Hello drug warriors:

I've heard you wingers say they're not busting pot smokers any more - but you lie. Here's a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbwSwvUaRqc&feature=player_embedded#!) of what's being done to people in YOUR NAME, in the war on pot.

WARNING - It's horrifying. Nonetheless, I'd urge you to watch it, and to send it to the drug warriors in your life. This is the blunt result of all the war imagery and militaristic rhetoric politicians have been spewing for the last 30 years - cops dressed like soldiers, barreling through the front door in the middle of the night, slaughtering the family pet, filling the house with bullets in the presence of children, then having the audacity to charge the parents with endangering their own kid. There are 100-150 of these raids every day in America, the vast, vast majority like this one, to serve a warrant for a consensual crime.

They found a small amount of marijuana, enough for a misdemeanor charge. The parents were then charged with child endangerment.

Let me see if I understand this... Smoking pot = child endangerment. Storming a home with guns blazing, killing the family pet as a child looks on = necessary police procedures to ensure everyone's safety.

Just so we're clear.

excon

Good for them... what good parent would teach their kid its OK to get stoned instead of dealing with reality... and I feel the very same about any parent that gives their kid Jack Daniels... or any other form of alcohol.

Heck... just give them heroin... skip the games.

I suppose driving while stoned is better than driving while drunk by the same logic those who retreat to drugs to escape reality... the same as drunks retreat to alcohol.

Truly horrifying

Hello smoothy:

Like I said, you'll never get it.

excon

Thanks for posting that as a Youtube link. The NORML rep interviewing the police spokesman about that incident was enlightening as well. Do you have an address for the potsmoker's attorney? In Tennessee where I grew up shooting a man's dog was grounds for self-defense.

Hello smoothy:

Like I said, you'll never get it.

excon

So... Little Jack Daniels and Vodka bottles for kindergarteners... right next to the Doobies, crack and Meth? Why stop with POT... how about Heroin for the masses.

Hello again, smoothy:

Like all drug warriors, you make up stuff. This is a pot smoker. The rest is a figment of your imagination... In fact, it sounds like you been smoking something.

excon

It's a good thing the cops are being held accountable more and more by video evidence, huh?

It's a good thing the cops are being held accountable more and more by video evidence, huh?Hello Steve:

It is. But, this is their own video and they're not being help accountable for ANYTHING except doing a marvelous job. It's YOU, Mr. John Q. Citizen, who I hope will hold them accountable.

You're a dog lover. What did you think about that?

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Like all drug warriors, you make up stuff. This is a pot smoker. The rest is a figment of your imagination... In fact, it sounds like you been smoking something

That's not exactly true.


In 2003, Whitworth pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana (http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/may/06/chief-details-swat-incident/) in federal court and was ordered to serve 15 months in federal prison, according to court documents.


Whitworth had a prior arrest for suspicion of possession of marijuana and manufacturing a controlled substance. One of the informants told police he or she had seen the marijuana in Whitworth’s home within 10 days of the warrant’s approval.

Columbia police Detective Ronald Hall Jr. also conducted a trash grab at Whitworth’s home on Jan. 27. He found baggies containing narcotic residue (http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/may/06/procedure-for-swat-changing/#comments) and items of drug paraphernalia with residue on them, according to the warrant.

So when SWAT entered the home, investigators believed Whitworth was in possession of a large amount of marijuana and was considered a distributor. SWAT is used when executing warrants on distributors because they often have a history with firearms.

I'm not defending this raid, but he doesn't appear to be just a pot smoker.

I'm not defending this raid, but he doesn't appear to be just a pot smoker.Hello again, Steve:

I'm not surprised there was more to the story... Good work. However, he has NO VIOLENCE in his past. Even IF he's a pot DEALER, I stand by my outrage.

excon

PS> Cops call pot "narcotics". It's all the same to them. They think like smoothy. They think they're ridding the world of evil. I guess if you think like that, shooting a dog is a small price to pay.

It appears the citizens of Columbia, MO and the local press are trying to hold them accountable. I do have a piece of advice though, if a guy doesn't want to risk his family and dog he shouldn't get involved in illegal distribution.

P.S. I don't buy that the cops don't know the difference between pot and narcotics.

P.S. I don't buy that the cops don't know the difference between pot and narcotics.Hello again, Steve:

Oh, they KNOW the difference. They just don't articulate the difference, as they didn't here. If they thought they found cocaine residue on January 27, THAT is what they would have been looking for on Feb 11.

This from the article you linked me to:

"So when SWAT entered the home, investigators believed Whitworth was in possession of a large amount of marijuana and was considered a distributor. SWAT is used when executing warrants on distributors because they often have a history with firearms."

Plus, I don't know know how much YOU know about the pot business, Steve, but I don't think even YOU believe that pot dealers are armed and dangerous.

I stand by my OUTRAGE.

excon

I'm not telling you not to stand by your outrage, but the narcotics bit was an aside to the story. I never said the cops were looking for anything but what was on the warrant (what they were tipped to). I'm just saying the guy is no angel.

P.S. I live in the Texas panhandle, everyone is armed.

Let me see if I understand this... Smoking pot = child endangerment.

What do you call it ? An ounce of prevention ?

What do you call it ? an ounce of prevention ?Hello tom:

I'd call it LESS dangerous than throwing back a six pack in front of your kids.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Like all drug warriors, you make up stuff. This is a pot smoker. The rest is a figment of your imagination... In fact, it sounds like you been smoking something.

exconUmmmm POT smokers ARE Drug Users contrary to what the stoner brain might think. THC is a drug... those who use it ARE drug users.

Really ? What is the child exposed to ? Second hand foam ?

Hello tom:

I'd call it LESS dangerous than throwing back a six pack in front of your kids.

excon

Dead is dead... Hope its one of YOUR kids or siblings (or any POT supporters) that are killed by a stoner IF it ever gets legalized. Because ANYONE to dies as the result of a stoners addiction is Someone's kid.

But then... stoners don't believe it effects them in any way.

Would serve you right. Stoners are NOT in anywhere near full control of their facilities when they have it in their system... they WILL drive... and they WILL kill people just like any drunk does.

Smoothy do you drink coffee or any drink with caffeine in it? If so then you are a drug user.

I am sitting here bawling my eyes out. This is outrageous. So the cops couldn't have picked him up in a more civil manner. Did you see that child cowering in the hallway Smooty? Do you think that it justice? That is horror.

I know I am going to get chewed apart for this, but I would much rather have my child in a house with someone who smoked a joint, than in a house where cops came in firing guns and killing our family pet.

really ? what is the child exposed to ? second hand foam ?Hello again, tom:

Tobacco kills. Marijuana doesn't. Consequently, second hand tobacco smoke kills. Second hand marijuana smoke doesn't. It doesn't even make you high.

Clearly, you're one of the people who don't get it and NEVER will. You support the gestapo tactics shown in the video. You should be ashamed..

excon

I am sitting here bawling my eyes out. This is outrageous. So the cops couldn't have picked him up in a more civil manner. Did you see that child cowering in the hallway Smooty? Do you think that it justice? That is horror.

I know I am going to get chewed apart for this, but I would much rather have my child in a house with someone who smoked a joint, than in a house where cops came in firing guns and killing our family pet.

I am with you on that Aurora!!

really ? what is the child exposed to ? second hand foam ?

Umm maybe a drunk parent?

What knocks me for a loop about the video is they went in with a shoot to kill attitude and that is completely wrong. Now in serving a warrant they never know what they will find or what resitance will be met with they do need to be ready for defense. But I can't think of any reason the dog had to be killed let alone with 4 bullets. Most police carry pepper spray and the dog could have been subdued with it if aggressive. The warrant wasn't for that amount of force shown. Im sure they had a file and it would have mentioned it somewhere what the perps makeup was. Or if he was a gang member or whatnot. And their choice to not shield the children was just flat out wrong too.

What time in the morning was this? They knocked on the door and called about for what seems to be less than 3 seconds, before busting down the door. Do they give you time to answer the door?

What kind of dog was it? A pit? A doberman? A lab? From the sound of the initial barking and the fact that the dog was probably in the bedroom, I'm guessing this was not a trained guard dog, probably like my lab mix and border collie.

I can't get past hearing the dog's warning barks, shots fired, then hearing the dog yelping then fall silent!!



G&P

Hello again, tom:

Tobacco kills. Marijuana doesn't. Consequently, second hand tobacco smoke kills. Second hand marijuana smoke doesn't. It doesn't even make you high.

Clearly, you're one of the people who don't get it and NEVER will. You support the gestapo tactics shown in the video. You should be ashamed..

excon

Off the bat I thought shooting the dogs was excessive. Beyond that ;this is just a snapshot in time. You don't know what evidence was submitted to the judge for the warrant . Just because they did not find his supply there doesn't mean he wasn't a dealer . Perhaps he had it in a storage rental ;who knows? Follow the case and let me know the outcome.

As far as the tactics ? Beyond shooting the dogs (which cal points out there were alternatives for neutralizing them )... I agree with the use of overwhelming force . That saves officers lives.

I will not get into the silly argument that, because alcohol and tobacco are legal ,that all drugs should be . It is clear that there is a consensus for the status quo. Even the President and Gil Kerlikowske(who I believe you praised on one of these discussions ) said the other day they don't support legalization .

Smoothy do you drink coffee or any drink with caffeine in it? If so then you are a drug user.

I suppose the Pot heads would like to see the age of Statutory rape lowered to 12 years old... under the pretext... it would be concensual? If the BOTH wanted it... hell why stop there... some people are just begging to be killed... some women just begging to be taught a lesson... and heck... why have laws at all, then nobody will be in jail for anything and the world will be a wonderful place... yeah right! That's every bit as good an idea as making Pot legal to druggies, meaning it isn't.

If Pot should be legalized then alcohol laws should be repealled too. After all, if an 11 year old wants to get stupid drunk... what right does anyone have to stop them... or if gradeschool kids want to smoke... repeal the law that prevents selling tobacco to minors... just sell the smokes to 6 year olds.

After all, "Nobody" gets hurt there either... like illegal drugs never hurt anyone... pot included.

Better take a look at narcotrafficers... what they do etc...

I've seen dozens if not tens of dozens of stoners (pot heads, whatever term you wish to use)over the years... I am 49 not 19. And there wasn't a regular user you could NOT spot across the room. And when they opened their mouth and talked... it was clear they were users.

And Incidentally... exactly WHERE is caffine regulated as a drug. Not in the USA... Not in Europe... where do they control sale of caffine containing products to minors? As of today... a 3 year old could walk into any store and buy any soft drink they sell. Even "Jolt" brand soda. Or Red Bull.

I suppose the Pot heads would like to see the age of Statutory rape lowered to 12 years old....Hello again, smoothy:

Why stop there? How come you don't accuse pot heads of advocating man/dog marriage while you're at it?

You're silly.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Why stop there? How come you don't accuse pot heads of advocating man/dog marriage while you're at it?

You're silly.

exconWhat makes Pot heads special... How about Pedophiles... Crackheads, Meth heads... Rapists... wife beaters... Human trafficers... Prostitution... shouldn't their special vice be made legal too?

Ignorance can be cured, but you can't fix stupid. - Ron White nuff said

What kind of dog was it? A pit?

My post #10 leads (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/drug-war-last-post-if-you-dont-get-now-you-never-will-470551.html#post2350305) you to a series of local stories for details. There were 2 dogs, a Corgi which was injured in the paw incidentally it appears, the other was a pit bull the officers claim was aggressive.

What makes Pot heads special.....How about Pedophiles....Crackheads, Meth heads.....Rapists....wife beaters....Human trafficers...Prostitution....shouldn't their special vice be made legal too?Hello again, smoothy:

Those are good questions. I'll do my best to answer you.

Nothing makes pot heads special. Nobody said it did. You made it up. You should stop doing that, because when you do, our arguments devolve into "yes you did - no I didn't" FOURTH grade stupid crap, that I've told you repeatedly, I won't participate in.

You're a bit confused, however. Let me help to the degree that I can. Amongst your list of offenses above, there are crimes WITH a victim, and crimes WITHOUT a victim. I understand that you're UNABLE to tell the difference and CAN'T make that distinction.. You refer to all of them as vices, so I'm not going to try to educate you. Suffice to say, the bulk of the readers of this post, CAN make that distinction.

I will say that prostitution absolutely should be legal.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Those are good questions. I'll do my best to answer you.

Nothing makes pot heads special. Nobody said it did. You made it up. You should stop doing that, because when you do, our arguments devolve into "yes you did - no I didn't" FOURTH grade stupid crap, that I've told you repeatedly, I won't participate in.

You're a bit confused, however. Lemme help to the degree that I can. Amongst your list of offenses above, there are crimes WITH a victim, and crimes WITHOUT a victim. I understand that you're UNABLE to tell the difference and CAN'T make that distinction.. You refer to all of them as vices, so I'm not going to try to educate you. Suffice to say, the bulk of the readers of this post, CAN make that distinction.

I will say that prostitution absolutely should be legal.

exconThere ARE victims with any illegal drug... and they are illegal for good reason... stoners plastering the internet with fabricated stories changes nothing... they are despirate to get their "Fix" just like any Heroin addict is... degree of addiction doesn't matter.

Talk to any law enforcement person... Talk about the traffic deaths caused by people that are high, other crimes committed by people under the influence, Crimes and deaths cause by drug trafficers which is NOT insignificant. Just look towards Mexico right now. THen look at the crimes THAT finances...

THere are plenty of victims with any illegal drug... far more than there are with even legal ones... and nobody claims abuse of legal drugs is victim free either.

With every crime there is a victim(s)... it may not appear to be to the self centered criminal or drug addict... but its clear to everyone else.

And Prostitution is no exception... Trafficing of Humans in the Sex trade is not unheard of even here in the USA... it may not get front page news... but it happens all over the country. Talk to some cops... they will tell you, hell if you know a prostitue ask them... many know about it even if they know nothing else. And drugs are usually directly involved as well.

Anyone who resorts to drugs or alcohol to drown out reality... is doing no favors to anyone. And are making nothing better through abusing their bodies and funding other criminals.

Pot, Heroin, Crack, Crank, black market OxyCodone, doesn't matter which drug... they all make criminals rich.

What makes Pot heads special.....How about Pedophiles....Crackheads, Meth heads.....Rapists....wife beaters....Human trafficers...Prostitution....shouldn't their special vice be made legal too?


Are you saying this with a straight face?
Do you drink? I suppose that you want it to be legal to drink and drive? After all if you run out of booze how else are you supposed to get it? I mean a quick drive to the liquor store with your child in the car, no biggie right?

Because with the broad stroke you are painting "pot heads" with, all drinkers must be raging alcoholics who want to drink and drive.

Smoothy, I have some questions for you.

