October of 2000. "I lost a very, very close friend of mine, a narcotics agent for Maryland State Police," he says. "His name was Ed Toatley. He was assassinated outside of Washington, D.C., trying to make a drug deal in a park. He had a wife, he had three kids. I had just spoken to him a couple of weeks prior to him getting assigned to this particular deal — he was finally going to bring this guy down, and lo and behold the guy kills him."
That got Franklin thinking. "I started doing the research and asking the questions: What progress are we making on this thing? And it turns out that not only are we losing kids who are in the game, but we are losing communities and fellow cops. We had lost a number of police officers in Baltimore alone."
Another turning point was 2002, when Angela Dawson and her five kids were murdered (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-399029.html) in East Baltimore by drug dealers she had been tying to keep from doing business in front of her house. "They fire-bombed the house late one night and the whole family perished," Franklin remembers.
So he started brooding on the drug war's body count. "Baltimore is a city of just a hair over 600,000 people. Our annual homicide rate was fluctuating between 240 and 300 every year for decades. Think about that: 240 to 300 homicides annually, and 75 percent to 80 percent are drug related. It's either gangs that are using drugs to support operations, or territorial disputes among drug dealers, or people just getting caught in the line of fire. And Baltimore is a small city compared to others," Franklin notes. "So we're not talking a handful of homicides; we're talking about the majority of the homicides in any city in the U.S. So if you add those cities up — just lowball it, take just 50 percent — I guarantee you, you'll find the numbers are quite similar to what they have in Mexico."
I took his advice. In 2007, the last year for which hard numbers are available, 16,425 people were murdered. Since our most recent Census said that 79 percent of the country is urban, I cut out the rural Americans — although there's plenty of drug use there, too — and came up with 12,975 urban homicides. Low-balling that number at 50 percent, I arrived at a rough estimate of 6,487 drug deaths. Using 75 percent, the toll rises to 9,731.
"And now we've got the cartel gangs coming up from Mexico," Franklin reminds me. "They're in over 130 cities in the U.S. already, and it's not going to get better."
.
.
.
.
Why Regulating Legal Drugs Fixes the Dead-Body Problem

Neill Franklin's solution is radical: "You have to take the money out of it. Many people talk about legalization and decriminalize — it's still illegal, but you're just not sending as many people to jail, especially for the nonviolent offenses. However, the money is still being made in the illegal sales, so you still have the drug wars. It's prohibition that's killing our people. That's why people are dying."
"So," I ask, "you want to legalize everything?"
"Yes. But I like to put it like this: I want regulation of everything. Because right now, I think they're confusing prohibition with regulation. What I'm talking about is applying standards — quality control, just like alcohol. We should have learned our lesson during alcohol prohibitions — we repealed the Eighteenth Amendment and applied standards of sale and manufacture, so it has to be a certain quality and you can't sell it to just anybody, and you still go to jail if you sell it to the wrong people. So, among other things, you'll also reduce overdoses — the majority of the overdoses we have is people who don't know what they're getting or buying because the purity level fluctuates. In addition, people are afraid to get help because they don't want to go jail, so they let their friends die."
So let's add overdoses to our death toll. In 2005, recent Senate testimony shows (http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/2008/03/t20080312b.html), 22,400 Americans died of drug overdoses. Leaving aside prescription drugs and counting only the 39 percent of overdoses attributed to cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines, I count another 8,736 deaths.
That brings us to 15,223 Americans dead from the drug war.
But what about the argument that drugs will spread like wildfire if we don't keep bringing down the hammer?
"First, there's no concrete study to support such a belief — it's all completely speculation," Franklin insists. "So in my left hand I have all this speculation about what may happen to addiction rates, and then I look at my other hand and I see all these dead bodies that are actually fact, not speculation. And you're going to ask me to weigh the two? Second, if the addiction rate does go up, I'm going to have a lot of live addicts that I can cure. The direction we're going in now, I've got a lot of dead bodies."
I told Franklin I was surprised to hear a cop express so much sympathy for drug addicts. Even pro-drug types don't do that much. "I do have sympathy," he says. "What they're dealing with is a health issue, not a criminal issue. And as long as you treat it as a criminal issue, we're treating the symptom and not the cause."
.
.
.
.

