marijuana should be legal?

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Comanche
I am just curious if anyone here had children or has children would want their 5 year old son or daughter doing any of these drugs. Suppose that we legalize the drugs suggested here. You have them in your house, and you know how kids are. They see you doing it, why can't they?

Our society started out on a certain level of morality and ideology. And we are slowly going to one where everything is allowed. Seems like that happened in history a couple of time before and look where they are. In Science there is a term that suggest going from a well structure system to one that is less organized. Can't think of the word right now. By suggesting that we legalize drugs that is just what is happening here.

most likely you are trying to evoke the old bs about the romans. Suffice it to say that hedonism was alive and well and the republic and empire bloomed, and then was repressed as the empire fell. Not that there was any correlation between the two anyways.

america did the same, like dave simmons mentioned you used to be able to do all sorts of things, and these myths that you have in your head just aren't true.

That's false.

The Roman Empire collapsed because their never-ending pursuit of indulgence eventually toppled their pursuit of power. Abortion was at its peak near the fall, as was everything else that resembled self-pleasure practices.

How else do you think they were conquered by the barbaric Vandals?

America and Europe are on the same path.

 

[Mavtek3100]

I have a 2 year old and another 1 on the way. Legalize it, tax it, regulate it. That way I know my kids won't be able to get it and we'll get revenue from it. Or at least I know there will be protections in place for their not to be an underground market because then the government will have incentive to not allow this to happen because they will depend on the tax dollars from the tax on the stuff.

Honestly I think it's very safe to say the war on drugs has failed miserably. It's obvious as well that prohibition has yet again failed. What a shocker! The answer is legalization.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Comanche
I am just curious if anyone here had children or has children would want their 5 year old son or daughter doing any of these drugs. Suppose that we legalize the drugs suggested here. You have them in your house, and you know how kids are. They see you doing it, why can't they?

Our society started out on a certain level of morality and ideology. And we are slowly going to one where everything is allowed. Seems like that happened in history a couple of time before and look where they are. In Science there is a term that suggest going from a well structure system to one that is less organized. Can't think of the word right now. By suggesting that we legalize drugs that is just what is happening here.

most likely you are trying to evoke the old bs about the romans. Suffice it to say that hedonism was alive and well and the republic and empire bloomed, and then was repressed as the empire fell. Not that there was any correlation between the two anyways.

america did the same, like dave simmons mentioned you used to be able to do all sorts of things, and these myths that you have in your head just aren't true.

That's false.

The Roman Empire collapsed because their never-ending pursuit of indulgence eventually toppled their pursuit of power. Abortion was at its peak near the fall, as was everything else that resembled self-pleasure practices.

How else do you think they were conquered by the barbaric Vandals?

America and Europe are on the same path.

no, thats the 19th century Victorian interpretation, which really isn't credible in fact or logic. The roman empire faced many large scale systemic problems, none of which had anything to do with any sort of hedonism that may or may not have been occurring.

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Comanche
I am just curious if anyone here had children or has children would want their 5 year old son or daughter doing any of these drugs. Suppose that we legalize the drugs suggested here. You have them in your house, and you know how kids are. They see you doing it, why can't they?

Our society started out on a certain level of morality and ideology. And we are slowly going to one where everything is allowed. Seems like that happened in history a couple of time before and look where they are. In Science there is a term that suggest going from a well structure system to one that is less organized. Can't think of the word right now. By suggesting that we legalize drugs that is just what is happening here.

most likely you are trying to evoke the old bs about the romans. Suffice it to say that hedonism was alive and well and the republic and empire bloomed, and then was repressed as the empire fell. Not that there was any correlation between the two anyways.

america did the same, like dave simmons mentioned you used to be able to do all sorts of things, and these myths that you have in your head just aren't true.

That's false.

The Roman Empire collapsed because their never-ending pursuit of indulgence eventually toppled their pursuit of power. Abortion was at its peak near the fall, as was everything else that resembled self-pleasure practices.

How else do you think they were conquered by the barbaric Vandals?

America and Europe are on the same path.

no, thats the 19th century Victorian interpretation, which really isn't credible in fact or logic. The roman empire faced many large scale systemic problems, none of which had anything to do with any sort of hedonism that may or may not have been occurring.

wrong.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Legalize it and treat it much like alcohol.

We spend billions of dollars every year trying to keep it out of our borders and can't even keep it out of our schools.

