Supreme court rules on Medical Marijuana

[Vic]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
I agree with you. Addiction is a serious problem. Here are my two disagreements:

1. Marijuana has much less potential for addiction than other drugs. Therefore it should be reclassified. Period.
2. Criminalizing marijuana users does nothing to help stop addiction. People are not smoking any less marijuana because it is illegal. Look back at prohibition; alcohol consumption did not decrease during prohibition, and neither is marijuana consumption now. The way to stop addiction is to warn of the dangers of drugs while HELPING people who are addicted instead of IMPRISIONING them.

I disagree with your argument that addiction is a serious problem that must be addressed by society by means of the force of government. Addiction is a problem that must be dealt with by the affected individuals themselves and within the medical community.

To answer:
1. True
2. True. However, alcohol prohibition not only did not decrease alcohol use, it dramatically increased it. Usage went up dramatically and, with the creation of a completely unregulated black market industry to the meet the demand, deaths from bad alcohol skyrocketed to over 100,000 per year. It is also true that one cannot "help" addicts by imprisoning them. However, you should know it is not ahurtt's intention to "help" anyone but himself. His actual intention is to use "addicts" as his strawman and scapegoat for all that he perceives wrong with the world, and then punish them accordingly.


edit: in what way are those facts wrong? Alcohol consumption did increase during Prohibition. And while it is believed that marijuana consumption is currently down, compare usage before the implementation of its prohibition to now and you will see that usage is up dramatically.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: ahurtt
It would be fine if everybody on drugs or alcohol locked themselves in their houses when they used but that doesn't happen.

We already have laws that make public intoxication and driving while under the influence illegal. We don't need laws that punish your neighbor for smoking some leaves on his private property.

I didn't say we need laws like that you pot fiend! I said I WISH THEY WOULD JUST STAY LOCKED IN THEIR HOUSES WHEN THEY GET HIGH so that normal people don't have to deal with their drug induced antics! I dont give a rat-crap about what they do in the privacy of their own homes! It's just that many of them tend to not stay there that I don't like!

Originally posted by: ahurtt
So you want your individual rights and fvck my rights and everyone else's huh? Is that about the geist of it? Typical self-centered thought process of an addict.

YOU have no right to dictate ANYONES personal actions on private property. EVER.

Well, DUH! God what is everybody on this thread stoned-dumb? If you read more of my posts in this thread you will find my argument is about what high/drunk/stoned people do IN PUBLIC that affects OTHER PEOPLE!

Heres something to think about, we have over 1million people in prison serving minimum mandatory sentences for non-violent drug crime, usually trafficking. Violent criminals, including rapists, murderers and armed robbers are ROUTINELY paroled because the minimum mandatory prison sentences take presidence when prison space is limited. In this country it is not uncommon for a rapist to serve HALF the time of someone caught carrying drugs.
Yeah that sucks. I can feel where you are coming from with that. But look at it this way too. . .that person serving the drug offense does not have to have their name put on a "registered offenders" list when the get out of prison like the sex offender does. Sex offenders have to inform their neighbors that they are sexual predators before they move into a neighborhood. That mess follows you around for LIFE. It's like herpes! They NEVER get to live it down. Once the drug offenders sentence is up, its pretty much time served and they can put it behind them and move on. So, it's a bit of a trade off I guess. . .

In addition, by taking a MEDICAL problem (drug addiction) and placing it under the jursdication of the criminal courts all you do is serve to drive the drug use and distribution underground. This causes impurities in the drug supply, violent crime associated with the distribution and gives organized crime an extremely lucrative product. Much like prohibition in this country caused the mafia to gain noteriaty and profit, the drug trade has elevated street gangs in this country to positions of power and violence in our communities.

This is all true. Can't argue with that but it makes me shudder to think of the idea of being able to walk into my local 7-11 and buy an 8-ball. But then again it also makes me shudder to think that I can go there today and buy a 12 pack of beer. Alcohol is legal and it causes PLENTY of problems. I don't want to imagine what it would be like if people had such easy access to other dangerous drugs. Fact of it is that it will cause one set of problems if it is legal and another set of problems if it is not. Either way it will addict people and we will have to deal with the associated problems addiction has on society.

