It is all going to pot...
 

but here is one solution.

With the failing newspaper industry, I think that pot can be made legal once more. One of the main supporters, William Randolf Hearst, had invested in the timber industry and didn't want to lose money by hemp being the main paper source because of it's quick growing time which lowered the price. So he ran slanted stories in his newspaper playing on people's fears of reefer-madness killing sprees and what else but those pesky, dangerous Mexicans.

People are still terrified of Mexicans, especially with the current drug cartel situation. Ironically, this is coming to front as the medical marijuana arguments are continuing.

I think that making pot legal would help our economy through the taxation, lower the crime, and aid the failing print media by lowering the cost of production. It would also create jobs. It could hurt pharmaceutical companies, but they screw enough people so what goes around comes around. Plus, some people take things way too seriously and need to light up and lighten up.

I don't understand the reason it is still illegal except that there are big money players fighting to keep it illegal so they can keep their riches, especially in this economy, and they are playing on old fears that people still have.

Enlighten me with you thoughts. Or your alternative way of helping out the country while it flailing about with no straight plan except throwing around more money and talking points.

..

What the hell does this have to do with firearms?

Did I miss where this discussion was about banning firearms?

The drug war is incredibly profitable. It's an industry. Until that industry can be overthrown, marijuana (and by extension, for no reason, hemp) will be illegal.

You overthrow the industry by getting legalization on ballots and making sure people are informed.

What happens when the government just ignores the will (get it? will?) of the people, as in California?

You mean if.

If the federal government chooses to deny the will of Californians, they could end up alienating both liberals and conservatives. Conservatives may not agree on marijuana, but they are together on states vs. federal government. Now that they can't unite under a "GOP persona", like Bush, there's a better chance they'll be desperately adhering to their principles and ideologies. Like small government.

Some of us are perfectly capable of using marijuana while still being productive citizens. Some are not. I imagine some people are just not capable of being productive citizens period, so I don't see what an individual's productivity has to do with marijuana use, especially when medical use of marijuana allows patients who use it to remain more productive than they otherwise might be--whatever "productive" means.

I'd love to see it legalized. I think it could be a huge source of revenue for state governments. I think it would reduce the number of non-violent offenders entering our legal system, where they often get tossed in with violent offenders. I think it would keep us from wasting money on a drug war we never had a chance to win. I think it would reduce crime by allowing people to purchase their marijuana from somewhere besides these Mexican drug cartels.

As for those who would claim a black market would pop up if it were legalized, I doubt it. Most everyone I've talked to who enjoys the MJ would prefer to get it through legal means. It would be less of a pain in the ass. Prices would also probably drop, even if it were heavily taxed, as growers, middlemen, and dealers inflate prices. As for legalization/ease of access increasing use, I doubt that too. It's pretty prevalent in our society already, especially where I live. I would prefer that it be out in the open.

Make it legal for people who pay over $10,000/year in taxes. They can grow their own, or get it from approved government controled farms/consfications by police. Make rules saying they can't drive while high or have more than 5 people gathered to smoke. New parents would be banned from smoking, and leave it up to the states to choose if they want to legalize it in their state (and follow the federal rules). And make sure to tax it appropriatly.

And shut down those pot stores. Medical pot should be made by registered labs and FDA approved, and sold through the pharmacy network to people who really need it in a small quantities for personal use.

I think timalkin is confused about correlations between smoking marijuana and being a productive member of society (whatever that means).

Attitudes like his are partly the reason it's still illegal.

I hope it does get legalized, not only because it makes sense to legalize it, but also because I find the massive amount of self righteous sophistry that generally dominates both sides of the discussion (not in this thread) to be obnoxious.

First off, I'm glad to see the pub discussions back!

Second, maybe it would help if more states were as easy going as Oregon. I mean it's easy to get medicinal marijuana there, as well as legal (snowy can elaborate) as long as it's a personal amount. I mean wtf is pot really hurting? There are already laws against driving while high..and the war on drugs is one big conspiracy. The government should take a more transparent stance and allow at least marijuana to be legal under certain conditions.