:thumbsup:

Since theres a huge work force of jobs that try to regulate it, many of those people would be out of a job if marijuana were to become legalized.

 

[teclis1023]

I have never used any drugs for religious reasons, but I have no strong feelings about marijuana. I see it along the lines of alcohol - it can be destructive and idiotic, or it can be fun and responsibly used. Legalize it and reap the tax benefits.

 

[piasabird]

You are a coward.

I dont see it as much different from alcohol or tobacco. It just happens to be illegal. The biggest problem is one state will let it slide and then another state will press federal charges against you. There is not equal application of the law. If the Federal Govt says it is a Federal crime, then the states should not be able to make it a misdemeanor. This just confuses people.

If you legalized it, maybe we can get some tax money from it.

People that sell drugs are always killing people, so there is no such thing as a non-violent drug offender or crime. Even people that abuse Alcohol kill people in their cars.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Comanche
People do have a right to do with their bodies what they want, but remember that no man is an island and the things that you do to yourself in some way affects society on a whole. You may say that you did you drugs in your house and no one was harmed. It harms the economy when you burn your money like that. Instead of producing something tangible, it went up in smoke. If you get in a car wreck it costs society in lost production because you may be off work for a while.

You have to realize that there is something out there greater than "the law". It is possible that the for the good of society might fill that bill but I am not sure. People only obey the law because they will be punished otherwise. When you do something for the good of society, or don't do something for the good of society, you have reached that higher ground, or enlightenment.

When you say that you have the right to do to yourself what you want to, you are thinking like a child.

Replace pot with liquor and smoking with drinking. Your point is very flawed to say the least.

..the flaw and problem is the desire to intoxicate. if you feel a need to get dizzy you have a problem.

And the desire to wield power over others is how you satisfy your desire to intoxicate. Which, I wonder, is less harmful?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Comanche

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Comanche
We have a hard enough time trying to keep alcohol out of the hands of minors, let alone doubling the problem with legalizing drugs.

Do you really want to have that many more people driving cars down the road stoned? It is bad enough as it is.

Wow... faulty logic FTL.

No, by legalizing these drugs, you are making them mainstream and making access to them all that much easier. Think about it, these drugs are illegal and access is restricted to the black market. Make them legal where you can buy them over a counter and it will increase the number of people who will missuse them. Alcohol is the perfect example. I would wager to bet that during prohibition that drunk driving was substantially reduced. I don't want to get into the increase in illegal activity here either. By legalizing a drug and making it mainstream you are opening society up to greater ills than what we see now.

Wrong on every level. Marijuana has already become mainstream during its prohibition, access is unrestricted because black markets cannot be regulated, black markets encourage illegal activities in other areas, legalization has never been shown to increase use, and alcohol use went up during prohibition.
And your drunk driving analogy is retarded. US and British government studies have actually proven that people drive better under the influence of marijuana. The reason is simple: alcohol impairs judgment while marijuana causes users to be more cautious.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Comanche
I am just curious if anyone here had children or has children would want their 5 year old son or daughter doing any of these drugs. Suppose that we legalize the drugs suggested here. You have them in your house, and you know how kids are. They see you doing it, why can't they?

Our society started out on a certain level of morality and ideology. And we are slowly going to one where everything is allowed. Seems like that happened in history a couple of time before and look where they are. In Science there is a term that suggest going from a well structure system to one that is less organized. Can't think of the word right now. By suggesting that we legalize drugs that is just what is happening here.

And I am just curious is you have ever gone to a public school in America. Due to the absence of regulation caused by prohibition, marijuana is typically much easier for teenagers to acquire than alcohol. Drug dealers don't card.

Also, kindly don't invoke morality, ideology, and science while playing the "think of the children" card. Every poster here in favor of legalization has also spoken in favor of regulating it similar to alcohol.

 

[BW86]

no poll? Legalize and treat it like alcohol

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Comanche
I am just curious if anyone here had children or has children would want their 5 year old son or daughter doing any of these drugs. Suppose that we legalize the drugs suggested here. You have them in your house, and you know how kids are. They see you doing it, why can't they?

Our society started out on a certain level of morality and ideology. And we are slowly going to one where everything is allowed. Seems like that happened in history a couple of time before and look where they are. In Science there is a term that suggest going from a well structure system to one that is less organized. Can't think of the word right now. By suggesting that we legalize drugs that is just what is happening here.

most likely you are trying to evoke the old bs about the romans. Suffice it to say that hedonism was alive and well and the republic and empire bloomed, and then was repressed as the empire fell. Not that there was any correlation between the two anyways.

america did the same, like dave simmons mentioned you used to be able to do all sorts of things, and these myths that you have in your head just aren't true.

