Pot Debate'07

[GhettoSmurf]

well tommorow is 4/20 international pot smoking day.

this debate was bound to happen... and i wanted to start it.

-pro pot.

[john_childs]

Pol Pot?

[GhettoSmurf]

funny.

[john_childs]

There is a Seattle Hempfest 4/20 Benefit show (http://hempfest.org/) on Friday. Seattle is always good for a little hemp festivity.

[burjzyntski]

At my friend's school (CU @ Boulder) they are having a huge festival with brownies and PB&J sandwiches, live bands, comedians, prizes (tshirts & sunglasses). It's being sponsored by NORML (http://www.NORML.com) and, according to this site (http://media.www.thecampuspress.com/media/storage/paper1098/news/2007/04/18/News/Officials.Gear.Up.For.420-2848877.shtml) the security will be very lax. Marijuana is decriminalized in Colorado and the security people say that they do not condone the use of illicit drugs, but they cannot stop people from congregating. If you're caught with up to an ounce of bud you will only get a $100 fine.

Chebahut (http://www.Chebahut.com), a sandwich/sub shop, is also sponsoring the event. My friend says that everyone who works at Chebahut smokes pot; not surprising for a "stoner themed sandwich shop".


I wish I were in CO right now...


+pro pot

Info on the event:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=2317949259

Urge Congress to Decriminalize Marijuana (http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/alert/?alertid=9532756)

Urge Congress to support Industrial Hemp (http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/alert/?alertid=9466501)

[dan de man]

most of my school will be participating in 4/20 and they dont even know.

[BillyTheMountain]

Marijuana is decriminalized in Colorado and the security people say that they do not condone the use of illicit drugs, but they cannot stop people from congregating. If you're caught with up to an ounce of bud you will only get a $100 fine.

See the movie GRASS, a docu narrated by Woody Harrelson. Truly educational.

Marijuana was decriminalized in about 40 states in the USA and they were working on a national decrim until one of Pres Carter's cabinet members (HEW?) got caught with cocaine, and CArter and everyone had to appear tough on drugs.

[Gilby]

When more people are in prison for nonviolent crimes such as drug possession than there are for violent crimes, I think we have a problem.

[James_Potter]

I don't smoke, but I'm totally in favor of legalization...tomorrow is Moscow's Hemp Fest, which is supposed to be about the environmentally friendly uses of hemp, and it kinda is, but it's more of just a ganja-party.

[burjzyntski]

If you join NORML (http://www.NORML.org) today (4/20/07) it will only cost you $4.20 and you will get a pretty cool poster for free (normally a $5 value, so you essentially make $0.80).

-link to join (https://secure.norml.org/normljoin.plx?item1=mem420)-


https://secure.norml.org/join/images/poster_sm.jpg
poster^

[wickedbob]

4/20!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[burjzyntski]

Hemp can be used to make fabrics (rope, shirts, shorts, backpacks), cooking oil, flavorings (similar to basil), and the seeds are good for you (like sunflower seeds). One square acre of hemp can produce the same amout of paper as 6 acres of trees. Hemp grows much quicker than trees do and can be grown almost anywhere (it is a weed after all).

THC, the most active cannabinoid in marijuana, has recently been found to slow the growth of cancerous cells. (http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2007/04/17/hscout603764.html) Smoking anything is not good for you, but this new finding may lead to the development of some concentrated THC capsules (maybe like Marinol?) that can be taken to stimulate appetite and reduce the rate at which the cancer cells multiply.

The harmful effects of smoking can be dramatically reduced by either using a vaporizer or by eating it (see Leary Biscuits).

Marijuana relieves pain of glaucoma/cancer/HIV/MS/arthritis sufferers (http://www.medical-marijuana-testimonials.org/HIV-AIDS-and-medical-marijuana.htm), stimulates their appetites, makes them feel happy, and yet it's illegal.

This reminds me of a song by Phish:

Well once upon a time in 1776,
Thomas Jefferson signed his name on a piece of marijuana,
and this document was a symbol of freedom and of liberty,
at least for the rich, white gentry.

As time marched along,
this plant that I refer to has been used for everything,
from medicine to the American flag.
And now it seems to me
that somewhere along the way,
things got messed up, yeah, messed up.

Oh marijuana.
A gift of God to my brothers and me.
Oh marijuana
Now the government wants to test me when I pee.

Well some say a conspiracy
of the petro-chemical and pulp-paper industries combined
ha to kill the compitition.
Government hysteria,monopoly and conflict of interest,
with total impunity.

Yeah, so, if you don’t buy the conspiracy,
just look at the reality
that your tax dollars go
to spray poison on the fields of a farmer in South America.
And as an added bonus,
your neighbor might be the proud recipions of that poison weed.


Oh marijuana
now the government wants to test me when I pee.
Oh marijuana
a gift of god to my brothers and me.
Oh marijuana
you cant legislate your own morality.
Oh marijuana
the government wants to test me when I pee

Reefer madness, chronic sadness,
what is the half-life of bad propaganda?
Policies fail, denied bail,
you made him a demon now pay for his trip to prison.
Hired to promote the status quo,
but what is the shelf life of bad legislation.
The hypocrite smirks, it’s a moral disgrace
as he reads from a law that was written
about the same time that he had
his last original thought.

Well the men said he was dying,
and the nausea and the pain left him wasting away
and unable to keep a meal down.
So he tried everything a prescription could obtain
but to no avail.
The side effects were worse than the pain.
So now he breaks the law
to use the one thing that seems to help him out.
And the people say, Oh he's just getting’ high.
But not to change the subject but,
didn’t you ever wonder why getting’ high’s a crime,
yeah a crime.

Oh marijuana, a gift to god to my brothers and me.
Oh marijuana, now the government wants to test me when I pee.
Oh marijuana, the government wants to test me when I pee.
Oh marijuana, the government wants to test me when I pee.
Oh marijuana, the government wants to test me when I pee.
Oh marijuana, this is the part when everyone would sing along aha, when I pee

[Gilby]

One square acre of hemp can produce the same amout of paper as 6 acres of trees.

