Let's all get high and drown babies and quit our jobs.

Are you saying that getting high makes people drown their babies?
I've never heard of this, in fact, I've never heard of a person impaired on pot being violent.
Unless you are trying to be humorous and I missed the joke.

I am going to assume you are being facetious.

To get back on topic- I think that the more conservative elements of US political culture need to recognize that if they are truly going to be the party of little government and individual liberty then they must reject the war on drugs. It would be nice if they could help convince the Obama administration to loosen up restrictions on certain recreational drugs. It would also be a way to ensure that stoners vote Republican in 2012.

I think that's the angle Ron Paul was shooting for in '08.

I was being serious. I was wondering if you were being funny or if you were being serious. I was just asking for clarification because as I said, I've never heard of stoned people being violent, but I don't know everything. That old rule of assuming has been followed yet again.

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that the way to get pot legalized is to give individual states the right to decide, which is a Republican ideal and in this way pot smokers would go the Republican route?

Did you really pause to consider whether I thought pot made people want to drown babies?

This has nothing to do with the topic, but..
There used to be someone named Timalkin in the car club forums I belonged to and he was just as....uhm...argumentative there...used to piss people off like crazy!!!

That's all...

People are ignorant because they are choosing to be. If they'd do a little homework, there'd be no argument about pot being illegal and I'm not talking just here, but in government. There needs to be as much education as to what it IS as there was back then as to what it was not.

The post was just quite confusing to me because I thought you were being sarcastic. However, 'drowning babies' seemed a bit random. 'Quitting our jobs' followed the theme of pot smokers being lazy and lacking ambition. I was just asking for you to clarify if you thought pot made one violent.

Maybe the sentence would have been better put as:
Let's all get high and play xbox and quit our jobs.

But really, it doesn't matter. It just seemed random to me that you typed 'drown babies'. I found it a bit disturbing.

Fuck it, I want some pot, and a round of XBox with a few friends now. And all I have is my roommates' rented copy of Eagle Eye. Gah. Guess it'll be an early night.

I find him quite entertaining. Although a bit repetitive.

So what is your stand? Are you saying that it is so horrible that there would be no discussion about changing the law or that it is basically harmless and should be made legal?

I prefer it my way, it was honest the way it came out.

Sure it's disturbing, but it's just words. No more or less significant than any of the evils that have been attributed to pot smoking on this thread.

Should be made legal, taxed like booze and smokes, a part of the ATF.
It's the false history that it's horrible that government is sticking to because of people like Timalkin who believe all that false history.

In my blog I went on a tirade about the stupidity of this country's pot laws. Linked a good documentary about it too, I think.

Then your round about answer is "Yes, I think that smoking pot can cause violence."

That claim is significant because we are discussing whether pot should be legal or not. We are discussing the evils of pot and violence to others is an evil that is not normally associated with people who get stoned. That was the false argument made in the past preying on people's fear to gain support to criminalize pot. In this thread the evils have been:

• driving impaired, which is a valid argument because no one denies that pot mentally impairs you
• being lazy and lacking ambition, which is a true because a lack of motivation is a side effect of smoking pot
• being a piece of shit, which was dispelled because obviously people can be pieces of shit with or without pot

If there is something I missed or if you have examples of people committing violent acts, such as drowning babies, while under the influence of pot, please share.

---------- Post added at 02:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:03 AM ----------

That's what I was assuming, thanks for the clarification. I agree with that whole-heartedly.

You are devoting way too much energy to an honest expression of black humor. I'm sorry if you're not okay with it, but that's the breaks. I can hardly believe I am having to defend myself here, of all places.

And just for the record, I smoked pot for years and never once drowned a baby. Just in case you were wondering.

No apology necessary. I was just looking for clarification of your post as I explained in the previous response. This is a discussion thread and I was having a discussion on a topic that I thought you had more information on. You weren't being asked to defend yourself just to clarify your view. I have asked a few people to clarify their thoughts. I enjoy a direct response so I don't make assumptions. Now our discussion has come full-circle unless new information arises.

Uh, a lot of people who smoke pot could get cocaine if they wanted to. They don't do pot because it's illegal, they do it because it's a safer alternative to getting drunk, or some other reason. I have no interest in taking a drug such as cocaine, as I know it's highly addictive, and dangerous. Your arguments are ridiculous.

I clarified my view long before you said this:

Pretty intellectually dishonest (at best) based on what I have said previously on this thread not to mention the nature of my contributions overall here at the TFP.

And I wasn't apologizing to you it was a figure of speech.

He should have made it central to his campaign. And told his folks on the internet to tone it down a bit.

No. I'm saying that any party who claims to believe in limited government and individual liberty should be disgusted by the war on drugs. It was more an assumption about what it would mean if the right actually "returned to its conservative roots" in response to the failure of neoconservatism.

Actually, The Netherlands have been tightening the clamps on drugs in the past few years. Hard drugs have never been legal (though the rate of arrests for possession/use is extremely low), and now they're putting restrictions on marijuana as well. I know it's usually viewed as the magical land of open drug use, but it's really not.