I kinda like how Bill Hicks puts it

How would it be controlled to people who only pay $10,000/year in taxes? I think the people who make the least amount the money should get pleasures in life such as intoxicating products. It makes the idea that their life is shitty less prominent. That's why there is the saying 'you have a tear in your beer'. Now there would be a high in your low.

Also, why no more than 5 people congregated to smoke? Elaborate please...

..

God grows Grass. Man distills liquor
Who do you trust?

Just exactly how many times have you died because someone else smoked pot?

timalkin: would it be fair to say that you are also for the prohibition of alcohol then, since so many people die each year due to drunk drivers? And what about second-hand smoke? Sounds like you might be for the prohibition of cigarettes as well.

jesus, timalkin. and I thought I had a sour outlook on humanity.

I support the legalization of marijuana for all of the reasons that snowy accounted for up there.

I also take exception with the idea that pot 'makes' people anything. Maybe you just know too many lazy, directionless pieces of shit in general.

trans fats cause so many heart attacks, and some of those people are driving.
Perhaps the fast food should be prohibited as well?

---------- Post added at 02:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:33 PM ----------

coming from mixedmedia, that is really saying something........ wow

Neither. God also grows hemlock and poisonous mushrooms.

neither I can accept....

So you're against caffeine, alcohol, and chocolate? All of those have intoxicating effects so they should be outlawed too, right?

I know a lot of people who don't use pot and are lazy, directionless, no ambition pieces of shit.

I think the criminalization of pot is idiotic. The amount of tax revenue that comes in, not to mention the reduction in crime and the ability to help damage the cartels that are dependent on that revenue. Right now, lawmakers outlaw pot as a treatment for people who desperately need the relief pot would give them, but cannot. At the same time, opiates such as morphine are routinely prescribed, and rightly so. I just don't understand why pot is so demonized.

Note: This comes from someone that has never even tried pot.

From your stand on this, I can't imagine that you were friends with anyone who ever ingested pot. Therefore, I'm not sure where you are getting your opinions from. They are quite stereotypical.

I think that you're arguments are quite a slippery slope. Anything can kill everyone. In fact, junk food clogs arteries and causes many health problems. So, perhaps, junk food needs be overly taxed to off-set health-care costs.

In fact, driving without sunglasses when the sun is out can abstract the driver's vision and I could get run over. Make that illegal, dammit.

Now that I think about it, don't people get an adrenaline rush from shooting a gun. And those things can *really* kill people. Yup, you're right. Since we're working with stereotypes here, I'll respond to your original reply.

I am one of those people that would rather have lazy, directionless, no ambition piece of shit around rather than an irate, intolerant, paranoid gun-toter.

Same here, and I too am for the legalization of marijuana. For one thing, I can't in good conscience believe in a different set of rules for marijuana and alcohol when, at best, alcohol is just as bad, and in reality is probably worse. And then, of course, there are all the other reasons stated in this thread.

timalkin: There are a lot of pieces of shit who smoke marijuana. And a lot of pieces of shit who don't. There are productive members of society who abstain, and productive members of society who partake. One of the greatest astronomers and public educators of modern times - Carl Sagan - was a frequent user of marijuana and even an advocate for its legalization. In fact, his wife serves on the Board of Directors of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

..

Great, we agree that driving impaired is wrong. What the hell does that have to do with the legalization of pot?

yours is a surprising position timalkin: i figured you'd be more likely a consistent libertarian.

my basic position on this has already been summed up pretty well above.

what i guess is worth repeating is that i don't see where pot makes anyone anything insofar as basic tendencies or dispositions are concerned. i've known more people than i can count who've smoked: nothing in particular seems to be common to them. some are exceding direct, some aren't. some smoke once in a while, some do the wake-and-bake, but even within the latter group, i know a pretty wide range of folk. so if my experience is any guide, i think timalkin is trafficking in stereotypes more than conclusions reached on the basis of contact---but who knows, i could be wrong and he is one of those folk who travels in circles that do not include many folk who smoke and those that do are typically as he says. but if there's such wide variation in experience and information, even in this thread, it stands to reason that your position is particular, tim, a function of the social networks you've moved through and move through, and that's as far as it goes.

but what i really don't understand is: on what possible basis can altered states of consciousness be understood as necessarily a bad thing?
and what exactly is a non-altered state?
the more i think about it, the more problematic that becomes--i'm not sure it makes any sense at all.

