|
Okay first off I want to start this by saying, no one should break the law or encourage others, this is not a thread to brag about flaunting current laws. This is merely to discuss this article and ask a few simple questions.
California to vote on legalization of marijuana
Now the questions
1) are you for or against this passing
2) why
3) if it passes would you like to see other states adopt this measure.
Please keep things civil and be aware of the rules of this forum. I would like to have an interesting and honest discussion, not have this thread locked for violation of the rules.
|
|
Now for me
I am for this legislation. I think our government wastes too much money on enforcing failed prohibition policies and makes criminals of citizens unnecessarily. I do believe that it should be regulated and controlled in the exact same manner as alchohol. I would also like to see this legislation passed on a federal level because I believe it would kill the criminal enterprises that make money by smuggling the stuff through our borders.
1) For it 100%
2) Prescription drug abuse is far more considerable, marjuanna seems almost laughable in comparison. I've seen far more fights with drunken people acting like total idiots then I have ever seen with pot. Not that it's any better to drive while intoxicated with any substance. There should be limits like with alcohol, like public drunkeness. I don't want to see a bunch of people falling all over the place stoned out of their minds like I don't want to see a bunch of drunk people falling all over the place completlely wasted. To me it seems the same as the prohibition period in the 20s or 30s (I forget when) but for marijuana.
3) I would love to see all states adopt this.
Now for me
I am for this legislation. I think our government wastes too much money on enforcing failed prohibition policies and makes criminals of citizens unnecessarily. I do believe that it should be regulated and controlled in the exact same manner as alchohol. I would also like to see this legislation passed on a federal level because I believe it would kill the criminal enterprises that make money by smuggling the stuff through our borders.
I saw an article about how the mexican drug trafficers were hit pretty hard by home growers in the united states. It was awesome to hear that, since from what they stated, the mexican drug dealers make most of their profits by selling pot to us. Cocaine and heroin were a much smaller fraction of their profits.
Personally I find it strange that at the same time we are pushing for rolling back bans on smoking stuff, we are the same time pushing for banning smoking in public places. At the same time as we push for education on the physical damage smoking does, we are promoting smoking other things.
Personally I find it strange that at the same time we are pushing for rolling back bans on smoking stuff, we are the same time pushing for banning smoking in public places. At the same time as we push for education on the physical damage smoking does, we are promoting smoking other things.
Well I'm not really one of those "we" though. I dont like cigarette smoke in enclosed spaces, but I don't mind out in the open. As for pot, I think it should have the same restrictions as they have for drinking alcohol in public places. I do agree smoking any substance like cigarettes and pot does damage to you, just as alcohol does.
|
|
Personally I find it strange that at the same time we are pushing for rolling back bans on smoking stuff, we are the same time pushing for banning smoking in public places. At the same time as we push for education on the physical damage smoking does, we are promoting smoking other things.
except that with legalization comes innovation. lets also not forget that for a long time marijuana has proven to work just fine when baked into goods. The same doesn't hold true for tobacco. Heck I even bet that one year after legalization there will be THC pills, so that you don't even have to eat, you can just down a single pill.
Personally I find it strange that at the same time we are pushing for rolling back bans on smoking stuff, we are the same time pushing for banning smoking in public places. At the same time as we push for education on the physical damage smoking does, we are promoting smoking other things.Well I'm not really one of those "we" though. I dont like cigarette smoke in enclosed spaces, but I don't mind out in the open. As for pot, I think it should have the same restrictions as they have for drinking alcohol in public places. I do agree smoking any substance like cigarettes and pot does damage to you, just as alcohol does.
Also, everyone I have ever met that was a regular pot smoker was a habitual chain smoker as well. The two seem to go together. I doubt that promoting one is going to curb the other.
|
|
I'd like to cast my vote against this with the arguement that I know too many people who smoke it and are nonproductive drains on society...
but it might be unfair to blame that on the drugs. I remain undecided.
Are those people if marijuana didn't exist not the types who would then do the same thing with alchohol?
I'd like to cast my vote against this with the arguement that I know too many people who smoke it and are nonproductive drains on society...
but it might be unfair to blame that on the drugs. I remain undecided.
