Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana

[Larry Gude]

I agree...

but what they should be looking at is that alcohol and tobacco are damaging substances and if we could put those genies back in their bottles we would. But we can't, so where's the benefit to society of unleashing yet another enabler of bad behavior on the public? I'm sorry, but I can see no benefits, just a lot of negatives.

...that alcohol and tobacco are public health problems. I don't agree we'd put them back in any bottle. Far to many people enjoy alcohol and tobacco in moderation to ban them just because some people over do it. Pit falls of being free.

We are not going to see a wave of people suddenly firing up heroin because it is NOT the same as going out for a few beers. We are not going to have a sudden cocaine crisis because it is not the same as having a cigar on a Sunday afternoon.

Likewise anyone who enjoys mellowing out and wasting time smoking grass is likely already doing it. Any 'wave' of new dopers will come and go because of the simple fact of how silly smoking dope is.

The feared loss of human beings to some new drug addiction wave is, to me, small price to pay for eliminating drug turf wars, insane police budgets and capabilities based mostly on being able to deal with the violence associated with the money invloved in illegal drug trafficing.

The basis for drug illegalization is the basis for governmental intervention in anything one does that is unhealthy for them. Diet. Lack of exercise. Smoking. Hi stress jobs. Poor finacial decisions. You name it.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yes!

I would hope that the NRA is getting ready to jump on this decision as well, as it means that the 2nd Ammendment now trumps any state firearms laws.

Crossed fingers.

 

[Chain729]

Bzzz try again.

Most of the losers that I know personally that have done pot have indeed moved onto 'other' drugs. This is not to say that all those who light up will move onto 'other' drugs, just my observations.

Want more?

http://www.visionsteen.com/articles/twins.html

http://www.mfiles.org/Marijuana/user_impact/b2_gateway.html

http://www.dfaf.org/marijuana/gatewaydrug.php

http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/conv.htm

You're the first person to come back with information and statistics that aren't fundamentally flawed. Until I can find hard contradicting evidence, I'll have to agree that there is a logical connection. Although, the evidence proving a correlation is there, but I'm still not 100% that MJ is the main cuase. Of course, until that cause is known its a mute point.

However, I will add some food for thought:

1) Some people have addictive personalities and your psychological profile isn't decided at birth. Considering this, would the problem of addiction to something not have happened regardless?

2) Is it possible that of those, with addictive personalities, who did not move on to harder drugs, some chose not to simply because they were content with the effects of MJ?

 

[Chain729]

You're right in most of what you wrote, but you miss the point. We have a lot of problems now because of alcohol and tobacco use, at the addicted level or not. The fact is that we don't need to be adding more fuel to the fire by making yet another form of diminished mental capacity available. Now, the legalization crowd loves to complain that since booze and smokes are legal, marijuana should be legal also, but what they should be looking at is that alcohol and tobacco are damaging substances and if we could put those genies back in their bottles we would. But we can't, so where's the benefit to society of unleashing yet another enabler of bad behavior on the public? I'm sorry, but I can see no benefits, just a lot of negatives.

And you're missing my point. The government obviously can make laws that eat up tax dollars, in an in-effective, never-ending battle to save people from themselves; but, my question is: Should they?

BTW, could tell me how smoking tabacco effects brain cells and society, beyond the obvious cancer, lung, and allergenic problems? IMHO, I believe that the government should be able to regulate things in/on public property; but the majority of the anti-smoking laws are aimed at private property, and that I don't agree with.

 

[Chain729]

Crossed fingers.

Same here. Hopefully, it doesn't cause an even dumber translation of the amendment.

 

[Bruzilla]

And you're missing my point. The government obviously can make laws that eat up tax dollars, in an in-effective, never-ending battle to save people from themselves; but, my question is: Should they?

BTW, could tell me how smoking tabacco effects brain cells and society, beyond the obvious cancer, lung, and allergenic problems? IMHO, I believe that the government should be able to regulate things in/on public property; but the majority of the anti-smoking laws are aimed at private property, and that I don't agree with.

I fully understand your point. It's the exact same point that I've been hearing since the 1980s. Smoking tobacco does not have the same effects as marijuana, but it does have impacts on society just as alcohol and any other chemical that you stick in your body does. I couldn't care less if someone wants to lock themselves in a room and toke their lives away, or smoke their lungs out, or drink their livers into oblivian. If that's what you want to do, then do it... provided your stupidity doesn't come back to impact me, which it always does. Smokers, drinkers, pot heads, etc., all sing the same song. They all want their rights and to be free of "needless" legal intervention... that is right up until their habits gets them into trouble. Then they want everyone else to help them out, cut them slack, make exceptions for them, etc. Then when they don't get immediate and direct relief, you see their miserable little faces pasted all over TV, newspapers, etc., with appeals for help for these poor unfortunate souls. They aren't unfortunate, they're stupid, and being stupid they should bear the sole accountability for their actions. And for the final verse of this old song, that being the stanza "No one would hire me because I'm a pot head so I had no choice but to turn to crime", I would like nothing more than for judges to just give them the death penalty. If you feel that chemical modification of your behavior is legitimate, and necessary, and as a result you can't be a productive member of society, it's time to cull you from the herd.

 

[Bruzilla]

The feared loss of human beings to some new drug addiction wave is, to me, small price to pay for eliminating drug turf wars, insane police budgets and capabilities based mostly on being able to deal with the violence associated with the money invloved in illegal drug trafficing.

But here's another view on this subject Larry. Despite the fact that marijuana is illegal, we already have reports showing that 20-40% of kids in schools have at least tried it. Now, that's an awful number, but what would that number be if you legalized marijuana? Most likely it would be at the 80-90% of kids who have tried smoking or drinking alcohol... neither of which are legal to sell to minors, but widely available to them anyway because they are legal to sell and there's no stigma attached to them. So, do we really need a bunch of stoned kids in school? It's bad enough with a minority of them in that state, how much harm would moving that state to the majority bring.

Now, expand that argument to the adult world. We already have a lot of traffic accidents, accidental shootings, common accidents, fights, stabbings, etc., stemming from illegal marijuana use. Do we really want to exponentially grow the number of these?

Lastly, there aren't a lot of turf wars and major crime over marijuana any more. There's not enough return on investment for the dealers to get all in a fuss like with hard drugs. Marijuana transport requires a lot of logistic support and the profit per pound is minimal when compared to the profit per ounce associated with harder drugs. That's why domestic marijuana is becoming more of a player than imported stuff. Legalizing marijuana isn't going to result in much of a lessening in violence or police budgets as it's a very minor player.

 

[BuddyLee]

That makes alcohol a "gateway" drug, too, then.

So what? Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Bruzilla]

So what? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Exactly!