Why Cleaning Up the Justice System Solves the Wasted-Money Problem

Last year, Franklin went public with his conclusions by joining a group called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=Speakers&bio=1478). Since then he's made it his business to talk to other cops about the subject, and he's been surprised by another discovery: "I find that 95 percent of my law-enforcement friends agree that we have to take a different direction, but they're not sure what direction that is — and probably 60 percent to 65 percent agree that we should legalize."
And why, exactly, don't we hear about a possibly overwhelming majority of police wanting to legalize — not just decriminalize, but legalize — major narcotics?
"Selfish reasons," he says. "There is a lot of money to be made in law enforcement. If we were to legalize, you could get rid of one third of every law-enforcement agency in this country."
Really? One third?
"And give back all the federal funds too. That's why very seldom will you see a police chief step forward and say, 'Yeah, we need to do this.'"
I made a stab at crunching those numbers, too. In 2003, America's local police budgets (PDF (http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t1432003.pdf)) were $43 billion dollars. A third of that: $12.9 billion. Add another $9 billion in domestic and international law enforcement (PDF (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/09budget/tbl_1.pdf)) and the number rises to $21.9 billion.
Then consider America's prisons, the problems with which we've discussed here time (http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/federal-prison-reform-033109) and again (http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/prison-population-debate-072809). "The prison population is off the hook in this country," Franklin says. "In 1993, at the height of apartheid in South Africa, the incarceration of black males was 870 per 100,000. In 2004 in the U.S., for every 100,000 people we are sending 4,919 black males to prison. And the majority of those are for nonviolent drug offenses. But we'd rather send people to prison than give them information and treatment."
So... our federal prison budget (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/budget/fy2007/justice.html) in 2007 was $6.3 billion, and 55 percent of the prisoners were there for drug offenses. The total state-prison budget for the U.S. in 2007 was $49 billion, according to this study (http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=35912) from the Pew Foundation, which found that "at least" 44 states had gone into the red to incarcerate their citizens. Using the same 55 percent number — which is probably low — we arrive at a rough total of the prison expenses associated with the drug war: $30.4 billion.
"I know jails are a big business and keep lot of people employed," Franklin says, "but it doesn't make it right."
To review, using what seem to be very conservative numbers, our first unofficial tally of the drug war in the United States is staggering:
15,223 dead and $52.3 billion spent each year — which is, incidentally, almost enough to pay for universal health care.
"We've got serious constitutional issues involved, too," Franklin adds. "Improper search and seizure is occurring every day..."
But I'll save that for another column.

Link (http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/drug-war-facts-090109?src=digg)

I thought this was an interesting article, and wanted to know what other people thought.

Not sure if I was supposed to post this here or the community forum(move if necessary)

[Bob ROARman!]

"You have to take the money out of it.." and that's where the idea gets stopped dead in it's tracks.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Legalizing Marijuana is the only thing, I think, I can find myself every supporting.

Everything else? not so much.

[Nivek]

I don't think "everything" should be illegal, just Pot.

Too much junk out there that has no standard, and there is prescription stuff that does the same thing more efficiently.

[StorminNorman]

I think there certainly is a case to be made here.

[Shemtov]

Not everything, but Weed yes. Maybe Crack in special "Crack-houses"

[Majic Walrus]

The Ayes have it. Someone send a letter to Obama. Time to legalize pot.

[chaseter]

Why would we legalize hardcore drugs that can kill people? Why would we want meth addicts to have a legal past time???

Weed, I could care less about. But, meth, heroine, cocaine...no.

[moraldeficiency]

I'd like to see the rates of other drug use when pot's legal and attainable, bet they drop off considerably.

[chaseter]

I don't know. That would be interesting if it did happen and might if pot was legal but those addicted to the stronger stuff will probably still use it even though it remains illegal.

[moraldeficiency]

well, yeah, if you're already addicted to meth, pot ain't gonna scratch that itch. I'm more thinking of future users. If you can get high nice and legal, why bother with drug dealers at all? Plus if you're high on pot speed and that **** just isn't that appealing thank god.

[chaseter]

I don't think it will ever phase out harder drugs even if pot was legal. People that want a better feel or a better effect will get them regardless. We will still have drug crime and street crime.

[moraldeficiency]

Phase out completely, no, but I think it will keep some users on the reasonable side of the fence.

[chaseter]

I can't be sure either way. You have people arguing that if pot were legal, more people would have access to it, use it, then go on to harder drugs. Then you have the other side saying it will decrease hard drug usage if it were made available while keeping those harder drugs illegal. Both are compelling arguments imo.

Me, I could care less. I don't use so it won't affect me either way.

[moraldeficiency]

Fair enough. I will say some people just like getting high and will skip to something else if one thing isn't available. I'd rather have those types on a couch watching cartoons on pot then roaming the streets on meth just for safety sake. But you're right it's a somewhat moot point until it's tried.