How many of those "crime victims" are victims of the law instead of the act?

Why is M.A.D.D. doing such booming business if legal drugs have so many fewer victims?

Why does marijuana come from Mexico when it grows wild here?

Does Australia (where sex work is legal) have the same human trafficking and pimp problems the U.S. does? Maybe 'clete could help with that one.

Did Joe, Jack, and Teddy Kennedy get included in your mental "make criminals rich" statement since their fortune came from bootlegging?

SAFER - Alcohol vs. Marijuana (http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/)

Smoothy, I have some questions for you.

How many of those "crime victims" are victims of the law instead of the act?

Why is M.A.D.D. doing such booming business if legal drugs have so many fewer victims?

Why does marijuana come from Mexico when it grows wild here?

Does Australia (where sex work is legal) have the same human trafficking and pimp problems the U.S. does? Maybe 'clete could help with that one.

Did Joe, Jack, and Teddy Kennedy get included in your mental "make criminals rich" statement since their fortune came from bootlegging?

I have no more sympathy for drunks than I do for drug users...

How many Men are sitting in jhail for sleeping with their girlfriends who happened to be 16 or younger?

All the Kennedys were corrupt... don't even get me started there. Not ONE of them were saints or earned any opf their money they inherited from grandadies illegal booze running.

Can't comment on Austrailas human trafficking problem... its only on the other side of the world and we in the USA we don't get that much news about Australia.

Are you saying this with a straight face?
Do you drink? I suppose that you want it to be legal to drink and drive? After all if you run out of booze how else are you supposed to get it? I mean a quick drive to the liquor store with your child in the car, no biggie right?

Because with the broad stroke you are painting "pot heads" with, all drinkers must be raging alcoholics who want to drink and drive.

I'm not the one calling for illegal activities to be made legal, booze or drugs.

Read back... I have no more sympathy for an alcoholic that's off the wagon than I do for any drug user that's using.

If you got a problem... deal with it... legalizing it isn't going to help anything. Except making it easier to make it worse.

I did not say I was a user at all. All I said that was a pretty broad brush, and for you to say you can spot a user in a crowd, well is just silly. I'm not for legalizing it, I'm for de criminalizing it.

I did not say I was a user at all. All I said that was a pretty broad brush, and for you to say you can spot a user in a crowd, well is just silly. I'm not for legalizing it, I'm for de criminalizing it.Spend 35 years around pot smokers who don't make great sercrets of it... and meet people that you later find out really are... I have. I didn't grow up in a cave. I can smell it if the wind blows right and someone is a block away smoking it. I can smell it if the car in front of me has someone smoking pot in it (same with cigarettes or cigars)... and every few weeks that does happen with the pot.. daily with cigaretts.. every few days with cigars.


I can spot them literally across the room at what I guess is 90% or better accuracy. Based on experience at parties with large numbers of people I don't know... and where usually the weed comes out an hour or two into the party. See who partakes... and who doesn't. Its really predictible most of the time.

I don't smoke, don't live with a smoker, or work in a smoking environment... so my nose isn't dulled to the odor of any kind of smoke.

How many Men are sitting in jhail for sleeping with their girlfriends who happened to be 16 or younger?
I don't know. What point are you trying to make here?

. . . Pot, Heroin, Crack, Crank, black market OxyCodone, doesn't matter which drug....they all make criminals rich.
Correct. That's why they should be legalized.



. . . legalizing it isn't going to help anything. Except making it easier to make it worse.

Wrong.

First rule: if you treat someone, anyone, like a criminal, they will become a criminal. It's called labeling theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory).

Drug-related crime is more prevalent than alcohol or tobacco-related crime because drugs are a scarce resource. It's not as common as alcohol or tobacco and you're not supposed to have them in the first place, hence, the associated value for drugs is very high and owners will do what they have to buy and protect them, some will go as far as stealing and murder.

Ya, legalizing will make drugs more accessible but that doesn't mean there will be more users, as there are people who choose not to drink or smoke. And, even if there are more users, they're less likely to turn out to be bad apples because they won't have to worry how, when and where their next fix is coming from and won't have to guess on the quality of product. It's the stress from all of this that makes them go nuts, not the heroin, that just makes them sleepy. It's true, the bad apple users exist only because it's so difficult to get a fix.

This is basic micro-economics.


What makes Pot heads special.....How about Pedophiles....Crackheads, Meth heads.....Rapists....wife beaters....Human trafficers...Prostitution....shouldn't their special vice be made legal too?

You have no idea what a vice is. Gambling is a vice, smoking is a vice, drinking is a vice, sex can be a vice, spending too much time on AMHD is a vice.. . A vice is something someone does for himself for fun, but sometimes he goes overboard with it. With the exception of prostitution and drug usage, what you listed are sicknesses that affect other people. A rapist doesn't rape for kicks, he rapes out of anger and hatred.

Your arguments would be much more solid if you knew what you were talking about.

And Incidently.....exactly WHERE is caffine regulated as a drug. Not in the USA.....Not in Europe....where do they control sale of caffine containing products to minors? As of today.....a 3 year old could walk into any store and buy any soft drink they sell. Even "Jolt" brand soda. Or Red Bull.

Id like to address this question. One of the places that this so called non drug is regulated in in our schools. Yep, They seem to think that it might affect the children if taken in liquid form. I believe they used to call it soda machines back in my day. That's in many many places all across the U.S.
Now for those energy drinks your talking about they are coming under fire in many communities. Also caffine is recognised as a performance enhancing drug by the Olympic commission. So yes it is regulated in that sense world wide.

If pot was made legal then 90% of the illegal trade and what goes with it disappears. And if taxed it could pay for healthcare.

I dunno. What point are you trying to make here?

Correct. That's why they should be legalized.


Wrong.

First rule: if you treat someone, anyone, like a criminal, they will become a criminal. It's called labeling theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory).

Drug-related crime is more prevalent than alcohol or tobacco-related crime because drugs are a scarce resource. It's not as common as alcohol or tobacco and you're not supposed to have them in the first place, hence, the associated value for drugs is very high and owners will do what they have to buy and protect them, some will go as far as stealing and murder.

Ya, legalizing will make drugs more accessible but that doesn't mean there will be more users, as there are people who choose not to drink or smoke. And, even if there are more users, they're less likely to turn out to be bad apples because they won't have to worry how, when and where their next fix is coming from and won't have to guess on the quality of product. It's the stress from all of this that makes them go nuts, not the heroin, that just makes them sleepy. It's true, the bad apple users exist only because it's so difficult to get a fix.

This is basic micro-economics.

You have no idea what a vice is. Gambling is a vice, smoking is a vice, drinking is a vice, sex can be a vice, spending too much time on AMHD is a vice. . . a vice is something someone does for himself for fun, but sometimes he goes overboard with it. What you listed are sicknesses that affect other people. A rapist doesn't rape for kicks, he rapes out of anger and hatred.

Your arguments would be much more solid if you knew what you were talking about.

Typical Drug users theory... legalize it and the crime rate goes down...


Well legalize murder... and the murder rate goes down... not the rate of people being killed by other people... that will go up.

Give junkies acess to free or cheap drugs and they use more... NOT less. Prove otherwise. Currently they use what they can afford.


I've known for more drug users in the last 49 years than you have... Unless you work in a rehab center.

You make the assertion YOU are an expert on the topic and I don't know squat... well, I say you are full of crap... prove you aren't!

You want Cheap Heroin... move to Afghanistan... have all you want. Commit the crimes over there, not here.

There ARE victims with any illegal drug...and they are illegal for good reason....Hello again, smoothy:

Just SAYING I'm wrong, smoothy, doesn't make it so. It truly doesn't.

excon

Typical Drug users theory...legalize it and the crime rate goes down....

Lol.. . Oh come on man, read a history book! Al Capone, Bugs Moran and every crime syndicate made a lot of money bootlegging liquor during Prohibition. Once they repealed the law, there was no business in bootlegging anymore. It's not a theory.


Well legalize murder...and the murder rate goes down....not the rate of people being killed by other people...that will go up.

All this does is show us how little faith and trust you have in people. Do you honestly believe every citizen in this country makes a judgment call based on law?


Give junkies acess to free or cheap drugs and they use more....NOT less. Prove otherwise. Currently they use what they can afford.

Okay, when I wrote that I was speaking about all drugs and not specifically heroin, but you took what I said out of context.

William Burroughs said "Junk is quantitative and accurately measurable. The more junk you use the less you have and the more you have the more you use", and he was a addict for 15 years so I believe his words. What you refuse to see is junkies don't enjoy being hooked, they don't keep doing it because it's fun they do it because the opiate receptors in their brain require it. Burroughs writes how badly he wanted to kick it even six months into his addiction but he just couldn't. He wrote an essay called the "Algebra of Need" in which the premise is how someone would do anything do get something in a time of absolute need. It's this need that turns a man wrong, and when you need something that's hard to find, you would do anything just to get it. So, my point, again, is make drugs readily available so it won't be seen as a scarce commodity and people won't have to fight over them and junkies will have a peace of mind that the pharmacy will always have some.


I've known for more drug users in the last 49 years than you have....Unless you work in a rehab center.
So, you had a birthday since we last argued? Well, happy 49th! And no, I don't work in a rehab center and I never have.


You make the assertion YOU are an expert on the topic and I don't know squat...well, I say you are full of crap....prove you aren't!
I never made that assertion, ever, and who cares? What does this have to do with the argument?


You want Cheap Heroin....move to Afghanistan....have all you want. Commit the crimes over there, not here.
Well, smoothy, if it's a crime over there it would still be a scarce commodity now wouldn't it?

Illegal drugs, we are not shown in the video how much drugs were in the house, or where in the house and what evidence of his crimes they had. Enough to get a warrant.

And if you were going though a door of a drug user to arrest them, and a loud dog was coming at you, what would you do ? Again after he is biting you is too late, you have to decide what to do before the dog gets to you. Shotting a possible dangerous dog is very acceptable.

Since many drug users have dangerous dogs,

So the only person at fault here was a drug user or seller who keep it at home around his kids.

Wonder if he let the kids take a hit and pass it around with them. Perhaps give the doggy a "shotgun from the roach"

This is such a horrifying video I could not watch it twice. ANY DOG WHO BARKS AT MEN BARGING IN WITH GUNS BLAZING IS JUST DOING WHAT A GOOD DOG SHOULD. The poor dog. If a civilian treated a dog like that they'd be arrested.

Hello drug warriors:

I've heard you wingers say they're not busting pot smokers any more - but you lie. Here's a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbwSwvUaRqc&feature=player_embedded#!) of what's being done to people in YOUR NAME, in the war on pot.

WARNING - It’s horrifying. Nonetheless, I’d urge you to watch it, and to send it to the drug warriors in your life. This is the blunt end result of all the war imagery and militaristic rhetoric politicians have been spewing for the last 30 years - cops dressed like soldiers, barreling through the front door in the middle of the night, slaughtering the family pet, filling the house with bullets in the presence of children, then having the audacity to charge the parents with endangering their own kid. There are 100-150 of these raids every day in America, the vast, vast majority like this one, to serve a warrant for a consensual crime.

They found a small amount of marijuana, enough for a misdemeanor charge. The parents were then charged with child endangerment.

Lemme see if I understand this... Smoking pot = child endangerment. Storming a home with guns blazing, killing the family pet as a child looks on = necessary police procedures to ensure everyone’s safety.

Just so we’re clear.

excon
I don't consider myself a winger of any type,I haven't heard that they weren't arresting pot users less, or more, or whatever...

I AM considered an expert on addictions though.

Even without the status,I have been in,on or around drugs and alcohol abuse,treatments,12 step calls,watching the withdraws of those hooked,sat in meetings with them,and their spouses,and their children,and so on,and so on.

I have watched the dealer with the camera on his front door(and back door),with loaded weapons at each point of the home(with kids and dogs,etc),I have witnessed things not mentionable on this site.

Needless to say,pot is illegal.

The actions law enforcement take to stop the trafficking and distribution of illegal substances can be looked at as harsh and over the top,or just and correct,perception is in the eye of the beholder.

The narcissistic mind says,perception is fine,as long as it's mine.

How does the alcoholic look at drinking/sales of alcohol if it is brought into question?He/she becomes defensive, their 'vice' is being attacked,the security for their use is becoming a possible problem,and they don't like change, they want what they want.

I have been where you are in the 'pot legalization' fight, when I was a user.

I would have liked cocaine to become legal too, for many years.

The society we live in doesn't see things that way,they say no,we MUST follow that ruling,or end up behind bars.. etc.

If we put our children in harms way and the law has to step in, we can't put blame on the law for doing it's job.The responsibility(which most users are greatly lacking in)lies in the persons who have it,sell it,house it,etc.

I am totally against this post from the get go.Bad rep for cops doing their best in the situation given them.

Hello K:

Thanks for your post. Nobody said pot is harmless. The reason to legalize it, is because the harm the cops do by enforcing the law, is by magnitudes, more harmful to society than possessing pot is. Just because they wrote it down in a book, doesn't make it the right thing to do.

excon

What would be wrong with serving the warrant on the suspect while he was away from home, transporting him back to his home and doing a peaceful search with the suspect in handcuffs? The man has a family. Granted he wouldn't qualify for father of the year if he is a drug dealer, but his family, could safely be spared this kind of trauma. And doing a peaceful search would spare any need to shoot an innocent animal too.

I wish it was that easy thisisit. I honestly think it is power happy people. They could so they did.

To legalize a gateway drug because it would end law enforcements 'harm' just doesn't float.

The law would still have to enforce certain facets of pot usage/growing,etc.Legalizing doesn't mean making it farm-able to the public,it would mean that the government would have to produce,process,distribute,regulate,etc... this isn't a step in the right direction.They would still have to stop the illegal manufacturing,sales,set up special tax usages for the taxes taken in(for the treatment of the new phase of drug users, those who move on from weed to the other drugs, which you and I both know happens)

And to still stop the drugs coming in from Mexico,Columbia, Thailand,etc.. C'mon,we know the trades wouldn't stop,they would just find ways to offer their product for less than the USA does, marketing theirs to outdo the USA.

Keeping this stuff illegal doesn't require any changes.(and by the looks of the country right now, changes wouldn't be a real good idea)

What would be wrong with serving the warrent on the suspect while he was away from home, transporting him back to his home and doing a peaceful search with the suspect in handcuffs? The man has a family. Granted he wouldn't qualify for father of the year if he is a drug dealer, but his family, could safely be spared this kind of trauma. And doing a peaceful search would spare any need to shoot an innocent animal too.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

I am not in law enforcement and to second guess their tactics would be questioning their abilities to carry out their duties.

