Legalized

[Larry Gude]

I'm with Tox...

...legalize it all.

BUT, let's get Colorodo to legalize everything now and then, right after the last druggie moves there over the next few years, legalize everywhere else.

 

[vraiblonde]

If they were to come out tomorrow morning and say "Free Legal Dope for ALL!", I would still not smoke marajuana.

I probably would. Especially when my kids are driving me crazy.

Conversely, if they outlawed cigarettes tomorrow, I would quit. I wouldn't like it, but I damn sure wouldn't be sneaking around looking for a dealer, worrying the whole time what's going to happen if I get caught.

I think most people obey the law, and I have statistics to back that up. I also have statistics to show that illegal behaviors become more prevalent once you legalize them.

 

[ylexot]

I was expecting this...

...legalize it all.

BUT, let's get Colorodo to legalize everything now and then, right after the last druggie moves there over the next few years, nuke Denver.

 

[Dougstermd]

That's right, it would only affect the users. A win win situation. One thing though, less productive? That's really not correct. You would be surprised at the people you would never suspect to use, but do. Wasn't Bush a coke head?

http://forums.somd.com/showthread.php?t=59207

 

[Toxick]

we will now have a powerfully addictive drug easily available to children.

Powerfully addictive?
No doubt you have unbiased statistics and figures to back up that insane assertion.

Easily available to children?
Only if someone's that irresponsible that they leave it laying around the house. Instead of locked away with the vodka, prozac, oxycontin, vicodan, gasoline, bourbon, terpentine, porn, percocet, gardening tools, viagra, tequila, glass-cleaner and tobacco.

It'll still be necessary to police stoned people - just cause it's legal doesn't mean your school bus driver should be smoking it - even BEFORE he starts driving your kids in the morning. So the courts will still be full of stoners - but their butts won't be in jail for *possession* - no, it'll be from USING it while driving the garbage truck through someone's living room (all the while, saying "Duuuuuude").

Ok.

Usage will go up. Some will experiment, and some will UP their usage, because after legalization, they'll be able to spliff anywhere, without concealment.

Public intoxication is illegal, no?

You seem to be insunating that if the stuff is legalized, it will be completely 100% unrestricted, unregulated anarchy, and the world will burst into a flowery 1960's drug-induced hallucination, but with rivers of blood flowing where once our glorious streets ran.

As if they wouldn't put age limits on it.

As if they wouldn't make it illegal to operate vehicles while under the influence.


As if all the things you mentioned don't already apply to alcohol.

Am I exaggerating?

Yes.


Horribly, terribly, shamefully and unrealistically exaggerating.

 

[Larry Gude]

I didn't say...

I was expecting this...

...that!

I love Colorodo...

Rockeeeeeeeee Mountain hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggghhhhh...in Colorodo....Rockie Mountain highhhh.............BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ....fuel low....fuel low...

 

[Larry Gude]

My gig...

As if they wouldn't put age limits on it.

...is corruption. I don't want my cops on drug money take. I don't want my politicians corrupted by drug money. I don't want no mob or overseas drug lords getting mega rich.

And I don't want the violence.

No profit motive= happy enjoyments.

 

[SamSpade]

actually i did really well, got good grades, good SAT scores and went to a good college.
ALSO i understand that an addict is always an addict, and an alcoholic is always and alcoholic, they are just reformed, or in recovery.

So, by your logic, if someone murdered a person 30 years ago, they are no longer a murderer because they haven't done it in so long?

Don't be an idiot. There's no statute of limitations on murder. It's always a crime.

 

[Toxick]

Conversely, if they outlawed cigarettes tomorrow, I would quit. I wouldn't like it, but I damn sure wouldn't be sneaking around looking for a dealer, worrying the whole time what's going to happen if I get caught.

There's one.

They say that cigarettes are more addictive than heroine. I don't know how accurate that is, but I've seen people I love constantly battle this addiction and lose.

