What is the correlation you are trying to use? You lost me.
Pot isn't even used as prescription in some states :shrug:
You said the known effects of pot only effect some people, and because of that others shouldn't be limited in their ability to use it.

So, if morphine only effects some people, should it be non-prescription, too?

I can refute and reject falsities because they are false.



I know people who have smoked for tens of years that are at the highest positions one can attain in their jobs. Jobs that require incredible levels of mental acuity.

False is still false...Head fry cook is a great job, but most jobs of real responsibility have random drug testing.

No. You're not arguing that. You are trying to set parameters on how YOU would like things to be if marijuana were legal.

I'm stating that these things are already in place - by substituting alcohol for marijuana.

To me marijuana should have the same classification as alcohol.What are the differences in the effects of pot and liquor?
And I'm stating that the powers that be - those who made marijuana use illegal - were misguided or had other agendas.

Marijuana should have never been put in the same category as PCP etc.What agenda is there to make pot illegal?

You said the known effects of pot only effect some people, and because of that others shouldn't be limited in their ability to use it.

So, if morphine only effects some people, should it be non-prescription, too?

No. You use a different drug that has similar effects.

I.E. we sometimes didn't give patients morphine on a titration drip. Others responded more readily to versed, demerol, or toridal etc.

Head fry cook is a great job, but most jobs of real responsibility have random drug testing.

I wasn't asking for your resume, but I'll keep it on file if I need someone to dig some ditches for me.

I'm talking people that work at JPL, NGC, and a bunch of other acronym type places.

And if you think random drug tests are fool proof I have some whopper with cheese with your name on it...

You said the known effects of pot only effect some people, and because of that others shouldn't be limited in their ability to use it.

So, if morphine only effects some people, should it be non-prescription, too?

Gotcha :yay:
To this, I go back to the drug classification I mentioned earlier. There is a reason drugs fall into the categories from I-IV...some have more of a chance of abuse/addiction/health defects (among other reasons).
I believe that Marijuana is wrongly placed into the highest class...and that the best arguement for using it would be to put it in a different class that is more fitting, but there are already bills (I guess you call them) in place for this, one written recently. The government has previously always come up with bs (IMO) reasons for keeping it classified with herion, cocain, etc

What are the differences in the effects of pot and liquor?What agenda is there to make pot illegal?

I tell you what. For the sake of testing purposes...

How about you drink a 5th of your favorite poison.

I'll smoke whatever plant you want.

We can do any - I repeat any - physical/mental tests you want. I guarantee that I will outperform you on any test that you can imagine.

I wasn't asking for your resume, but I'll keep it on file if I need someone to dig some ditches for me.

I'm talking people that work at JPL, NGC, and a bunch of other acronym type places.

And if you think random drug tests are fool proof I have some whopper with cheese with your name on it...I've never flipped burgers, and I don't think that random drug testing is fool proof. Personally, every job I've held for 24 years has required it - and I've seen people I thought were good at their jobs tossed because they were too stupid to not use drugs.

I've never flipped burgers, and I don't think that random drug testing is fool proof. Personally, every job I've held for 24 years has required it - and I've seen people I thought were good at their jobs tossed because they were too stupid to not use drugs.

Every job I've held required it as well...

Gotcha :yay:
To this, I go back to the drug classification I mentioned earlier. There is a reason drugs fall into the categories from I-IV...some have more of a chance of abuse/addiction/health defects (among other reasons).
I believe that Marijuana is wrongly placed into the highest class...and that the best arguement for using it would be to put it in a different class that is more fitting, but there are already bills (I guess you call them) in place for this, one written recently. The government has previously always come up with bs (IMO) reasons for keeping it classified with herion, cocain, etcFrom my reading, I would not believe it is as addictive as heroin or coke. I've not heard a good argument for decriminalizing it, though.

I tell you what. For the sake of testing purposes...

How about you drink a 5th of your favorite poison.

I'll smoke whatever plant you want.

We can do any - I repeat any - physical/mental tests you want. I guarantee that I will outperform you on any test that you can imagine.
Any plant I want? As long as it's all natural, right?

How about this one. It's awfully pretty, isn't it?