I would say that in my experience, I know a lot of nonproductive non-drug users. Pot doesn't help some people, but some can be very productive depending.
|
|
Also, everyone I have ever met that was a regular pot smoker was a habitual chain smoker as well. The two seem to go together. I doubt that promoting one is going to curb the other.Personally I find it strange that at the same time we are pushing for rolling back bans on smoking stuff, we are the same time pushing for banning smoking in public places. At the same time as we push for education on the physical damage smoking does, we are promoting smoking other things.Well I'm not really one of those "we" though. I dont like cigarette smoke in enclosed spaces, but I don't mind out in the open. As for pot, I think it should have the same restrictions as they have for drinking alcohol in public places. I do agree smoking any substance like cigarettes and pot does damage to you, just as alcohol does.
You and I travel in different circles, but lets just say my experience does not hold the same truths yours does.
Also, everyone I have ever met that was a regular pot smoker was a habitual chain smoker as well. The two seem to go together. I doubt that promoting one is going to curb the other.Personally I find it strange that at the same time we are pushing for rolling back bans on smoking stuff, we are the same time pushing for banning smoking in public places. At the same time as we push for education on the physical damage smoking does, we are promoting smoking other things.Well I'm not really one of those "we" though. I dont like cigarette smoke in enclosed spaces, but I don't mind out in the open. As for pot, I think it should have the same restrictions as they have for drinking alcohol in public places. I do agree smoking any substance like cigarettes and pot does damage to you, just as alcohol does.
I would say that too, a lot of my friends do or did chain smoke at one time while smoking pot. I never really smoked cigarettes in my life though, not that I'm admitting anything :)
Expect a kneejerk reaction from people born out of ignorance and media/government lies.
In the UK it was down graded from Class B to Class C.
The medical body set up by the government stated that it was less harmfull to users than alcohol and tobacco (infact heroin causes less deaths in the UK than alcohol) so banning its use for health reasons doesn't stack up.
Saying its a gateway drug was also proved to be a myth. You might as well say that drining a pint of beer or two at the weekend and you WILL become an alcoholic.
It doesn't lead to violence. I'm sure a couple of stoners having a fight would be in slow motion and both would have a quick nap and pizza before any harm would be done. Unlike that wonderful drug ethanol which features heavily in violent acts.
Its not addictive physically, infact nicotine won the title for that. It came behind caffine and alcohol.
The board wanted to decrimalise it stating that for people to get it they either had to grow their own or purchase it through crimminals which fed crimminal acts. In the UK in the 80s Afghanistan's fight against Russia was part funded by resin imported in. Now the Afghan's are growing opium poppies to do the same but this time its being used to fund the fight against British and American targets.
So these experts in their field of medicine were sacked because they didn't give the answer they wanted.
And the government upgraded it to Class B again.
Just watch the film Reefer Madness for the reasoned balanced response to government information. Or "Duck and Cover"
|
I'm for it.
I'm not into the stuff, and I think it tends to make people unhealthily apathetic, but I'd rather see my tax dollars put to better use than prosecuting people for marijuana possession. It just shouldn't be a priority, and the illegal trade encourages smuggling, turf wars, and all the rest.
Personally I find it strange that at the same time we are pushing for rolling back bans on smoking stuff, we are the same time pushing for banning smoking in public places. At the same time as we push for education on the physical damage smoking does, we are promoting smoking other things.
I don't think people should be able to smoke pot in public places either, so at least I'm consistent.
I also don't think legalizing it is the same as promoting it. It is, in fact, putting marijuana on equal footing with tobacco, which makes sense to me.
Who knows... If they tax the hell out of pot like they do with cigarettes, it might wind up being more expensive than it is now, and actually discourage use. (That's not an argument one way or the other, just my general musings. I do not claim to predict the future.)
I also don't think legalizing it is the same as promoting it.
I guess I would say that if the change in the law leads to an increase in the number of users (which it will, there are some people that don't currently use it merely because it is illegal and they don't want the hassle), then I would consider it a promotion of it. Certainly there may be public service messages saying, "Yeah we know we just said it was ok for you to use it, but keep in mind these health risks ...", so in that sense there probably won't be the official promotion of it.
|
|
I'm for it.
I'm not into the stuff, and I think it tends to make people unhealthily apathetic, but I'd rather see my tax dollars put to better use than prosecuting people for marijuana possession. It just shouldn't be a priority, and the illegal trade encourages smuggling, turf wars, and all the rest.
This is basically exactly how I feel about it.