As a last thought, opiates were available for purchase over the counter up until the 70's in the country and marijuana was not regulated. At the time drug use/abuse was minimal, much like prohibition made alcohol popular the war on drugs has made opiates, cocaine and pot popular.
Now that's just laughable. The 60's and the 70's were the EPITOME of the drug culture. If there was less use/abuse then its because the definition of the terms was different and people didn't understand as much about the nature of physical and mental addiction and chemical dependencies in general. By today's definition, proliferation of drug use and abuse in the 60's and 70's was legendary!

Prohibition failed and the war on drugs failed.
Yes, because people want their god-damned drugs. Fvcking nation of addicts in denial.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Genx87
What is there to explain?

Conservative inconsistency on states rights.

Eh? Sounds like the conservatives were in the dissenting side of this case.

Scalia is the leading conservative on the court by most accounts I know of.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
And here you finally get what I'm saying. Druggies DO hurt other people. Not just themselves.

If a drug addict "hurts" someone or damages property they shoud be prosecuted under the laws that cover that, not under some arbitrary law that makes it illegal to consume a substance.

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Why risk it?

Because the war on drugs gives power to criminals, it creates and funds organized crime. It's affect on violent crime has never been fully studied because our government is afraid of the truth, that the drug laws create an illicit market and as a result crime increases. And above all, the war on drugs makes drug trafficing and production highly profitable and as a result terrorirst organizations turn to it for a source of income. The cartels in columbia are some of the most violent terrorists in the world and they are funded entirely by the war on drugs.

The war on drugs has harmed america more than any legislation in this nations history.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: ahurtt
It would be fine if everybody on drugs or alcohol locked themselves in their houses when they used but that doesn't happen.

We already have laws that make public intoxication and driving while under the influence illegal. We don't need laws that punish your neighbor for smoking some leaves on his private property.

I didn't say we need laws like that you pot fiend! I said I WISH THEY WOULD JUST STAY LOCKED IN THEIR HOUSES WHEN THEY GET HIGH so that normal people don't have to deal with their drug induced antics! I dont give a rat-crap about what they do in the privacy of their own homes! It's just that many of them tend to not stay there that I don't like!

Originally posted by: ahurtt
So you want your individual rights and fvck my rights and everyone else's huh? Is that about the geist of it? Typical self-centered thought process of an addict.

YOU have no right to dictate ANYONES personal actions on private property. EVER.

Well, DUH! God what is everybody on this thread stoned-dumb? If you read more of my posts in this thread you will find my argument is about what high/drunk/stoned people do IN PUBLIC that affects OTHER PEOPLE!

Heres something to think about, we have over 1million people in prison serving minimum mandatory sentences for non-violent drug crime, usually trafficking. Violent criminals, including rapists, murderers and armed robbers are ROUTINELY paroled because the minimum mandatory prison sentences take presidence when prison space is limited. In this country it is not uncommon for a rapist to serve HALF the time of someone caught carrying drugs.
Yeah that sucks. I can feel where you are coming from with that. But look at it this way too. . .that person serving the drug offense does not have to have their name put on a "registered offenders" list when the get out of prison like the sex offender does. Sex offenders have to inform their neighbors that they are sexual predators before they move into a neighborhood. That mess follows you around for LIFE. It's like herpes! They NEVER get to live it down. Once the drug offenders sentence is up, its pretty much time served and they can put it behind them and move on. So, it's a bit of a trade off I guess. . .

In addition, by taking a MEDICAL problem (drug addiction) and placing it under the jursdication of the criminal courts all you do is serve to drive the drug use and distribution underground. This causes impurities in the drug supply, violent crime associated with the distribution and gives organized crime an extremely lucrative product. Much like prohibition in this country caused the mafia to gain noteriaty and profit, the drug trade has elevated street gangs in this country to positions of power and violence in our communities.

This is all true. Can't argue with that but it makes me shudder to think of the idea of being able to walk into my local 7-11 and buy an 8-ball. But then again it also makes me shudder to think that I can go there today and buy a 12 pack of beer. Alcohol is legal and it causes PLENTY of problems. I don't want to imagine what it would be like if people had such easy access to other dangerous drugs. Fact of it is that it will cause one set of problems if it is legal and another set of problems if it is not. Either way it will addict people and we will have to deal with the associated problems addiction has on society.