This is the description of that "just a plant":Nerium oleander
Apocynaceae
Mediterranean

Contains 28 glycosides. All parts are very poisonous, as is honey from the pollen. Deaths have been reported from the USA where the wood was used for barbecue sticks! Used as rat poison. Drinking tea of dried leaves can cause death after 2-3 hours. The smoke is very toxic when inhaled. After pruning do not burn the waste!

From my reading, I would not believe it is as addictive as heroin or coke. I've not heard a good argument for decriminalizing it, though.

How about these.

Instead of using the money allotted towards the war on drugs - prosecuting marijuana users - the money be spent on the hard drug users I.E. pcp, heroin, coke etc.

I don't know the latest statistics, but it's something like 80 ~ 90% is spent/tied up with going after those who smoke. They stick some of these people in with hardened criminals. Tying up the justice system with nonsense.

Heck. Hemp is illegal to grow.

Do you know hemp is one of the fastest growing plants? And that it's fibers are hundreds of times stronger and more durable than paper/wood products.

Just a couple.

This is the description of that "just a plant":Nerium oleander
Apocynaceae
Mediterranean

Contains 28 glycosides. All parts are very poisonous, as is honey from the pollen. Deaths have been reported from the USA where the wood was used for barbecue sticks! Used as rat poison. Drinking tea of dried leaves can cause death after 2-3 hours. The smoke is very toxic when inhaled. After pruning do not burn the waste!

Bravo.

I didn't want to incriminate myself and say that I would smoke pot.

It was hypothetical of course.

How about these.

Instead of using the money allotted towards the war on drugs - prosecuting marijuana users - the money be spent on the hard drug users I.E. pcp, heroin, coke etc.

I don't know the latest statistics, but it's something like 80 ~ 90% is spent/tied up with going after those who smoke. They stick some of these people in with hardened criminals. Tying up the justice system with nonsense.

Heck. Hemp is illegal to grow.

Do you know hemp is one of the fastest growing plants? And that it's fibers are hundreds of times stronger and more durable than paper/wood products.

Just a couple.You've asked several questions here, so I'll answer them each as I understand them:

Do I think we should go after users instead of sellers? Yes
Do I think PCP, coke, etc., are higher priorities to go after? Yes
Do I know hemp makes a good paper and rope? Yes

Bravo.

I didn't want to incriminate myself and say that I would smoke pot.

It was hypothetical of course.Of course.

I wouldn't think you'd smoke pot if you work in jobs where random drug testing is a part of your job. That would be incredibly irresponsible of you towards yourself, your employer, your coworkers, and your family.

I also wasn't suggesting I would wish ill on you by offering you a plant that would kill you if you smoked it. My point with that was "it's just a plant" does not, in any way, sugget that the natural plant does not have effects of great magnitude.

I'm not as much for this. I think the unintentional consequences to the rest of society would outweigh the inherent freedom.

Well, I can certainly relate to this sentiment. If pressed, I'm sure I could come up with some personal freedoms that I wouldn't mind seeing curtailed because, in my opinion, they represent a net negative for society.

But, as soon as I indulge the notion that I have the right to make such decisions, which will affect other's freedoms - intellectual honesty compels me to acknowledge that others have the right to make different decisions which might affect my freedoms. Frankly, I don't trust other people enough to willingly cede decision making rights to them, even if that reality requires me to abandon the notion that I might have such decision making rights.

Well, I can certainly relate to this sentiment. If pressed, I'm sure I could come up with some personal freedoms that I wouldn't mind seeing curtailed because, in my opinion, they represent a net negative for society.

But, as soon as I indulge the notion that I have the right to make such decisions, which will affect other's freedoms - intellectual honesty compels me to acknowledge that others have the right to make different decisions which might affect my freedoms. Frankly, I don't trust other people enough to willingly cede decision making rights to them, even if that reality requires me to abandon the notion that I might have such decision making rights.As a theory, I fully agree. In reality, though, this doesn't work.

Do I believe that I can drive 95 down the interstate safely? Of course, and I have. But, does that mean that it should be legal? Of course not. I think doctors need to actually be licensed doctors, and not just anybody who feels free to say that they are. I believe that there are a lot of limits to our freedoms that are very justifiable to exist, and currently do. Therefore, we've already willingly ceded decision making to "them."