Never smoked it and really don't have a desire to do so. Stating that, CH pretty much stated my entire position/thought on the matter, so giving it the +1.
Expect a kneejerk reaction from people born out of ignorance and media/government lies.
In the UK it was down graded from Class B to Class C.
The medical body set up by the government stated that it was less harmfull to users than alcohol and tobacco (infact heroin causes less deaths in the UK than alcohol) so banning its use for health reasons doesn't stack up.
Saying its a gateway drug was also proved to be a myth. You might as well say that drining a pint of beer or two at the weekend and you WILL become an alcoholic.
It doesn't lead to violence. I'm sure a couple of stoners having a fight would be in slow motion and both would have a quick nap and pizza before any harm would be done. Unlike that wonderful drug ethanol which features heavily in violent acts.
Its not addictive physically, infact nicotine won the title for that. It came behind caffine and alcohol.
The board wanted to decrimalise it stating that for people to get it they either had to grow their own or purchase it through crimminals which fed crimminal acts. In the UK in the 80s Afghanistan's fight against Russia was part funded by resin imported in. Now the Afghan's are growing opium poppies to do the same but this time its being used to fund the fight against British and American targets.
So these experts in their field of medicine were sacked because they didn't give the answer they wanted.
And the government upgraded it to Class B again.
Just watch the film Reefer Madness for the reasoned balanced response to government information. Or "Duck and Cover"
I read some articles about what was going on in the UK about it, where some higher ranking official was forced to resign because he didn't want to go with the "party line" of saying it was a horrible horrible drug and the worst thing people could do. The official did not believe in censoring the scientific results that marijuana was not as harmful as the policians wanted you to believe.
|
|
One hilarious thing I remember was one of Obama's internet Q&As had a vote on fixing the economy, the number one voted question was basically wouldn't legalizing it fix the economy or at least help. Obama's response was, "I don't know what that says about our internet audience, but no we have no plans to legalize marijuana moving on." basically making it this administrations policy to say no and ignore the issue rather than actually deal with it.
One hilarious thing I remember was one of Obama's internet Q&As had a vote on fixing the economy, the number one voted question was basically wouldn't legalizing it fix the economy or at least help. Obama's response was, "I don't know what that says about our internet audience, but no we have no plans to legalize marijuana moving on." basically making it this administrations policy to say no and ignore the issue rather than actually deal with it.
As much as I'm for it, I think it's not one of our countries highest priorities when it comes to the "to do list".
Now for me
I am for this legislation. I think our government wastes too much money on enforcing failed prohibition policies and makes criminals of citizens unnecessarily. I do believe that it should be regulated and controlled in the exact same manner as alchohol. I would also like to see this legislation passed on a federal level because I believe it would kill the criminal enterprises that make money by smuggling the stuff through our borders.
+1
Im in California I dont smoke I never have smoked and dont want to smoke but I want this legal to save the money
And I think it would make money for farmers and the government
|
|
With a sales tax attached, it's probably a better idea to make it legal.
The people I know who are already into this were already the sort of people who act as if the world owes them a living. I doubt that any of them would turn to alcohol if marijuana weren't available. At least one of them has gone on to trying more dangerous substances instead.
What I'm basically saying is recreational marijuana use, in my experience, is a symptom of an unmotivated selfish leech, not a cause and not ironclad truth in every instance. It certainly doesn't help those people to make its use legal, but it does take a huge burden off of our legal system. I'm against its use and for taxing it, which is the same as my stand on cigarettes.
I am admittedly strongly biased against habitual use of substances that alter brain chemistry... except caffeine. That's a wonder-drug!
Amael wrote "I read some articles about what was going on in the UK about it, where some higher ranking official was forced to resign because he didn't want to go with the "party line" of saying it was a horrible horrible drug and the worst thing people could do. The official did not believe in censoring the scientific results that marijuana was not as harmful as the policians wanted you to believe."
All true.
It stinks of hypocrisy "I had a few joints at University but I didn't inhale (bollox) and I'm still going to ban it because it turns you into a waster criminal. Despite the opinion of these top experts in thier field my degree in Media Studies makes me more qualified."
The Police are fairly cool where I live and realistic about life. Get caught with a few grams, slap on the wrist. They would rather put time and effort into arresting rat-boys who ruin peoples lives rather than a few stoners who sit at home eating pizza. The Police don't want to arrest users.