That's false.

The Roman Empire collapsed because their never-ending pursuit of indulgence eventually toppled their pursuit of power. Abortion was at its peak near the fall, as was everything else that resembled self-pleasure practices.

How else do you think they were conquered by the barbaric Vandals?

America and Europe are on the same path.

no, thats the 19th century Victorian interpretation, which really isn't credible in fact or logic. The roman empire faced many large scale systemic problems, none of which had anything to do with any sort of hedonism that may or may not have been occurring.

wrong.

Sorry, but this is unreasonable. The Roman Empire failed, like all great civilized governments, by economic factors. Now you can argue that morally weak leaders chose poorly, or selfishly, which accelerated their disintegration, but the fact of the matter is that the Roman Empire fell apart because they couldn't maintain the size of their borders with the budget and organization that they had, pure economics at work. A prime contributor to this was the richest of the rich holding desperately to their wealth, and not applying it much to the masses, leading to discontent and apathy amongst the common people that actually made the gears turn in the empire's economy. If you take it to extremes, Julius Caesar probably did it best, and Nero the worst, as far as keeping the general populace satiated and involved. General morality didn't change much, but the management changed drastically, and that affected the confidence of the population. Regardless, you can't hire soldiers or fund forward bases without investment and return, taxation and commitment.

 

[Modelworks]

One of the people responsible for some drugs becoming illegal said in the 1960's that it was the worst decision he and the country ever made.
Its caused crime, deaths, overcrowding of prisons.

If it were legal, the profit margin becomes next to nothing.

The reason they will not legalize it now is because it would cause chaos.
They would have to release all those people in jail on possession charges, plus all the lawsuits from people who served time for possession.

 

[Noobtastic]

Sorry, but this is unreasonable. The Roman Empire failed, like all great civilized governments, by economic factors.

I agree that economic lackings played an important role, but are you honestly suggesting economic factors were the sole reason why the Vandals were able to consume the Roman Empire?

These were people with stick and stones, no organized militarizes, and laws bound by rituals, religion, and tradition.

Now you can argue that morally weak leaders chose poorly, or selfishly, which accelerated their disintegration, but the fact of the matter is that the Roman Empire fell apart because they couldn't maintain the size of their borders with the budget and organization that they had, pure economics at work.

But why couldn't they maintain their borders? What happened to their budget?

A prime contributor to this was the richest of the rich holding desperately to their wealth, and not applying it much to the masses, leading to discontent and apathy amongst the common people that actually made the gears turn in the empire's economy.

I disagree. There was always a fine gap between the rich and the poor, but the slaves compensated as did foreign labor. Are you seriously suggesting that an apathetic populous resulted in transforming a super power into such a weak nation that even baboons could attack without trouble?

Give me a break.

If you take it to extremes, Julius Caesar probably did it best, and Nero the worst, as far as keeping the general populace satiated and involved.

So what.

General morality didn't change much, but the management changed drastically, and that affected the confidence of the population.

General morality never changed, but common activities and cycling stopped because of it. Rome had existed for centuries, they had the most powerful military in the world. They dropped their necessities in the name of indulgence. They slowed military recruitment and the populous turned to activities that did not contribute to society.

Also, they couldn't replenish their population.

Regardless, you can't hire soldiers or fund forward bases without investment and return, taxation and commitment.

Agreed.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Sorry, but this is unreasonable. The Roman Empire failed, like all great civilized governments, by economic factors.

I agree that economic lackings played an important role, but are you honestly suggesting economic factors were the sole reason why the Vandals were able to consume the Roman Empire?

These were people with stick and stones, no organized militarizes, and laws bound by rituals, religion, and tradition.