How much does a rectangular acre produce? :D

[skrobo]

How much does a rectangular acre produce? :D
lol

uhm
yeah, it has good effects, but erm... it kills brain cells ... making you REtArDeD

[BillyTheMountain]

When more people are in prison for nonviolent crimes such as drug possession than there are for violent crimes, I think we have a problem.

We had the problem before that. What you see is the solution.

The problem was

--too many soldiers getting RIFfed (Reduction in Force) from military bases means:

1. How do we keep unemployment down and find jobs for these otherwise unemployable soldiers?

2. What do we do with these empty military bases?

Solution: Turn the military bases into prisons, and make the unemployed soldiers prison guards!!!

If you can think of a better solution, let me know.

Of course, that creates the problem of empty prison beds.

If you cannot fill those prison beds, you have unemployed soldiers.

Solution: Harsh federal sentencing guidelines. The US Attorney General mandates his US Attorneys (like the ones Gonzales just fired) to report any federal judge who offers downward departures from the sentencing guidelines, as an intimidation tactic. Don't the federal judges also work under the Attorney General? Hmmmm.

Prison beds filled. end of problem.

Your problem, Gilby, is that you confuse a good solution with a bad problem.



:D

[forrestunifreak]

lol

uhm
yeah, it has good effects, but erm... it kills brain cells ... making you REtArDeD

Seriously. Anyone who wants to fry their brain AND at the same time make complete fools of themselves by sucking the smoke of burning plants is an idiot.

+ a smilie becuase I don't want to be rude to an idiot. :)

[kington99]

Billy, if you let half the gaurds go they'd turn to crime and would end up filling the prison beds that are gaurded by the other half. Brilliant!

[BillyTheMountain]

Billy, if you let half the gaurds go they'd turn to crime and would end up filling the prison beds that are gaurded by the other half. Brilliant!

Nice try, but do the math.

One guard to 100 inmates.

[kington99]

Nice try, but do the math.

One guard to 100 inmates.

Ok, fire 99% of them then, even cheaper.

[BillyTheMountain]

Ok, fire 99% of them then, even cheaper.

You forgot, unemployment was the problem you were trying to avoid....

[mscalisi]

I assume that you'll avoid alcohol when you turn 21. Much worse for your brain, liver, and other organs.

Seriously. Anyone who wants to fry their brain AND at the same time make complete fools of themselves by sucking the smoke of burning plants is an idiot.

+ a smilie becuase I don't want to be rude to an idiot. :)

[forrestunifreak]

I assume that you'll avoid alcohol when you turn 21. Much worse for your brain, liver, and other organs.

Actually I don't really have any interest in drinking... I don't have anything against it though, except drinking excessive amounts of course...

Occasional drinking is supposed to be good for you. I'm no expert on the subject though. :rolleyes: :)

[kington99]

On a kindof completely different note, is not the reference 4:20 now useless as everyone knows what it means?

[skrobo]

uhh
its a reference to Ezekiel 4:20 isn't it?

ohh and the argument against beer

would you rather have a cut off finger (body part)
or be freaking retarded
i would much rather have a missing finger.

[underdog]

I think the benefits of legalizing marijuana FAR outweigh the benifits of keeping it illegal. All the arguments have been laid out in this and other threads so I won't go through it point by point. I'll be the first to admit that I smoked a whole boatload of weed back in the day. I also slipped into a few years of serious alcohol abuse many long years ago, after I was a heavy pot smoker. The alcohol was far more debilitating and caused more damage physically and emotionally. During my pot years, I went to college, maintained a 3.85 GPA, while holding down a job and starting a family and have since maintained a long, long career as a mechanical engineer. I don't see that it harmed me in any way. On the other hand, I almost lost my job because of my alcohol abuse and it was very likely a considerable factor in my wife divorcing me. I certainly don't think that any pot related activities were ever even close to being worthy of a prison sentence, but I'm afraid our government sees it differently. Fortunately, I was never caught.

A very dear friend of mine was once solicited by her local police department for contributions to help with educational programs to help keep kids from experimenting with drugs. Her reply; "Are you kidding, I think experimenting with drugs is an important part of growing up!" And she shut the door in their faces. Probably got her on some kind of watch list but she's not smoked any pot in many, many years so she had nothing to worry about. Good for her for speaking her mind. BTW, at that time she was already looking like a little old grey haired lady. I can just imagine the expressions on the faces of the solicitors.

[dudewithasock]

would you rather have a cut off finger (body part)
or be freaking retarded
i would much rather have a missing finger.

....what? I don't get it.

On topic: I don't smoke and don't intend to, but I wouldn't mind if they legalized it. Wouldn't put any more pressure on me - there are tons of legal things that I will never indulge in.

And I'm also with Forrest...I don't have any interest in getting drunk, even when I'm 21. I do enjoy a casual glass of wine with my family now and then (I'm Italian, it's required), but beyond that I've never drank alcohol and don't really want to.

[kington99]

uhh
its a reference to Ezekiel 4:20 isn't it?


not according to various sources i found:

According to Steven Hager, editor of High Times, the term 420 originated at San Rafael High School, in 1971, among a group of about a dozen pot-smoking wiseacres who called themselves the Waldos. The term 420 was shorthand for the time of day the group would meet, at the campus statue of Louis Pasteur, to smoke pot.

This was form the phish website (and who would know more about pot than they?) but I found similar in many other sources.

Also Ezekiel 4 appears to only have between 15 and 17 verses (depending on which version of the bible), can't find any version that has an ezekiel 4:20

[monkeyman]

I'm with Matt. The government doesn't have the right to tell me what to do with my body. I'll never do it, because I've heard too many bad things about to take the risk, but I won't try to stop you if you really want to.

And to Skrobo: if you're actually comparing losing your finger to losing your liver, you need to take some kind of anatomy course. They have slightly different values.