The trouble is with the stigma attached to it that all stoners are total pot-heads who lounge around and do nothing all day. Again its like saying that everyone who has a glass of wine after work is an alcholic which is not true. Some hold down difficult, professional jobs and their drug of choice is green and not in a wine bottle.
What I would really like to see is Obama or Gordon Brown saying "I had a spliff and it was f***in' great. I drew it into my lungs like it was my last breath on God's green earth. Now I have made a reasoned choice and don't smoke but on a nice summers day during a BBQ I'll spark one up and watch the sun going down."
The trouble is with the stigma attached to it that all stoners are total pot-heads who lounge around and do nothing all day. Again its like saying that everyone who has a glass of wine after work is an alcholic which is not true. Some hold down difficult, professional jobs and there drug of choice is green and not in a wine bottle.
I agree with this 100%, I hold down a job, never been in trouble with the law, don't mess with anyone, and I don't consider myself a "free loader". I think that anyone can be that with or without drugs. My last boss at my previous sales job was a full on coke head with a "respectable" job as the site manager who was "very productive".
I like wine too :)
I also don't think legalizing it is the same as promoting it.I guess I would say that if the change in the law leads to an increase in the number of users (which it will, there are some people that don't currently use it merely because it is illegal and they don't want the hassle), then I would consider it a promotion of it. Certainly there may be public service messages saying, "Yeah we know we just said it was ok for you to use it, but keep in mind these health risks ...", so in that sense there probably won't be the official promotion of it.
I agree with Celestial. While promotion may be implied, it would be wrong to do so.
And I would argue that the public services messages would go something like "you have a right to smoke pot just like you have a right to smoke tobacco, but this right comes with a price... [insert health risks]"
Greg
I'm in favor of decriminalizing everything adults do with their own bodies that doesn't directly threaten anyone else.
Yes, I'm that predictable.
Most of my friends smoke, and the majority of them are very productive. One of them earned three degrees in five years at college. Another is a chemistry and polymer science graduate. Roughly half of my potheaded friends smoke cigarettes, the others don't ever touch them. Now I'm not saying I don't know any smokers who are a waste of space and resources, but many of them were just as big of a waste before they started smoking.
I myself used to smoke, but had to stop once I got a real job, as the risk of losing my job far outways the benefits of smoking. Unfortunately, this means I rarely sleep well, and sometimes go a day or two without eating, but that is the price I pay for being a member of society.
The real issue in my mind would be a better way to see if someone is intoxicated at that moment or not. Say someone comes into work that smokes, and there is an accident. If you are intoxicated, then you would not be eligible for workman's comp. But maybe you smoked a week ago at a friend's birthday or something, and it is still in your system. Should you still be disqualified from workman's compensation?
Same issue arises with DUI's.
I'm in favor of decriminalizing everything adults do with their own bodies that doesn't directly threaten anyone else.
Yes, I'm that predictable.
MINARCHIST!!!
In terms of my take on it, I'm sad to say that I'm against this for all but medicinal purposes. I used to be very much in favor of pot legalization for recreational use, but after what happened with my sister-in-law the day after my wedding in addition to the testamonies of numerous people on my caseload who got high one day and walked away with an Axis 1 or 2, I'm not in favor legalizing it for the average person anymore. You really don't know how someone is going to react on it in my experience, and despite years of humorous ribs at marijuana smokers for being wonderful, mellow people to be around while high, there is a rather dark and ugly side when someone is coming down off their high(or are seeking one and can't find it) that others rarely see- they're called "fiends" for a reason.
|
Okay first off I want to start this by saying, no one should break the law or encourage others, this is not a thread to brag about flaunting current laws. This is merely to discuss this article and ask a few simple questions.
California to vote on legalization of marijuana
Now the questions
1) are you for or against this passing
Against.
2) why
California's unemployment rate is too high to force a bunch of Humbolt County growers into the job market
3) if it passes would you like to see other states adopt this measure.
Sure.
Please keep things civil and be aware of the rules of this forum. I would like to have an interesting and honest discussion, not have this thread locked for violation of the rules.
Okay first off I want to start this by saying, no one should break the law or encourage others, this is not a thread to brag about flaunting current laws. This is merely to discuss this article and ask a few simple questions.
California to vote on legalization of marijuana
Now the questions
1) are you for or against this passing
Against.