Have you ever watched a raid happening?Some go very smooth,while others(which would be like this one,making news),have problems.Same with any other news stories, the ones that go wrong are always the ones publicized.Would you have watched this story if the kids and dogs weren't in the picture?Probably not,it wouldn't have made a YouTube video.

Yes, my daughter and I saw a raid happening in progress down the street from our house about 10 years ago. It was sort of like this one, over kill. No shots were fired, but the house was stormed and destroyed. The squad (or whatever they are called) had a large bus size van parked closer to my house and about six unmarked cars lining the street. The men with the guns did not have uniforms on and they had ski masks on their faces. The occupants were arrested and taken away and the police or swat team or whatever left the front door of the house wide open, every light in the house on, every piece of furniture broken and overturned, lamps, TVs, coffee tables upended and tossed around. It was frightening to watch and rather horrifying to see that they would leave the house wide open too.

I don't know what they were looking for and I don't know what they found. We moved out of that neighborhood shortly after that.

The men with the guns did not have uniforms on and they had ski masks on their faces. The occupants were arrested and taken away and the police or swat team or whatever left the front door of the house wide open, every light in the house on, every piece of furniture broken and overturned, lamps, TVs, coffee tables upended and tossed around. It was frightening to watch and rather horrifying to see that they would leave the house wide open too.

I was on a contract,it was an urban redevelopment project, the occupants were all crack users, we all knew this,but our job was for the exterior only(We weren't bothered by them), till the drug enforcement team showed up, 8 of the largest black officers got out of 2 of the smallest cars(the springs rose as they exited their vehicles), 2 came to me and began asking why I was there,what I was doing,etc.. I had the contract with me and it was clear I was working on the property(ladder set up,tool belt on,etc)they left me alone... the people in the house though... wow, the destruction was total.. we hardly had to gut the inside, besides cleaning up all the broken furniture.

To legalize a gateway drug because it would end law enforcements 'harm' just doesn't float.

The "gateway drug" label I take issue with. In my experience over the decades, the only gateway provided by marijuana is proximity. Using it doesn't provide any sensations similar to other drugs. Dealers, however, prefer to sell less bulky material at higher profits so coke/crack are often offered, or pills. They're going to do less time for rocks or pills than they do for grass, so it's in their best interests to steer their market that way.

As for government regulation of legal marijuana, American Tobacco Company has been ready to change its name since '72, and pay taxes.

Tit for tat,, the 'changing' of corporate labels,like American tobacco, to American weed farmers, etc.

The gateway is directly attributed to the proximity effect.Once in the 'drug culture',all the 'other vices' and drugs you think you'd NEVER do become,well, less scary,less difficult to access,exposure to crack for the average(if there is such a thing as average) teen is low,until they take that first step towards the drug using culture.

It isn't just for the profits of less time for the crime, weed has been 'socially accepted' in the drug culture,crack(freebasing),Heroin,Cocaine,were the heavy hitters, looked upon(from the novice)as something to fear, only the real druggies use those, till they want to try it(Gateway) ,speed(ampheds.etc),Downers(Valium,barbs.. etc),and the such were for the pill heads, less respected in the drug culture, until they want to try it(gateway)

I think you get the meaning that I have for a gateway drug.

Heroin,Cocaine,were the heavy hitters, looked upon(from the novice)as something to fear, only the real druggies use those, till they want to try it(Gateway), speed (ampheds.etc), Downers (Valium,barbs.. etc), and the such were for the pill heads, less respected in the drug culture, until they want to try it(gateway)

I think you get the meaning that I have for a gateway drug.Hello again, KBC:

So, if somebody DIDN'T try a new drug, after they guy next to him did, would that debunk your gateway theory? It SHOULD, but it won't.


The law would still have to enforce certain facets of pot usage/growing,etc.Legalizing doesn't mean making it farm-able to the public,it would mean that the government would have to produce,process,distribute,regulate,etc... Nahhhh... The government doesn't produce, process, or distribute tobacco. They DO regulate it, just like they would pot. But you make it sound like regulating is something the government has no experience doing. Really?

Excon

Nahhhh... The government doesn't produce, process, or distribute tobacco. They DO regulate it, just like they would pot. But you make it sound like regulating is something the government has no experience doing. Really?

excon

They don't ,you are correct,the regulate it.

BUT! (you knew there would be a BUT involved:p)

How many people do you know of that have grown their own Tobacco for their personal use,or for distribution? I'm sure there have been some, but for the most part,the only places to grow it are in such a central area,regulation is all but a given due to geography.

Weed can be grown from here to the heavens with no way to keep tabs on the growers,who grows how much,who SELLS how much,etc.. I think you get my point.

The fight for legalization of weed hasn't produced the results once thought of.Too many 'wingers' won't allow something like this to pass,even with extreme measures taken by a few cops,or the actions not taken by some bad cops,etc.

Weed can be grown from here to the heavens with no way to keep tabs on the growers,who grows how much,who SELLS how much,etc..I think you get my point.

The fight for legalization of weed hasn't produced the results once thought of. Too many 'wingers' won't allow something like this to pass,even with extreme measures taken by a few cops,or the actions not taken by some bad cops,etc.Hello again, K:

Couple things... If weed IS legalized, who cares who grows how much, and where it's sold, as long as it's TAXED? That's the American way.

Now, your second paragraph has some truth in it, but it also sounds defeatist. I agree, the fight for legalization hasn't produced results... The failure of the drug war, though, will all by itself, produce the desired result.. After all, 40 years is a long time to be banging our national heads against the wall. Can you imagine how good it will feel to STOP doing that? Here's (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/13/1627796/ap-impact-us-drug-war-has-met.html#ixzz0nw2n5ZNA)a recent article by the AP you might want to read..

But, to stop trying to correct this wrong, even if 'wingers' are against my efforts, is something that I'll NEVER do. I even think I'll succeed.

excon

Tit for tat,,,the 'changing' of corporate labels,like American tobacco,,to American weed farmers,,etc.

The gateway is directly attributed to the proximity effect.Once in the 'drug culture',all the 'other vices' and drugs you think you'd NEVER do become,well,,less scary,less difficult to access,exposure to crack for the average(if there is such a thing as average) teen is low,until they take that first step towards the drug using culture.

it isn't just for the profits of less time for the crime,,weed has been 'socially accepted' in the drug culture,crack(freebasing),Heroin,Cocaine,were the heavy hitters,,looked upon(from the novice)as something to fear,,only the real druggies use those,,till they want to try it(Gateway) ,speed(ampheds.etc),Downers(Valium,barbs..etc),and the such were for the pill heads,,less respected in the drug culture,,until they want to try it(gateway)

I think you get the meaning that I have for a gateway drug.

Do you think that it would be a gateway drug if we stopped lying to the kids?? I guess that doesn't work for the gobermint. Remember reefer maddness? That has a lot to do with the gate being left open. Some kid tries it and finds out they didn't have a psychotic episode and that they were lied to for all those years. So when the next one comes along they are clueless. When you have billboards etc showing a meth makeover your putting the truth out there. But if you lied along the way its not going to make a difference. That's why its high time to address the issues with truth. California has legal pot houses. It doesn't seem that people are dropping like flies over it. And quite frankly should people start dying over drug use in an extensive way the next guy will think first before he even considers doing it.

This issue needs to be brought to light and people need to get real about it.

Hello again, dad:

*greenie*

Soooo, true. People realize they've been hoodwinked by reefer madness, so it follows that they'll think they're being hoodwinked again by the billboard you mention - even if it's telling the truth.

To me, it looks like government LYING is the gateway.

Interestingly, 50 MILLION Americans don't smoke cigarettes any more, simply because the government started telling the truth about tobacco. Would you believe that we accomplished that feat without putting a single person in jail?

excon

Hello again, dad:

*greenie*

Soooo, true. People realize they've been hoodwinked by reefer madness, so it follows that they'll think they're being hoodwinked again by the billboard you mention - even if it's telling the truth.

To me, it looks like government LYING is the gateway.

Interestingly, 50 MILLION people don't smoke cigarettes any more, simply because the government started telling the truth about tobacco. Would you believe that we accomplished that feat without putting a single person in jail?

excon

Stranger things have happened. But with the truth people can make up their own minds rather then being robotic in their responses. Its all about the great evils we all have to deal with. If you can determine the truth then the appropriate response can be formulated. Isn't that how people get over addictions is by seeing and acknowlaging the truth about themselfes and their situations?

Greenie for you Dad! Great post.

But, to stop trying to correct this wrong, even if 'wingers' are against my efforts, is something that I'll NEVER do. I even think I'll succeed.Hello again,

And, I AM succeeding...

The newly minted senator from Virginia, Jim Webb stepped firmly on a political third rail when he introduced a bill (http://webb.senate.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2010-04-27-03.cfm)to examine sweeping reforms to the criminal justice system. Interestingly, he escaped unscathed. Maybe it IS time for a discussion.

Webb's reform is backed by a coalition of liberals, conservatives and libertarians that couldn't have existed even a few years ago. His bill calls for the creation of a bipartisan commission to study the issue for 18 months and come back with concrete legislative recommendations.

Webb couches the effort in fairly straightforward terms. "Let's start with a premise that I don't think a lot of Americans are aware of. We have five percent of the world's population; we have 25 percent of the world's known prison population," Webb said on the Senate floor when introducing the bill.

"There are only two possibilities here: either we have the most evil people on earth living in the United States; or we are doing something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice."

Things, they are a changing...

excon

Excellent point, Dad. How long will it take us to get over W.R. Hearst's campaign to criminalize hemp? That is where ALL the marijuana hooey came from. The truly funny thing about it is that you don't get high from hemp, unless you smoke constantly.

Excellent point, Dad. How long will it take us to get over W.R. Hearst's campaign to criminalize hemp? That is where ALL the marijuana hooey came from. The truly funny thing about it is that you don't get high from hemp, unless you smoke constantly.

To me and this statement may be out there for some. But in today's climate we need to return to hemp and the benefits it once gave this great country. Plus it would be a perfect substitute for America's cash crop farmers instead of tobacco. Hemp has many uses and almost all its parts can be used and recycled in some way. Hemp oils could be made into fuel rather then using up our food supply (like corn). The stalks can be made into paper or jeans or even building materials. Plus as has been said it grows almost anywhere. It's the paraniod politicians that are holding it back and restricting it because of the hybrid use now known as marijuana. Its insane. The only thing that would get you high from hemp is a lack of oxygen.

Hello again, smoothy:

Just SAYING I'm wrong, smoothy, doesn't make it so. It truly doesn't.

excon

There is a Law... its on the books... its being enforced.

Sorry, but THAT discussion is already closed. Its NOT open fopr discussion any more than the Law against Statutory rape... which IS something with far fewer victims... than the drug trade. And no less deserving of being outlawed.

Hello again,

And, I AM succeeding...

The newly minted senator from Virginia, Jim Webb stepped firmly on a political third rail when he introduced a bill (http://webb.senate.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2010-04-27-03.cfm)to examine sweeping reforms to the criminal justice system. Interestingly, he escaped unscathed. Maybe it IS time for a discussion.

Webb's reform is backed by a coalition of liberals, conservatives and libertarians that couldn't have existed even a few years ago. His bill calls for the creation of a bipartisan commission to study the issue for 18 months and come back with concrete legislative recommendations.

Webb couches the effort in fairly straightforward terms. "Let's start with a premise that I don't think a lot of Americans are aware of. We have five percent of the world's population; we have 25 percent of the world's known prison population," Webb said on the Senate floor when introducing the bill.

"There are only two possibilities here: either we have the most evil people on earth living in the United States; or we are doing something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice."

Things, they are a changin....

excon

WHy don't you take up Defending NAMBLA... Its no less deserving than drug addicts are to getting their fix is.


After all... if they WEREN'T addicts... then why is getting stoned the Foremost item on their minds... hmmmmm... Lot like a Heroin addict... or a crank head... always looking ahead on how to get their next fix.

You know Pedophiles can seem to get over their problem either... perhaps if they make that legal the problem will disappear too.

WHy don't you take up Defending NAMBLA.....Its no less deserving than drug addicts are to getting their fix is.Hello again, smoothy:

You don't understand the distinctions I made earlier about victimless crimes. Instead you just pronounced me wrong. Let me try again. Pedophiles have victims. Pot smokers don't. Until you GET that distinction, we don't have a lot to say to each other.

Now, if you'd like to engage me in THAT argument, I'll be happy to take you on. But, just SAYING I'm wrong, don't cut it. In fact, I don't think you know what an argument is. You think it's FOURTH grade crap. I LOVE to argue, smoothy, but I'm growing tired of your silliness.

excon

the Law against Statutory rape....which IS something with far fewer victims...than the drug trade. And no less deserving of being outlawed.


Sorry but I think with statutory rape, ALL of the children involved are victims. Not far fewer, they are ALL victims.

Hello again, smoothy:

You don't understand the distinctions I made earlier about victimless crimes. Instead you just pronounced me wrong. Let me try again. Pedophiles have victims. Pot smokers don't. Until you GET that distinction, we don't have a lot to say to each other.

Now, if you'd like to engage me in THAT argument, I'll be happy to take you on. But, just SAYING I'm wrong, don't cut it. In fact, I don't think you know what an argument is. You think it's FOURTH grade crap. I LOVE to argue, smoothy, but I'm growing tired of your silliness.

exconIllegal Drug use being a victimless crime is a figment of a drug users imagination.

Sorry but I think with statutory rape, ALL of the children involved are victims. Not far fewer, they are ALL victims.

You mean.. like all the dead non-victims of the drug trade?


Actually read back on many of my arguments... I don't actually think there are no victims in statutory rape. And statutory rape and pedophillia are not exactly the same thing even if that distinction is not clear as black and white.

Pedophillia is the far worse of the two.

Now, if you'd like to engage me in THAT argument, I'll be happy to take you on. But, just SAYING I'm wrong, don't cut it.
Illegal Drug use being a victimless crime is a figment of a drug users imagination.Hello again, smoothy:

Game, set and match.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Game, set and match.

excon

Really... exactly WHERE did you definatively disprove the well proven facts of numerous crimes committed by Narco Trafficers against innocent victims here and around the world are false? Because I missed it.

Really...exactly WHERE did you definatively disprove the well proven facts of numerous crimes committed by Narco Trafficers against innocent victims here and around the world are false? Because I missed it.Hello again, smoothy:

Here's the problem we have. You confuse the drug trade with drug use. And, you make up stuff. Neither helps.

But, I'll try again. Drug PROHIBITION causes crime. Drug USE doesn't. If you need evidence of that, all you have to do is look back into our own history. When alcohol was illegal, there was a lot of crime surrounding it. Since it was made legal, that crime disappeared. There's a reason that happened.

So, let me be perfectly clear - alcohol use does not cause crime.