This is so far from true that it's laughable. While there is definitive truth that they didn't have the budget or large organized legions, they were highly motivated and capable. Far from 'sticks and stones', they used modern contemporary weapons, often stolen from the Romans themselves. Both the Visigoths and Vandals were a military force to be reckoned with, because they were light and adaptable. They would band villages together to form raiding parties, fight, then return to their land with ease. Centuries of warfare against Roman legions had taught their opponents much, and with the usage of Mercenaries commonplace, it was easy to share and teach contemporary armored warfare from culture to culture. As far as weapons and armor, read on :

The Gothic tribes did not have long-term standing armies but relied on short-term levies and/or volunteers. Most would return to their farms after some time. Most came on foot and fought as infantry, though some brought horses and fought as cavalry. Like their Roman opponents, most soldiers had thrusting spears, throwing spears, and shields; though swords, and bows, were also used. Unlike their Roman opponents, few could afford metal armor

Now you can argue that morally weak leaders chose poorly, or selfishly, which accelerated their disintegration, but the fact of the matter is that the Roman Empire fell apart because they couldn't maintain the size of their borders with the budget and organization that they had, pure economics at work.

But why couldn't they maintain their borders? What happened to their budget?

This says it better than me, though I don't hold 100% agreement with the main of the Cato viewpoint :

in the third century A.D., the money economy completely broke down. Yet the military demands of the state remained high. Rome's borders were under continual pressure from Germanic tribes in the North and from the Persians in the East. Moreover, it was now explicitly understood by everyone that the emperor's power and position depended entirely on the support of the army. Thus, the army's needs required satisfaction above all else, regardless of the consequences to the private economy.

With the collapse of the money economy, the normal system of taxation also broke down. This forced the state to directly appropriate whatever resources it needed wherever they could be found. Food and cattle, for example, were requisitioned directly from farmers. Other producers were similarly liable for whatever the army might need. The result, of course, was chaos, dubbed "permanent terrorism" by Rostovtzeff (1957: 449). Eventually, the state was forced to compel individuals to continue working and producing.

A prime contributor to this was the richest of the rich holding desperately to their wealth, and not applying it much to the masses, leading to discontent and apathy amongst the common people that actually made the gears turn in the empire's economy.

I disagree. There was always a fine gap between the rich and the poor, but the slaves compensated as did foreign labor. Are you seriously suggesting that an apathetic populous resulted in transforming a super power into such a weak nation that even baboons could attack without trouble?

Give me a break.

Yes, I am suggesting it. It's actually backed up :

The military historian Vegetius theorized, and has recently been supported by the historian Arthur Ferrill, that the Roman Empire ? particularly the military ? declined partially as a result of an influx of Germanic mercenaries into the ranks of the legions. This "Germanization" and the resultant cultural dilution or "barbarization", led to lethargy, complacency and loyalty to the Roman commanders, instead of the Roman government

If you take it to extremes, Julius Caesar probably did it best, and Nero the worst, as far as keeping the general populace satiated and involved.

So what.

Well, if the leadership cannot instill confidence and win the loyalty of the populace, how do you think that's going to affect enlistment, the tax base, human intelligence, loyalty to Rome vs. provincial leaders, etc? The difference is clear when you look at the results.

General morality didn't change much, but the management changed drastically, and that affected the confidence of the population.

General morality never changed, but common activities and cycling stopped because of it. Rome had existed for centuries, they had the most powerful military in the world. They dropped their necessities in the name of indulgence. They slowed military recruitment and the populous turned to activities that did not contribute to society.

Also, they couldn't replenish their population.

Your argument before was that Rome fell because of purely moral reasons :

"The Roman Empire collapsed because their never-ending pursuit of indulgence eventually toppled their pursuit of power. Abortion was at its peak near the fall, as was everything else that resembled self-pleasure practices. "

Of course it was far more complex, but the economic factors are the final straw in the end. If Rome had been able to maintain their political authority by way of maintaining their military stronghold, and had maintained the confidence of the general populace, we'd be having a very different conversation at this time.

Regardless, you can't hire soldiers or fund forward bases without investment and return, taxation and commitment.

Agreed.

Final note, and an interesting summary. It's a fascinating subject that even now is widely debated and revised as deeper assessment and increased archaeological data is added to the information we have to work with :

The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization (2005) takes a traditional view tempered by modern discoveries, arguing that the empire's demise was brought about through a vicious circle of political instability, foreign invasion, and reduced tax revenue. Essentially, invasions caused long-term damage to the provincial tax base, which lessened the Empire's medium to long-term ability to pay and equip the legions, with predictable results. Likewise, constant invasions encouraged provincial rebellion as self-help, further depleting Imperial resources. Contrary to the trend among some historians of the "there was no fall" school, who view the fall of Rome as not necessarily a "bad thing" for the people involved, Ward-Perkins argues that in many parts of the former Empire the archaeological record indicates that the collapse was truly a disaster.