2) whyCalifornia's unemployment rate is too high to force a bunch of Humbolt County growers into the job market
3) if it passes would you like to see other states adopt this measure.Sure.
Please keep things civil and be aware of the rules of this forum. I would like to have an interesting and honest discussion, not have this thread locked for violation of the rules.
KiLl Teh HeReTiC!!!!!
I also don't think legalizing it is the same as promoting it.I guess I would say that if the change in the law leads to an increase in the number of users (which it will, there are some people that don't currently use it merely because it is illegal and they don't want the hassle), then I would consider it a promotion of it. Certainly there may be public service messages saying, "Yeah we know we just said it was ok for you to use it, but keep in mind these health risks ...", so in that sense there probably won't be the official promotion of it.
So...not banning something == promoting it? I don't see how that adds up with your defense of individual liberty elsewhere. The question isn't "Should the government allow people?"; it's "Should the government be allowed to prevent them?" In this case I fail to see a compelling argument, especially since pot is less harmful than other, legal substances.
Even though this isn't something I ever chose to use myself, decriminalizing pot really is a no-brainer, folks.
I doubt anyone has ever become violent or destructive in a public setting after smoking a joint.
What the hell is you problem man? You trying to... *snicker*... trying to... hee hee hee.
Whoo! I could really go for a hot dog right about now!
|
|
I know, right? It might even make Philadelphia Eagles fans civilized. ;)
What the hell is you problem man? You trying to... *snicker*... trying to... hee hee hee.Whoo! I could really go for a hot dog right about now!
Dude, as good as mary jane can be (see: Humbolt County growers, above), it isn't a miracle drug. Eagles fans? No hope for them.
I'll take the unpopular stand and say no.
Saying marijuana isn't a gateway drug is burying your head in the sand. That doesn't mean that everyone who tokes a bit will move on to harder drugs, but you'll find very few hard addicts who didn't start wit 'just a joint' or two.
I also see it as a stepping stone to legalizing other, more dangerous substances.
Now this is a huge can of worms when it comes to me and where I come from.
First off to lay my biases fully bare.
I am a pot smoker. I'm a BIG pot smoker. I am not a waste of space or a drain on society. I hold down a job and pay my way. I'm also a musician, and I'm one of the cogs that keeps my local music scene turning. I'm an activist, and I'm not talking some protesting hippie activist, I'm talking things like Food Not Bombs. I'm an extremely productive person, all the while being stoned just about any time I'm not at my day job.
I do not smoke tobacco, never have and never will.
Now my biggest influence on my view of this issue actually comes from where I live. I live in Northern California, in a county by the name of Humboldt.
I do NOT want marijuana to be fully legalized, and here's why:
Humboldt County runs on pot and the industry around it. We used to be a big logging area, but that's died down a lot. Marijuana is really our only economic strength. If marijuana gets legalized we are no longer gonna be the pot powerhouse we are because we aren't gonna be the only place that it's "safe" (relatively) to grow. That means that what little economy we have is pretty much gonna drop out from under us. No, I'm not a grower, this has nothing to do with my personal fortune, it has to do with the fact that pot is pretty much the only thing bringing money into Humboldt county.
Also if marijuana is legalized, more then likely it's gonna be the corporations that dominate, just like they do in every other legal enterprise. We're gonna get trim joints (I highly doubt they're gonna put the effort in to produce quality bud) in 20 to the pack, and they're gonna add crap to it just like they do tobacco. I do not look forward to going to the store to buy a pack of Marlboro Greens. I'd rather keep my premium bud grown right here in Humboldt.
What I WOULD like to see is decriminalization so that essentially any amount is pretty much a slap on the wrist, but still doesn't allow "legitimate" business. That way we greatly reduce the drain on society that prosecuting those involved in the marijuana industry and Humboldt doesn't sink into a depression, and we don't see the reduction in quality and increase in health risks associated with allowing Phillip Morris to control the growth and distribution of it.
If we could find a way to legalize it without heavily altering the economic and power dynamic involved so that my home doesn't die, then I'd be all for it, but I just don't see that happening.
Now this is a huge can of worms when it comes to me and where I come from.
First off to lay my biases fully bare.