[James_Potter]

uhm
yeah, it has good effects, but erm... it kills brain cells ... making you REtArDeD
Obviously moderation is key...too much of anything will do bad things. However the brain cells it kills are mostly the old aging ones, i.e. ones that could become tumorous. So occasional marijuana can not only cure cancer if you have it, but it could help prevent it in the first place.

[kington99]

The government doesn't have the right to tell me what to do with my body.

Yeah it does, I think what you mean is that it shouldn't. But of course banning pot is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of civil liberty. Do you believe there should be no minimum age for buying or consuming alcohol?

[James_Potter]

You know the Bob Dylan song, Rainy Day Women #12 & 35?
The chorus is, "Everybody must get stoned!"
And...12 x 35 = 420.
Hah!

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

Actually I don't really have any interest in drinking... I don't have anything against it though, except drinking excessive amounts of course...

Occasional drinking is supposed to be good for you. I'm no expert on the subject though. :rolleyes: :)
the occasional joint is good for you too. weed isn't like crack or any of that shit.
oh hey, has anyone seen Dan Lucal's weed vid?? it's good.
WTF!! WTF!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAmJyCiDm3I
This video may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube's user community.

GAHHHHHHH!!! weed is inappropriate!! i don't think they'd do that to a movie with someone getting drunk. (which is worse then getting high)

[kington99]

GAHHHHHHH!!! weed is inappropriate!! i don't think they'd do that to a movie with someone getting drunk. (which is worse then getting high)

Smoking weed is illegal behaviour. Drinking alcohol isn't. One would expect a site such as youtube to flag a video showing illegal behaviour as inappropriate.

[benjaug]

The Red Sox are wearing green today... I find that funny.

[dudewithasock]

Smoking weed is illegal behaviour. Drinking alcohol isn't. One would expect a site such as youtube to flag a video showing illegal behaviour as inappropriate.

Well with that line of thinking, Namco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katamari_Damacy) and The Beatles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Submarine_%28film%29) should've been yelled a lot more. :p

[monkeyman]

Yeah it does, I think what you mean is that it shouldn't. But of course banning pot is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of civil liberty. Do you believe there should be no minimum age for buying or consuming alcohol?

This is something I haven't thought about that much, and to be honest, someone could probably convince me differently. I think that in an ideal society, people (especially and mostly parents) could/would be educated enough to raise their kids properly about alcohol, and teach them to treat it responsibly. Of course, that would never happen. So while I hate that it has to exist, I can see the logic for it in the current society. In a utopian society, it wouldn't exist, but I don't see how you could do away with it in America safely and responsibly.

If I had to give a definite answer to the question "Should the US government find a way to responsibly eradicate minimum drinking age laws?", I would answer yes. The main reason being that it be one less law trying to legislate morality.

What do you think?

[burjzyntski]

you still have 3.5 hours (Eastern time) to join NORML for only $4.20...


Please do it. It's only four dollars and twenty cents; it's hardly anything...plus you get a cool, free poster (that you can give to a pot-smoking friend if you don't want it)

[burjzyntski]

Many european countries have very low or nonexistant drinking ages, yet their problems with alcohol abuse are lower than that of the US(+A, gilby ;)). I'm definately not condoning underage alcohol consumption (I've had my stints, and I've seen the terrible effects that alcohol can have on a family/individuals), but comparing alcohol to marijuana is basically like comparing bananas and kiwis. Alcohol is (can be) physically addictive and cause multiple cancers and cirrhosis of the liver, whereas marijuana, contrary to popular belief, is neither addictive, nor does it kill briain cells.

Colorado, for example, has an age limit for the people who can posess marijuana without harsh consequences. If you are over 21 years old and have up to 28.4g (1oz) you can only be charged up to $100.

[James_Potter]

here:

In 1937, weed was placed under the Harrison Narcotics Act. Narcotics authorities claim it is a habit-forming drug, that its use is injurious to mind and body, and that it causes the people who use it to commit crimes. Here are the facts: Weed is positively not habit-forming. You can smoke weed for years and you will experience no discomfort if your supply is suddenly cut off. I have seen tea heads in jail and none of them showed withdrawal symptoms. I have smoked weed myself off and on for fifteen years, and never missed it when I ran out. There is less habit to weed than there is to tobacco. Weed does not harm the general health. In fact, most users claim it gives you an appetite and acts as a tonic to the system. I do not know of any other agent that gives as definite a boot to the appetite. I can smoke a stick of tea and enjoy a glass of California sherry and a hash house meal.

I once kicked a junk habit with weed. The second day off junk I sat down and ate a full meal. Ordinarily, I cant eat for eight days after kicking a habit.

Weed does not inspire anyone to commit crimes. I have never seen anyone get nasty under the influence of weed. Tea heads are a sociable lot. Too sociable for my liking. I cannot understand why the people who claim weed causes crime do not follow through and demand the outlawing of alcohol. Every day, crimes are committed by drunks who would not have committed the crime sober.

There has been a lot said about the aphrodisiac effect of weed. For some reason, scientists dislike to admit that there is such a thing as an aphrodisiac, so most pharmacologists say there is no evidence to support the popular idea that weed possesses aphrodisiac properties. I can say definitely that weed is an aphrodisiac and that sex is more enjoyable under the influence of weed than without it. Anyone who has used good weed will verify this statement.

You hear that people go insane from using weed. There is, in fact, a form of insanity caused by excessive use of weed. The condition is characterized by ideas of reference. The weed available in the U.S. is evidently not strong enough to blow your top on and weed psychosis is rare in the States. In the Near East, it is said to be common. Weed psychosis corresponds more or less to delirium tremens and quickly disappears when the drug is withdrawn. Someone who smokes a few cigarettes a day is no more likely to go insane than a man who takes a few cocktails before dinner is likely to come down with the D.T.s.


William S. Burroughs

Junky

[Unitik908]

uhh
its a reference to Ezekiel 4:20 isn't it?

ohh and the argument against beer

would you rather have a cut off finger (body part)
or be freaking retarded
i would much rather have a missing finger.

are you serious man?