As for you not doing drugs, I'm totally gonna slip acid in your beer now.

[chaseter]

Slip me some date rape:o WINK WINK...cough WINK.

[moraldeficiency]

Nah, you'd be more fun on cid, didn't you wonder what all those little pieces of paper were in your beer?

[chaseter]

I thought it was tasty confetti:(

[moraldeficiency]

Better get the green man suit on, it'll save your life.

[chaseter]

haha GREEN MAN!!!

[StorminNorman]

Why would we legalize hardcore drugs that can kill people? Why would we want meth addicts to have a legal past time???

Weed, I could care less about. But, meth, heroine, cocaine...no.

The question is if laws mean anything to a meth addict. You can make meth in your kitchen with household ingredients...so it's impossible to keep off the streets. If you open up other alternatives, meth use would go down.

The drugs that benefit from drug laws are meth and pharmaceuticals.

[8wid]

I don't feel the need to legalize it, but I do feel the need to stop making it such a high priority for law enforcement to contain and the ridiculous penalties for simply having it in possession. It's still a dangerous drug used if it is in an irresponsible manner. Plus I think parents are not going to be happy if pot is legal and there is nothing illegal about adults letting their toddlers or young children have it without their permission.

[moraldeficiency]

I don't feel the need to legalize it, but I do feel the need to stop making it such a high priority for law enforcement to contain and the ridiculous penalties for simply having it in possession. It's still a dangerous drug used if it is in an irresponsible manner. Plus I think parents are not going to be happy if pot is legal and there is nothing illegal about adults letting their toddlers or young children have it without their permission.

Ok, let's do this point by point. First it's relegalize it, it's been legal far longer than illegal.

Dangerous to what? Twinkies?

Why would you think simply by making something legal any age group could do it? That's not how alcohol, cigs or even driving works.

[Ace of Knaves]

Usain Bolt smokes weed?

And after hearing Franklin Richards story I gotta say your punishments for possessing weed over there is unbelievably ridiculous. Actually getting put behind the door for possession? Utter lunacy.

Now if you get caught with a nine bar all weighed up into 8ths I can understand. And if you carry that much weed or have it where you rest at you deserve to get caught.

[souvlaki]

Phase out completely, no, but I think it will keep some users on the reasonable side of the fence.

For starters you wont have drug dealers pushing harder drugs on their buyers that generally only buy weed.

[Ace of Knaves]

But I think the whole drug pusher who forces people to try the harder drugs thusly getting them addicted to it is a myth really. In my experience it is anyway. There is no drug "pushers" where I'm from.

[souvlaki]

But I think the whole drug pusher who forces people to try the harder drugs thusly getting them addicted to it is a myth really. In my experience it is anyway. There is no drug "pushers" where I'm from.

I've never had harder drugs pushed on me. However I can think of several instances where someone I knew that was dealing me drugs offered me coke, oxycontin, etc. because they were out of weed. If you have some kid that just wants to get high they might take the dealer up on that offer. Pushed is probably the wrong word. I've been offered stuff several times though. If you eliminate the drug dealer from the equation though that problem wont present itself as often.

[Ace of Knaves]

Fair point.

[Kelly]

lol, ok guys....um, I understand that you are for the legalization of marijuana, as am I. BUT, it is not legal as of yet, so lets chill on the talk of our illegal dealings in this discussion. It's not what the discussion is about. Thanks....

[Ace of Knaves]

Well to be fair Kel I think talking about our personal experiences could help further the discussions, as long as it is done maturely and not explicitly. But hey you're the law :D

[Kelly]

Just not appropriate....sorry.

[Ace of Knaves]

Fair enough.

[Kelly]

I will say that the discussion has been VERY mature, and that is appreciated....

[moraldeficiency]

Usain Bolt smokes weed?

And after hearing Franklin Richards story I gotta say your punishments for possessing weed over there is unbelievably ridiculous. Actually getting put behind the door for possession? Utter lunacy.

Now if you get caught with a nine bar all weighed up into 8ths I can understand. And if you carry that much weed or have it where you rest at you deserve to get caught.

He has but he's said he doesn't anymore.

[Ace of Knaves]

Heh, well he is Jamaican. :D

[moraldeficiency]

**** it really doesn't matter, most people smoke weed if they're honest. Our first president's done it legally and our latest has illegally.

[Kelly]

**** it really doesn't matter, most people smoke weed if they're honest. Our first president's done it legally and our latest has illegally.

Doubtful.....but a good many I'm sure.