I wouldn't think you'd smoke pot if you work in jobs where random drug testing is a part of your job. That would be incredibly irresponsible of you towards yourself, your employer, your coworkers, and your family.


This I can agree with.

I do, however, believe that if it were ever to be made legal you would see hundreds of thousands of people that you would have never suspected to use, lining up at the counter.

This I can agree with.

I do, however, believe that if it were ever to be made legal you would see hundreds of thousands of people that you would have never suspected to use, lining up at the counter.Given its effects, that's one of the problems I personally have with it.

Given its effects, that's one of the problems I personally have with it.

That's the issue you and I have.

Beyond the legality of it.

Do you have an issue with alcohol?

If you do, why?

If not, why?

I view alcohol use and marijuana use equally. But, I believe one is much more harmful to society and one's health than the other.

I don't understand how one can be legal and the other can't. Since arguments for and against can be used interchangeably between the two - I can't see how one can justify legalizing one and not the other.

That's the issue you and I have.

Beyond the legality of it.

Do you have an issue with alcohol?

If you do, why?

If not, why?

I view alcohol use and marijuana use equally. But, I believe one is much more harmful to society and one's health than the other.

I don't understand how one can be legal and the other can't. Since arguments for and against can be used interchangeably between the two - I can't see how one can justify legalizing one and not the other.IMHO, the only reason one is legal and the other is not is that the government failed miserably to uphold the prohibition against alcohol.

As a theory, I fully agree. In reality, though, this doesn't work.

Do I believe that I can drive 95 down the interstate safely? Of course, and I have. But, does that mean that it should be legal? Of course not. I think doctors need to actually be licensed doctors, and not just anybody who feels free to say that they are. I believe that there are a lot of limits to our freedoms that are very justifiable to exist, and currently do. Therefore, we've already willingly ceded decision making to "them."

I agree - in reality society has to make such decisions. But, when it does so, it should always be tormented by them. Such decisions should always be made in light of a principle which makes us hate having to arbitrarily draw the lines and making rules which limit personal freedoms. Hopefully, in that way we will tend toward creating less restrictions and not more, and choose not to make restrictions whenever we have a plausible choice not to.

On another note - I haven't 'willingly ceded' such decision making right to others. I freely acknowledge that some people do have such decision making ability, but that's quite different.

Therein lies my eternal (though usually latent) struggle. I have a tremendous appreciation of the people in society and the relations that I can have with them - but I systemically despise the mechanisms of society that must necessarily exist in order that I can experience those people. In the end, the former sensation is stronger than the latter one, so life is ultimately good.

IMHO, the only reason one is legal and the other is not is that the government failed miserably to uphold the prohibition against alcohol.

IMHO, I feel the reason why it was made legal was for the fact that they realized that they could tax it and control it.

I always found it odd that we have a department called the ATF.

I can understand why for firearms and explosives.

I always found that funny.

I agree - in reality society has to make such decisions. But, when it does so, it should always be tormented by them. Such decisions should always be made in light of a principle which makes us hate having to arbitrarily draw the lines and making rules which limit personal freedoms. Hopefully, in that way we will tend toward creating less restrictions and not more, and choose not to make restrictions whenever we have a plausible choice not to.I fully agree.On another note - I haven't 'willingly ceded' such decision making right to others. I freely acknowledge that some people do have such decision making ability, but that's quite different.Other than changing your word "ability" to "authority", I don't understand what the difference is. You willingly live where the authority is ceded to others, and acknowledge this.... :confused:

IMHO, I feel the reason why it was made legal was for the fact that they realized that they could tax it and control it.

I always found it odd that we have a department called the ATF.

I can understand why for firearms and explosives.

I always found that funny.The second amendment tells me firearms and explosives shouldn't be controlled, but.... :lol:

The second amendment tells me firearms and explosives shouldn't be controlled, but.... :lol:

How?
It doesn't say we have a right to unregulated arms...does it?

How?
It doesn't say we have a right to unregulated arms...does it?

No, but it tells us that arms can't be regulated. If people believe that technology has advanced to the point where we need to regulate certain arms, then they should be intellectually honest enough to admit that we first have to amend the 2nd Amendment in order to constitutionally do so.