As a last thought, opiates were available for purchase over the counter up until the 70's in the country and marijuana was not regulated. At the time drug use/abuse was minimal, much like prohibition made alcohol popular the war on drugs has made opiates, cocaine and pot popular.
Now that's just laughable. The 60's and the 70's were the EPITOME of the drug culture. If there was less use/abuse then its because the definition of the terms was different and people didn't understand as much about the nature of physical and mental addiction and chemical dependencies in general. By today's definition, proliferation of drug use and abuse in the 60's and 70's was legendary!

Prohibition failed and the war on drugs failed.
Yes, because people want their god-damned drugs. Fvcking nation of addicts in denial.

I'd say it's time to stop feeding the troll. You clearly are not serious about this argument.

 

[konichiwa]

Vic after posting that last message about prohibition I went and looked around to see if I could find some usage statistics and I found on Wikipedia that alcohol consumption decreased between 50 and 60 percent during prohibition. Obviously, it's Wikipedia and eventually an infinite number of monkeys might get some facts right, but I decided that I'd remove that litle piece because I don't think it's really necessary to my argument anyway.

However it's possible that my original statement was right but I just don't have the time to look very seriously right now...

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Which tells you what? It tells you people want their god damned drugs! I got a solution. We'll set aside a little island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and name it Doper's Island or something like that. If you want to get drunk or high and act like a moron you can go there and do whatever drug you want with all the other wasteoids. That way when you overdose or do something crazy, you won't be clogging up all the other sane people's 911 lines. You won't be dragging them down with you. You won't be driving on their shared streets and risking THEIR lives as well as your own. Nobody else will have to worry about being affected by all the stupid crap that people on drugs do. Everybody can be happy. You want "freedom" to choose to use drugs but you don't want to respect the freedom of other people not to have to be affected by it? It would be fine if everybody on drugs or alcohol locked themselves in their houses when they used but that doesn't happen. So you want your individual rights and fvck my rights and everyone else's huh? Is that about the geist of it? Typical self-centered thought process of an addict.

Your entire argument is so illogical that it crosses the line to prejudice and idiocy.
What you mean you find the idea of segregating drug users away from the rest of society on their own little island so they don't hurt others illogical? Yeah it is a little crazy isn't it? THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT MORON! Please go back and read my reply to Steeplerot so I don't have to explain this again. It sounds rediculous because IT IS MEANT TO in order to illustrate the point that THERE IS NO SUCH ISLAND!

Originally posted by: konichiwa
First of all, I never claimed I have "never used drugs or smoked pot or whatever;" I merely resent the fact that when your argument falls apart you resort to calling whoever is arguing against you a pothead. Again, I believe in abortion rights, but I have never had one. I believe in the rights of prisoners and criminals, but I am not one. One does not have to take part in an activity to be a supporter of it, or of its legalization.

I feel the need to protect the rights of others as an extension of the protection of MY RIGHTS AND YOURS. I don't believe the government should tell people what they can put in their bodies so long as theey are not hurting anyone else.

I agree, drunk driving, high driving, whatever, should all be crimes. Using marijuana, a demonstratedly harmless act in and of itself, should not be harmless.

Exactly. His strawman is pathetic. That he views it as an actual argument borders on trollish.
What ahurtt seems unable to realize is that he is the one who is advocating the harm of others, through the abuse of government in the removal of inalienable rights, and that his position is completely immoral.

I stand by those rights, pal. Break out your strawmen, one after another, and call me whatever names you feel like. You cannot break my morality.

My position is completely immoral? I'm not breaking any laws by buying and using illegal drugs. Are you? Doesn't matter if it SHOULD be against the law or not. Facts are that as of today it IS illegal and if you choose to smoke pot or whatever you ARE a criminal. Now you can argue all day if you want about who is the bigger criminal, the murderer or the guy who got picked up selling a dime bag. . .that is not relevant to what I'm talking about. All I know is I never hurt anybody by choosing NOT to do drugs or drink. I know many people who have caused PLENTY of hurt to themselves AND others when they did choose to do so. And as long as they kept using with no severe consequences, they would NEVER see it. Like I have already said, I don't give a crap what people do to themselves behind closed doors. Just stay off my streets when you're on the whacky stuff. You have NO inalienable right to impose your personal demented drug induced behavior onto me. Your rights end where mine begin.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ahurtt
And here you finally get what I'm saying. Druggies DO hurt other people. Not just themselves. Addiction and denial keep them from seeing that fact. The DON'T have some island they can go to away from everybody else so they can get high. WE ALL SHARE this planet and drugs and alcohol cause people to do all kinds of crazy stupid things. Maybe not everyone who ever uses a drug will develop an addiction (either physical or mental) but there's A LOT who will. The only way to guarantee that won't happen is not to do it. Period. Because once somebody develops an addiction, now they are hurting people other than themselves. Why risk it?