Chase

[burjzyntski]

...I can say definitely that weed is an aphrodisiac and that sex is more enjoyable under the influence of weed than without it. Anyone who has used good weed will verify this statement...

Amen.

I know a good many girls who get sooo horny when they're high ;) ...you don't lose your inhibitions when you're high, you just feel aroused.


'nuff said.


EDIT: "stoner boner"

[kington99]

This is something I haven't thought about that much, and to be honest, someone could probably convince me differently. I think that in an ideal society, people (especially and mostly parents) could/would be educated enough to raise their kids properly about alcohol, and teach them to treat it responsibly. Of course, that would never happen. So while I hate that it has to exist, I can see the logic for it in the current society. In a utopian society, it wouldn't exist, but I don't see how you could do away with it in America safely and responsibly.

If I had to give a definite answer to the question "Should the US government find a way to responsibly eradicate minimum drinking age laws?", I would answer yes. The main reason being that it be one less law trying to legislate morality.

What do you think?

I agree, ideally every citizen chould be sensible enough to drink/smoke pot in such moderation that it doesn't present a probelm to themselves or others, without the intervention of the government.

Many european countries have very low or nonexistant drinking ages, yet their problems with alcohol abuse are lower than that of the US(+A, gilby )

Hmm, they certainly have less problems with drunkedness, drunken violence etc. but horrendously high incidences of liver scirosis and other serious medical complaints. Taking the french culture for example, drinking age of 14, but drinking is introduced to children through the family, so moderation is taught. However, drinking in moderation everyday adds up to more than the occassinoal heavy binge. it's much harder to self regulate when the consequences of your actions aren't obvious, i.e. it's easy to keep your drinking so you're not throwing up the next morning, it's pretty hard to judge the level of alcohol consumption over many years to ensure your risk of medical complaints isn't increased unduely.

[burjzyntski]

Interesting marijuana timeline (6000 BCE - 2003 CE):
http://www.concept420.com/marijuana_cannabis_history_timeline.htm

[wickedbob]

We have pot debates on here to much... Not that it helps with this one...

[burjzyntski]

i haven't heard any debating going on in this thread...everyone seems to be pro-marijuana decriminalization this time around :p

[Matt_V]

I am all for legalization. The government could tax it, control what goes in it, and the cops could spend more time on chasing ciminals that are acually dangerous.

I am not gonna say whether or not I acually smoke but I see nothing wrong with it if done responsibly. Just like drinking

[burjzyntski]

The problem with legalization is that it would be almost impossible for the government to tax it. It's so easy to grow anywhere (it's a weed) that, unless the gov't starts huge grow operations somewhere underground (where nobody will steal the plants, they can be under HPS grow lights + timer + hydroponic/aeroponic + increased CO2 setup) and sells it for cheaper than you can get from that one friend who will drive it to your house in 25 minutes, it's not going to work.

During alcohol prohibition people made their own alcohol. Making alcohol demands much more energy & money than growing a plant for personal use, which is why most people go to the store to buy beer and liquor. I mean, yeah, that would be nice if I could walk in to 7-11 and pick up a pack of pre-rolled spliffs, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Which is why I support decriminalization over legalization - don't send us to jail for posession/distribution, fine us a hundred bucks or so. We're much closer to having it become decriminalized than we are to having it legalized.

[dudewithasock]

The problem with legalization is that it would be almost impossible for the government to tax it. It's so easy to grow anywhere (it's a weed) that, unless the gov't starts huge grow operations somewhere underground (where nobody will steal the plants, they can be under HPS grow lights + timer + hydroponic/aeroponic + increased CO2 setup) and sells it for cheaper than you can get from that one friend who will drive it to your house in 25 minutes, it's not going to work.

During alcohol prohibition people made their own alcohol. Making alcohol demands much more energy & money than growing a plant for personal use, which is why most people go to the store to buy beer and liquor. I mean, yeah, that would be nice if I could walk in to 7-11 and pick up a pack of pre-rolled spliffs, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Which is why I support decriminalization over legalization - don't send us to jail for posession/distribution, fine us a hundred bucks or so. We're much closer to having it become decriminalized than we are to having it legalized.

You make a really good point, one that I wasn't aware of, since I've never bought/smoked weed before. But why couldn't it be legalized without taxes? Why is a fine even necessary for owning a pipe and some pot?

The way I've always envisioned the legalization of marijuana is similar to alcohol - legal to smoke it at home, and perhaps places similar to bars (like they've got in Amsterdam with the cafes and such), but set a limit of intoxication for driving/operating machinery, because I've read that it does impair reflexes.

[burjzyntski]

You can't take a breathalyzer-type device to tell how 'impaired' someone is from smoking pot. Even with blood alcohol concentrations (the percentage of alcohol in your blood), some people have much different tolerances.

ex) One person might drink 2 beers and be intoxicated & unable to drive a car, where, on the other hand, someone else might be able to drink 16 beers and still operate a car relatively safely. The person who drank 2 beers might have a BAC of around 1%, and the 16 beer guy might have one of closer to 20%. You cannot determine how high someone is based on a scale like this - you have to ask them. And if a cop were to ask me "how high are you?", my buzz would have immediately waned, and I would honestly say "not at all, officer!"

To answer "Why couldn't it be legalized without taxes?"...COME ON...The government NEEDS our money..they're not going to sell us marijuana duty-free. That made me LOL, though.

"And why do you get a fine for posession of substance/paraphernalia?", because pot is illegal. You can have a pipe/bong as long as it does not have any marijuana residue (resin) in it. As long as it's clean you can claim that it's for smoking tobbacco.

[dudewithasock]

:rolleyes: I don't think you read my post very well.

To answer "Why couldn't it be legalized without taxes?"...COME ON...The government NEEDS our money..they're not going to sell us marijuana duty-free. That made me LOL, though.

I meant, why couldn't it be legalized without the government selling it to us? Like just keep it at individual vendors without any government intervention.