I think pot should not be illegal but don't expect to make much money through taxation. The stuff is too easy to grow and it will be grown everywhere and be very cheap.

IIRC, we spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $77,000,000,000 a year on the drug war (law enforcement, judicial, prison, and the theoretical lost profits on taxes). Even if you are ill-informed enough to think the prohibition keeps people safe, I can't imagine someone justifying lost monies of $77b considering the $11t—and growing—deficit.

I would imagine they said this about moonshine as prohibition was ending. What percentage of the alcohol market do you suppose is moonshine? .001%? .0001%?

Edit: it occurs to me that there was already an alcohol infrastructure before prohibition, whereas there has been none for drugs like marijuana for quite a long time, but even with this hitch I think my argument stands.

Hemp as a textile? I'm down with that.
Medical applications of THC? I'm down with that.
Recreational use of marijuana? Couldn't care less.

I gave up smoking weed a decade ago. I just grew out of it. In my experience (and ONLY in my experience), people who smoke are generally, but not always, dullards. I have yet to meet anyone who is more "creative" or "enlightened" because of their use of marijuana; if anything, the "talent" that they feel is accentuated by their use of marijuana is crap.

Best use of pot? If I wanted to keep a population docile and obedient, I'd keep them high.

I still have friends who smoke, and it doesn't bother me. They're free to do whatever they want; I don't respect them any less. After all, I still have a couple of drinks a month, never to the point of intoxication anymore, but an occasional bourbon or Guinness. But I don't really care if marijuana is ever legalized.

Distilling and making booze is much more difficult than growing pot. My grandfather (and father when he was a boy) made beer which helped them get through the depression during prohibition and it took quite a bit of work. From what those who grow pot tell me, it is very easy and requires little attention.

I believe that many involved in the so called "war on drugs" are against legalization because they perceive a loss of jobs and/or enforcement money. As you pointed out, there should be quite a bit of savings there.

I can see your point with that, but I counter with: Cooking is easy to do, but restaurants and microwave meals exist. People don't seem to be ambitious (impaired or not) to do things themselves when they can get it quickly without much effort. Sure, there would be people that would grow their own pot, just like there are people who make home-cooked meals, grow their own herbs and vegetable gardens, and brew their own beer. However, the need for the easy way will always be around. I think that the tax money would add up. The argument lies in the high probability that it will be used irresponsibly like the rest of it.

timalkin, your argument is that people will endanger you if they are impaired on marijuana or otherwise. That is not a valid argument because a person can endanger you at anytime and for any reason. The only way to protect yourself from that is to live in an isolated area. People who are irresponsible will be irresponsible in any given situation. Therefore, your argument is moot.

Heck just tax and legalize it. The "war on drugs" failed two decades ago. While your at it do away with all the illegal search and seizures that this ridiculously long drawn out failed war has brought along with it.

I don't think the framers of the Constitution ever intended for morality to be legislated.

maybe you are right hasn't put much of a dent in the hooker trade...

If anyone really thinks pot is harmless, they obviously aren't paying attention to Mexico right now. It's easy to justify using pot when it doesn't harm YOU by smoking it (which is still not an open/shut case, as inhaling any kind of smoke is harmful), but unless you grew that pot yourself or know who did, a great many people may have been "hurt" in order for you to get high.

Pot doesn't kill people. People kill people.

If pot were legal, people wouldn't kill people over pot.

It's because it's illegal. It has nothing to do what pot does to you. It's entirely because it's profitable. If it's made legal, there's no reason for it to be brought in by criminals.

..

No, that is not why it is illegal. Read up on your history.

Relatively few due to most people staying indoors due to being scared shitless of being shot in the street by all of the mob wars over bootlegging.

..

So, taking your logic, we should ban anything that gives any sort of pleasure? No chocolate because of the effect of endorphines in the brain? Let the drug runners start a Nestle run?

Seriously, your slippery slope argument is weak at best. By that logic, anything wrongfully made illegal should be left that way just because legalizing anything else could follow.

..

I'm guessing sarcasm needs to be banned now too. ;)

..