How?
It doesn't say we have a right to unregulated arms...does it?

Although I'm upset that I can't purchase any of the weapons that I used while in the military - I do believe that some of them in the wrong hands would be a very bad thing.

Although I'm upset that I can't purchase any of the weapons that I used while in the military - I do believe that some of them in the wrong hands would be a very bad thing.

I don't have a problem with that sentiment - but if we are going to execute on it, I think we should at least do so in an appropriate way. Amend the 2nd Amendment to allow for restrictions on certain arms.

How?
It doesn't say we have a right to unregulated arms...does it?The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If not unregulated arms, what does that mean? What other type of infringement is there, other than, say, ammunition that's $50/slug, etc....

The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If not unregulated arms, what does that mean? What other type of infringement is there, other than, say, ammunition that's $50/slug, etc....

Don't get me wrong.

I believe we should have as many firearms as we want.

I have several myself.

But, back in the day, I don't think they knew what some of these weps rof's would be. Nor did they realize the power some of these weps would eventually have.

The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If not unregulated arms, what does that mean? What other type of infringement is there, other than, say, ammunition that's $50/slug, etc....

I don't consider reasonable regulation (i know, that needs defined :lol:) to be infringement :shrug:
And I'm a gun advocate.

Don't get me wrong.

I believe we should have as many firearms as we want.

I have several myself.

But, back in the day, I don't think they knew what some of these weps rof's would be. Nor did they realize the power some of these weps would eventually have.On that tack, the only way to make that happen is to change the Constitution.

As for what they thought.... My view is that a bunch of guys who fought off their government because they had weapons as good as their government's weapons would believe that the population should have weapons as good as the government's weapons. Probably not WMD's, but enough to properly defend oneself against government tyranny.

I don't consider reasonable regulation (i know, that needs defined :lol:) to be infringement :shrug:
And I'm a gun advocate.That's' the "fire in a crowded theater" argument. I agree. But VERY limited.

The 'Fire in a Theatre' arguement is not a comparable situation. The ACT of yelling fire is prohibited. The ACT of shooting somone is (self-defense aside) prohibited.

Does a person have to undergo a background check to simply go into a theatre? After all, we all have the POTENTIAL to yell fire, do we not? You are confusing potential acts with the acts themselves.

The 'Fire in a Theatre' arguement is not a comparable situation. The ACT of yelling fire is prohibited. The ACT of shooting somone is (self-defense aside) prohibited.

Does a person have to undergo a background check to simply go into a theatre? After all, we all have the POTENTIAL to yell fire, do we not? You are confusing potential acts with the acts themselves.

I can't say I understand what your point was :shrug:
Care to elaborate?

This whole thing with Phelps has gotten completely out of hand. Ok, I can see why people may be disappointed in him but for Christ's sake, don't take his dignity away too. The sheriff just wants to make a name for himself to be known as "the guy who arrested Michael Phelps."

Its just weed.

The 'Fire in a Theatre' arguement is not a comparable situation. The ACT of yelling fire is prohibited. The ACT of shooting somone is (self-defense aside) prohibited.

Does a person have to undergo a background check to simply go into a theatre? After all, we all have the POTENTIAL to yell fire, do we not? You are confusing potential acts with the acts themselves.The "FIRE" in a crowded theater argument is that, while you have rights, there are reasonable restrictions to those rights.

This whole thing with Phelps has gotten completely out of hand. Ok, I can see why people may be disappointed in him but for Christ's sake, don't take his dignity away too. The sheriff just wants to make a name for himself to be known as "the guy who arrested Michael Phelps."

Its just weed.I think the bong took his dignity away, not the people who saw him with it.

I think the bong took his dignity away, not the people who saw him with it.

Oh yeah, I forgot, marijuana is a killer drug.

:sarcasm:

Oh yeah, I forgot, marijuana is a killer drug.

Oh yeah, I forgot, it's perfectly legal, didn't shame him in front of his mother at all, didn't cost him any endorsements or respect........

I think the bong took his dignity away, not the people who saw him with it.

Um uh, don't forget the dui last year. After all, it's just alcohol, little drinking and driving never hurt anyone.

The "FIRE" in a crowded theater argument is that, while you have rights, there are reasonable restrictions to those rights.