Thank you for the clarification. I also think that the Right has lost it's way and am curious to see what would happen if it went back to its roots.

You people with kids: would you want for your children to smoke pot? Would you smoke pot with them? Why/not?

My uncle used to smoke pot with his son, my cousin, who I used to hang out with and thought was a pretty cool kid. He and his dad used to get high together and play chess among other things. My uncle, an anesthesiologist, used to think he was so cool and progressive like that. In my opinion as my cousin got older he lost trust and respect for his dad because his dad, in doing drugs with him, lost the moral authority and guidance that children look for in their parents. After he lost respect for his dad he started stealing things from him (stereo components, money, etc) and getting more and more into trouble. One could say the kid was just a bad kid, but Im not so sure. He always struck me as an intelligent and sensitive kid. I think the dynamic of introducing drugs into family relationships is not a good thing. Long story short, after many drug-related incidents my cousin is now in a mental institution for life.

I've had some experience with pot myself. In the long run, I think drugs make life harder not easier.

I think the same argument can be made for a parent who allows their child to drink and in order to seem cool drinks with his or her kid. My biggest issue is with people (not directed at you powerclown) who use arguments against legalizing pot that are equally valid for arguing for alcohol prohibition yet are fine with alcohol remaining a legal, controlled intoxicant.

If marijuana were legalized, it would undergo the same regulation as alcohol. Yes there would be abuses, but arguing that it would be abused is a poor argument as plenty of legal substances are abused. I just haven't heard a valid reason yet why it should remain illegal.

geez powerclown. that's an unfortuate story---and i can see from it how you'd assume that pot was at the center how things went--and maybe it was---but it also seems like there had to be other factors at play.

i've had to watch as friends of mine spun into addiction and came by steps unravelled--the worst of that was inevitably cocaine, typically cooked down one way or another. all the symptoms you describe in your cousin i saw happening amongst these folk, directly (in that i watched it happening) or indirectly (at a remove, as it happened to someone i knew)...

i don't see weed as a gateway drug to anything else--again this for many years, knowing tons of people, thinking about them as a sample. but there are folk for whom pot is a real problem, just as there are folk for whom alcohol or almost anything else is a problem. does this have to do with pot itself? in a way, sure. but it also has to do with myriad other factors: timing, where you happen to be at in your life, what you are looking for, what you feel you lack, level of self-discipline...
is it the case that pot causes problems for enough people that it is Problematic and should remain illegal?
i don't see it.

aside: it's interesting that the op is framed as making a linkage collapse of newspapers-->reconsidering pot legislation. i thought it was going to head in an entirely different direction--like print is disappearing, no need for sustained attention, so why not?

i think the origin of pot laws comes more from some puritanical pathology, the idea that you have to confront the grimness that is your dour protestant life head on and reserve any alterations in that grimness for pleading with this god character to swoop down and fix stuff. it's as if the states is 17th century salem and everywhere in power are cotton mather replicants.

The financial problems of the print media is what got me thinking about ways they could save money. Since hemp paper is cheaper, making pot legal to grow for that reason would make sense and also be ironic since they are part of the reason it became illegal along with the Mormons and their religious conservative ideals.

We can go round and round on whether it should be legal or not and I enjoy hearing people's views on this because they come from personal places. But, I'm also curious if people think legalizing pot would help our economy. Putting aside your opinions on whether it should be legalized or not, could the country be aided with the taxation of pot and save money now being spent on pot possession/trafficking/intoxication charges?

whats the obsession with taxing everything? why must people think that congress should have the power and authority to tax a naturally occurring plant?

To answer your question with a question because I'm curious: What are alternatives to the government making money?

Since as it stands that the government taxes things to make money, it makes sense that if pot were legalized it would be taxed the same as cigarettes and alcohol.

I don't know if it's so much an obsession as it is a financial decision. Money is the reason pot is illegal and money will be what legalizes it. Since the government is the body that will decide its fate (federally speaking) then it stands that it will be a monetary decision. If the government believes they can make more money legalizing it than they spend prohibiting it, the tide might turn.

At least, that's what I think.

Just because one thinks that pot should be legal does not necessarily mean that one advocates using it. I'm sure not everyone who is for legal booze and tobacco advocates drinking and smoking.

If the government is going to tax pot then it had better be very small. It is hard to compete with free. I'm sure there would be a lot of money saved if they lower the spending on drug enforcement. I suspect those currently getting funds will resist any cuts though. Maybe they will use the argument that they must continue to prosecute those growing their own and avoiding the new taxes. I wonder if the feds had their budget cut when alcohol was finally legalized?