I am a pot smoker. I'm a BIG pot smoker. I am not a waste of space or a drain on society. I hold down a job and pay my way. I'm also a musician, and I'm one of the cogs that keeps my local music scene turning. I'm an activist, and I'm not talking some protesting hippie activist, I'm talking things like Food Not Bombs. I'm an extremely productive person, all the while being stoned just about any time I'm not at my day job.
I do not smoke tobacco, never have and never will.
Now my biggest influence on my view of this issue actually comes from where I live. I live in Northern California, in a county by the name of Humboldt.
I do NOT want marijuana to be fully legalized, and here's why:
Humboldt County runs on pot and the industry around it. We used to be a big logging area, but that's died down a lot. Marijuana is really our only economic strength. If marijuana gets legalized we are no longer gonna be the pot powerhouse we are because we aren't gonna be the only place that it's "safe" (relatively) to grow. That means that what little economy we have is pretty much gonna drop out from under us. No, I'm not a grower, this has nothing to do with my personal fortune, it has to do with the fact that pot is pretty much the only thing bringing money into Humboldt county.
Also if marijuana is legalized, more then likely it's gonna be the corporations that dominate, just like they do in every other legal enterprise. We're gonna get trim joints (I highly doubt they're gonna put the effort in to produce quality bud) in 20 to the pack, and they're gonna add crap to it just like they do tobacco. I do not look forward to going to the store to buy a pack of Marlboro Greens. I'd rather keep my premium bud grown right here in Humboldt.
What I WOULD like to see is decriminalization so that essentially any amount is pretty much a slap on the wrist, but still doesn't allow "legitimate"...
Those are some of my fears, I've worried that what we would get from companies selling marijuana would be added chemicals, reducing the potency, etc. You know, all in the name of trying to make a buck. There's nothing better to have something grown with love and care. Humboldt is very nice :)
I'll take the unpopular stand and say no.
Saying marijuana isn't a gateway drug is burying your head in the sand. That doesn't mean that everyone who tokes a bit will move on to harder drugs, but you'll find very few hard addicts who didn't start wit 'just a joint' or two.
I also see it as a stepping stone to legalizing other, more dangerous substances.
Sure, it's a "Gateway" drug...specifically *because* it's illegal. Likewise the "it sends money to criminals" argument. Framkly, there simply aren't any cogent arguments against decriminalization. Which means it probably won't happen...
|
|
Now this is a huge can of worms when it comes to me and where I come from.
First off to lay my biases fully bare.
I am a pot smoker. I'm a BIG pot smoker. I am not a waste of space or a drain on society. I hold down a job and pay my way. I'm also a musician, and I'm one of the cogs that keeps my local music scene turning. I'm an activist, and I'm not talking some protesting hippie activist, I'm talking things like Food Not Bombs. I'm an extremely productive person, all the while being stoned just about any time I'm not at my day job.
I do not smoke tobacco, never have and never will.
Now my biggest influence on my view of this issue actually comes from where I live. I live in Northern California, in a county by the name of Humboldt.
I do NOT want marijuana to be fully legalized, and here's why:
Humboldt County runs on pot and the industry around it. We used to be a big logging area, but that's died down a lot. Marijuana is really our only economic strength. If marijuana gets legalized we are no longer gonna be the pot powerhouse we are because we aren't gonna be the only place that it's "safe" (relatively) to grow. That means that what little economy we have is pretty much gonna drop out from under us. No, I'm not a grower, this has nothing to do with my personal fortune, it has to do with the fact that pot is pretty much the only thing bringing money into Humboldt county.
Also if marijuana is legalized, more then likely it's gonna be the corporations that dominate, just like they do in every other legal enterprise. We're gonna get trim joints (I highly doubt they're gonna put the effort in to produce quality bud) in 20 to the pack, and they're gonna add crap to it just like they do tobacco. I do not look forward to going to the store to buy a pack of Marlboro Greens. I'd rather keep my premium bud grown right here in Humboldt.
What I WOULD like to see is decriminalization so that essentially any amount is pretty much a slap on the wrist, but still doesn't allow "legitimate"...
Dude, I so ninja'd you already ;)
I'll take the unpopular stand and say no.
Saying marijuana isn't a gateway drug is burying your head in the sand. That doesn't mean that everyone who tokes a bit will move on to harder drugs, but you'll find very few hard addicts who didn't start wit 'just a joint' or two.
I also see it as a stepping stone to legalizing other, more dangerous substances.