You still don't get it. There is a difference between an act that endangers other people (yelling fire/shooting a gun) and mere possession/ownership, which by itself, does not.

It's already illegal to shoot someone (self defense aside), just as it's illegal to endanger people by yelling fire in a theatre.

The 2nd says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The right to Keep and Bear Arms doesn't allow you to shoot someone, anymore then the 1st allows you to endanger others yelling fire in a crowd.

Oh yeah, I forgot, it's perfectly legal, didn't shame him in front of his mother at all, didn't cost him any endorsements or respect........

56 on route 4 is illegal, which many people exceed daily. Speeding will kill people, yet to see anyone overdose on marijuana.

You still don't get it. There is a difference between an act that endangers other people (yelling fire/shooting a gun) and mere possession/ownership, which by itself, does not.

It's already illegal to shoot someone (self defense aside), just as it's illegal to endanger people by yelling fire in a theatre.

The 2nd says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The right to Keep and Bear Arms doesn't allow you to shoot someone, anymore then the 1st allows you to endanger others yelling fire in a crowd.The first allows you the act of speaking, but that act is restricted where it would cause undue harm (telling state's secrets, fire in a crowded theater, etc) - implying there are limits to the actual "right".

Keeping a bearing arms are acts, and there are reasonable restrictions upon those acts (ie, no nukes, no chemical weapons, etc) - because there are reasonable restrictions to every "right".

56 on route 4 is illegal, which many people exceed daily. Speeding will kill people, yet to see anyone overdose on marijuana.And, getting a ticket for violating that law is undignified.

And, getting a ticket for violating that law is undignified.

Correct, because speeding is dangerous. Marijuana is not, so what is so wrong about it?

Correct, because speeding is dangerous. Marijuana is not, so what is so wrong about it?Please read any of the numerous posts I've already provided in this thread as to what I think is wrong about illegal use of controlled substances.

Wow... Seems like some serious overkill going on here. Don't they have more serious crimes to spend man hours on?

Eight arrested in Michael Phelps case

Lott says the picture indicated a law was being broken in his jurisdiction. He said he couldn't ignore the violation just because Phelps is rich and famous.

We've now learned that since investigators began trying to build a case, they've made eight arrests: seven for drug possession and one for distribution. These are arrests that resulted as the sheriff's department served search warrants.

We've also learned that the department has located and confiscated that bong.

Sources say the owner of the bong was trying to sell it on eBay for as much as $100,000.

The owner, who wasn't even at the party, is one of the eight now charged. LINK (http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9814127)

Wow... Seems like some serious overkill going on here. Don't they have more serious crimes to spend man hours on?

Eight arrested in Michael Phelps case

Lott says the picture indicated a law was being broken in his jurisdiction. He said he couldn't ignore the violation just because Phelps is rich and famous.

We've now learned that since investigators began trying to build a case, they've made eight arrests: seven for drug possession and one for distribution. These are arrests that resulted as the sheriff's department served search warrants.

We've also learned that the department has located and confiscated that bong.

Sources say the owner of the bong was trying to sell it on eBay for as much as $100,000.

The owner, who wasn't even at the party, is one of the eight now charged. LINK (http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9814127)Wow, I didn't realize there were still repurcussions for violating the law. Apparently the Rangel Rule hasn't passed yet.

The first allows you the act of speaking, but that act is restricted where it would cause undue harm (telling state's secrets, fire in a crowded theater, etc) - implying there are limits to the actual "right".

Keeping a bearing arms are acts, and there are reasonable restrictions upon those acts (ie, no nukes, no chemical weapons, etc) - because there are reasonable restrictions to every "right".

There is no prior restraint on free speach. :smack: Your mouth is not taped shut or your tongue removed before you enter a theater. You are allowed to yell 'fire' in a theater! You are responsible for your actions if you yell fire and some one is injured when in fact there was no fire. But again, there is no prior restraint.

There should be no prior restraint on any other Right either. A person should be responsible for their actions, and if, in exercising a right, you cause injury to another, then there needs to be consequences for your actions.

The Second Amendment is the ONLY amendment that has many prior restraints attached to it, even when the amendment specifically states that their shall be no infringement! This is wrong, and these restraints need to be removed, they are unConstitutional!