"And why do you get a fine for posession of substance/paraphernalia?", because pot is illegal. You can have a pipe/bong as long as it does not have any marijuana residue (resin) in it. As long as it's clean you can claim that it's for smoking tobbacco.

I meant it hypothetically, meaning if it were legalized.

[monkeyman]

Joe, I don't see how it would be all that hard for the government to tax weed. You could basically just take all the alcohol laws there are and substitute "marijuana" in them. People can still make their own alcohol, but the government is able to tax that, isn't it?

[dudewithasock]

Joe, I don't see how it would be all that hard for the government to tax weed. You could basically just take all the alcohol laws there are and substitute "marijuana" in them. People can still make their own alcohol, but the government is able to tax that, isn't it?

But like he was saying, it's much much easier to make your own weed than to brew your own alcohol. I mean, it's a weed.

[monkeyman]

Didn't he say though that he wouldn't mind being able to go to the 7-11 and just get them there? I don't know how easy it is to grow/make, but it seems like it'd be a lot easier to just buy it from the 7-11.

[sugarloafur]

ex) One person might drink 2 beers and be intoxicated & unable to drive a car, where, on the other hand, someone else might be able to drink 16 beers and still operate a car relatively safely. The person who drank 2 beers might have a BAC of around 1%, and the 16 beer guy might have one of closer to 20%. You cannot determine how high someone is based on a scale like this - you have to ask them.

Most states have safe driving laws of .08% or .10%. When you say a BAC of 1%, you're off by a couple of magnitudes. 1% BAC is a 1.0.... you'd be dead. You meant a .01% and a .20%. .20 is seriously intoxicated - almost to the point of unconsciousness, certainly not safe for any sort of driving. Look it up.

[burjzyntski]

@sugarloafur, you're right, i'm off..my bad ;)

@monkeyman: Yes, I did say that, but it was a hypothetical statement. I said that I'm almost positive that marijuana will never be regulated in the same way as alcohol (we'll never be able to go to the store to pick up a pack of re-rolled joints, as nice as it sounds, because it's soooo difficult to tax it).

There are many, many different strains of marijuana which are available to people of every demographic.

Like I've said, you cannot take the current marijuana laws and apply it to alcohol; it's not that simple. One may be very, very 'high' and still able to converse normally. All you need to cover up a stoned person is cologne and visine. You cannot diguise a drunk person as easily.

pretend you made your own alcohol for a moment. You paid for the sugar and the yeast, and possibly the water, too. you heated the water, added the yeast and sugar, and let it sit. How was does the government tax you for the alcohol that you're producing? They'll get you for the yeast/sugar/bucket/and , maybe the water, but they cannot tax you for the outcome (alcohol). Same with marijuana. You buy the substance illegally, obtain the seed(s) illegally, and maybe pay for the water & bucket. You can make a couple hundred dollars from one plant (1/16th oz = 1.7g = $25, 1/8th oz = 3.5g = $50, 1/4 oz = 7g = $100, 1/2 oz = 14g = ~$200, 1oz = 28.4g = ~$350/$400). You can make a couple dozen dollars from one still of alcohol. Don't you think the gov't would rather go after the people making more money? You're right! They would, and they do.

Think of everything that is sold anywhere in the united states...the government gets some part of it, right (tax)? They don't want to miss out on any potential moneymaking.

[monkeyman]

I guess the part I'm missing is why that's stopping it from being legalized. Even if they couldn't make much, it seems like they'd make more tax money from marijuana if it was legalized than if it wasn't (in which case, they'd make no tax money at all).

[kington99]

Think of everything that is sold anywhere in the united states...the government gets some part of it, right (tax)? They don't want to miss out on any potential moneymaking.

Tax is for your benefit, the government don't 'get' it, if income tax goes up GWB does not personally make more money, he just has more money to spend on roads and hospitals and schools (and war). Now sure tax can be for other reasons e.g. in the UK tobacco, alcohol and petrol are heavily taxed to encourage poeple to consume less of them, but the majority of it is for funding public facilities. If the government think that they have a justifiable need for more money they could increase any of the current taxes, they're not like a busines who try to maximise profit while keeping the customer relatively happy, in effect they can charge what they like and the 'customer' i.e. you has to live with it (except ofc you can vote them out next time round), they'll take whatever they think is required to keep the country going, the only variable is how they charge the nation fairly (i.e. banded income tax).

[Gilby]

they're not like a busines who try to maximise profit while keeping the customer relatively happy
Um, yes they are. Otherwise we would still have the 98% tax. They optimize revenue by taxing just enough so that there is enough money in the hands of the people to be able to produce income.

Most everything else you said is wrong, but is the mainstream belief. BTW, federal taxes are spent mostly to pay interest (to our money masters), lucrative defense contracts (hello special interests), and entitlements (social security ponzi scheme).

The problem with legalization is that it would be almost impossible for the government to tax it. It's so easy to grow anywhere (it's a weed) ...
It'd be easy to tax it. Convenience. People want the convenience to be able to buy it at the club, the "coffee shop", or the local convenience store on their way home. These are taxable situations. Ideally, the taxes would go towards the health and social problems that are caused by use of such drug... and everyone can be happy.

[monkeyman]

It'd be easy to tax it. Convenience. People want the convenience to be able to buy it at the club, the "coffee shop", or the local convenience store on their way home. These are taxable situations. Ideally, the taxes would go towards the health and social problems that are caused by use of such drug... and everyone can be happy.

Joe, this is what I was trying to say, but couldn't. Thanks Gilby.

[saskatchewanian]

All that I have to say is the more something is regulated the more it is abused.

This applies to many things other than pot.

[BillyTheMountain]

All that I have to say is the more something is regulated the more it is abused.

This applies to many things other than pot.

yes. but unless you're really high, you'll know that you have to regulate substances/activities that are so likely to be abused: drugs, driving, who can do surgery, etc. Everyone wants to do surgery, but not everybody can.

[Gilby]

yes. but unless you're really high, you'll know that you have to regulate substances/activities that are so likely to be abused: drugs, driving, who can do surgery, etc. Everyone wants to do surgery, but not everybody can.
Billy, are you personally capable of regulating who does surgery on you? Can you check the credentials of the surgeon?