Please THINK about that for a minute. Read the WORDS, and don't make up stuff. No, I didn't say drunk driving is cool. No, I didn't say beating up your wife when you're drunk is OK. No, I didn't say being an alcoholic is just hunky dory. I didn't say ANY of those things. I said ONE thing, and one thing only. I'll say it again if you didn't understand it. Alcohol USE does not cause crime.

If you GET that, then you'd get that drug use doesn't cause crime either. But, I don't think you DO get that. I don't know why. I think you believe reefer madness sort of stuff, like snorting a line of coke COMPELS you to rob a 7/Eleven.

excon

Hi excon(I'll try to keep this as congenial as you guys do)

Alcohol sales are a direct contributor to crime(could be drunk driving,could be murder,could be rape)

Drug sales are a direct contributor to crime(it is illegal)

Alcohol USE is a direct contributor to crimes.

Drug USE is a direct contributor to crimes.(it it also illegal to use drugs)

Since alcohol sales have been made legal,you say that crime has lessened?And you are saying that the jails are fuller in the USA?And that the justice system is defective?

Hi excon(I'll try to keep this as congenial as you guys do)

Alcohol sales are a direct contributor to crime(could be drunk driving,could be murder,could be rape)

Drug sales are a direct contributor to crime(it is illegal)

Alcohol USE is a direct contributor to crimes.

Drug USE is a direct contributor to crimes.(it it also illegal to use drugs)

Since alcohol sales have been made legal,you say that crime has lessened?And you are saying that the jails are fuller in the USA?And that the justice system is defective?


Hi, KBC (pardon the pun)

I think the two words you put in boldface are misspelled. Shouldn't there be an "ab" in front of "use?" Or did you mean that all alcohol and drug consumption directly causes crimes?

Hello again, smoothy:

Here's the problem we have. You confuse the drug trade with drug use. And, you make up stuff. Neither helps.

But, I'll try again. Drug PROHIBITION causes crime. Drug USE doesn't. If you need evidence of that, all you have to do is look back into our own history. When alcohol was illegal, there was a lot of crime surrounding it. Since it was made legal, that crime disappeared. There's a reason that happened.

So, let me be perfectly clear - alcohol use does not cause crime.

Please THINK about that for a minute. Read the WORDS, and don't make up stuff. No, I didn't say drunk driving is cool. No, I didn't say beating up your wife when you're drunk is ok. No, I didn't say being an alcoholic is just hunky dory. I didn't say ANY of those things. I said ONE thing, and one thing only. I'll say it again if you didn't understand it. Alcohol USE does not cause crime.

If you GET that, then you'd get that drug use doesn't cause crime either. But, I don't think you DO get that. I dunno why. I think you believe reefer madness sort of stuff, like snorting a line of coke COMPELS you to rob a 7/Eleven.

excon

There IS no drug use in this case without the Drug trade... they are tightly linked. If you grow your own you ARE part of the drug trade. Because you will be sharing it, selling it or giving it away to others. I've never known I single POT user who doest not participate in one or more of those three actions in my 49 years on this planet, and yes doing so makes you part of the drug trafficking problem. And yes I've had direct exposure to Pot users and dealers since I was in high school. I did not grow up in a vacuum.

If there was no Illegal drug use... there would be no Narcotrafficers. Their existence are tightly interlinked.

Alcohol sales are a direct contributor to crime(could be drunk driving,could be murder,could be rape)

Since alcohol sales have been made legal,you say that crime has lessened? And you are saying that the jails are fuller in the USA? And that the justice system is defective?Hello again, KBC:

Please read the words carefully, because I CHOSE them carefully. I didn't say crime was LESSENED. I specifically said crime directly attributed to the PROHIBITION of alcohol - ENDED. It was OVER. FINISHED. Could I be more clear? Smuggling didn't LESSEN. It ENDED. Murders in the alcohol trade didn't LESSEN. They ENDED.

I AM saying the jails are fuller in the USA. That is an undeniable fact.

NO, I didn't say the justice system is DEFECTIVE. I said it needs reform. If you think that means I want to let murderers out of jail, you're mistaken. In fact, if we let the non violent drug offenders out, there would be PLENTY of room to keep murderers FOREVER.

excon

You mean..like all the dead non-victims of the drug trade?


Actually read back on many of my arguments....I don't actually think there are no victims in statutory rape. And statutory rape and pedophillia are not exactly the same thing even if that distinction is not clear as black and white.

Pedophillia is the far worse of the two.


No, I don't mean that, I mean what I said.

No pun witnessed, I don't get offended by the high(hi) stuff:)

It doesn't take abuse to cause someone to do a crime.

Either drugs or alcohol.. prescription medications or street drugs.

Use of alcohol,lets say,4 beers,in a 135 lb. female gets behind the wheel.BAC?Probably above the LEGAL limit.(contributes to crimes,, DUI is considered a crime where I am from)

Use of weed(or drug of choice) in anyone, heavy user would have higher 'tolerance',but that doesn't make it justifiable, it is still a crime(DUI,consumption,whatever it can be labeled as in whatever state,is still illegal)

So, no,there doesn't have to be abuse for use to be illegal or a contributor to crimes against man.

There IS no drug use in this case without the Drug trade....they are tightly linked. Hello again, smoothy:

I knew you wouldn't get it. I thought you'd bring up the moonshiner in the Virginia hills to prove me wrong. That would have been a better than the drivel you just posted.

Actually, there IS drug use WITHOUT the drug trade. I grow my own marijuana and don't sell any. I smoke ALL of it. It's good too. I just took a hit.

excon

Hello again, KBC:

Please read the words carefully, because I CHOSE them carefully. I didn't say crime was LESSENED. I specifically said crime directly attributed to the PROHIBITION of alcohol - ENDED. It was OVER. FINISHED. Could I be more clear? Smuggling didn't LESSON. It ENDED. Murders in the alcohol trade didn't LESSON. They ENDED.

I AM saying the jails are fuller in the USA. That is an undeniable fact.

NO, I didn't say the justice system is DEFECTIVE. I said it needs reform. If you think that means I want to let murderers out of jail, you're mistaken. In fact, if we let the non violent drug offenders out, there would be PLENTY of room to keep murderers FOREVER.

excon
Hi excon,

Naturally the actual CRIME of alcohol sales ended, that is a given,it was no longer a crime to sell it/distribute it,etc..

Just because there are people who want to 'take away the drug(weed) illegality and there will be no more crime?How is that going to happen?Because sales are going to be legal?Growing it will be legal?Use of it will be legal?

No pun witnessed,,I don't get offended by the high(hi) stuff:)

It doesn't take abuse to cause someone to do a crime.

either drugs or alcohol..prescription medications or street drugs.

Use of alcohol,lets say,4 beers,in a 135 lb. female gets behind the wheel.BAC?Probably above the LEGAL limit.(contributes to crimes,,,DUI is considered a crime where I am from)

Use of weed(or drug of choice) in anyone,,heavy user would have higher 'tolerance',but that doesn't make it justifiable,,it is still a crime(DUI,consumption,whatever it can be labeled as in whatever state,is still illegal)

So, no,there doesn't have to be abuse for use to be illegal or a contributor to crimes against man.

Well... tell that to the Kennedy Clan... who got their money breaking the law with illegal booze.

Besides... Stoners behind the wheel DO cause many crashes... and deaths every year... just as drunks do. ANd yes... Drunks do and should be arrested when caught. I wish they would extend that to people texting and yapping on their cell phones oblivious to what's going on around them on the highway. Just saw a VW passat rear end a BMW at a stop sign. Both had cell phones up to their left ears when it happened. AND the BMW driver... a young woman put her flashers on and drover off, damaged bumper and all... never put her cell phone down. What an idiot. The other driver was at fault but SHE drove off.

WHy don't you take up Defending NAMBLA.....Its no less deserving than drug addicts are to getting their fix is.


After all.....if they WEREN'T addicts...then why is getting stoned the Foremost item on their minds....hmmmmm... Lot like a Heroin addict...or a crank head...always looking ahead on how to get their next fix.

You know Pedophiles can seem to get over their problem either....perhaps if they make that legal the problem will disappear too.
Where do you come up with this stuff?

Clearly, you have something against users and that's okay because it's your opinion. But, to compare them to NAMBLA is out of line. NAMBLA destroys lives before they even begin, the stance you're taking says those children want to be molested, which couldn't be any more wrong, like a pot-head wants to get high. I don't even see where you make the correlation between the two. Explain it to me.

excon's dead-on, you're confusing drug trade with drug use.



Since alcohol sales have been made legal,you say that crime has lessened?And you are saying that the jails are fuller in the USA?And that the justice system is defective?

First, crime is a relative. If alcohol were illegal, crime syndicates would bootleg and start a whole new market called the alcohol trade, it would be profitable so everyone would want some of the pie, all of which is a crime. On top of that, where there's money there's blood and there would be turf wars and St. Valentine's Day massacres. Drug turf wars constitute for a good chunk of gang violence, and they only exist because drugs are illegal and thus a scarce resource.

And no, this is not a theory, it actually happened during Prohibition.

Second, alcohol doesn't make a rapists and murders, those people have something going on in their brain and will do it sober. There are millions of people out there who can drink themselves stupid and still not commit a crime if you can believe it. It is actually is the sinner and not the sin.

No pun witnessed,,I don't get offended by the high(hi) stuff

So, no,there doesn't have to be abuse for use to be illegal or a contributor to crimes against man.

I was trying to commit the pun.

It sounded(read) like you meant any use causes crimes. If that same 135# lady has three rumballs at a Christmas party, or one Eggnog, what harm is done?

Forgive me for harping on a small distinction, but there is a large group that claims any use is abuse, some 12 step programs included. That can be true for some addicts; there is no broad brush that covers all of us.

Naturally the actual CRIME of alcohol sales ended,,that is a given,it was no longer a crime to sell it/distribute it,etc..Hello again, KBC:

You're missing my POINT. I was NOT referring to the SALES of alcohol, as you implied. I was referring, primarily to MURDERS that the mob committed over their "turf". They ENDED. Just like the murders on our borders would END. Just like the war in Columbia and Mexico would END.

excon

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Clearly, you have something against users and that's okay because it's your opinion. But, to compare them to NAMBLA is out of line. NAMBLA destroys lives before they even begin, the stance you're taking says those children want to be molested, which couldn't be any more wrong, like a pot-head wants to get high. I don't even see where you make the correlation between the two. Explain it to me.

excon's dead-on, you're confusing drug trade with drug use.


First, crime is a relative. If alcohol were illegal, crime syndicates would bootleg and start a whole new market called the alcohol trade, it would be profitable so everyone would want some of the pie, all of which is a crime. On top of that, where there's money there's blood and there would be turf wars and St. Valentine's Day massacres. Drug turf wars constitute for a good chunk of gang violence, and they only exist because drugs are illegal and thus a scarce resource.

Second, alcohol doesn't make a rapists and murders, those people have something going on in their brain and will do it sober. There are millions of people out there who can drink themselves stupid and still not commit a crime if you can believe it. It is actually is the sinner and not the sin.

So... I think we should be allowed to target drug users for assassination... because I feel the law preventing it is wrong.

So we should nullify the law and allow it. Because the net effect will a positive to society. Unlike making it easier for grug users to get their fix of choice.

Try and explain to ANY city dweller NOT addicted to something how THAT is going to NOT make drug related crime worse.

Hello again, smoothy:

I knew you wouldn't get it. I thought you'd bring up the moonshiner in the Virginia hills to prove me wrong. That woulda been a better than the drivel you just posted.

Actually, there IS drug use WITHOUT the drug trade. I grow my own marijuana and don't sell any. I smoke ALL of it. It's good too. I just took a hit.

excon

Still part of the drug trade... YOu are producing a controlled substance.

No different than a meth head cooking up some crank in their kitchen.

Hello again, KBC:

You're missing my POINT. I was NOT referring to the SALES of alcohol, as you implied. I was referring, primarily to MURDERS that the mob committed over their "turf". They ENDED. Just like the murders on our borders would END. Just like the war in Columbia and Mexico would END.

excon

Hi Ex,

This is the other extreme that doesn't work either. There are still moonshiners, and they do shoot people. Legalizing pot and blow wouldn't end the profits, they would simply be lessened dramatically. Lessened profits = lessened turf = lessened wars? Maybe.

Lessened SWAT Team dog murders for sure.

So....I think we should be allowed to target drug users for assasination.....because I feel the law preventing it is wrong.

Ignorance can be cured, but you can't fix stupid. -smoothy

Scary

Well....tell that to the Kennedy Clan....who got their money breaking the law with illegal booze.

Besides....Stoners behind the wheel DO cause many crashes...and deaths every year....just as drunks do. ANd yes....Drunks do and should be arrested when caught. I wish they would extend that to people texting and yapping on their cell phones oblivious to whats going on around them on the highway. Just saw a VW passat rear end a BMW at a stop sign. Both had cell phones up to their left ears when it happened. AND the BMW driver....a young woman put her flashers on and drover off, damaged bumper and all...never put her cell phone down. What an idiot. The other driver was at fault but SHE drove off.

Hi smoothy,

I see we are on the same page here,, it doesn't take a drunk to drink and drive, it takes USE of said products(weather it be drinking or drugs), I am TOTALLY GUILTY of doing this many times in my life,, I just never got pulled over,or killed someone else,or wrecked my vehicle,etc..

Today I am on medications, I am bipolar,I am on medications which the state of Illinois KNOWS I am on,they make sure I AM ON THEIR WATCH LIST(like those they are proposing be put on for PTSD), I have to have doctors(both medical and psychological) OK me for driving a vehicle safely in this state.

Would those who had weed approved submit to this in order to be able to drive?How about those who drink alcohol(of which the premise of prohibition was based on, sort-of, along with government want to control),, The state of Illinois CONTROLS ME!, why not the alcohol users, how would those who are weed smokers, who think they are justified in having their drug of choice put under the microscope?

AIN'T Going to HAPPEN!

scaryGood example... none-the-less isn't it... and no less ridiculous.

Anything that will increase the levels of drug (or alohol too)use is NOT a good thing.

And yeah... I'd say the same thing about dropping any and all alcohol related laws as well. Really bad Idea.

Losers or addicts feel the NEED to get stoned, high or drunk because they can't deal with life on its terms.

Good example...none-the-less isn't it....and no less ridiculous.

Anything that will increase the levels of drug (or alohol too)use is NOT a good thing.

And yeah...I'd say the same thing about dropping any and all alcohol related laws as well. Really bad Idea.

Losers or addicts feel the NEED to get stoned, high or drunk because they can't deal with life on its terms.

What about all the people in all those states who use marijuana as a legally prescribed medication? Is there a difference in someone who has a prescription to vicodin and a heroin addict?

Good example...none-the-less isn't it....and no less ridiculous.

Anything that will increase the levels of drug (or alohol too)use is NOT a good thing.