It is not your job or the governments to regulate a Right, but it is the governments job to protect those Rights!

Read the Constitution and the Federal/anti-Federal papers and understand what that brilliant piece of paper actually says.

There is no prior restraint on free speach. :smack: Your mouth is not taped shut or your tongue removed before you enter a theater. You are allowed to yell 'fire' in a theater! You are responsible for your actions if you yell fire and some one is injured when in fact there was no fire. But again, there is no prior restraint.

There should be no prior restraint on any other Right either. A person should be responsible for their actions, and if, in exercising a right, you cause injury to another, then there needs to be consequences for your actions.

The Second Amendment is the ONLY amendment that has many prior restraints attached to it, even when the amendment specifically states that their shall be no infringement! This is wrong, and these restraints need to be removed, they are unConstitutional!

It is not your job or the governments to regulate a Right, but it is the governments job to protect those Rights!

Read the Constitution and the Federal/anti-Federal papers and understand what that brilliant piece of paper actually says.You're describing the difference between a reasonable limitation to rights, and unreasonable ones. Personally, I see no reason to register guns (or, apparently, ammunition in some cases) - I find that an unreasonable restriction. I see no reasonable restriction of caliber, or how many rounds can be shot, etc., etc. These, IMHO, are unreasonable restrictions.

Whether or not you can possess working chemical weapons, or biological weapons, or nuclear weapons - those seem like reasonable restrictions. Beyond that, not so much in the way of reasonable.

You're describing the difference between a reasonable limitation to rights, and unreasonable ones. Personally, I see no reason to register guns (or, apparently, ammunition in some cases) - I find that an unreasonable restriction. I see no reasonable restriction of caliber, or how many rounds can be shot, etc., etc. These, IMHO, are unreasonable restrictions.

Whether or not you can possess working chemical weapons, or biological weapons, or nuclear weapons - those seem like reasonable restrictions. Beyond that, not so much in the way of reasonable.

I don't, and I would guess that the founders wouldn't have considered those type of weapons personal arms that are a fundamentally protected right under the Constitution.
:buddies: I agree with you that there should be no restrictions, period, when it comes to gun rights.

I don't, and I would guess that the founders wouldn't have considered those type of weapons personal arms that are a fundamentally protected right under the Constitution.
:buddies: I agree with you that there should be no restrictions, period, when it comes to gun rights.I think they imagined "arms" to be whatever the government had, such that the people could reasonably defend themselves from (or even overthrow) the government. I just think that, while that's a necessary goal, WMD's would be irresponsibly placed into just anyone's hands.

Wow, I didn't realize there were still repurcussions for violating the law. Apparently the Rangel Rule hasn't passed yet.

My point was more along the lines of "don't they have real crime with real victims that they could expend their manpower on?" Some college kids smoking pot at a party last November seems a little pointless to pursue convictions on in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure the local victims of rape, robbery, and theft there would appreciate such zealous police investigations of their cases too but it's doubtful they'll get it since that wouldn't get the publicity-crazed sheriff's name in the worldwide press.

Wow, sounds like Barney (Fife) got a wee bit bored, eh?
I hope this backfires and there is some federal decriminalization of pot because of the sheer ridiculousness of this :lol:

My point was more along the lines of "don't they have real crime with real victims that they could expend their manpower on?" Some college kids smoking pot at a party last November seems a little pointless to pursue convictions on in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure the local victims of rape, robbery, and theft there would appreciate such zealous police investigations of their cases too but it's doubtful they'll get it since that wouldn't get the publicity-crazed sheriff's name in the worldwide press.I thought it was their responsibility to investigate all crimes, not just the ones that someone thinks is important at the moment.

I thought it was their responsibility to investigate all crimes, not just the ones that someone thinks is important at the moment.

This is as ridiculous as the sheriff saying "Dear GOD! Little jimmy had a party 3 months ago and there was...BEER?! Everyone who attended is getting underage possession of alcohol charges."
Crazy.

This is as ridiculous as the sheriff saying "Dear GOD! Little jimmy had a party 3 months ago and there was...BEER?! Everyone who attended is getting underage possession of alcohol charges."
Crazy.It actually sounds more like he got search warrents, used them current time, and found things wrong NOW, not just then. Like, the photo was a lead, and the crime(s) are still going on (that happens when you don't punish people for crimes, they keep committing them).