[unicycle6869]

Happy Belated 420 Everyone! Was meaning to post on the forums on 4/20 but was too busy "flying kites"!! ;)

[GhettoSmurf]

good pot is verry hard to grow
and it will not just grow like a weed.

bad weed will grow like a weed but then its harsh and you need alot more to get the job done.

id rather buy weed (specaily since if its legalized the price will drop to atleast half.)

[skianduniaddict]

I personally think drugs are stupid, bad for you, and a waste of money, but i think if people want to screw up there lives with it let them

[unicycle6869]

I personally think drugs are stupid, bad for you, and a waste of money, but i think if people want to screw up there lives with it let them

I'm gonna quote you on this, cause this is what I said and most of my friends said when we were young. But things change and you learn more and experiment as you grow older. I'll try to remember in 5 years to ask you again and see what your opinion is then. I can almost guaruntee you'll either change your mind about them, especially pot and alcohol, and/or do them yourself! One of my best friends told me "why do you drink and smoke pot? It's so stupid. I'll never do them." Then not even two years later, he's one of the biggest potsmokers and drinkers I know! Time changes things....most of the time!

And I don't think my life is screwed up at all from it. I actually think my life is really really good right about now. And I'm the happiest ever! :)

[James_Potter]

I personally think drugs are stupid, bad for you, and a waste of money, but i think if people want to screw up there lives with it let them
What if people want to use them but not screw up their lives? That seems like the best idea to me.

[tobbogonist]

the community 'jocks' have discovered weed, instead of roaming the streets at night, drunk and bashing people. They are now no-where to be seen, hiding away at home or camping somewhere 'roaching spliffs..' I would rather them doing that then giving me a black eye.

as for happy 420 weed day.. we had nothing of the sorts in Oz..

[dan de man]

yes. but unless you're really high, you'll know that you have to regulate substances/activities that are so likely to be abused: drugs, driving, who can do surgery, etc. Everyone wants to do surgery, but not everybody can perform surgery competantly
fixed

[BillyTheMountain]

Billy, are you personally capable of regulating who does surgery on you? Can you check the credentials of the surgeon?

All I have to do is look at the wall of YOUR office, where you have printed out certificates of expertise in plastic surgery and brain surgery (forged of course). And your cool diploma by mail program on heart surgery.

All your schools are credentialed by BTMs National Board of Surgical Credentialing. Have your patients phone me up at 800-555-credentialed.

Do you ask the doctor for photo ID indicating she's the one you phoned about?

Fraud runs deep. That's why there's prison.

BTM

[dan de man]

here is my take

do pot as long as you dont screw or affect anyone's life's other than yours

[demosthenes]

It has been my experience that if someone wants to smoke, legal or not, they will smoke. Along that line of thinking, as far as i'm concerned I'd rather pack a bowl, find somewhere quiet and relax then worry about what anyone else thinks about it.

[johnfoss]

Most states have safe driving laws of .08% or .10%. When you say a BAC of 1%, you're off by a couple of magnitudes. 1% BAC is a 1.0.... you'd be dead. You meant a .01% and a .20%. .20 is seriously intoxicated - almost to the point of unconsciousness, certainly not safe for any sort of driving.Actually it would be .1% (25% over the legal limit of .08 in many states) and 2.0% (guaranteed dead in any state). The dead guy can't drive, period.

I'm surprised at burjzyntski's apparent lack of understanding of the effects of alcohol on the system *after* he's gone through the experience of a DUI. Or maybe it wasn't a DUI conviction, but I remember a thread about a year ago where he admitted to driving while under the influence. Maybe he's been getting away with it and still believes that being a unicyclist, or whatever, makes him immune to the effects of alcohol. Or not affected enough.

But his point is well taken that, in the case of alcohol, we have a way of measuring how much is in a person's system. This can be done with a fair degree of accuracy on the side of the road, so a decision can be made of whether this person should be allowed to continue driving. Alcohol is the main substance being looked for in DUI-type stops, but it could be other drugs as well, and if a driver blows a low number but is apparently still too intoxicated to drive, the cops have other methods to render a "circumstantial" judgement of whether that person should be allowed to continue driving. And they often make for great videos! :)

What this means is, the amount of people driving under the influence of pot would increase, probably to levels similar to those of alcohol drinkers (based on both being legal). Or maybe a little less, as it's not as much associated with things like bars, that people tend to drive to. Just parties and other get-togethers. New legislation would have to be drawn up to cover how "messed up" someone can be and be allowed to drive. Like alcohol, the basic answer would remain real simple; hardly any. If you're going to drive, don't smoke, and vice-versa.

In the past, John Childs has made a great argument for the legalization of most or all drugs. It's a very compelling argument. It would empty out our prisons and save us tons of money there, but I question what it would do to people who use too much. Making it legal will make it *much easier* for people to get into situations where they can't control their own lives anymore and need help before they ruin others'. If you can, watch a TV show called Intervention. There are plenty of those people out there, from substances that aren't legal. How many will there be if the stuff is legal? They place all sorts of burdens, financial and otherwise, on the world around them.

Also from watching Cops, you see how out of control many people are when the cops are called to deal with them. They can barely communicate and are a danger to those around them. I have to think legalizing lots of drugs would increase this.

Why don't we ban alcohol? History. It didn't work. It probably won't work if we try to do it again. Even still, alcohol is still responsible for nearly half of all American highway deaths. Add pot to the mix, and these numbers will be worse.

[dudewithasock]

I'm gonna quote you on this, cause this is what I said and most of my friends said when we were young. But things change and you learn more and experiment as you grow older. I'll try to remember in 5 years to ask you again and see what your opinion is then. I can almost guaruntee you'll either change your mind about them, especially pot and alcohol, and/or do them yourself! One of my best friends told me "why do you drink and smoke pot? It's so stupid. I'll never do them." Then not even two years later, he's one of the biggest potsmokers and drinkers I know! Time changes things....most of the time!