And yeah...I'd say the same thing about dropping any and all alcohol related laws as well. Really bad Idea.

Losers or addicts feel the NEED to get stoned, high or drunk because they can't deal with life on its terms.

So you're saying that everything needs a Doctor's supervision? Okay, finish that cup of coffee and we'll deliver these cigarettes to New Jersey.

Is there a difference in someone who has a prescription to vicodin and a heroin addict?

Heroin isn't quite as strong as vicodin.

:)

So....I think we should be allowed to target drug users for assasination.....because I feel the law preventing it is wrong.

So we should nullify the law and allow it. Because the net effect will a positive to society. Unlike making it easier for grug users to get their fix of choice.

Try and explain to ANY city dweller NOT addicted to something how THAT is going to NOT make drug related crime worse.
.. . What? This doesn't make any sense.



Still part of the drug trade....YOu are producing a controlled substance.

No different than a meth head cooking up some crank in their kitchen.

Lol man you just don't get it. Drug trade, i.e. the Mexican Mafia, Columbian Cartel, big name distributors who move millions of dollars worth in product in weeks, who then distribute to street gangs who sell the product to citizens. They are powerful and dangerous people and make a lot of money capitalizing off a market they have had cornered for decades.

Pablo Escobar was more dangerous than anyone doing coke in the 80's. He's the guy at the top of the pyramid who'd take the hit if drugs were legal because drugs would no longer be a scarce resource, relatively speaking.

Growing your own weed and selling to your friends is not considered "the" drug trade.



I see we are on the same page here,,,it doesn't take a drunk to drink and drive,,it takes USE of said products(weather it be drinking or drugs),,I am TOTALLY GUILTY of doing this many times in my life,,,I just never got pulled over,or killed someone else,or wrecked my vehicle,etc..

With all due respect KBC, you chose to drive that car drunk, you can't solely blame the alcohol for that. In all the years I've been drinking not once have I ever decided to drive trashed or even buzzed, I have far too much to lose and I'm not willing to gamble with my reputation. Just because someone decided to take his life and reputation into his hands doesn't mean everyone is going to.

Hello again, KBC:

You're missing my POINT. I was NOT referring to the SALES of alcohol, as you implied. I was referring, primarily to MURDERS that the mob committed over their "turf". They ENDED. Just like the murders on our borders would END. Just like the war in Columbia and Mexico would END.

excon

Hi excon,

Murders?Wars over drugs?Ending?

I can't see that at all.

I bought some of the greatest product from a home grower, VERY high levels of... well, no need in glamorization, he got 'hit' a few weeks later, no,not by the law.(or by me:p)

Stop:Sales of alcohol(Prohibition) and we found ways to make it and sell it.

Solution:Make it legal, allow the sales,we can deal with what happens later,at least the gangs and wars will end.

Results:Legal system has to implement more and more laws to include the use of alcohol until now they take away the privilege of operating a vehicle for life(in some cases)Treatment centers had to be invented to deal with the extra use which making this legal produced.More law enforcement for the lack of responsible users which,again,were increased because of the making this legal.etc.. this could go on and on.

Stop:Making weed illegal,allow anyone to not only grow it for 'personal use',this would end the drug wars and border wars,etc.

Results:?

So you're saying that everything needs a Doctor's supervision? Okay, finish that cup of coffee and we'll deliver these cigarettes to New Jersey.

Not unless they decide to regulate caffine or tobacco.


Incidentally I neither drink coffee or smoke. And no, I'm not a my body is a holy temple type either. I don't like coffee... and smoking has never had any appeal to me. Even IF it wasn't highly addictive.

. . . what? This doesn't make any sense.


lol man you just don't get it. Drug trade, i.e. the Mexican Mafia, Columbian Cartel, big name distributors who move millions of dollars worth in product in weeks, who then distribute to street gangs who sell the product to citizens. They are powerful and dangerous people and make a lot of money capitalizing off a market they have had cornered for decades.

Pablo Escobar was more dangerous than anyone doing coke in the 80's. He's the guy at the top of the pyramid who'd take the hit if drugs were legal because drugs would no longer be a scarce resource, relatively speaking.

Growing your own weed and selling to your friends is not considered "the" drug trade.


With all due respect KBC, you chose to drive that car drunk, you can't solely blame the alcohol for that. In all the years I've been drinking not once have I ever decided to drive trashed or even buzzed, I have far too much to lose and I'm not willing to gamble with my reputation. Just because someone decided to take his life and reputation into his hands doesn't mean everyone is going to.

If you are growing weed in your closet, basement, back yard.. or the national forest... YOU are a drug producer... just like the crank heads cooking up meth in their kitchen.

Murders?Wars over drugs?Ending?

I can't see that at all.Hello again, KBC:

Then please show me where the murders and wars over alcohol kept going after legalization. They clearly did not. Unless, of course, you're a believer in the "must rob 7/Eleven if coke is snorted", crowd. If you believe that, there's no hope for you.

excon

Heroin isn't quite as strong as vicodin.

Are you sure? Is the sarcasm font missing somewhere?

Hi excon,

How about the last part of this post?

Stop:Sales of alcohol(Prohibition) and we found ways to make it and sell it.

Solution:Make it legal,,allow the sales,we can deal with what happens later,at least the gangs and wars will end.

Results:Legal system has to implement more and more laws to include the use of alcohol until now they take away the privilege of operating a vehicle for life(in some cases)Treatment centers had to be invented to deal with the extra use which making this legal produced.More law enforcement for the lack of responsible users which,again,were increased because of the making this legal.etc..this could go on and on.

Stop:Making weed illegal,allow anyone to not only grow it for 'personal use',this would end the drug wars and border wars,etc.

Results:?

No responses means?

No responses means??Hello again, KBC:

No response means that I didn't understand the point you were trying to make. Please try again.

excon

Hello excon,

IF they stop making weed illegal.

IF they allow people to grow it for personal use.

You are presupposing that this would end all drug wars and border disputes?Right?

What,then,would the results be in,say,15 years?

I guess the same as when they stopped prohibition?

Hello excon,

IF they stop making weed illegal.

IF they allow people to grow it for personal use.

You are presupposing that this would end all drug wars and border disputes?Right?

What,then,would the results be in,say,15 years?
Drug sales are the main source of revenue for street gangs, if all drugs were made legal, people wouldn't have to buy off these thugs because the product would be sold everywhere and they would accept personal checks and plastic. Not every seller is a thug, but you can rest assured you can trace every baggie of coke and stamp of H back to someone pretty dangerous in Mexico or Columbia, and your dollars are funding his bankroll, which probably buy firearms to kill and protect his stash.

I keep making the same point over and over again. Is anyone here familiar with supply and demand?

Are you sure??Is the sarcasm font missing somewhere?

Yes, I'm fairly certain. The differences are in dosage and route of administration. If you could cook down Vikes and shoot 'em it would take about an eighth as much for the same rush as horse.

Contrary to what smoothy believes, not all people who try drugs turn into raving maniacs, like not all people who have a drink turn into alcoholics.

I used to be against legalization but I'm starting to think that if drugs were legalized, more people who are addicts could and would get help. If drugs are legalized and regulated like tobacco and alcohol, the government could make enough money in taxes and savings on less people in prisons to pay for treatment centers for addicts.

Fewer lives would be ruined. I am against most illegal drugs, mainly because I've seen how drugs like heroin, crack, crystal meth, and junk like that kill or ruin the lives of users and their families. A lot of the ruin can be directly linked to the criminalization of the drugs and the consequences of being labeled a criminal for anyone who uses those substances. It is hard to ask for help if doing so puts you at risk of being put into the criminal justice system.

When I was very young (teenager), I had the attitude that I'd try anything at least once. I tried a lot of drugs and never felt compelled to keep using them. I don't believe there were any victims as a result of my experimentation with drugs. There are a lot of drugs now that did not exist back in my experimental days... And for most of my adult life I would not try anything even once. I've seen drugs ruin enough people's lives that I have no interest in trying them or taking them, even once, even if they are legalized. But the fact that drugs are illegal never stopped me from trying a drug, when I was inclined to do so. I am starting to think legalization is an option that should be given serious consideration.

I used to be against legalization but I'm starting to think that if drugs were legalized, more people who are addicts could and would get help.

Why would they seek help?The main reason someone who is addicted gets help is?They got arrested for it(use,sales,etc.)If it is made legal,why would they seek treatment,who would say to them get help?


If drugs are legalized and regulated like tobacco and alcohol, the government could make enough money in taxes and savings on less people in prisons to pay for treatment centers for addicts.

Drugs legalized wouldn't be regulated like tobacco and alcohol.How would the people growing their own weed be regulated? Compared to the regulations that alcohol production and the tobacco industry has(manufactured by taxed corporations and overseen by FDA,ATF,IRS,etc.)How would the personal grower be overseen?How do you tax excon for the weed he says he grows?



Fewer lives would be ruined.It is hard to ask for help if doing so puts you at risk of being put into the criminal justice system.

And if the drugs were legalized,would you really believe that an addict would ask for help?

I don't know your background or exposure to addictive behaviors but I'll let you in on a little of it.
An addict avoids change.An addict doesn't seek help unless the entire world of theirs is falling apart, until they reach a bottom, and some need nothing more than a few days to out think the pain and problems which they saw as the bottom,they turn back to their familiar,their comfort,the chaos continues.

If drugs were to be made legal,the concern(as you put it) wouldn't be there as far as seeking help(legal wise).

Today an addict can seek help,without legal problems,without legal concerns,without even setting a foot in court.The law doesn't seek out the addict,the addict breaks the laws which bring the law into play.

I was admitted into the ER with two bones exiting from my right hand,it was a direct result of drugs/alcohol.I wasn't arrested,I wasn't detained,I didn't fear the law when I left the hospital.Was this unique?Not at all.Ask any ER nurse,they can back up this situation.

I tried a lot of drugs as a teenager and my first husband was a heroin addict. HE DID NOT LIKE BEING ADDICTED. He tried many times to quit without being arrested for it. He tried methodone, which I was very much against -mainly because I did not understand addiction. He gave up and shot himself to death in 1982.

I'm not saying that legalizing drugs would be a sure fix to criminal behavior, I'm saying it is something to consider, something to think about.

How do you tax excon for the weed he says he grows?
And if the drugs were legalized,would you really believe that an addict would ask for help?Hello again, KBC:

Why is the pot I grow for my own consumption any different than the onions or tomatoes I grow for my own consumption. Who wants to tax me for that??

If you're concerned about collecting tax when it's sold, then you issue licenses to the tax collectors and MAKE them collect the tax. That's what we do with 7/Eleven. We TRUST that the tax return they file is accurate and honest. I don't know why a pot dealer would do it any different than an ice cream dealer would, if pot were made legal.

The second thing you said is pretty important... Reefer madness notwithstanding, drug addiction IS as ugly as both you and the government say it is. That's not NEWS to the addicts. Yet you don't think they'd do anything about it, IF they had the chance. I think they absolutely would.

excon

Why would they seek help?? I imagine they would seek help because I can't believe people enjoy an addiction ruling their life. I imagine people would seek help so that they could get back a life they are in control of, instead of having every waking moment consumed by lining up their next fix. I don't believe people like to live that way.

Everyone seems to be posting their own experiences. That's all any of us can do, but to argue legalization a little history might give some perspective.

Were there drunks before Prohibition? Sure.

Were there potheads before Hearst and the 1936 laws? Again, sure.

Were there more after those laws were passed? By orders of magnitude.

Are there still drunks? Yes, and more than before Prohibition but not as many (as a percentage of population) as there were during.

Now I have to go dig out those numbers before Ken and Smoothy ask.

Everyone seems to be posting their own experiences. That's all any of us can do, but to argue legalization a little history might give some perspective.

Were there drunks before Prohibition? Sure.

Were there potheads before Hearst and the 1936 laws? Again, sure.

Were there more after those laws were passed? By orders of magnitude.

Are there still drunks? Yes, and more than before Prohibition but not as many (as a percentage of population) as there were during.

Now I have to go dig out those numbers before Ken and Smoothy ask.

You left out cocaine and what came with it before it became controlled substance. That was one of the ways coca cola was invented.

You left out cocaine and what came with it before it became controlled substance. That was one of the ways coca cola was invented.

I did deliberately. The stats on blow are harder to find.

By the way, Here's a really good article on Prohibition and the numbers before and after: PROHIBITION (http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/402.htm)

Dead is dead.....Hope its one of YOUR kids or siblings (or any POT supporters) that are killed by a stoner IF it ever gets legalized. Because ANYONE to dies as the result of a stoners addiction is SOMEONES kid.

But then...stoners don't believe it effects them in any way.

Would serve you right. Stoners are NOT in anywhere near full control of their facilities when they have it in their system...they WILL drive...and they WILL kill people just like any drunk does.

Whoa, whoa whoa! So... is it YOUR fault if someone's kid dies as a result of alcohol use, because it's legal, and you're okay with it being legal?

Or should we make alcohol illegal too?

What about cigarettes? Someone's child dies from tobacco every day! Let's make THAT illegal, too, but hold responsible all those people who want it to stay legal (including me).

Frankly, you've been hanging around different stoners than I have, Smoothy. I'd MUCH rather have someone stay at home and smoke dope than go out to the bar, get drunk, and drive home. I have also NEVER seen someone violent on marijuana. Ever. And I've been to a few places where it's smoked by pretty much everyone there. I've never YET been to a crowded club where people are drunk and stupid that there hasn't been a fight in.

And frankly--nope. I don't really know any stoners that drive. They'd much rather stay home and be a vegetable. I do, however, know a LOT of people that think they're still okay to drive after more than one drink. And I don't care WHO you are, more than one drink is enough to affect your reactions, etc.

So... frankly, until you're pushing for alcohol to be something that can ONLY be consumed in one's own home with a blood test built into a vehicle's starter to determine alcohol levels---OR until you're pushing for alcohol to be illegal as well, then you don't have a leg to stand on.

PS--I'm a member of NORML, and haven't smoked pot in over 10 years.

Clapping. Great Post Synn. All the pot uses I know are NOT like a drunk or heroine addict. The pot users I know would rather smoke a J, and sit home and watch Lord of the Rings order a pizza, and go to bed early. Yea I know a lot of people who smoke. Including my parents. Who happen to make a 6 figure income each, and are well respected in their community.

All drinkers are NOT drunks. All pot heads are NOT junkies, looking for their next fix. Oh and you, the stats for drunk driving accidents ARE much higher than accidents reported from stoned (on pot) people.

Hello again, Cats:

Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do is one of the best books I've read on the subject.

Peter McWilliams, the author, may he rest in peace, reinvents government in my own image. His ideas would bring us closer to the ideals of the Founding Fathers, increase our personal liberties and save an impressive amount of money in the process.