I think that if they outlawed cigarettes tomorrow, a very very small percentage of smokers would quit - unless they made Zyban and Nicotine patches freely available at clinics: right next to the free Drug needles.

I think most people obey the law, and I have statistics to back that up. I also have statistics to show that illegal behaviors become more prevalent once you legalize them.

I don't think most people obey the law. I do not have statistics to back that up. I think that most people don't get caught doing their little illegal things. But I firmly believe that a great many more people break the law than statistics would show.

 

[Midnightrider]

Don't be an idiot. There's no statute of limitations on murder. It's always a crime.

and an alcoholic is always an alcoholic, just ask one. Drug addict, the same.
You just don't want to admit it b/c georgie is both, but he's your man, and there is the conflict. To me i don't care, he's the same guy if he is or isn't labled an addict.

and why do you have to attack me personally, thats twice now in this thread. If you don't agree with me thats fine, but i am in no way an idiot.

 

[SamSpade]

You seem to be insunating that if the stuff is legalized, it will be completely 100% unrestricted, unregulated anarchy, and the world will burst into a flowery 1960's drug-induced hallucination, but with rivers of blood flowing where once our glorious streets ran.

As if they wouldn't put age limits on it.

As if they wouldn't make it illegal to operate vehicles while under the influence.


As if all the things you mentioned don't already apply to alcohol.

Maybe you weren't part of previous discussions on the subject. I imply or insinuate none of that. I think I explained it very succinctly, but maybe I should have explained it more clearly.

It will *change* NOTHING as far as court cases are concerned. One of the biggest gripes about legalizing dope is that people sit in jail over "mere" possession charges. The argument goes that the courts would be freed to see more important cases, because they wouldn't waste their time on people committing this victimless crime.

But all it would do is SHIFT the situation - and in a direction that overall would be worse.

Alcohol is LEGAL - and driving drunk is NOT. But drunk driving still occurs.

Pot is ILLEGAL - and driving stoned is illegal, and would be as well in a future where it becomes illegal. But you don't currently have a ton of stoned drivers on the road, because pot IS illegal. Make it legal, and now instead of grabbing mush-for-brains for possessing dope, you're nailing him for USING it in an illegal manner. And those cases wouldn't change the court situation at all. Actually, the liabilities would be worse - it's one thing for hippy-dude to get stoned and get picked up for being high - it's another for him to get his dope LEGALLY and then do something STUPID while stoned.

Cigarettes are legal. Smoking underage is ILLEGAL. But it's damned easy for kids to grab their parent's smokes and smoke 'em in the back yard and bring them to school. Heck, same goes for liquor. I'd say the same goes for guns, except that for reasons that seem to make a lot of sense, many gun owners take their guns VERY seriously. When you're smokin' dope all the time, being responsible with your dope isn't exactly a distinguishing characteristic.

*I* am not exaggerating. But you are, with your interpretation of what I wrote. Usage will rise. It won't be the fall of civilization, but it will be the dumbing down of a lot of it. I've always hated the idea of "if you can't beat it, make it legal".

 

[SamSpade]

and an alcoholic is always an alcoholic, just ask one. Drug addict, the same.
You just don't want to admit it b/c georgie is both, but he's your man, and there is the conflict. To me i don't care, he's the same guy if he is or isn't labled an addict.

and why do you have to attack me personally, thats twice now in this thread. If you don't agree with me thats fine, but i am in no way an idiot.

I've been on this forum since the web site STARTED. You can ask DJ and Ken and others. I don't engage in personal attacks. If you say something stupid, that is being an idiot. DON'T be one. Your murder remark was stupid. Don't say ridiculous things, and it won't be necessary to point them out. It can be civil.

I don't know where you get the "he's your man, and there is the conflict" stuff. I know all about alcoholism and drug addiction, and you do not want to go there. I just don't hold alcoholism against someone when they've had the fortitude to stay sober for thirty years. I know addicts, and have a few in my immediate family, and they will say they're addicts. But that's not what is meant when people hurl the accusation at others. It's used like a club, as if staying sober after an addiction is some kind of character weakness. My little sister will stay she's an alcoholic; but if you start TAUNTING her with the moniker alcoholic, you're not talking the same language. You use the situation to make it a character flaw.