Really? Do tell. If a person drinks a few beers in the privacy of their own home, just exactly who is it besides themselves that they are hurting? I must know. Let's hear it.

An addict will not stop with a few beers first of all. But I don't give a crap what they do to themselves in their own home. I just hope their family has the common sense to leave them until they straighten themselves out. I am not talking here about the person who has the occasional beer or two at home and I think you know that. So what is it you keep saying about straw men?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
Vic after posting that last message about prohibition I went and looked around to see if I could find some usage statistics and I found on Wikipedia that alcohol consumption decreased between 50 and 60 percent during prohibition. Obviously, it's Wikipedia and eventually an infinite number of monkeys might get some facts right, but I decided that I'd remove that litle piece because I don't think it's really necessary to my argument anyway.

However it's possible that my original statement was right but I just don't have the time to look very seriously right now...

I'm reading that article now. As (for obvious reasons) no official figures on alcohol use during Prohibition exist, it used the cirrhosis death rate as the sole means of calculating usage, and goes into great detail as to how this method may be inaccurate. The article's conclusion is that it believes that Prohibition had little to no effect on consumption, which it finds suprising as the "question raised by this result is why consumption did not fall more significantly, since conventional accounts suggest that alcohol prices rose by several hundred percent on average."

Note that carefully, as it explains the actual purpose of ANY drug prohibition. Consumption is not reduced, but prices inflate dramatically.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic
A clear and blatant violation of the constitutional protection of States Rights.


Marinol is completely ineffective for cancer treatment. A joke. I know this for fact from the experience of watching a good friend die from cancer.

Isn't THC suppose to before pain relief? 😕

As for those who "claim" marjiuana is harmless...

Go look at any "vaporizer" study. Marjiuana at best is just as a risk to your health as Tobacco.

The prohibition is some of a poor example, thats a rather competely differenent situation.

How can you expect the legalization of something to lower the amount of users? Making something legal is obiviously going to increase it.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Of course the supreme court should have taken the case.

Sorry, but you're wrong. There was no violation of any Federal law and nothing else in the facts of this case that brought the matter under Federal jurisdiction.

Its way too important of an issue to be left to the circuit courts, and there will inevitably have been a circuit split if the supreme court didnt intervene.

IF and WHEN that happened, it MIGHT come under Federal jurisdiction IF there were, in fact, any violation of any Federal statute.

The pot doesnt need to cross state lines, your "friend" if he exists, is a piss poor judge if he doesnt understand that. Nothing crossed state lines in Wickard either, but thats still good law.

You're speaking from absolute and total ignorance. My friend also teaches Constitutional law at a major university so, unless you're prepared to match those credentials, you're blowing smoke. Must be pretty good sh8 to cloud your reasoning that bad, and the real pisser is, you're not sharing! :shocked:

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Doesn't matter if it SHOULD be against the law or not. Facts are that as of today it IS illegal and if you choose to smoke pot or whatever you ARE a criminal.

Actually, it does matter if it SHOULD be illegal or not. Do you base your morality on what the law is? If abortion is the law, does that make it right? If slavery is the law, does that make it right? I'd love to see you use this attitude when talking to an escaped slave in the 19th century. "You're a criminal, it doesn't matter if it's illegal or not stay in your slave quarters!"

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ahurtt
And here you finally get what I'm saying. Druggies DO hurt other people. Not just themselves. Addiction and denial keep them from seeing that fact. The DON'T have some island they can go to away from everybody else so they can get high. WE ALL SHARE this planet and drugs and alcohol cause people to do all kinds of crazy stupid things. Maybe not everyone who ever uses a drug will develop an addiction (either physical or mental) but there's A LOT who will. The only way to guarantee that won't happen is not to do it. Period. Because once somebody develops an addiction, now they are hurting people other than themselves. Why risk it?

