Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KBC

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KBC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KBC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KBC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KBC

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slapshot_oi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thisisit

scary

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thisisit

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

---

Heroin isn't quite as strong as vicodin.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KBC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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:?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slapshot_oi

. . . 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KBC

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

Heroin isn't quite as strong as vicodin.

---

Are you sure? Is the sarcasm font missing somewhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KBC

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KBC

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KBC

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KBC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thisisit

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KBC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

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