You know, every week it seems some celebrity makes a fortune showing how they overcame their addiction to something - they might even make a *movie* about it. Hell, they DO. And it's crowed about as some kind of achievement and moral victory. I don't get that sense when someone calls Bush a cokehead or alcoholic. It's INTENDED as an insult. And that I find offensive.

 

[vraiblonde]

If you say something stupid, that is being an idiot.

It's okay to call people names if it's true. Queasy Mfume says so.

 

[Midnightrider]

I've been on this forum since the web site STARTED. You can ask DJ and Ken and others. I don't engage in personal attacks. If you say something stupid, that is being an idiot. DON'T be one. Your murder remark was stupid. Don't say ridiculous things, and it won't be necessary to point them out. It can be civil.

I don't know where you get the "he's your man, and there is the conflict" stuff. I know all about alcoholism and drug addiction, and you do not want to go there. I just don't hold alcoholism against someone when they've had the fortitude to stay sober for thirty years. I know addicts, and have a few in my immediate family, and they will say they're addicts. But that's not what is meant when people hurl the accusation at others. It's used like a club, as if staying sober after an addiction is some kind of character weakness. My little sister will stay she's an alcoholic; but if you start TAUNTING her with the moniker alcoholic, you're not talking the same language. You use the situation to make it a character flaw.

You know, every week it seems some celebrity makes a fortune showing how they overcame their addiction to something - they might even make a *movie* about it. Hell, they DO. And it's crowed about as some kind of achievement and moral victory. I don't get that sense when someone calls Bush a cokehead or alcoholic. It's INTENDED as an insult. And that I find offensive.

Just b/c you have been here for a long time doesn't make you right, and your first attack was towards my ability to read and comprehend, so you can't shift the blame to me. Be a man, take some responsibilty.
As far as alcoholics and addicts are concerned, i don't hold it against them that they have changed their ways, but it doesn't change the past either. That is why they continue to refer to themselves as such, to remind themselves of where they where and where they could be...

 

[SamSpade]

It's okay to call people names if it's true. Queasy Mfume says so.

Oh don't be an idiot.

 

[Toxick]

Maybe you weren't part of previous discussions on the subject. I imply or insinuate none of that. I think I explained it very succinctly, but maybe I should have explained it more clearly.

Perhaps.


If I read this correctly: you don't imply or insinuate what it appeared that you were implying and insinuating - however, I would have to have been part of a previous conversation to realize that.

Fair enough.

The argument goes that the courts would be freed to see more important cases, because they wouldn't waste their time on people committing this victimless crime.

That's one of my many personal gripes, yes.

The situation as it is now, is nothing a waste of time and resources over something that I find, frankly, to be a stupid, meaningless and needlessly oppressive law.

But all it would do is SHIFT the situation - and in a direction that overall would be worse.

I don't believe that it would.

Alcohol is LEGAL - and driving drunk is NOT. But drunk driving still occurs.

But you don't currently have a ton of stoned drivers on the road, because pot IS illegal. Make it legal, and now instead of grabbing mush-for-brains for possessing dope, you're nailing him for USING it in an illegal manner.

Firstly, you're making baseless assumptions. To Wit: "You don't currently have a ton of stoned drivers on the road".

"HAH!" sez, I.

Secondly, you're using contradictory arguments.

To Wit: "People generally follow the law, and pot smokers are relatively few in number given the fact that it's illegal" - YET - "If you legalize pot, massive hordes of these formerly law-abiding citizens, will suddently start driving stoned, even if it remains illegal to do so".

Cigarettes are legal. Smoking underage is ILLEGAL. But it's damned easy for kids to grab their parent's smokes and smoke 'em in the back yard and bring them to school. Heck, same goes for liquor. I'd say the same goes for guns, except that for reasons that seem to make a lot of sense, many gun owners take their guns VERY seriously.