Really? Do tell. If a person drinks a few beers in the privacy of their own home, just exactly who is it besides themselves that they are hurting? I must know. Let's hear it.

An addict will not stop with a few beers first of all. But I don't give a crap what they do to themselves in their own home. I just hope their family has the common sense to leave them until they straighten themselves out. I am not talking here about the person who has the occasional beer or two at home and I think you know that. So what is it you keep saying about straw men?

So is everyone who might have a few beers an addict? You're not differentiating here. You're saying, "alcohol and all drugs should be illegal," and "everyone who uses drugs is an addict," but then you say contradictions like "I don't give a crap what they do to themselves in their own home," and "I am not talking here about the person who has the occasional beer or two at home."

A strawman is a logical fallacy wherein you attack an argument different from, and much weaker than, my actual argument. For example, I say that drug prohibition is a violation of constitutionally-protected individual rights (which it is), and you retort that I'm just an addict who wants to do drugs (this is also ad hominem, wherein you attack me and not my argument). If you've been wondering why no one has rushed to your side or your defense, it's not because we're all addicts, but because your argument is logically indefensible.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: konichiwa
I'm grasping? Did you even read my post? Are you advocating that alcohol should be outlawed in total too in order to eliminate drunk driving? I think that was tried a while ago, and while I'm not quite sure I don't think it worked very well...

And I love how you continue to call everyone arguing against you addicts in denial. That's right, if I'm arguing for marijuana reform I must be a pothead in denial. Keep resorting to ad hominem, it makes your argument look even thinner than it already is.

Well if you want to get right down to it, I really DON'T see why alcohol should be any more legal than pot is. But it just is and always has been for as long as I've been around. If anything I think they got it exactly bass ackwards. I think Alcohol is far more dangerous than pot. If I am forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, I would choose marijuana as the lesser evil. Fortunately, in this instance, I don't have to choose between two evils. I can choose no evils. I just don't see why people who claim not to use drugs and claim that their lives are not affected by them would be such staunch advocates for them. Why argue so much for something that has no bearing on your life? Or does it? And if you claim that you never used drugs or smoked pot or whatever, then how can you claim that it is or is not dangerous?

First of all, I never claimed I have "never used drugs or smoked pot or whatever;" I merely resent the fact that when your argument falls apart you resort to calling whoever is arguing against you a pothead. Again, I believe in abortion rights, but I have never had one. I believe in the rights of prisoners and criminals, but I am not one. One does not have to take part in an activity to be a supporter of it, or of its legalization.

I feel the need to protect the rights of others as an extension of the protection of MY RIGHTS AND YOURS. I don't believe the government should tell people what they can put in their bodies so long as theey are not hurting anyone else.

I agree, drunk driving, high driving, whatever, should all be crimes. Using marijuana, a demonstratedly harmless act in and of itself, should not be harmless.

And here you finally get what I'm saying. Druggies DO hurt other people. Not just themselves. Addiction and denial keep them from seeing that fact. The DON'T have some island they can go to away from everybody else so they can get high. WE ALL SHARE this planet and drugs and alcohol cause people to do all kinds of crazy stupid things. Maybe not everyone who ever uses a drug will develop an addiction (either physical or mental) but there's A LOT who will. The only way to guarantee that won't happen is not to do it. Period. Because once somebody develops an addiction, now they are hurting people other than themselves. Why risk it?

Are you talking about crackrock?

How does a person who were prescribed by their doctor pot hurting anyone?
Keep it on topic this is about a whole state that voted for the sick...and now the feds think they are above the vote of the ones they supposedly serve.
They sure think they are above these people's personal physicians too, like they know people better then their own doctors...

They will never leagilize it until big oil/chemical companies (plastics), logging, and pharmadeath corporations get the boot from the government...sad thing is sick people and stoners are lousy at staging a coup besdies one on a nacho bag.

 

[konichiwa]

Pain relief, yes, but moreso for combating nausea associated with many types of chemotherapy. Also it is an appetite stimulant.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Doesn't matter if it SHOULD be against the law or not. Facts are that as of today it IS illegal and if you choose to smoke pot or whatever you ARE a criminal.