And I don't think my life is screwed up at all from it. I actually think my life is really really good right about now. And I'm the happiest ever! :)

I'm not disagree with you or anything, but you're making it sound almost like a good idea...which it really isn't. It just isn't a bad idea, when done responsibly.

[BillyTheMountain]

In the past, John Childs has made a great argument for the legalization of most or all drugs. It's a very compelling argument. It would empty out our prisons and save us tons of money there,

Why don't we ban alcohol? History. It didn't work. It probably won't work if we try to do it again. Even still, alcohol is still responsible for nearly half of all American highway deaths. Add pot to the mix, and these numbers will be worse.

The people incarcerated under the law would not be retroactively freed, they've been convicted and they would serve their time.

The alcohol ban was an instrument of the anti-Catholic movement in the USA, when too many Irish, Italians and Polish were unwanted by the founders of the nation.

Similarly, the marijuana laws have consistently been used against ethnic groups from the beginning of the 20th century. See the Woody Harrelson docu movie Grass for the documentation.

[BillyTheMountain]

In the past, John Childs has made a great argument for the legalization of most or all drugs. It's a very compelling argument. It would empty out our prisons and save us tons of money there,

Why don't we ban alcohol? History. It didn't work. It probably won't work if we try to do it again. Even still, alcohol is still responsible for nearly half of all American highway deaths. Add pot to the mix, and these numbers will be worse.

The people incarcerated under the law would not be retroactively freed, they've been convicted and they would serve their time.

The alcohol ban was an instrument of the anti-Catholic movement in the USA, when too many Irish, Italians and Polish were unwanted by the founders of the nation.

Similarly, the marijuana laws have consistently been used against ethnic groups from the beginning of the 20th century. See the Woody Harrelson docu movie Grass for the documentation.

[unicycle6869]

I'm not disagree with you or anything, but you're making it sound almost like a good idea...which it really isn't. It just isn't a bad idea, when done responsibly.

It's not a good idea but it's not a bad idea either. It's just OK! :)

[unicycle6869]

Why don't we ban alcohol? History. It didn't work. It probably won't work if we try to do it again. Even still, alcohol is still responsible for nearly half of all American highway deaths. Add pot to the mix, and these numbers will be worse.

History isn't always right John! :) If alcohol is really responsible for half the deaths, you'd really think it'd be illegal. I mean come on, if guns were responsible for half our death, you know they'd probably be banned. (or should be)

And I think I disagree with you on if you added pot to the list that the numbers would be worse. I've read a couple articles that state that drivin stoned is safer than drivin sober, and I believe it to a certain extent. You drive much slower and you're aware of your surroundings more, therefore safer. Just my opinion of the situation. ;)

[Gilby]

You drive much slower and you're aware of your surroundings more, therefore safer. Just my opinion of the situation. ;)

You have the counter effect of this, where if you drive too slow, you look suspicious to the cops, so this prompts the people driving under the influence to drive faster than what is safe for them to drive under their conditions.

[sugarloafur]

Actually it would be .1% (25% over the legal limit of .08 in many states) and 2.0% (guaranteed dead in any state). The dead guy can't drive, period.

I don't know if you're just confusing me here, or if you're confused, or if we're just thinking different things. burjzyntski originally used the example of someone have a 1% BAC and a 20% BAC (you'd be dead in either case... a 1.0 BAC is nearly three times the lethal amount of alcohol in your blood.) By dividing both by 100, you get a BAC of .01 and a BAC of .20 (0.01% and 0.20%, respectively), which is what I think he was trying to say the first time. If he was trying to say that one person would have over three times the lethal dose and the other would have over 60 times the lethal dose, then I must be mistaken.

You're taking what he said to mean that he thinks the one person would have a BAC of .1, which is 25% over the .08 limit, and a 2%, which is somewhere around six times the lethal dose. I don't think he was trying to say that one would be impaired enough to not drive while the other one is very dead... just my take.

And you're right, I'm fairly sure there was a thread about drunk driving only a few months back... déjà vu

[Unitik908]

I've read a couple articles that state that drivin stoned is safer than drivin sober, and I believe it to a certain extent. You drive much slower and you're aware of your surroundings more, therefore safer. Just my opinion of the situation. ;)


+1

Chase

[johnfoss]

History isn't always right John! :) Yes it is. Not in that things always have to turn out the same way, but in that *it's the truth.* Argue all you want, there's a ton of history with the prohibition movement, and you seem to be dismissing it as a bad idea. Maybe it was, but in retrospect, much of the way things went down seems to make sense. Lots of people were going to have their drinks, law or no, and did what they had to do, and created their cottage industries and speakeasies to make it so.

If alcohol is really responsible for half the deaths, you'd really think it'd be illegal.What percentage of U.S. highway deaths do you attribute to alcohol? Don't forget to provide some links. Here's one (http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9709/01/nfm.drunk.driving/data.html). The data are a few years old, but those numbers are lower than what they were when I was teaching driving a few years before. They say 41% while my numbers were more like 44%, probably averaged over many years through the 80s. Saying you just don't believe it doesn't change the reality. Did you take Driver's Ed in school? In New York, a huge component of that is about the effects of alcohol. In the "Pre-licensing class" I used to teach (alternate to Drivers Ed in school), fully half the classrom hours were to be devoted to the alcohol thing.

7% of all accidents, and 41% of fatal accidents. The problem is real. Combine that with the failure of prohibition in the 1920s and it leaves an odd understanding of why alcohol is still legal.

And I think I disagree with you on if you added pot to the list that the numbers would be worse.Disagree all you want, but your statements above kind of kill your credibility on the matter. It makes me think you should have listened to the teenage version of yourself... :p

[mscalisi]

Sober is the only way to get behind a wheel.

...that being said, this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLmHL7YznUI
seems to imply that driving high isn't nearly as dangerous as driving drunk.

Mind you, they only use one test subject, who is a regular user, under a typical dose. I'd be willing to bet that not everyone fairs as wells as he does.