I say ban alcohol, tobacco and drugs. I see no reason to use any of these. There are no beneficial effects from the consumption of these products. The red wine good for your heart argument? Bullshit. Eat Grapes. Need alcohol or pot as a social lubricant? Figure out why you want to be fake and not have people see you as you really are. If you don't like yourself as you are, and need to escape reality with drugs or alcohol, then you need to adjust yourself. (I am not talking about scientology).
As far as medicinal marijuana, that is fine. Doesn't mean it should be legal for everyone. My mom snorted prescribed cocaine for her broken nose as a teacher because of cocaines' anesthetic effects. I have been taking amphetamines (adderall)the past few months to try to help control my ADD. It has some beneficial effect. I don't self prescribe, I did get checked for heart rate and blood pressure to help correct the dosage.
Obviously we are not going to get alcohol banned, because too many people consume it. I do find it funny how several people have said that they no longer smoke pot. Maybe because the benefits do not outweigh the problems? How many people also slow their alcohol consumption down as they get older? Maybe if people reached some higher level of maturity before being exposed to drugs or drink, then they would never perceive the need for it on any level.
As far as not driving high, is there a way to measure objectively when a person is clear to drive safely? There are standards for BAC (whether you agree with them or not), but what is a safe level of THC measurement or whatever to determine your capacity? How long would it take to really clear out of someone's system?
One last thing, I did read somewhere years ago that 40% of all violent crimes occur under the influence of alcohol. Sounds pretty likely to me. Bar fights, domestic violence, liquid courage, all that shit. Just watch a couple of episodes of Cops to see the effects of alcohol and other drugs.

First, I like that you said alcohol, tobacco, and pot should be banned. It shows you are consistent. I think it should be all or none also. Of course, I'm on the all should be legal side of the fence. But I can see your point of view. Using any substance as a crutch is not the way to go, but if a person wants to have a drink or a smoke every once in awhile, who are we to judge. I am all for giving people choices, not dictating their lives.

Next is your section on prescription drugs. Those things scare the holy bejeezus out of me. The side effects of the majority of those drugs are often worse than the original ailment. I honestly believe that pot is safer than a majority of pharmaceutical drugs.

Next, I can't answer for other people who don't smoke anymore, but my reason for not smoking is because I don't know people to buy it from anymore. If I had access to it, I would partake every once in awhile. Obviously, young people partake in drugs and alcohol in excess because it is new, but once the novelty wears off the usage generally drops. This can be said about a lot of things though. However, unlike alcohol, I believe that pot is not a highly addictive substance. That might need fact checked.

For some reason alcohol is more socially acceptable than pot. Legalizing it would create more drug addicts, but who knows if the good (controlling/profiting from distribution, less crowded prisons perhaps, more attention spent on drug addiction treatment perhaps, less criminal activity perhaps) outweighs the bad (more drug addicts and the ramifications thereof).

That is an interesting point. For some reason, alcohol enjoys a more positive reputation than pot. I never really considered why that is. I wonder if it's because of places like bars where it was more of a social intoxicant and pot was done more in the home, in private? I'm just guessing if that's true.

Good point, though.

Where do you get the notion that legalizing it would create more drug addicts? There's no data to support it and more data to refute it.
As previously mentioned (here, I think), drugs of a stronger and more addictive nature are introduced to people many times by pushers. Those that are predisposed to addictive personality disorders will seek those out.
While withdrawal from long time regualr pot use is not pleasant, it can be compared to the withdrawal one experiences from cigarettes, ie; emotional agitation, bodily sensations, cravings and the like.

It's really quite simple: Eliminate the illegality of pot and you will eliminate the majority of its associated crime, including cartel violence, territory conflicts, robbery (many break-ins occur to get either the proceeds from the pot sales or the pot itself). You then decrease the numbers of imprisoned in our country's jails. This week's Parade magazine addresses this very issue. We are overcrowding our prison system with people who did nothing but sell or possess weed. Even decriminalizing it would go a long way to reduce so many things taxpayers support-court systems would cease being overburdened, jails wouldn't be bursting at the seams and cops would have more time and resources to truly protect and serve. It's really a no-brainer.

You're missing the point, but i'm guessing that this is mainly due to the fact that you haven't been alive as long as pot has been 'prohibited'.

What i'm getting at is that somehow, people have been led to believe that the federal government has the power to prohibit you from planting, growing, harvesting, and smoking for your own personal usage, a naturally occurring plant. How is this?

Source

Pretty fucking stupid, eh?

I'm one of those who believe that pot is a gateway drug.

there's no data to support the idea that marijuana is a gateway drug.
statistical correlations still favor milk over marijuana--not all junkies have smoked pot, but all have had milk.

It is hard to imagine that sales of any product that is made more widely available would fall. Therefore any honest proponent of legalization should assume that drug-taking as a whole would rise.

it's hard to say, yes? if an activity is illegal, it stands to reason that there'd be not alot of data about the actual economy, but only about stuff like arrests and maybe another register about supply that the dea or local cops would know about---but even there, there are real problems of data sharing and compatibility.

i would think that california would be interesting to get actual data about. and i would think that while there might be a rise initially, in the short-to-medium run, you'd probably see levels of purchase level out. that's what i think would happen anyway.

as for usage rates and amounts, i don't know how you'd measure that in any context.