Interesting. Since this thread is more about the drug trade involved with marijuana's prohibition, I think you've made a great point. How many people were killed during Prohibition as a result of Prohibition itself? I think that's a more apt argument than the impaired driving argument.

I don't have the number of DWIs during prohibition, and luckily, since this is a pub discussion, as per the rules of the pub discussion, I don't have to research this. But for the sake of argument, I'm going to say 15,492.

After a few twix bars, I get a little nutty.

..

Yes, unnecessary deaths are always a good thing when something harmless is kept illegal.

It wouldn't be a price we'd be paying at all if marijuana were legalized. Have you looked into the history of its prohibition? It's quite an interesting story and has absolutely nothing to do with its perceived dangers. It was criminalized in 1937, I believe. Imagine how long it existed as an entirely legal substance up to that point. I wonder what happened around that time.

Any idea?

Really? So interesting, since George Washington was a hemp farmer and grew marijuana for his personal use. The same is said about Thomas Jefferson.

Authors William F. Buckley, Stephen King, and Carl Sagan can be added to that list.

Comedians Jon Stewart, George Carlin, Bill Maher, Jack Black, Rodney Dangerfield, Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong.

Not a single one of those persons was lazy or can be described by your stereotype.

As an ex pot smoker I did alot during my 20+ pot smoking years, never hurt a single individual and was always gainfully employed at a high salary.

legalize it already.

You're right, it's certainly more difficult. Still, individuals can't mass produce drugs like marijuana, cocaine, mushrooms, or acid. It is cheaper to mass produce and that leads to lower prices passed on to the consumer as well as quality control. My guess is that the same reason that factories won out during the industrial revolution would similarly lead to mass production winning out over the individual (for the most part) in this case.

Look at it this way: how many people grow their own food?

Do you realize you amuse me so?

Again, you are saying the same words. So, let me rephrase my words. I'll break it down so it is easier for you to comprehend.

1) Driving impaired means be hindered in some way to drive safely. This can be because you are:

a) intoxicated by some substance
b) unable to see clearly
c) receiving oral sex
d) talking on a cell phone
e) engaged in any other behavior that lowers your driving ability

2) I understand that you don't want anyone to harm you out of their stupidity or irresponsibility. Many people feel the same way. However, the legalization of marijuana really has nothing to do with this. Why do I say this? Because:

a) People will harm you whether intoxicated or not
b) If people are irresponsible, they are irresponsible

3) This is a bit new, but I'm throwing it in anyway to add some spice to our interchange. Perhaps, you should be a bit open-minded about this...just a bit, let a little draft in. I am terrified of guns, but I respect that people enjoy guns and feel safer with them around so I would never fight to have them made illegal. Guns are dangerous and used irresponsibly they kill people. Alcohol is legal and enjoyed by many people. Not everyone who gets drunk kills people through negligence. The same would go for pot. But the choice should be available. Pot was made illegal in quite a bogus way. Not because it was dangerous to partake in, but because there was a group of people who had a financial interest in seeing it made illegal.

..

You do realize that studies have found that marijuana users are, in fact, either just as likely or less likely to be in accidents as non-impaired people, right? (Well, those credible studies that actually take into account when the person involved hasn't been well over the legal BAC level, anyway.)

The bigger threat is cell phone use while driving. More than 4,500 people die and more than 330,000 are seriously injured due to accidents caused by cell phones every year.

---------- Post added at 08:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:28 PM ----------

FYI: at that time, marijuana was grown for its industrial value as hemp and as a soil stabilizer. I think you need to at least run a quick google search from now on before blasting out whatever random "facts" pop into your head so you don't keep ruining your arguments by proving yourself to be consistently wrong.

..

Remember, one may leave the pub to do a bit of research. Just paraphrase it and bring it back in your own words. I'd hate for your papers to get sloppy at the bar. Someone will always be here to carry on the conversation. Everyone needs a breather from time to time.

Sorry, carry on with the previous topic of discussion.

What the fuck does purpose have to with this?

..

my how you leap to conclusions so quickly. No one said that.... you said that all smokers of pot are lazy. See how broad stroked generalizations work?

I NEVER drove high once. Never drove drunk either. So how many did I endanger? ZERO.

