Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

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

---

Nice link. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KBC

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KBC

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KBC

. . . 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KBC

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, 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Zappa

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thisisit

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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! )