[moraldeficiency]

Sorry I meant most people with access to it. Like our presidents or the world's finest athletes.

[8wid]

Ok, let's do this point by point. First it's relegalize it, it's been legal far longer than illegal.

Dangerous to what? Twinkies?

Why would you think simply by making something legal any age group could do it? That's not how alcohol, cigs or even driving works.

I'm making the point that would be a parental concern if there is no regulation of marijuana, than there is no penalty for its use by minors, especially if an adult gives a young child it to use it. If there are different rules to regulate it than that depends on the issue at hand. There needs to be some limitations of what marijuana can be used for so its not applicable for all dangerous uses.

[StorminNorman]

I'm making the point that would be a parental concern if there is no regulation of marijuana, than there is no penalty for its use by minors, especially if an adult gives a young child it to use it. If there are different rules to regulate it than that depends on the issue at hand. There needs to be some limitations of what marijuana can be used for so its not applicable for all dangerous uses.

What dangerous uses? You mean like smoking and driving? It would still be illegal.

[redfirebird2008]

What dangerous uses? You mean like smoking and driving? It would still be illegal.

Yeah, drinking is legal. Drinking AND driving is not legal. Same thing could easily apply to marijuana.

[moraldeficiency]

I'll note that talking on a cell phone, having the radio on or having someone else in the car is statistically far more dangerous than being high (on weed) and driving. I'm not saying it's a good idea to toke up or that there shouldn't be laws in place against it but it's nothing close to drunk driving or most mild distractions.

[Kelly]

Do you have statistics on that, or is that your opinion....?

I'd be interested in reading those statistics, that's kinda interesting....

[moraldeficiency]

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme3/cannabisanddrivingareviewoft4764

There's a lot more than this out there but I did have this saved for a debate I did.

Done in 2001. The summary is this: While it does impede certian mental and physical attributes most people only on weed didn't really drive worse, just slower, the paranoia thing making you drive more attentively and somewhat counteract the negative effects. In most countries the people found high who were in an accident almost always had other substances in them like alcohol. As far as the cell phone thing, I know I've seen multiple reports about that and the radio and other people, but I'm a bit too lazy to go fishing at the moment, but I'm sure of them as fairly bad risks as they distract. Oh, smoking a cig is also pretty bad.

They also did a study in amsterdam that was on discovery channel I believe which actively tested a driver drunk, high, texting, on the phone, or with a person individually and when the test subject was high he did no worse as far as knocking over cones than when sober. I'll try and remember what show that was.

[omid17]

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z277/venomwithin/celebrities_smoking_joints.jpg
Diaz, Lohan, Barton, Bloom, Anderson

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z277/venomwithin/kristen-stewart-smoking-pot-1000x04.jpg
twilights Stewart

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z277/venomwithin/phelps.jpg
phelps

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z277/venomwithin/stephon-marbury-smoking-weed-photo.jpg
basketball plyr Marbury

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z277/venomwithin/zach-braff.jpg
Zac Braff

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z277/venomwithin/arnold-schwarzenegger-smoking-pot.jpg
Arnold

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z277/venomwithin/aaron-smoking.jpg
Carter

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z277/venomwithin/charlize_apple-771210.jpg
Charlize Theron

[omid17]

Pot legalization gains momentum in California

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091008/ap_on_re_us/us_marijuana_legalization


By MARCUS WOHLSEN, Associated Press Writer Marcus Wohlsen, Associated Press Writer – Wed Oct 7, 9:49 pm ET
SAN FRANCISCO – Marijuana advocates are gathering signatures to get as many as three pot-legalization measures on the ballot in 2010 in California, setting up what could be a groundbreaking clash with the federal government over U.S. drug policy.

At least one poll shows voters would support lifting the pot prohibition, which would make the state of more than 38 million the first in the nation to legalize marijuana.

Such action would also send the state into a headlong conflict with the U.S. government while raising questions about how federal law enforcement could enforce its drug laws in the face of a massive government-sanctioned pot industry.

The state already has a thriving marijuana trade, thanks to a first-of-its-kind 1996 ballot measure that allowed people to smoke pot for medical purposes. But full legalization could turn medical marijuana dispensaries into all-purpose pot stores, and the open sale of joints could become commonplace on mom-and-pop liquor store counters in liberal locales like Oakland and Santa Cruz.