In fact, I moved to a city where I could stand on the street and wave my hand an a yellow vehicle stops and picks me up and whisks me home, safe and sound. I can't speak for the driver, he's usually an Arab, so maybe he's a terrorist, you know the kind that blew up the WTC and Pentagon.... Oooh scary!!!!

Yeah, I figured you say that about the founding fathers, take some time to read about them. Learn your history. Jefferson was a slave owner too you know.... oooooh bad man!!!!!

Learn about Lincolnd, it is written that he had a medical condition and he enjoyed smoking indian hemp.

---------- Post added at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 PM ----------

also, note that the law required that all land owners to grow hemp plants, X amount of plants per acre of land.

Take note during that time, land owners were the only people allowed to vote.

Gosh Golly!!!! Stoned voters!!!!

..

The wonderful thing about living in a supposedly free country is that you don't have to prove that something isn't dangerous to legalize it, you have prove it is harmful to ban it.

So, pray tell, in your daily routines is everything that you do beneficial?

..

Did anyone else have the thought that there might have been fewer DWIs during intoxication because perhaps there were fewer vehicles at that time than there are now? :rolleyes: Just curious.

Just FYI, if you haven't had one for awhile, a cigarette can make you majorly lightheaded and almost cause blackouts. I used to get vertigo if I tried a red (I smoked ultra lights) and more than once had to sit down or stop what I was doing for several minutes. I knew better than to do it while driving. Nicotine rushes are unpleasant and did impact the functioning of my brain on a frequent basis. And I do know that I'm not the only one.

I'm curious... How do you, TFP, define "Medical Usage" or "Medical Purposes"?
Does that include mental health? Because I know plenty of people with severe anxiety disorders, clinical depression and several other clinical diagnoses that use marijuana for treatment, despite the lack of prescription. For them, it worked better than being on numerous other psychotropic medications and they were a heck of a lot more functional after smoking pot than ingesting a xanax.
Most people agree that Marinol is doing wonders for chemo patients... but few realize that if you take more than the required dose, you can still get stoned. I'm taking the word of several teenage patients with Osteosarcoma who admitted to smoking weed prior to the rx of Marinol. So I can only go by their word. But, they still swear to it. And you can tell. :)

Well, I'm for legalization. In all forms and for all reasons, actually. There will always be people that abuse anything... we have to buy cold medicine from the pharmacist now and I got carded for buying spraypaint and rubber cement. Someone will always be stupid and do something under the influence of something that will make people gasp in horror and want to do away with that Thing. But it's a hell of a lot cheaper to legalize it if you look at decreasing amounts of insurance payouts for drugs of all kinds, decreasing the DEA salaries and war on drugs funding like several people noted, and decreasing the number of people that are taking up space in the jails and on probation lists for having just enough to qualify for "intent to sell."
Come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody gather 'round, try to love one another right now... :lol:

When you say that the ones that you know, and then generalize it to the general population, you are in effect saying EVERYONE.

You really need to find a better class of person to hang out with, I mean seriously, take a look at your friends, if you know that many pieces of shit.

As for this discussion, that's about all I have to say to you on this subject, kind of hard to have a discussion when only one side is willing to listen, and judging from your posts in this thread, you're not willing.

..

I am for legalization in some ways, then not in others.

I agree that some people may benefit from its use - for medical reasons. I also think that others will not benefit from it at all, on the contrary. I know plenty of people who are depressed and in a rut and the pot smoking doesn't help - it seems to make them more indulgent in their misery at times. Sure, some people smoke it and are fine.

One of my main reservations is that in teens, marijuana seems like a good way to come into contact with other, harder drugs. This doesn't mean that because they smoke pot, they will take other drugs. But it does increase the risk somewhat.

I have never smoked pot so I can't really say much on this topic. My 2 cents.

This made me chuckle, they'll come in contact with harder drugs, but they won't take them because they smoke pot, but it increases the risk they will take them........now that's what I call riding the fence on the gateway drug argument.:lol:

The gateway drug stuff only happens because the people selling the drugs are drug dealers who sell things like cocaine etc. If people aren't forced to go to a drug dealing looking to push something more hardcore and addictive, then they are less likely to move on to the hardcore drugs.

The gateway drug argument is an interesting one. Also the argument of peer pressure. Obviously, peer pressure exists as well as people who take a wide array of drugs, but putting all the blame on pot is another argument to cause fear.