 

[Noobtastic]

http://www.amazon.com/Assumpti...ur-Lives/dp/0971453276

 

[Arkaign]

From a review of that book :

This book can change your life. It explores the way people think and why people believe the way they believe. Hebrew vs Greek philosophy, etc. I realize now that I had been reading scripture from the wrong mindset...and now that I can relate a little better to a Hebrew mindset, many truths are being revealed to me. I highly recommend that any Christian who is ready to make a breakthrough spiritually read this book.

WTF does this have to do with our discussion? 🙂

 

[Vic]

I don't see how this is relevant to this discussion, but Rome fell to the Visigoths because Constantine moved the capitol of the empire to Byzantium. The Roman Empire did not fall until 1453, when Constantinople fell to the Ottoman turks.

Oh, and BTW, their "sticks and stones" consisted of a heavy battle axe called a francisca. The Visigoths later renamed themselves and their country after this weapon.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Legalize it and treat it much like alcohol.

We spend billions of dollars every year trying to keep it out of our borders and can't even keep it out of our schools.

:thumbsup:

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't see how this is relevant to this discussion, but Rome fell to the Visigoths because Constantine moved the capitol of the empire to Byzantium. The Roman Empire did not fall until 1453, when Constantinople fell to the Ottoman turks.

Oh, and BTW, their "sticks and stones" consisted of a heavy battle axe called a francisca. The Visigoths later renamed themselves and their country after this weapon.

Thank you Vic, and to save you the dreck of trying to find the relativity of this subject, it went something like this :

Noob, and most of the other members : "Legalize Pot (and/or other drugs!)"

Comanche : "But think of teh kiddies! Legalizing is dangerous!!!"

Rest of members : "Comanche, you're wrong!"

*Comanche and n00b go on circles in argument*

n00b, out of seemingly nowhere : "urabia is being consumed by muslim immigrants and refugees. Just wait, 10 years from now and you won't be able to walk outside and say f**k allah or surf p0rn without being beaten to death by a Quran. "

Mike : "Hedonism/Morality aren't entirely relative to a Country's success or failure, just look at the US being successful back when laws were far less restrictive" (paraphrased)

n00b : "ZOMG but teh Romans pursuit of indulgence caused their fall. Abortion was rampant, and America and Europe are on the same path"

Mike : "Dude you're wrong, that's the prissy Victorian interpretation, non-credible FTL"

n00n : "Wrong"

Me : "WTF, Rome fell because their economy broke. Their economy broke down for many reasons, but that's the facts"

n00b : "But teh Vandals and Visigoths only had sticks and stones! IDK what their budget problems were! Taxes, what's taxes? Apathy of the populace has nothing to do with anything! The leadership also doesn't matter, be it Nero or Julius. The Romans dropped necessities in the name of indulgence!"

Me : "LOL What? 1st, the Visigoths and Vandals were credible and dangerous contemporary enemies, that fought with (at the time) modern enough tactics, weaponry, and they sure had plenty of motivation. 2nd, the economy broke down, here's some info. 3rd, the complacency and general low motivation of the populace sure didn't help, here's some info. 4th, your assessment of Rome falling because of moral reasons doesn't stand true when you look at the economic reality at hand. 5th, here's a good summary from an authoritative work on this subject.

n00b : "Here's a link to a completely irrelevant book!!"

Vic "WTF are yall talking about, yo?, btw the Francisca will kick your arse! <badass link>"

That's the cliffs 🙂

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't see how this is relevant to this discussion, but Rome fell to the Visigoths because Constantine moved the capitol of the empire to Byzantium. The Roman Empire did not fall until 1453, when Constantinople fell to the Ottoman turks.

Oh, and BTW, their "sticks and stones" consisted of a heavy battle axe called a francisca. The Visigoths later renamed themselves and their country after this weapon.

Thank you Vic, and to save you the dreck of trying to find the relativity of this subject, it went something like this :

Noob, and most of the other members : "Legalize Pot (and/or other drugs!)"

Comanche : "But think of teh kiddies! Legalizing is dangerous!!!"

Rest of members : "Comanche, you're wrong!"