Under federal law, marijuana is illegal, period. After overseeing a series of raids that destroyed more than 300,000 marijuana plants in California's Sierra Nevada foothills this summer, federal drug czar Gil Kerlikowske proclaimed, "Legalization is not in the president's vocabulary, and it's not in mine."
The U.S. Supreme Court also has ruled that federal law enforcement agents have the right to crack down even on marijuana users and distributors who are in compliance with California's medical marijuana law.
But some legal scholars and policy analysts say the government will not be able to require California to help in enforcing the federal marijuana ban if the state legalizes the drug.

Without assistance from the state's legions of narcotics officers, they say, federal agents could do little to curb marijuana in California.
"Even though that federal ban is still in place and the federal government can enforce it, it doesn't mean the states have to follow suit," said Robert Mikos, a Vanderbilt University law professor who recently published a paper about the issue.

Nothing can stop federal anti-drug agents from making marijuana arrests, even if Californians legalize pot, he said. However, the U.S. government cannot pass a law requiring local and state police, sheriff's departments or state narcotics enforcers to help.

That is significant, because nearly all arrests for marijuana crimes are made at the state level. Of more than 847,000 marijuana-related arrests in 2008, for example, just over 6,300 suspects were booked by federal law enforcement, or fewer than 1 percent.

State marijuana bans have allowed the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to focus on big cases, said Rosalie Pacula, director of drug policy research at the Rand Corp.

"It's only something the feds are going to be concerned about if you're growing tons of pot," Pacula said. For anything less, she said, "they don't have the resources to waste on it."

In a typical recent prosecution, 29-year-old Luke Scarmazzo was sentenced to nearly 22 years and co-defendant Ricardo Ruiz Montes to 20 years in federal prison for drug trafficking through a medical marijuana dispensary in Modesto.
At his bond hearing, prosecutors showed a rap video in which Scarmazzo boasts about his successful marijuana business, taunts federal authorities and carries cardboard boxes filled with cash. The DEA said the pair made more than $4.5 million in marijuana sales in less than two years.

The DEA would not speculate on the effects of any decision by California to legalize pot. "Marijuana is illegal under federal law and DEA will continue to attack large-scale drug trafficking organizations at every level," spokeswoman Dawn Dearden said.

The most conservative of the three ballot measures would only legalize possession of up to one ounce of pot for personal use by adults 21 and older — an amount that already under state law can only result at most in a $100 fine.

The proposal would also allow anyone to grow a plot of marijuana up to 5 feet-by-5 feet on their private property. The size, Pacula said, seems specifically designed to keep the total number of plants grown below 100, the threshold for DEA attention.

The greatest potential for conflict with the U.S. government would likely come from the provision that would give local governments the power to decide city-by-city whether to allow pot sales.

Hundreds of medical marijuana dispensaries across the state already operate openly with only modest federal interference. If recreational marijuana became legal, these businesses could operate without requiring their customers to qualify as patients.
Any business that grew bigger than the already typical storefront shops, however, would probably be too tempting a target for federal prosecution, experts said.

Even if Washington could no longer count on California to keep pot off its own streets, Congress or the Obama administration could try to coerce cooperation by withholding federal funds.

But with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement earlier this year that the Justice Department would defer to state laws on marijuana, the federal response to possible legalization remains unclear.

Doug Richardson, a spokesman for the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy, said the office is in the process of re-evaluating its policies on marijuana and other drugs.

Richardson said the office under Obama was pursuing a "more comprehensive" approach than the previous administration, with emphasis on prevention and treatment as well as law enforcement.

"We're trying to base stuff on the facts, the evidence and the science," he said, "not some particular prejudice somebody brings to the table."

(This version CORRECTS Corrects state population in graf 2 to more than 38 million, sted 40 million)

[Majic Walrus]

Huzzah!

[BillyZaned]

bout time

[moraldeficiency]

Thank god, though I'd like to say relegalization as hemp has been legal in this country far longer than it has not.

[terry78]

Wow, pot being made legal in California is like corn finally being made legal in Nebraska.

[chamber-music]

Somewhere Snoop Dogg will have one hell of a party if pot gets legalized

[LiveWire777]

Another reason i wish i lived in Cali... In fact the only reason!!

The chances of Texas legalizing pot are a billion to one, they actually just banned flavored rolling papers over here. No more strawberry jays for me :csad:

[omid17]

i hope it happens

[Majic Walrus]

Just remember that marijuana is currently illegal under federal law, even if marijuana becomes legal in California there's still federal issues.

[omid17]

Another reason i wish i lived in Cali... In fact the only reason!!

The chances of Texas legalizing pot are a billion to one, they actually just banned flavored rolling papers over here. No more strawberry jays for me :csad:don't worry once CA passes it im sure other states will follow