Smoothy should read it. It's ALL about victimless crimes.

excon

Oh you we like to listen to Leonard Cohen, but only his voice is dangerous...

I did deliberately. The stats on blow are harder to find.

By the way, Here's a really good article on Prohibition and the numbers before and after: PROHIBITION (http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/402.htm)

Nice link. Thanks.

i wonder if he let the kids take a hit and pass it around with them. Perhaps give the doggy a "shotgun from the roach"

Probably about as often as people who use alcohol in any form give it to their kids--I mean, really! You can get alcohol easily, why NOT share it with your kids?

Please, use some common sense here.

Ya and I can't count the amounts of times I have seen ADULTS give their animals alcohol.

Or for that matter smoke cigarettes around their kids, in the house or not.

To legalize a gateway drug because it would end law enforcements 'harm' just doesn't float.

The law would still have to enforce certain facets of pot usage/growing,etc.Legalizing doesn't mean making it farm-able to the public,it would mean that the government would have to produce,process,distribute,regulate,etc...this isn't a step in the right direction.They would still have to stop the illegal manufacturing,sales,set up special tax usages for the taxes taken in(for the treatment of the new phase of drug users,,those who move on from weed to the other drugs,,which you and I both know happens)

And to still stop the drugs coming in from Mexico,Columbia, Thailand,etc..C'mon,we know the trades wouldn't stop,they would just find ways to offer their product for less than the USA does,,marketing theirs to outdo the USA.

Keeping this stuff illegal doesn't require any changes.(and by the looks of the country right now,,changes wouldn't be a real good idea)

The ONLY reason that pot is a gateway drug is that the SAME people you buy your pot from are the people who have OTHER drugs--more EXPENSIVE drugs that they can make a LOT of money off you if they get you hooked.

If you didn't buy your pot from the same person who is trying to sell crack, then it wouldn't be a gateway drug---any more than cigarettes are a gateway drug to pot, or alcohol is a gateway drug to cigarettes (I mean, really--most of the people I know who smoke started when they just wanted one with a drink, then it was with a drink and after a meal, etc).

I totally think the gateway drug idea is a bunch of malarky. I know a LOT of pot smokers that have never tried another drug. Ever. I also know a few crack smokers (courtesy of my brother) who never EVER smoked pot, and in fact don't like it.

I'd still rather see us MAKE money by taxing the hell out of pot and making it legal, than see how much money is SPENT in trying to keep it illegal.

Hello again,

I just saw the video used as a promotion for tomorrows Bill O'Reilly show. I wonder what he'll say about it.

excon

They don't ,you are correct,the regulate it.

BUT!!(you knew there would be a BUT involved:p)

How many people do you know of that have grown their own Tobacco for their personal use,or for distribution? I'm sure there have been some,,but for the most part,the only places to grow it are in such a central area,regulation is all but a given due to geography.

Weed can be grown from here to the heavens with no way to keep tabs on the growers,who grows how much,who SELLS how much,etc..I think you get my point.

The fight for legalization of weed hasn't produced the results once thought of.Too many 'wingers' won't allow something like this to pass,even with extreme measures taken by a few cops,or the actions not taken by some bad cops,etc.

Yeah, and stills still exist in many areas of the country, and people have refrigerator micro-breweries too. So? Is the government dead set on taxing those people? Nope.

But let me tell ya--I wouldn't grow my own if I could go down to the local smoke shop and buy some. Of course, if I could actually grow tobacco in my back yard in enough quantity to actually make it worth not going to the smoke shop, sure I would. But since I can get BETTER tobacco there for less than I would spend in hours growing my own and harvesting and drying it, etc--nope. I'll just pop on down and buy my pack, thanks much.

It'll be the same with pot. The ONLY reason people really grow their own now is because it's cheaper and easier than trying to buy it.

WHy don't you take up Defending NAMBLA.....Its no less deserving than drug addicts are to getting their fix is.


After all.....if they WEREN'T addicts...then why is getting stoned the Foremost item on their minds....hmmmmm... Lot like a Heroin addict...or a crank head...always looking ahead on how to get their next fix.

You know Pedophiles can seem to get over their problem either....perhaps if they make that legal the problem will disappear too.

The terms of the law (for legalization) would be much like those for tobacco--including the words "consenting" and "adults".

NAMBLA is a bit if a stretch for comparison, don't you think? I mean, part of the issue with NAMBLA is that one half of the equation is not an adult, and the other half of the problem is that since that portion are not adults, they cannot give informed consent. There. Blew THAT theory of yours out of the water.

And before you get into the whole "kids will get it, they get it now" thing--well, how many teens were stopped by the 18 year old smoking thing? How many young adults don't drink until 21 now, when they used to be able to earlier? The kids that will try it will be in the SAME proportion as the kids that get into their parents' liquor cabinets now---and I put that down to a PARENTING issue, not a drug/alcohol issue.

And sorry--most of the smokers I know do it socially. Just like most of the drinkers I know. It's absolutely NOT the foremost thing on their minds.

Seriously, Smoothy--I don't know what kind of pot smokers YOU know, but I think it's about as disproportionate as the number of DRINKERS you know being downright alcoholics. Yeah, it affects some people to the point where they abuse it---but so does alcohol, caffeine, and oxycontin (which is legal and regulated).

I drank before I was legal. It was NOT my parents fault.

Good example...none-the-less isn't it....and no less ridiculous.

Anything that will increase the levels of drug (or alohol too)use is NOT a good thing.

And yeah...I'd say the same thing about dropping any and all alcohol related laws as well. Really bad Idea.

Losers or addicts feel the NEED to get stoned, high or drunk because they can't deal with life on its terms.

Oh, PLEASE tell that to my friends. I can't WAIT to hear you call them losers because they pass an occasional joint when they're hanging out.

And OMG! I'm a loser because I want to have a drink occasionally after work! I can't deal with life on its terms, so I have a single drink to escape! God help us all!

My friends, by the way, are engineers, doctors, weapons contractors for the government, teachers, radio DJs, businessmen and -women, actors, models, computer programmers, and many OTHER professions. They don't smoke at work, they don't smoke when they're going to be driving, they don't smoke around children, and they use good judgment when choosing whether to smoke--just like the would if drinking instead. "nah, man--I'm driving".

Again--I don't know what kind of people YOU hang out with--but the professional people that *I* hang out with definitely have more sense than the people you know.

. . . How would the people growing their own weed be regulated?. . . How would the personal grower be overseen?How do you tax excon for the weed he says he grows?. . .
You're confused, you can't tax something that isn't sold. He was taxed when he bought the potting soil and the seeds. If he is taxed again, then we've just pissed all over the US Constitution.

And if the drugs were legalized,would you really believe that an addict would ask for help?
Ya, legalizing drugs won't solve problems with addiction, but making them harder to come by hasn't done jack either.

Since you are an addiction expert, read Junky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkie_%28novel%29), I highly recommend it.

That was an awesome book. Very eye opening.

Obviously, I've been playing catch-up.

I would just like to say that my cigarettes (cloves) were made illegal this year. I LIKE my cigarettes. I now buy them from India, get them mailed to me, and pay less than 1/3 I used to pay at the tobacco shop. Would I still want them at the tobacco shop? HELL YES! Waiting for customs once a month when I'm out of smokes sucks, because then I'm smoking the crappy non-flavored cigarettes. (yes, by the way, I am a smoking addict. See Dennis Leary's "No Cure for Cancer").

I'm not paying those taxes anymore. It freaking ROCKS. But--it's not illegal to BUY the flavored cigarettes, or to smoke them. Just illegal to sell them. So--I'm breaking no laws, but the ONLY people getting hurt by this are 1. the tobacco sellers in my state that have lost my business and 2. the people who would use my "sin-tax" on those smokes to do goody-goody things like build a stadium I can't smoke in. I don't feel bad for those people.

What's my point? My point is that I'm still going to use my drug of choice: cigarettes. If I have to, I'll drive up to Canada and smuggle them in. And it's gotten VERY lucrative to have those smokes now that people can't buy them just anywhere. If they REALLY want one, people have been known to give me $5.00 for ONE cigarette.

Now look at drugs the Same way. If people who want them can't get them relatively CHEAPLY and SAFELY from a store, they're going to get them anyway--it just might not be as cheap or as safe to do so. So... who's hurt by that? Well, the taxpayers! THINK of the money we could be making if we 1. Stop trying to fund the war on drugs and 2. tax the HELL out of them all and make them easy to get.

That will make it less seductive to those that start just to be rebels. It will also mean that it's no big deal. There would probably be a year or so where sales would SKYROCKET because of the novelty---then they'd drop, because people just wouldn't care anymore.

Imagine how many people you know that are addicted to their morning coffee! I know more people (including myself!) that can't FUNCTION without coffee in the morning. And yet--that's not regulated! Millions of addicts across the US! Then add those people that just LIKE coffee, but don't NEED it! Millions more! Now make coffee illegal. Frankly, I'd probably KILL someone for a pound of good coffee if I couldn't just get it whenever I wanted.

My point: just because it's legal/illegal doesn't make a substance bad. The actions of the person using it make the person bad, not the substance bad.

I would just like to say that my cigarettes (cloves) were made illegal this year. . .
I complete forgot about this! >_<

I was enlightened by Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution. The gov't is trying to protect our children from smoking for their health and safety, and yet considers jello and a f***in' french fry a fruit and a vegetable which is mandated in school lunches. I had to stop watching the show before I had a nervous-breakdown.

For the record, 10% of people with lung cancer are smokers (source: my sister who works in oncology). You may not smoke and run everyday, but the smog in LA will still kill you.

A drug is not bad. A drug is a chemical compound. The problem comes in when people who take drugs treat them like a license to behave like an a-hole.

HE DID NOT LIKE BEING ADDICTED.

He tried methadone, which I was very much against -mainly because I did not understand addiction.

Addicts may or may not LIKE being addicted,but addicted they are.

It is very hard for an addict to describe to a non addict the feelings,cravings,needs,etc. that they are having/going through.The depths they will go to get relief for the addiction.Your former husband notwithstanding,he went to the edge.

In N/A we have a saying:In addiction there are 3 possible outcomes if we don't stop using,Jails,Institutions or Death.(See preamble/na.org)

Yes, I'm fairly certain. The differences are in dosage and route of administration. If you could cook down Vikes and shoot 'em it would take about an eighth as much for the same rush as horse.

I am playing catch-up, being a early to bed type.

That is a truism,what you stated, Vicodin is not only processed,refined and designed for a specific use,it's also man made,so naturally it would be more effective.Heroin is a 'natural' substance,not refined,not processed(beyond what the cartel labs do to make it street worthy)and isn't specifically 'designed' by man.

Hello again, KBC:

Why is the pot I grow for my own consumption any different than the onions or tomatoes I grow for my own consumption.

Weed has something in it called THC.THC is labeled what?A mild analgesic.Does an onion or a tomato have any substance like this in them?Are they regulated for their psychoactive effect?NO.


If you're concerned about collecting tax when it's sold, then you issue licenses to the tax collectors and MAKE them collect the tax.

Who would know that you produce this?How would the tax man know that you make this, even if you say it's just for your personal consumption,you could still sell it,right?So how could it be taxed?


That's what we do with 7/Eleven. We TRUST that the tax return they file is accurate and honest. I don't know why a pot dealer would do it any different than an ice cream dealer would, if pot were made legal.

You can't be serious.From the above information on the properties of weed,the effects of it(on the usernot the seller,who most likely would be a user,but not exclusively),the seller,if possible,would make less money if they paid tax.IF that seller could make their own product(see farming and farm stands selling their own corn,without IT being taxed) and not pay taxes, would they?Yes,naturally they would skirt the taxes, Corporations do,Actors do(See Wesley Snipes and his 8 million dollar tax lien)Running a company and acting are legal,yet they do it every day.


The second thing you said is pretty important.. drug addiction IS as ugly as both you and the government say it is. That's not NEWS to the addicts. Yet you don't think they'd do anything about it, IF they had the chance.

Excon

I know from personal experience... If I could have,I would have,I still would be,, using all the product I could, and if it were legal,why would I need to stop?It isn't breaking any laws(See alcohol addiction),it isn't 'hurting anyone'(again,see alcohol addiction), alcoholic already 'have that chance'and what do they do?They continue down the path of destruction they began with their first drink.

NO,not all users will become addicts.Just as not all drivers will have accidents.BUT, statistics show, the more you are behind the wheel,the likelihood of being involved in an accident are greater with every day you drive.Same concept will go for using drugs.The more you use(or the longer you use),the need for the same 'high' grows,the need to feel the feeling of that first high,tolerance levels(See psychoactive effect,analgesic,etc)increase and the need to use more is required,making this a cycle of addiction.

No,weed isn't physically addictive.It IS mentally a crutch,an outlet,similar to alcohol,but without the addiction that alcohol has.

That doesn't mean it's good for you.

I am growing weary of this, more in the AM.

(PS, this probably has been the most entertaining discussion I have had on AMHD since I began, thank you all for this! )

Anything that will increase the levels of drug (or alohol too)use is NOT a good thing.

Then from the perspective of history you should favor the legalization of marijuana, since the analogous experience with alcohol would indicate a decrease in pot use if it became legal.

Mind you, I am not discussing any other drugs than marijuana. Lumping all illegal drugs together is great for Ex and Smoothy to make blanket statements with but doesn't, won't and hasn't made sense since Anthony Volstead had a bad reaction to cocaine flavored snake oil.

Are there still drunks? Yes, and more than before Prohibition but not as many (as a percentage of population) as there were during.

Now I have to go dig out those numbers before Ken and Smoothy ask.

Yes,please.

Mind you, I am not discussing any other drugs than marijuana. Lumping all illegal drugs together is great for Ex and Smoothy to make blanket statements with but doesn't, won't and hasn't made sense since Anthony Volstead had a bad reaction to cocaine flavored snake oil.Hello again, Cats:

If you believe that prohibition is the problem, then it makes all kinds of sense. This is a good time, though, to have that part of the conversation.

If your reasoning for banning harder drugs is that they really ARE as dangerous as advertised, then I understand, and agree. Nobody here, especially not me, has ever said that drugs are good, that they should be available to children, and that they're not dangerous. Hard drugs ARE as dangerous as they say.

But, they're not so dangerous to US, as a society, as in a drug addict is compelled to rob, rape and pillage because he got high. IF they DO rob to get high, that's a function of prohibition - not addiction. Don't believe that? How come alcoholics don't rob? In fact, I suggest that if drugs were CHEAP, and available at your local 7/Eleven, like booze is, nobody would rob to get them. Ok, some would. Like some steal beer today. But, THAT isn't what I'm talking about.

Drugs, and their administration should be HEALTH matter and not a criminal one. Therefore, concomitantly to legalization, we must offer treatment on demand.