Actually, it does matter if it SHOULD be illegal or not. Do you base your morality on what the law is? If abortion is the law, does that make it right? If slavery is the law, does that make it right? I'd love to see you use this attitude when talking to an escaped slave in the 19th century. "You're a criminal, it doesn't matter if it's illegal or not stay in your slave quarters!"

Heh, it's a miracle, Infohawk, we agree on something. 🙂

To note though, his position goes far beyond that (if it is to be taken seriously). It's not just that if he slavery were the law, he would approve of it. What he actually wants is to scapegoat "addicts" for all the faults of the world. I have seen this used many times by proponents of drug prohibition, and it was used to pass alcohol prohibition. "Demon rum" and "reefer madness." Don't you know that if no one used drugs we would live in a perfect world?

:roll:

 

[Tab]

This is what they need to do....

Make those who smoke pot charged with a CIVIL offense, not a criminal one.

That's whats wrong with the system... Why the hell are we putting stoners in jail?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
Pain relief, yes, but moreso for combating nausea associated with many types of chemotherapy. Also it is an appetite stimulant.

Exactly. And what do they give you to combat the unending nausea? A pill. Marinol comes in a pill. The patient hasn't been able to keep down so much as water for a week and what do they give him? A pill. Fsckin' geniuses there...

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: konichiwa
Pain relief, yes, but moreso for combating nausea associated with many types of chemotherapy. Also it is an appetite stimulant.

Exactly. And what do they give you to combat the unending nausea. A pill. Marinol comes in a pill. Fsckin' geniuses there...

Yes, it's a pure THC without any of the other associated crap that comes with smoking pot? What are you trying to say here exactly Vic?

Wait, saw you edited your post...

....

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
I agree with you. Addiction is a serious problem. Here are my two disagreements:

1. Marijuana has much less potential for addiction than other drugs. Therefore it should be reclassified. Period.
2. Criminalizing marijuana users does nothing to help stop addiction. People are not smoking any less marijuana because it is illegal. The way to stop addiction is to warn of the dangers of drugs while HELPING people who are addicted instead of IMPRISIONING them.

edited because of wrong facts :Q

Finally, somebody presenting cogent logical thoughts. As for #1, do you think if it were reclassified it should be as a II or III? My thought is that it fits squarely into schedule II because it has not insignificant instance of abuse but DOES apparently have SOME medicinal value. I just think that the evident use of pot in society indicates that it does get abused quite a bit. I think it is abused enough that it could be precluded from being classified as harmless as a level III. But good luck in getting anybody who abuses pot (or any other substance for that matter) to see it as the abuse that it is.

As for #2, I agree completely, addiction is a medical illness. Some even call it a disease. But it is a disease that can be avoided by exercising personal responsibility and accepting the fact that maybe, just maybe, the laws are like they are for reasons that are not yet evident to you but might be some day. But sadly most people have to figure it out for themselves. . .like the curious kid who just had to stick his finger in the electric outlet even though his mom warned him not to. You can warn them and warn them all you want but certain people, particularly those susceptible to addiction, just have to find out for themselves if you are telling the truth. Some people respond well to suggestion that maybe you should quit putting your finger in the electric outlet after one or two "ouchies." For others, they will keep on trying it thinking if they figure out the way to do it right they will eventually be able to do it without getting shocked. But they fail every time. They keep doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. This is insanity. This person needs help. Sometimes the only thing they will respond to is a hard life lesson. They will resent it at first but then come to appreciate it after they put some time and distance from it and see how crazy it was looking back. I think there needs to be more distinction in the system instead of just blindly throwing people in prison. Every persons case is unique but sadly it is rarely treated that way. The court system is cold and impersonal most often but not without leniency for those who show remorse. Sometimes you just have to swallow your pride, open your ears and listen to what people are telling you, stop thinking they are out to get you and maybe, just maybe, they actually care, and take a good hard long look in the mirror. Some people get off easier than they should while some get really shafted. Such is life, but it all could have been avoided by exercising some personal responsibility. The catch 22 is that sometimes you gotta give it up if you want to keep it.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: ahurtt
And here you finally get what I'm saying. Druggies DO hurt other people. Not just themselves.