When I was a teen, I was around pot for a few months before I actually smoked it. It was never pushed onto me and my friends were cool with the fact that I didn't partake. I started to smoke pot because i was curious about it and felt that I was ready. There was never any pressure though.

When I smoked pot, I never had an opportunity to partake in cocaine or heroin, I never saw those drugs. There was acid available, but I was actually told that I couldn't take it. Go figure out that one. People who take drugs who actually care about other people's well-being?

I'm for the legalization of all drugs. Decrease crime. Clear out prisons. Increase tax venue. I'm an extremist on it, and I'm ok with that. Punish people (and severely) who make bad choices when they use drugs. People can make their own choices about what they do to themselves. Legalizing it puts money back into the system, gives some level of quality control and allows people who have their drugs stolen to have legal recourse instead of going and shooting everyone.

People, writ large, don't agree with that, but whatever.

Pot, in particular, is less physically harmful than tobacco and alcohol and has a less severe psychological impact that being drunk. It's illegal because of simple racism. People seriously were worried that migrant workers would smoke it and wouldn't do work if they could and/or that native americans and blacks would smoke it and come assault nice white families. There are records on the books of numerous states to back that fact up. The ad campaigns against weed are just hilarious in their gross levels of misinformation.

Your arguments against legalizing marijuana, timalkin, are, frankly, dated and inconsistent. If you want to have an irrational fear of the drug, that's fine. Don't impose it on the rest of us.

I think it's called a gateway drug because people inclined to do "hard drugs" often start with MJ because it's much more available.
I've smoked pot for years, and haven't tried anything harder; To be honest, I know many people that smoke pot and are doing just fine, getting up in the morning, working many hours, preparing a successful career. As for myself, I wouldn't call myself successful, or happy with where I am in life, and might even be what tim refers to as an aimless, lazy asshole, or whatever, but it's not because of marijuana.

I've actually made a few important realizations about my life while on pot, which has helped me shift some things around for the better.
I think it's because it opens up the thought process a bit, and there can be more that comes up from the subconscious part of the mind, because thoughts seem to flow more uninhibited and uninterrupted while high. If I could describe my experience, it'd be like a monologue in your head, with some thoughts that are interesting, and some that are stupid (since the "filters" seem to be less present somehow). I realize how "typical stoner"-ish this last paragraph might sound, but you wouldn't really know if you haven't tried.
And just FYI, I'd never drive while high.

They had a huge ally in William Randolph Hearst who was more than happy to run fabricated stories of black men raping white women while crazed-out on this drug called Marijuana (back then, most people referred to it as cannabis. The Spanish name Marijuana hadn't caught on and wasn't widely known to be synonymous with cannabis).

But, why let a little truth get in the way of hyperbole and fear-mongering when it's so obvious that the idea that some people might actually enjoy getting high is reason enough to keep it illegal.

Is there a country with a similar government system to ours that has fully legalized drugs? I'm curious how they deal with it.



And as for my earlier comment (about pot not being harmless due to cartels)....yes, I know it's because it's illegal. I'm not a moron. My point was that for the past 20 years, most people I know who argued vehemently for pot always used the "pot is harmless" argument, and I'm just saying that under the current set of laws, it isn't.

Exactly. Legalize it and it will be harmless. And going based on the numbers in the Netherlands, their crime rate across the board is much lower in the world rankings than the US.

milk is a gateway drug. most junkies have had it.

and i think when chocolate first arrived in europe, like 16-17th century, people were getting fucked up drinking it.
look what happened to them.
just saying.

I was going to say that beer/wine was the gateway drug, from there it leads to scotch, vodka, rum, tequila, gin, whiskey, rye.....

However, those are made from grains, so would it be fair to say that breads are gateway drug? Of course, wine is made from grapes. Those brown bag lunches with peanut butter and grape jelly sandwiches are starting off elementary kids into the land of booze.

i maintain that it has to be milk that leads our youth astray, introducing by way of it's icky white viscousness them to temptations that lead straight down the pathway to perdition.

I blame cellular respiration, specifically the Krebs Cycle, for acting as a facilitator of all substance abuse.

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.