If we did that, I believe we'd (1) REDUCE drug use, (2) empty the jails of people who shouldn't be there, leaving plenty of room for those who should, (3) end the horrendous activities of our cops as depicted in the video above, and restore our Constitution, (4) end the wars in Columbia, Mexico, and maybe Afghanistan, (5) and let our law enforcement go back to solving REAL crime. Oh, yeah - we'd save jillions and jillions of $$$'s too.

I say REDUCE drug use above, because I don't know anybody chomping at the bit to try drugs. Do you know some? I think that everybody who wants to use drugs, ARE using drugs. Ok, there'll be some. However, with treatment on demand, I suggest there will be a net reduction - not an increase... But, we're not going to wipe out drug addiction, just like we're not going wipe out alcoholism. That shouldn't be the job of government anyway.

Ok smoothy, KBC, Cats - let me have it

excon

Then from the perspective of history you should favor the legalization of marijuana, since the analogous experience with alcohol would indicate a decrease in pot use if it became legal.

Mind you, I am not discussing any other drugs than marijuana. Lumping all illegal drugs together is great for Ex and Smoothy to make blanket statements with but doesn't, won't and hasn't made sense since Anthony Volstead had a bad reaction to cocaine flavored snake oil.

Drugs are drugs... make them as available as cigarettes and use will increase. Make them cheap and use wuill increase...


Nobody has presented one good reason why they HAVE to get stoned... other than to escape reality instead of dealing with reality.

And yes... that applies to drunks too.

And contrary to claims made by stoners... Pot is neither as safe as tap water... nor as benign.

Wait till a stoner kills one of their family when they fail to see a red light or respond fast enough when someone steps into a crosswalk...

Ok smoothy, KBC, Cats - lemme have it

excon

Can't. Away from the blanket statements I'm with you all the way on this one.

KBC, Mr. Mcwilliams has pretty definitive numbers on alcohol in that link. Pot is harder to find, but some of Clifford Schaeffer's research should help: Basic Facts About the War on Drugs (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/basicfax.htm)

Edit: Smoothy, the blanket statements about "use will increase" needs some backup.

Ok smoothy, KBC, Cats - lemme have it

excon

Egads,I haven't had time to rehash the older threads yet, gimmie time,I'll get to this one eventually:p

Smoothy--

Seriously--How many POT related accidents have you EVER heard about?

Harder drugs, yes. I've heard of meth addicts and crackheads that have done some pretty ludicrous things because they were high.

I seriously have NEVER heard of someone killing his family because he was smoking pot. Really--NEVER.

I hear about drunks killing people all the time, because they're operating machinery while inebriated. I don't even KNOW a pothead who even thinks about driving or going to work while altered.

Wait--I take that back. I used to go into my horrid McDonald's job high as a kite. Of course, the worst thing I could have done was goof up someone's order (I NEVER was high when working the grill; only when working the register).

I think you truly do not get that for every single ABUSER of drugs and alcohol, there are MILLIONS that just USE the drugs/alcohol.

There's nothing wrong with having a drink or passing a joint when you're sitting around at home, watching the game.

So... are you proposing that we go back to prohibition? Let's make MORE problems for law enforcement by making alcohol use illegal, too, since it's so dangerous?

Again, the cheapness will make the use increase for about a year--Maybe two. We actually have models to base this on, with both England and the Netherlands legalizing drugs and making TREATMENT available without stigma.

I don't HAVE to have a drink, you know. I just occasionally enjoy one. Do you never just have a beer while watching the game, or do you condemn your friends that go home and have a beer in the evening after work, sitting on their deck?

I'm at work, so am blocked from 99% of the sites out there that would give statistics on this. But honestly--I cannot imagine that it could get WORSE if we legalized pot and taxed it.

Or should we make alcohol illegal too?

I am for that, but it won't happen again,prohibition only brought out the true humans in all of us.


What about cigarettes? Someone's child dies from tobacco every day! Let's make THAT illegal, too, but hold responsible all those people who want it to stay legal (including me).

They are striving for this as we speak.


Frankly, you've been hanging around different stoners than I have, Smoothy...
I have also NEVER seen someone violent on marijuana. Ever.

I'm not sure you have been around too many people then,, in MY world,I have not only witnessed the fights while high, I have been the perp in many of them, what do you think drug wars are called drug wars for?


and frankly--nope. I don't really know any stoners that drive.

I am not sure you have any friends or relations who use drugs then, sorry to be so blunt,, but I and ALL my drug friends(Yes,even those in recovery) will readily admit to driving while high,, or on whatever drug of choice they were on.Do you really think I wouldn't smoke a joint with my dealer before I bought it?


PS--I'm a member of NORML, and haven't smoked pot in over 10 years.

I haven't smoked pot in many many years,, that doesn't mean I forgot what the culture did, and still does? Do you?

Nobody has presented one good reason why they HAVE to get stoned...other than to escape reality instead of dealing with reality.

And yes.....that applies to drunks too.

And contrary to claims made by stoners.....Pot is neither as safe as tap water...nor as benign.Hello again, smoothy:

They don't HAVE to get stoned... But, in a FREE society, which I THINK the tea partiers support, people should have that right.

Do you even read what I write?? Are we back to the "I said - no you didn't" STUPID fourth grade crap?? I'm the only stoner here making claims. This is the claim I made just above.
Nobody here, especially not me, has ever said that drugs are good, that they should be available to children, and that they're not dangerous. I'd really RATHER keep the conversation on the subject instead of YOU. PLEASE help me do that.

excon

Thanks for the clue, Synnen. Here's some numbers regarding drug use in the Netherlands:
Worldandnation: Marijuana loses its appeal in Dutch 'coffee shop' culture (http://www.sptimes.com/News/073001/Worldandnation/Marijuana_loses_its_a.shtml)

Yea I know a lot of people who smoke. Including my parents. Who happen to make a 6 figure income each, and are well respected in their community.

I would be willing to bet the farm if the community were to know that your parents smoke weed,the community would have a much different perspective of them, namely,they wouldn't be considered 'pillars' of the community any longer.



. Oh and you, the stats for drunk driving accidents ARE much higher than accidents reported from stoned (on pot) people.

This is only a stat, the reports are for driving while intoxicated, which could mean anything from alcohol to cocaine.

Smoothy--

Seriously--How many POT related accidents have you EVER heard about?

Harder drugs, yes. I've heard of meth addicts and crackheads that have done some pretty ludicrous things because they were high.

I seriously have NEVER heard of someone killing his family because he was smoking pot. Really--NEVER.

I hear about drunks killing people all the time, because they're operating machinery while inebriated. I don't even KNOW a pothead who even thinks about driving or going to work while altered.

Wait--I take that back. I used to go into my horrid McDonald's job high as a kite. Of course, the worst thing I could have done was goof up someone's order (I NEVER was high when working the grill; only when working the register).

I think you truly do not get that for every single ABUSER of drugs and alcohol, there are MILLIONS that just USE the drugs/alcohol.

There's nothing wrong with having a drink or passing a joint when you're sitting around at home, watching the game.

So...are you proposing that we go back to prohibition? Let's make MORE problems for law enforcement by making alcohol use illegal, too, since it's so dangerous?

Again, the cheapness will make the use increase for about a year--Maybe two. We actually have models to base this on, with both England and the Netherlands legalizing drugs and making TREATMENT available without stigma.

I don't HAVE to have a drink, you know. I just occasionally enjoy one. Do you never just have a beer while watching the game, or do you condemn your friends that go home and have a beer in the evening after work, sitting on their deck?

I'm at work, so am blocked from 99% of the sites out there that would give statistics on this. But honestly--I cannot imagine that it could get WORSE if we legalized pot and taxed it.

Actually... a LOT. There are several Dozen serious accidents in the DC Metro area where DUI's are issued for reasons other than Alcohol that actually make the local news. If you live in or near a large city... ask a cop that's been on the force a long time. They will tell you.

Big difference between having a beer, and having a couple six packs. Nothing wrong with having a beer or two... but something VERY wrong with drinking half a case or more a night.

And alcohol clears your system a lot quicker than pot does, THAT is a big factor as well. Smoke it one night... its still in your system effecting you the next day... unlike a beer or two. Unless you get passing out drunk.

Make it legal and Tax it? THAt will work every bit as good if they decided to tax peoples gardens as if they purchaced that produce in the store. Meaning it would not work at all.

Obviously, I've been playing catch-up.

I would just like to say that my cigarettes (cloves) were made illegal this year. I LIKE my cigarettes. I now buy them from India, get them mailed to me, and pay less than 1/3 I used to pay at the tobacco shop. Would I still want them at the tobacco shop? HELL YES!! Waiting for customs once a month when I'm out of smokes sucks, because then i'm smoking the crappy non-flavored cigarettes. (yes, by the way, I am a smoking addict. See Dennis Leary's "No Cure for Cancer").

I'm not paying those taxes anymore. It freaking ROCKS. But--it's not illegal to BUY the flavored cigarettes, or to smoke them. Just illegal to sell them. So--I'm breaking no laws, but the ONLY people getting hurt by this are 1. the tobacco sellers in my state that have lost my business and 2. the people who would use my "sin-tax" on those smokes to do goody-goody things like build a stadium I can't smoke in. I don't feel bad for those people.

What's my point? My point is that I'm still gonna use my drug of choice: cigarettes. If I have to, I'll drive up to Canada and smuggle them in. And it's gotten VERY lucrative to have those smokes now that people can't buy them just anywhere. If they REALLY want one, people have been known to give me $5.00 for ONE cigarette.

Now look at drugs the EXACT same way. If people who want them can't get them relatively CHEAPLY and SAFELY from a store, they're going to get them anyway--it just might not be as cheap or as safe to do so. So...who's hurt by that? Well, the taxpayers! THINK of the money we could be making if we 1. Stop trying to fund the war on drugs and 2. tax the HELL out of them all and make them easy to get.

That will make it less seductive to those that start just to be rebels. It will also mean that it's no big deal. There would probably be a year or so where sales would SKYROCKET because of the novelty---then they'd drop, because people just wouldn't care anymore.

Imagine how many people you know that are addicted to their morning coffee! I know more people (including myself!) that can't FUNCTION without coffee in the morning. And yet--that's not regulated! Millions of addicts across the US! Then add in those people that just LIKE coffee, but don't NEED it! Millions more! Now make coffee illegal. Frankly, I'd probably KILL someone for a pound of good coffee if I couldn't just get it whenever I wanted.

My point: just because it's legal/illegal doesn't make a substance bad. The actions of the person using it make the person bad, not the substance bad.

So I can gather from this whole post that in the last sentence,you consider yourself a bad person.Buying a product which is not legal.Not having to pay taxes.

This is the same moral fiber missing during prohibition,the breaking down of society, just on a personal scale.

Actually......a LOT. There are several Dozen serious accidents in the DC Metro area where DUI's are issued for reasons other than Alcohol that actually make the local news. If you live in or near a large city....ask a cop thats been on the force a long time. They will tell you.

Big difference between having a beer, and having a couple six packs.

And alcohol clears your sytem a lot quicker than pot does.

Make it legal and Tax it? THAt will work every bit as good if they decided to tax peoples gardens as if they purchaced that produce in the store. Meaning it would not work at all.


Yup. How many of those accidents are POT? Not coke, not meth, not heroin, nor any OTHER drug. Now how does that compare to alcohol overall?

Big difference between having a joint and doing absolutely nothing but smoking pot all day. There's also a HUGE difference between pot and, say, crystal meth.

And yeah--because it's still cheaper to brew your own booze too--and people EVERYWHERE are doing that to avoid the taxes. If you can get better for easier, then people will buy---which is what my point was about cigarettes. Yeah, I can grow my own tobacco, but it's a LOT easier, and I get a LOT better quality by just buying it.

And KBC--yup, they smoke with the dealer before buying. They're not stupid people. They also hang out for a while afterwards (like--a few hours) to sober up, or they manage to find another way (like walking, busing, or biking) than driving to get home.

I would be willing to bet the farm if the community were to know that your parents smoke weed,the community would have a much different perspective of them,,namely,they wouldn't be considered 'pillars' of the community any longer.



This is only a stat,,the reports are for driving while intoxicated,,which could mean anything from alcohol to cocaine.

If a breatholizer (that checks for alcohol) is clean... how often to they run a full blood test? Certainly NOT as often as they check for alcohol, and certainly not every time. I've been through many sobriety checkpoints... not once have I ever had blood taken to check for drug use.

Many drug related accidents go undetected because there is NOT 100% blood test screening of involved operators, only when drugs are found by the responding police or clearly irratic behaviour indicates it.

If a breatholizer (that checks for alcohol) is clean....how often to they run a full blood test?

In cases of accidents with injuries, in Carolina it's every single time.

But, they're not so dangerous to US, as a society, as in a drug addict is compelled to rob, rape and pillage because he got high. IF they DO rob to get high, that's a function of prohibition - not addiction.

I don't understand that comment at all.. My addiction needed fed so I robbed,it wasn't prohibition that made me need to rob,it was my need to use.


Don't believe that? How come alcoholics don't rob?

I stole a lot in my past, especially beer from beer trucks, alcoholics/drug addicts,any one of the people using drugs who have a need to fill will rob,steal,cheat,con,pilfer,etc...


Drugs, and their administration should be HEALTH matter and not a criminal one.


In the link provided earlier about prohibition this was exactly what they did, doctors began to prescribe alcohol for medical treatments, and look where that went.



If we did that, I believe we'd (1) REDUCE drug use, (2) empty the jails of people who shouldn't be there, leaving plenty of room for those who should, (3) end the horrendous activities of our cops as depicted in the video above, and restore our Constitution, (4) end the wars in Columbia, Mexico, and maybe Afghanistan, (5) and let our law enforcement go back to solving REAL crime. Oh, yeah - we'd save jillions and jillions of $$$'s too.

All that just for stopping weed from being illegal?Somehow I don't think society feels the same way.


I say REDUCE drug use above, because I don't know anybody chomping at the bit to try drugs. Do you know some?

YES,ME!


I think that everybody who wants to use drugs, ARE using drugs.

Not even a concept a clear head would come up with, how do you think people begin using to begin with,, this statement is saying that there will be no more users beyond those using right now,, really?

Did I let you have it? :D

Hello again,

If I wasn't clear before, let me be clear NOW. NOBODY is supporting driving while high. Drug USE, is NOT drugging and DRIVING. They are NOT the same thing.

I don't know how to make it plainer than that. I support the right of a person to get high in the privacy of his own home. I do NOT support his getting into a car.

Can we stay on point?

excon

Can't. Away from the blanket statements I'm with you all the way on this one.