I still think that driving stoned is stupid.

[BillyTheMountain]

The data are a few years old, but those numbers are lower than what they were when I was teaching driving a few years before.

Maybe the accident rate dropped BECAUSE you stopped teaching people to drive....



:D

[James_Potter]

I've read a couple articles that state that drivin stoned is safer than drivin sober, and I believe it to a certain extent. You drive much slower and you're aware of your surroundings more, therefore safer. Just my opinion of the situation. ;)
As long as you're not TOTALLY baked, I agree.

[burjzyntski]

I still think that driving stoned is stupid.


It's fun though? :rolleyes:

[unicycle6869]

Yes it is. Not in that things always have to turn out the same way, but in that *it's the truth.* Argue all you want, there's a ton of history with the prohibition movement, and you seem to be dismissing it as a bad idea. Maybe it was, but in retrospect, much of the way things went down seems to make sense. Lots of people were going to have their drinks, law or no, and did what they had to do, and created their cottage industries and speakeasies to make it so.


Are you saying when blacks were slaves or women couldn't vote, that history was right? That's what I was tryin to say, that history isn't always right. Just because it's the way it's always been, doesn't mean it should continue that way.

And I really do think that if they really wanted to make alcohol illegal that they could. Yes, people would still make it themselves but if you make it an illegal substance, then anyone caught drunk or with booze would either get fined heavily or go to jail. Don't think it'd take long before people learned their lesson!

One last thing; driving stoned is much much much much much much safer and better than driving drunk, that's for sure. And I'd put it equal to drivin while sober, at least for the professional smokers out there. ;)

[johnfoss]

Are you saying when blacks were slaves or women couldn't vote, that history was right?I meant more that history is *accurate.* Putting an end to slavery was right. If it took a war to get it done, so be it. Now *there* was a real war to "protect our freedom."

Yes, people would still make it themselves but if you make it an illegal substance, then anyone caught drunk or with booze would either get fined heavily or go to jail. Don't think it'd take long before people learned their lesson! Do you really know so little about people, drinking and driving? I don't have numbers handy, but many, many DUI convictions are second or higher-number offenses. Not sure of the laws in othere states, but if you are caught above the legal limit in New York (in the mid-90s) would would automatically go to jail (until arraigned). Fines and other costs associated with a conviction averaged between $4000 and $10,000. Yet people would get caught again. This is also history that should not be dismissed or ignored. That's today's reality.

One last thing; driving stoned is much much much much much much safer and better than driving drunk, that's for sure. And I'd put it equal to drivin while sober...So glad *you're* not in charge of deciding such things! BTW the "test" done on the TV show (Speed, a very cool show we watched while in Switzerland last year) was in no way scientific or emperical (their own quote at the end). One guy drove about the same after one joint. That's like drinking one beer and doing the same test. Not much of an example at all.

I imagine the effects of weed on driving are probably less dangerous than alcohol. But should we really want (more) high people driving around? We really have enough trouble with the drunk ones...

[unicycle6869]

I meant more that history is *accurate.* Putting an end to slavery was right. If it took a war to get it done, so be it. Now *there* was a real war to "protect our freedom."


I thought we were kinda talking about two different things!

Do you really know so little about people, drinking and driving? I don't have numbers handy, but many, many DUI convictions are second or higher-number offenses. Not sure of the laws in othere states, but if you are caught above the legal limit in New York (in the mid-90s) would would automatically go to jail (until arraigned). Fines and other costs associated with a conviction averaged between $4000 and $10,000. Yet people would get caught again. This is also history that should not be dismissed or ignored. That's today's reality.


I did know second and third DUI's were common but didn't realize that much. That's just sad, that's what that is. Wonder what it'd take to stop them? Maybe making booze illegal! :) That's the only thing I can think of, besides raising the fee's and or longer sentances? I mean if you knew that you'd go to jail for 5 or 10 years for getting a second DUI, I think the numbers would drastically go down.

So glad *you're* not in charge of deciding such things! BTW the "test" done on the TV show (Speed, a very cool show we watched while in Switzerland last year) was in no way scientific or emperical (their own quote at the end). One guy drove about the same after one joint. That's like drinking one beer and doing the same test. Not much of an example at all.

I imagine the effects of weed on driving are probably less dangerous than alcohol. But should we really want (more) high people driving around? We really have enough trouble with the drunk ones...


I know it wasn't scientific but I have read an article on a study that was done more in depth than that and I don't know how scientific it was, but it was much more than that video. I think they really need to start doing some research on it so we know. And not just driving but other things too like what it causes and try it smoking, eating, vaporizing, etc. Lots more research has to be done on it so we understand it more.

But I do agree with the video that when you drive stoned you pay attention more and are more paranoid so you drive safer or the same as sober. You're more aware of your surroundings and don't want to get in an accident so you make sure you drive good. I'd much rather have 100 baked drivers vs 1 drunk one!

[Gilby]

I meant more that history is *accurate.* Actual history, or written history? You have to remember that history is written by the winners, which is not accurate... he who controls the present, controls the past, he who controls the past controls the future.
Putting an end to slavery was right. Yes. But did it?
If it took a war to get it done, so be it. Is that the American mindset? War is the solution to everything... Other countries solved slavery without going to war. We could have spent less on buying all the slaves to free them than we spent on the war.
Now *there* was a real war to "protect our freedom." Unfourtunately not. A lot of the political things that happened then caused legal exploits for taking freedom away from everyone. The war was mostly about secession, not slavery. The Union side won, resulting in less sovereignty for the States. Amendments were passed, to free the slaves, one of which creates a U.S. citizen for those that were just freed (and therefore "born" in a state that was federally occupied during the war). These U.S. citizens fall under complete jurisdiction of the U.S. instead of the state, like "white men" were at the time (and legally still are). Now, that amendment is used to exploit and enslave everyone. That amendment is used to make everyone think the U.S. provides rights to them (so called civil rights) as if they are not born free. History shows that it has not protected our freedom.