It's easy to take knives, and gasoline, and pills, and such to school now - and if you think pot isn't readily available on the playground at school, think again.

It's like I said before. it's only easy for kids to get their hands on your pot if you don't lock it up with your vodka, prozac, oxycontin, vicodan, gasoline, bourbon, terpentine, porn, percocet, gardening tools, viagra, tequila, glass-cleaner and tobacco.

The only difference is that maybe - MAYBE - kids will try harder to get at the pot if they know it's there, than they would all the poisons, weapons, drugs and booze.

*I* am not exaggerating. But you are, with your interpretation of what I wrote.

Bah.

You're talking about people driving through living rooms, saying "Duuude". And "smokin' dope all the time"


But *I* am exaggerating.


Bah, again.

 

[SamSpade]

Just b/c you have been here for a long time doesn't make you right, and your first attack was towards my ability to read and comprehend, ...

My first comment was definitely about your ability to comprehend what you read. And you do not do that well, because you're ignoring the point. My tenure on this board has NOTHING to do with "making me right" - it has to do with "not making personal attacks" - which is exactly what I said, and referred to long time posters to corroborate that - whjch they can. I'm afraid all you're doing is confirming my original point.

 

[SamSpade]

Secondly, you're using contradictory arguments.

To Wit: "People generally follow the law, and pot smokers are relatively few in number given the fact that it's illegal" - YET - "If you legalize pot, massive hordes of these formerly law-abiding citizens, will suddently start driving stoned, even if it remains illegal to do so".

Looking back.....

Funny, I don't remember saying that anywhere.

1. I do think pot smokers are partly fewer in number, because of the law. But it's also because of a lot of other reasons - social stigma, availability and cost being some of them. Quick, where's the closest place to get dope? Now, where's the closest place to get cigarettes? So there's a lot of reasons. LEGALIZE it, and those questions become irrelevant.

2. I'm STILL not saying that hordes of formerly law-abiding etc. That's the exaggeration you are making. I've never said that, and denied implying it. I AM saying that usage will increase. Is that an exaggeration? If 2% of the public uses it now, and 8% will use it after - isn't that a lot? Isn't that a far cry from the scenario you're pitching?

Right now, possession alone is illegal enough. Nail someone on possession, and you don't even have to wait for them to drive stoned - or drive a forklift stoned. I'm not saying those things don't happen now - I'm saying those situations WILL increase, because the situation shifts. Right now, people who get high *usually* do it where they won't be caught - for lots of reasons. They find the means to mask the smell - for lots of reasons. Once that is gone, the problems will *increase*. If there are 100 cases now, there'll be 300 cases later. You'll still deal with the same guys smoking, in the county lockup - except that you'll be busting them on other charges RELATED to smoking dope.

I mean, come on. No one busted on FromTexas making the charge that smoking dope would still occur among the folks that do it NOW. What's to force them to be RESPONSIBLE about smoking a substance that a) *impairs* your ability to be responsible and b) is smoked by people who have already demonstrated they're not going to be?

 

[Midnightrider]

My first comment was definitely about your ability to comprehend what you read. And you do not do that well, because you're ignoring the point. My tenure on this board has NOTHING to do with "making me right" - it has to do with "not making personal attacks" - which is exactly what I said, and referred to long time posters to corroborate that - whjch they can. I'm afraid all you're doing is confirming my original point.

that youre an a-hole and can't admit that you attack people instead of staying on topic, got it!

 

[Dougstermd]

It's like I said before. it's only easy for kids to get their hands on your pot if you don't lock it up with your vodka, prozac, oxycontin, vicodan, gasoline, bourbon, terpentine, porn, percocet, gardening tools, viagra, tequila, glass-cleaner and tobacco.

You forgot pistols, shotguns, rifles, firecrackers,bottle rockets,matches,and candles.