KBC, Mr. Mcwilliams has pretty definitive numbers on alcohol in that link. Pot is harder to find, but some of Clifford Schaeffer's research should help: Basic Facts About the War on Drugs (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/basicfax.htm)

Edit: Smoothy, the blanket statements about "use will increase" needs some backup.

I can't seem to find any numbers on that link, where are they?

I can't seem to find any numbers on that link,,where are they?

My post #150 has better. Schaeffer does ask you do infer a lot.

I don't understand that comment at all..My addiction needed fed so I robbed,it wasn't prohibition that made me need to rob,it was my need to use.

In the link provided earlier about prohibition this was exactly what they did,,doctors began to prescribe alcohol for medical treatments,,and look where that went.

All that just for stopping weed from being illegal?Somehow I don't think society feels the same way.

YES,ME!

Did I let you have it??:DHello again, K:

Nahhh. You didn't lay a glove on me...

What I meant was that prohibition effects the PRICE of drugs. If they were CHEAP, you'd rather go to 7/Eleven to BUY your drugs, and not rob them, wouldn't you?

Nope. That post was about ALL drugs being legal.

YOU'RE chomping at the bit to do drugs again?? I'm not buying it.

excon

This thread has degenerated from citizens' rights to public safety.

Hello again, K:

Nahhh. You didn't lay a glove on me....

What I meant was that prohibition effects the PRICE of drugs. If they were CHEAP, you'd rather go to 7/Eleven to BUY them there than to rob them, wouldn't you?

Nope. That post was about ALL drugs being legal.

YOU'RE chomping at the bit to do drugs again??? I'm not buying it.

excon

:eek:What?, you don't believe I would do drugs again? ARE YOU OFF YOUR ROCKER??

I am and always will be an addict.

If there were lines in front of me right now, well, there wouldn't be any.

In cases of accidents with injuries, in Carolina it's every single time.Wish it was around here (only I wish it was every accident with damage)... I think its at their descretion. I need to remember to ask the next cop I get a chance to chat with, but that may be a while, I get the chance at irregular intervals. Usually when streets are closed due to bomb threats or sometimes grabbing lunch.

This thread has degenerated from citizens' rights to public safety.

Citizens don't have the right to use illegal drugs.

:eek:What??,,you don't believe I would do drugs again??ARE YOU OFF YOUR ROCKER????.Hello again, KBC:

I don't know whether you will or won't. We each have our personal demons to deal with. I'll say this. The law didn't stop you before from getting high, and I don't believe the law is stopping you now.

If, however, you're telling me that you'll jump right back into the addicts life, IF drugs become legal, I think you should give up being an addiction expert. I HOPE I misunderstand you.

excon

Citizens don't have the right to use illegal drugs.
Correct, and I am arguing that they should be legal. I'm not arguing how drugs should be used which has been the topic of the past few posts.

We should be allowed the right to choose.

Hello again, KBC:

I dunno whether you will or won't. We each have our personal demons to deal with. I'll say this. The law didn't stop you before from getting high, and I don't believe the law is stopping you now.

If, however, you're telling me that you'll jump right back into the addicts life, IF drugs become legal, I think you should give up being an addiction expert. I HOPE I misunderstand you.

excon

Not even close.

I wouldn't jump back into the addiction life if it stays illegal, or becomes legal.

The LAW has nothing to do with my choice of using or not.It's a conscious decision I have to make daily which stops me from using.

I fight every day to not use,this thread and the other threads I get involved in help my cause,it strengthens my resolve against the want to use.

Just because I chose not to use doesn't mean my desire isn't there.

Citizens don't have the right to use illegal drugs.
Correct, and I am arguing that they should be legal.
Hello again, slap:

**greenie**

That IS what this thread is about, no? Thank you for keeping us focused.

excon

:eek:What??,,you don't believe I would do drugs again??ARE YOU OFF YOUR ROCKER????

I am and always will be an addict.

If there were lines in front of me right now,,well,,there wouldn't be any.

There is a HUGE difference between an addict and a social user.

HUGE.

Just like there is a huge difference between social drinkers and alcoholics.

Not all people who use are addicts.

There is a HUGE difference between an addict and a social user.

HUGE.

Just like there is a huge difference between social drinkers and alcoholics.

Not all people who use are addicts.

I have not ever stated that, you are making a supposition.

I have not ever stated that,,you are making a supposition.

I think that was Smoothy in one of those blanket statements implied that one took makes you kill people and kidnap animals, or was it the other way round?

I think that was Smoothy in one of those blanket statements implied that one toke makes you kill people and kidnap animals, or was it the other way round?

I don't know.. I know I would not call a social user an addict, nor would I judge someone as BEING an addict, that is up to the user to decide.

I don't know..I know I would not call a social user an addict,,nor would I judge someone as BEING an addict,,that is up to the user to decide.

I certainly had to decide for myself. That's probably why I get so adamant about the militants on both sides of the addiction questions. There is no cookie cutter. A total ban, like with marijuana today, prevents research and leaves us with Smoothy who says it's hardcore and Aurora Bell who says it's nothing and the distinct possibility that under certain circumstances with certain people they're both right and no way to find out what circumstances and which people.

I certainly had to decide for myself. That's probably why I get so adamant about the militants on both sides of the addiction questions. There is no cookie cutter. A total ban, like with marijuana today, prevents research and leaves us with Smoothy who says it's hardcore and Aurora Bell who says it's nothing and the distinct possibility that under certain circumstances with certain people they're both right and no way to find out what circumstances and which people.

But do you think making it available for all to use is a good idea?

If it's testing,then the labs can test,that already happens.If it's for medicinal purposes,that also happens already.

Is the war on drugs a stalemate?Yes, it has been for many a year,but that doesn't make it correct to legalize all drugs.

Work smarter,not harder.

That was a motto an old coworker used all the time.

If something was too tough to handle,think of a better way to handle it.Don't throw in the towel and accept it as impossible.

that doesn't make it correct to legalize all drugs

There's one of those blanket stements again. Let me reiterate that I do not advocate legalization of cocaine, opiates, LSD, MDMA, or other "hard" drugs. I do support repeal of the Marijuana Tax Act and redaction of marijuana from other criminal statutes such as the Controlled Substances Act.

Is the war on drugs a stalemate ?Yes,,it has been for many a year,but that doesn't make it correct to legalize all drugs. Work smarter,not harder. Don't throw in the towel.Hello again, KBC:

Is work smarter a euphemism for "cracking down"? I think it is. I said this on the border war thread. But, I thought so highly of what I wrote, I thought I'd repeat it here.
Why do I know that???? I know it, because there are some who actually believe that we can keep drugs out of the country, if we only "cracked down" (build a fence???). The ultimate expression of cracking down on drugs, would be level 5 federal penitentiary. It has a wall, and several fences. It has guard towers. It has guards. Visitors are searched.

There's drugs in there. Lots of 'em.

So, it doesn't take a great leap of faith to assume, that whatever fence you wanna put up, somebody will get around it. Maybe even lots of people.It's time to try something different. That's not throwing in the towel.

excon

I certainly had to decide for myself. That's probably why I get so adamant about the militants on both sides of the addiction questions. There is no cookie cutter. A total ban, like with marijuana today, prevents research and leaves us with Smoothy who says it's hardcore and Aurora Bell who says it's nothing and the distinct possibility that under certain circumstances with certain people they're both right and no way to find out what circumstances and which people.

*greenie*

And KBC--that's EXACTLY what I meant: the user has to decide.

When it is illegal, the LAW decides, not the user.

Correct, and I am arguing that they should be legal. I'm not arguing how drugs should be used which has been the topic of the past few posts.

We should be allowed the right to choose.

Given the large ammounts of idiots that walk the streets in any given city in any given country... thats the last thing they need.

There is a HUGE difference between an addict and a social user.

HUGE.

Just like there is a huge difference between social drinkers and alcoholics.

Not all people who use are addicts.

How many Addicts started as casual users? Most I would say.

How many casual users end up causing accidents.. Most just like not all alcohol related deaths are caused by alcoholics.

Given the large ammounts of idiots that walk the streets in any given city in any given country.....thats the last thing they need.

Yet, in our country, we let those idiots vote, drink legally, own pets, drive cars, have cell phones, and breed children.

We also allow them to work at jobs that could cause our deaths--food processing, construction (you DID see the bridge fall in Minneapolis a few years ago, right?), child care, garbage disposal, sewer work, firefighters, police officers, social workers, teachers--and ESPECIALLY politicians.

Yet you can't give these SAME idiots the right to choose whether to use pot?

LESS government, please. Not MORE.

How many Addicts started out as casual users? Most I would say.

How many casual users end up causing accidents.....? Most just like not all alcohol related deaths are caused by alcoholics.

The REAL question is this: How many casual users actually became addicts?

The way YOU phrased it, you may as well have asked how many people with a sexually transmitted disease got it from having sex--most, right?

And again--how many people cause accidents versus how many people use the product? Alcohol OR drugs. Now please compare that to how many people cause accidents by using their cell phones while driving, and then tell me that cell phones should be completely outlawed because SOME people are stupid with them.

LESS government, please. Not MORE.Hello again, synn:

Seems smoothy ain't much of a tea partier, after all. In fact, Rand Paul, the tea party's choice for US Senate in Kentucky, believes exactly like you and I do on the subject.

excon

Hello again, synn:

Seems smoothy ain't much of a tea partier, after all. In fact, Rand Paul, the tea party's choice for US Senate in Kentucky, believes exactly like you and I do on the subject.

excon

We all have our crosses to bear. We three must be his.

The REAL question is this: How many casual users actually became addicts?

The way YOU phrased it, you may as well have asked how many people with a sexually transmitted disease got it from having sex--most, right?

And again--how many people cause accidents versus how many people use the product? Alcohol OR drugs. Now please compare that to how many people cause accidents by using their cell phones while driving, and then tell me that cell phones should be completely outlawed because SOME people are stupid with them.

Lot of casual drinkers have an accident and get busted for DUI... not just Alcoholics...

Same with casual drug users doing EXACTLY the same thing.

Fewer drugs being used... fewer drug related accidents, deaths etc.

And cell phones should be and ARE outlawed for being used while driving in many states. And still idiots pay more attention to the people on the phone than the cars around them or what they are doing. If I see someone driving erratic, weaving, running stop signs, lights... etc. Odds are they have a phone up to their ear. Personally I would take their license away from them for doing it... but I don't have the power to do so. But trust me... if I get hit by an idiot with a cell phone... I'm going to milk it for all its worth. Accidents are accidents... but THAT is no different than driving drunk or stoned.

There is no phone call that's so important it can't wait until you get off the road.

I'm a firm believer in if you are going to drive... then focus on driving, let someone else drive if you have other stuff to do. There are other people sharing the road and their lives are more important than your phone call.

Yes I have a cell phone... no I don't yap on it when I am driving.

Smoothy--you missed the point.

Outlawing something completely because SOME people are idiots is well... stupid.

Because sooooooo many people cause accidents with cell phones, cell phones must be DANGEROUS! Let's make them ILLEGAL! They KILL people!

When you see the ridiculousness of the above statement, you will understand what we are saying about drugs and alcohol.

And frankly, I'm really getting tired of having MY rights and freedoms taken away simply because SOME people can't control themselves and not be idiots.

PS--I was a collections agent for King County, WA for a bit. Taking away someone's license doesn't stop them from driving. Most of the people I was trying to collect from were for tickets for driving without a license---MULTIPLE offenses! Idiots are GOING to be idiots, whether they're being an idiot legally or not. The point here is that I'm tired of being punished with the idiots when I'm NOT an idiot.

Ex , you make it sound like the tea party has made drug legalization a major cause . You would be wrong if you think that.

Rand Paul won the support of the tea party because of one and only one issue... government spending .

Ex , you make it sound like the tea party has made drug legalization a major cause . You would be wrong if you think that. Hello again, tom:

Nahh... I don't think that. Smoothy diligently represents them, and he HATES drugs. As a matter of fact, my post was to point out the hypocrisy and/or schizophrenia of the movement that has NO real goals, except YELLING at the status quo.

excon

NO real goals, except YELLING at the status quo.
Hmmm sounds like the antiwar movement... the drug legalization movement... the antiabortion movement... the civil rights movement (take your pick ).

Except you would be wrong about the goals as they have been published in a pledge document called 'Contract From America'.No doubt Rand Paul is a signatory .

Except you would be wrong about the goals as they have been published in a pledge document called 'Contract From America'.No doubt Rand Paul is a signatory .Hello again, tom:

I don't know about that... You see, we got a tail wags dog kind of thing going on here. Rand Paul just handed the tea party its biggest victory to date. I don't think they're going to throw him under the bus...

Interesting that you should mention the contract. Rand Pauls view of what the Contract From America means, is CLEAR. He thinks it means what it says. He takes the LITERAL meaning of it. Actually, you could call it a strict constructionist viewpoint - maybe even original intent... After all, it's pretty clear to ME...

-------------------
Individual Liberty

Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government. It is essential to the practice of these liberties that we be free from restriction over our peaceful political expression and free from excessive control over our economic choices.;)
----------------------------------------

But, Smoothy's interpretation, as well as the bulk of the tea partiers is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT than Rand Pauls. When THEY read the thing above, they see the little WINKING guy I threw in. The wink means, they want government OUT of their lives, EXCEPT when they want 'em IN. And, they certainly want the government IN the drug war, to STOP you from freely exercising your economic choices.

Rand Paul?? Not so much. So, who's tail is going to wag what dog?

excon

Yes but if you actually researched Paul's positions on drugs you would find that he doesn't necessarily take a decriminalization or legalization stance. He basically calls it a matter of local jurisdiction.
I do not support eliminating all federal laws or penalties on marijuana. I do believe, in general, that issues of crime and punishment are best handled at the state level.
Rand responds to attacks | Rand Paul 2010 | U.S. Senate (http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/02/rand-responds-to-attacks/)

So my guess would be that there are some economic activities he actually would regulate as opposed to you're off again on again laissez fare approach .

So my guess would be that there are some economic activities he actually would regulate .Hello again, tom:

Yes, he would. But more importantly, he'd let MY state decide, and MY state wouldn't. Like a good libertarian, he puts his personal beliefs aside, and supports what the Constitution says.

Aren't you a 10ther?

excon

Aren't you a 10ther?

Not completely ,and certainly not to the extent most of them claim to be .I do not as an example think secession is constitutional.

The 'interstate commerce 'and the 'necessary and proper' clauses were in the Constitution before the 10th amendment ,and there is nothing in the 10th amendment that makes them void. Since both are enumerated then the 10th would not apply. Further ,Federal law ,unless ruled unconstitutional ,trumps State law according to the 'supremacy clause'.

Now ,I do believe the commerce clause has often been abused ;but not in the case where dangerous substances are involved .

I hope these people get a good lawyer and sue, if they don't have a good case, nobody does.