Maybe I understand it incorrectly, but that's the gist I got out of it.

This is as ridiculous as the sheriff saying "Dear GOD! Little jimmy had a party 3 months ago and there was...BEER?! Everyone who attended is getting underage possession of alcohol charges."
Crazy.

Everybody in his jurisdiction should send him in pictures of themselves smoking weed. Hell, just roll some tobacco and have you and all your pals puffing away on a joint in every shot. Think how busy they could be investigating thousands of pictures! This guy is a total media whore, did anybody post that photo of him posing with his new armored personnel carrier (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/128482)?

Everybody in his jurisdiction should send him in pictures of themselves smoking weed. Hell, just roll some tobacco and have you and all your pals puffing away on a joint in every shot. Think how busy they could be investigating thousands of pictures! This guy is a total media whore, did anybody post that photo of him posing with his new armored personnel carrier (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/128482)?

:killingme And ya'll think that Maryland blows it's funding :roflmao:

I think they imagined "arms" to be whatever the government had, such that the people could reasonably defend themselves from (or even overthrow) the government. I just think that, while that's a necessary goal, WMD's would be irresponsibly placed into just anyone's hands.

Again, you are correct. As back in the day, individuals owned warships and cannon. I still can't wrap my head around nukes and chemical/biological weapons as arms ANYONE, including the governments, should have.

No. It was illegal then, just like now.

Gawd! Just choke on a celery stick already. The cops and crooks are in an arms race; the Constitution is in tatters; and the taxpayers keep bending over to house and feed non-violent dope heads. I'm sick of you law-n-order morons providing cover for this taxation party. Shut up, so we can put these no-knock paramilitary fools and their gang-banging counterparts out of business.

Phelps is off the hook. No pot charge for swimmer Phelps after photo - Yahoo! Sports (http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ap-phelps-marijuana&prov=ap&type=lgns)

Quick question , when you said "the dangers and problems with drug use" , were you talking about the dangers of winning 8 gold medals in the olympics?Quick answer - no. When I said "the dangers and problems with drugs use", I meant "drug use", not "Olympic gold medal winning." Subtle, but I thought I was clear.The only reason that pot has changed his life is because of hypocritical , overly-punative laws ... not anything that pot did . And really this just goes to show , you can smoke pot and still do great things with your life . Really? When did he start smoking? Was he high while swimming?

Perhaps you are just looking to justify someone else's drug use?
But sure , when Phelps got his DUI no one was saying he was a bad role model , but as soon as he takes a bong hit he's suddenly in the wrong.:shrug: I think getting a DUI is being a bad role model.... Don't you? Would you be as okay with your kid getting a DUI, and then being photographed doing drugs? Quite the winner there! :lol:The responsible thing for him to do would be to tell the world to get out of his private life . He has nothing to apoligize for , nobody even cared that he was also drinking . It's nobody's business if he wants to smoke pot ... worry about yourselves people , and don't worry , you can still have your drug (alcohol) , just don't be a hypocrite and look down on people because they use a different drug .If you're trying to make the case that alcohol should be illegal, you're doing a good job (as has been done by several others previously in this thread). However, if you want to debate alcohol laws, then perhaps that's what you should do. If you want to debate drug laws, then you should do that. But, to suggest that the best way to change the law is by violating it, you're full of crap. The best way to change a law is to provide a good argument. "Johnny's kinda similar because he drinks Coor's Lite" isn't a good argument, it's childish.My hope is that one day all of you anti-pot people will realize how hypocritical you are . And if you use alcohol , guess what , YOU USE DRUGS ! Which means that you don't have the right to preach to anybody else about using drugs . And actually , you're drug has killed more people since January 1st 2009 than pot has killed in thousands of years . So goodnight to the ANTI-DRUG drug addicts . :howdy:Can you provide the statistical studies to justify your last statement?

No? How come?

Meanwhile, if you drink soda with caffeine - YOU USE DRUGS! If you take aspirin for your headache - YOU USE DRUGS! If you smoke pot, YOU USE ILLEGAL DRUGS!

See the difference?