*Comanche and n00b go on circles in argument*

n00b, out of seemingly nowhere : "urabia is being consumed by muslim immigrants and refugees. Just wait, 10 years from now and you won't be able to walk outside and say f**k allah or surf p0rn without being beaten to death by a Quran. "

Mike : "Hedonism/Morality aren't entirely relative to a Country's success or failure, just look at the US being successful back when laws were far less restrictive" (paraphrased)

n00b : "ZOMG but teh Romans pursuit of indulgence caused their fall. Abortion was rampant, and America and Europe are on the same path"

Mike : "Dude you're wrong, that's the prissy Victorian interpretation, non-credible FTL"

n00n : "Wrong"

Me : "WTF, Rome fell because their economy broke. Their economy broke down for many reasons, but that's the facts"

n00b : "But teh Vandals and Visigoths only had sticks and stones! IDK what their budget problems were! Taxes, what's taxes? Apathy of the populace has nothing to do with anything! The leadership also doesn't matter, be it Nero or Julius. The Romans dropped necessities in the name of indulgence!"

Me : "LOL What? 1st, the Visigoths and Vandals were credible and dangerous contemporary enemies, that fought with (at the time) modern enough tactics, weaponry, and they sure had plenty of motivation. 2nd, the economy broke down, here's some info. 3rd, the complacency and general low motivation of the populace sure didn't help, here's some info. 4th, your assessment of Rome falling because of moral reasons doesn't stand true when you look at the economic reality at hand. 5th, here's a good summary from an authoritative work on this subject.

n00b : "Here's a link to a completely irrelevant book!!"

Vic "WTF are yall talking about, yo?, btw the Francisca will kick your arse! <badass link>"

That's the cliffs 🙂

Wrong.

 

[Arkaign]

lol 🙂 Well, at least you're on the right page on the drugs issue. The drug war = America loses.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Comanche

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Comanche
We have a hard enough time trying to keep alcohol out of the hands of minors, let alone doubling the problem with legalizing drugs.

Do you really want to have that many more people driving cars down the road stoned? It is bad enough as it is.

Had pot legal when I was a teen I still would have waiting until the time I did to first try it and smoke it. It had ZERO to do with me worring about the legality of smoking it. It was offered from school mates and friends since the time I was 12 and I didn't first try it until I was a month short of 18 years old. Show me one link to a study that would back up your assumptions that legalizing would equal rampant pot smoking.

Those who drive their cars to and from work and for personal use afterwards would not change their pot smoking habits just because it is legal. I can't imagine we would ever make it legal to smoke and drive, just like we don't allow drinking and driving so your concerns are moot.

In addition, I have never seen someone come into the ER after having smashed their car up and taken a life or two in the process, after smoking a joint. Hopefully those who share your opinions are dwingling even more and in 5-20 years we can get this done finally.

So who is to say that by taking it out of the closet that that accidents cause by illicit drugs wouldn't go up. Right now, you have to do this in private (the closet that I was speaking of) which keeps it from being mainstream.

Do you even have a clue as to how easy it is to get a hold of weed, especially in a city environment? The legality of weed is not stopping or preventing anyone from buying it period. If people are inclined to use it then they will. Also the legality of weed currently is not effecting the quality, quantity or demand but it does effect the price but that is moot for the most part.

As for your naive belief that people have to go hide in "closets" it's pretty much false. I've seen people smoke pot openly in public and in their own homes. The only thing folks who smoke pot have to worry about is a police car/person passing through. Hell I had friends who would smoke as they walked to school and be done as they reached the steps of my old high school. Not to mention the tons of people who smoke weed at concerts. Hell it was practically a tradition to get stoned at a Metallica concert as the opening band played when I was kid for example.

Pink Floyd concert at the Metrodome in Minneapolis in June of 1994. The lights went down, then about 40,000 lighters lit up. Wish I had a camera, it was beautiful. If I didnt have my own stuff I could have got stoned off the giant clambake that was going on in an enclosed stadium 😀


Anyways people know my position on the pointless drug war. Why people think prohibition works is beyond me. It didnt work in the 20s and it doesnt work now. The only thing that happens are criminals are able to build vast economic empires on the backs of the users. These empires allow them to manipulate govts and oppress people in their host countries and cost thousands of lives.

 

[jhbball]

I support legalizing marijuana. But I do recognize that regulating it would be more difficult. Is there an equivalent 'breathalizer' for marijuana use? It may be costly to implement such a thing. I'm aware that there's urine and blood tests for this sort of thing, but without an instant test, wouldn't that cause trouble for those seeking to punish people driving under the influence? At what point would one be too high to drive (equivalent BAC)?

 

[marincounty]

Now you can go to college to learn how to grow and cook with cannabis. Oaksterdam University is now open in Oakland, CA.
Text