If a drug addict "hurts" someone or damages property they shoud be prosecuted under the laws that cover that, not under some arbitrary law that makes it illegal to consume a substance.
But drugs and alcohol, when abused, have the nasty habbit of turning otherwise sane and ordinary people into raving lunatics. Lunatics that do fvcked up $hit. Think how many lives could be saved and damaged property saved if people just wised up and didn't drink or drug to excess. Plenty of people don't do crazy stuff and are able to moderate their usage, but even they are playing with fire.

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Why risk it?

Because the war on drugs gives power to criminals, it creates and funds organized crime. It's affect on violent crime has never been fully studied because our government is afraid of the truth, that the drug laws create an illicit market and as a result crime increases. And above all, the war on drugs makes drug trafficing and production highly profitable and as a result terrorirst organizations turn to it for a source of income. The cartels in columbia are some of the most violent terrorists in the world and they are funded entirely by the war on drugs.

The war on drugs has harmed america more than any legislation in this nations history.

If people would just sober the hell up and get off the smack, there would be no drug war. No demand = no war. What's so difficult to see about that? But most people are too weak to stand up to temptation. That's why we're all such fat-asses.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Vic
A clear and blatant violation of the constitutional protection of States Rights.


Marinol is completely ineffective for cancer treatment. A joke. I know this for fact from the experience of watching a good friend die from cancer.

Isn't THC suppose to before pain relief? 😕

As for those who "claim" marjiuana is harmless...

Go look at any "vaporizer" study. Marjiuana at best is just as a risk to your health as Tobacco.

The prohibition is some of a poor example, thats a rather competely differenent situation.

How can you expect the legalization of something to lower the amount of users? Making something legal is obiviously going to increase it.

It's ok, addicts in denial will say anything and selectively choose facts out of context and spin them all the time in order to justify their habbits so they can keep using with a "clear" conscience.

 

[Steeplerot]

all I have to say about that one is to lay down the pipe...your getting paranoid on us..

Who isn't addicted to something? we all have our kicks..even old folks..

Who does a doctor prescribed patients hurt? Or are you going to throw up some

denial trip again? No denying california voted for paitents to be legit....

What harm do you speak of?

 

[konichiwa]

ahurtt

I have been presenting these "logical thoughts" for this entire discussion, as have some of the others in this thread, but you have not listened to any of them and have resorted to ad hominem which not only makes your arguments look foolish, it also seems to have clouded your comprehension skills as nothing that I said in that post is any different from what I've been saying all along.

However, beyond that...I would argue that it belongs in Schedule III. The definition of the abuse and addiction properties of Schedule III drugs is that they have less potential for abuse and addiction than drugs in Schedules I and II and have recognized medical uses. Synthetic THC (discussed earlier...) is in Schedule III and I believe that marijuana should be in Schedule III as well.

You say that the "evident use of pot in society indicates that it does get abused quite a bit." I would argue that the evident use of pot in society, along with the fact that there have been no documented deaths due to marijuana and marijuana alone would be evidence enough that abuse is not very prevalent! Furthermore, there are plenty of drugs in Schedule III that are abused without question...Ketamine, anabolic steroids, hydrocodone (think OxyCodone -- hillbilly heroin), certain barbituates, etc...

I agree that some degree of personal responsibility is needed, however I think it is clear at this point in our country that legislation is not going to force personal responsibility on anyone. The "drug war" has been going on for nearly 40 years and drugs are still around and in force. We've tried a multitude of different approaches and none of them have worked. Pot is not going away and different legislative and punitive techniques are not going to make it go away.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Doesn't matter if it SHOULD be against the law or not. Facts are that as of today it IS illegal and if you choose to smoke pot or whatever you ARE a criminal.

Actually, it does matter if it SHOULD be illegal or not. Do you base your morality on what the law is? If abortion is the law, does that make it right? If slavery is the law, does that make it right? I'd love to see you use this attitude when talking to an escaped slave in the 19th century. "You're a criminal, it doesn't matter if it's illegal or not stay in your slave quarters!"

Way to take a statement out of context and post a non-sequitir reply to start a whole new argument dude! :thumbsup: That is some fine trolling 🙂