I rarely say this to anyone, because I believe they're entitled to their opinion, but you're wrong.
Marijuana is no more a gateway drug then alcohol or tobacco. You'll find very few hard addicts who didn't start with "just a bottle or two." The argument is through and through bullshit.
As for legalizing other more dangerous substances, so what? What the *bleep* do you care what someone else does to their body? Seriously? Why is it any of your god damn business? It's NOT. You, and society have every right to hold someone accountable for crimes they commit against other members of society, but you have absolutely no right to tell them what they can or can't do to themselves. Don't like that tweakers steal and hurt other people? Then hold them accountable for stealing and hurting, not for doing drugs.
Personally, I don't really have a strong opinion either way. For example, I recognize that making marijuana illegal has only fueled illegal drug trafficking, and that legalizing it would eliminate that. On the other hand, people don't always drink to get drunk, whereas people smoke pot to get high.
It's also not as easy to tell when you're sober after smoking pot. I can't remember the exact numbers, but I want to say that there's a difference of about two hours between when you think you're sober and when you're actually sober. Considering the lack of judgment some people use with drinking and driving, I can't imagine that people will execute better judgment with marijuana.
I guess it depends on which you think is worse. Personally, I'd rather see fewer people getting killed as a result of illegal drug trafficking; because as bad as a car accident can be, I can't imagine that it's anywhere near as horrific a way to die as being tortured by drug cartels.
Of course, part of why farmers grow illegal crops, like marijuana, is because America subsidizes legal crops, like wheat and corn. Subsidies make food cheaper, and because the prices for America's crops are so low other countries can't compete with them in the global market. If we eliminate marijuana as an illegal substance, and start harvesting it here in California, I imagine that farmers in South America will only replace marijuana crops with things like coca. That's not to say we shouldn't necessarily subsidize crops, but just to point out that there's a bigger picture to consider.
Dude, I so ninja'd you already ;)
You absolutely did, but it's easy to ninja someone when you answer with just a few words and they're writing a few paragraphs.
Glad to know that people outside Humboldt understand that quandary though.
Humboldt County runs on pot and the industry around it. We used to be a big logging area, but that's died down a lot. Marijuana is really our only economic strength. If marijuana gets legalized we are no longer gonna be the pot powerhouse we are because we aren't gonna be the only place that it's "safe" (relatively) to grow. That means that what little economy we have is pretty much gonna drop out from under us. No, I'm not a grower, this has nothing to do with my personal fortune, it has to do with the fact that pot is pretty much the only thing bringing money into Humboldt county.
One of the big reasons why people grow marijuana in Humboldt County is because the weather is just about perfect for growing it. If marijuana were legalized, Humboldt County would probably become the Napa Valley of marijuana.
|
|
Dude, I so ninja'd you already ;)You absolutely did, but it's easy to ninja someone when you answer with just a few words and they're writing a few paragraphs.
Glad to know that people outside Humboldt understand that quandary though.
Yeah,, I'd much rather independent growers get the cash than R.J. Reynolds. Corps have enough money, I think.
|
|
Humboldt County runs on pot and the industry around it. We used to be a big logging area, but that's died down a lot. Marijuana is really our only economic strength. If marijuana gets legalized we are no longer gonna be the pot powerhouse we are because we aren't gonna be the only place that it's "safe" (relatively) to grow. That means that what little economy we have is pretty much gonna drop out from under us. No, I'm not a grower, this has nothing to do with my personal fortune, it has to do with the fact that pot is pretty much the only thing bringing money into Humboldt county.One of the big reasons why people grow marijuana in Humboldt County is because the weather is just about perfect for growing it. If marijuana were legalized, Humboldt County would probably become the Napa Valley of marijuana.
Yeah, but it's likely the current growers would be edged out, as they aren't necessarily the friendliest people on the planet (some of them can be rather anti-social) and may not be the best at overt marketing. In the black market, quality trumps all. In the legal market, whomever can spin the best line of BS trumps all.
Different worlds. Trust me.
One positive I do see for Humboldt if marijuana were legalized though is that the crimes perpetuated against growers and sellers could be reported without fear of being arrested themselves.
I mean seriously, right now, what would you expect if you walked into a police station and tried to file a police report because you just got held up a gunpoint for 5 lbs and they killed your best friend right in front of you when you resisted?