lost revenue II

[Terri]

We seem to have a corrupted file on the original thread. I hope you will all move your discussion here.

My apologies for the inconvenience.

[azwhitewolf]

ACK!!!!

All my wisdom, and clever posturing was all for nothing.

Wow - this internet thing is getting more and more like real life.

Oh well - Hope to see it continue.

I still think marijuana should be legal, and you all hopefully read my post on why... any takers? Realistic?

This was getting so good, too ! http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

AZWW

[realistic_one]

That explains why I didn't get notification about the follow-up posts. I thought that you didn't want to play with a bottom-feeding lawyer. Seems that is not the case . . . it's good to be back. I have some thinking to do.

R1

[realistic_one]

Thanks for the pointers, AZWW, I am quite new at this posting game. *By the way, what does IMHO mean? I have some vocabulary to learn.

Actually, in a courtroom, I would have hammered on the fact that this wannabe cop-killer’s marijuana use was to blame for his irrational behavior. *My duty as a criminal defense lawyer is to zealously advocate for my client’s position. *In doing so, when there is no way to dispute that the event occurred and the accused is actually guilty of the crime, the next step is to appeal to the sympathies (the “LOSER ARGUMENT”) of the judge in a bench trial and a jury in a jury trial. *That, my friend, is my interpretation of the “appropriateness” of the punishment to the psycho who shot Lou’s family member. *I am not fishing for other excuses to exonerate this sicko—I am pointing out that marijuana was the scapegoat that allowed the jackass to be pat on the head and told, “it’s OK that you almost took the life of another, we know that no one could do such a thing unless something else caused it.” *That is where the system failed us; not that marijuana is available. *If anything, his marijuana use excused his behavior. *It shouldn’t. *Many people have consumed marijuana without having psychotic episodes. *Very few users of marijuana are affected in such a way that they lose their minds and start shooting. *Mentally deranged psychos such as that need to be removed from society. *Whether the officer was in uniform would be relevant in knowing that the person coming to the door was there officially. Even in his marijuana induced paranoia, if this person was thought to be a possible criminal (not being in uniform) that would explain the psycho’s actions. *If Lou’s step dad was in uniform, then the psycho is a cold-blooded cop-killer who failed. *If Lou’s step dad was in plain clothes, charged the house brandishing a gun, then he is a paranoid citizen, albeit high, who reacted to what he thought was a threat to his life, exercising his right to bear arms. *Since the “marijuana made me do it” defense got him a “slap on the wrist”, I assume that the victim was not plain closed, but indeed in uniform. *

So I come back to MY OPINION that marijuana has not been conclusively proven to be the cause (the “but for”) of the shooting. *It has, however, pacified the judge and prosecutor that there is an explanation for his actions that would warrant a light sentence. *And it has provided a target for Lou’s aggressions since otherwise it would be just a mentally deranged individual who did this and we cannot delude ourselves into thinking that there is anything we can do to prevent this from happening again. *Logic would tell us that if marijuana made him do it, it can make other people do it. *Eliminate marijuana and you eliminate crime. *That flies in the face of reason.

{ But why do you have such a fight for marijuana? *You seem to be unable to give up the point that marijuana is dangerous. *In your line of work, I'm sure you also defend potheads. *So I'm going against every aspect of your job. *}

Well, I did start this thread. *And I do think that we are unduly hard on people who choose to escape reality by ingesting marijuana rather than alcohol. *I do defend potheads. *People who by all other accounts are good, productive citizens who like to get high in the privacy of their own homes, all bills and taxes paid. Those are the people the ONDCP is trying to reach with the “marijuana use funds terrorism” line of BS. *I have become friends with some of these people. *They come from every stratum of society, not just the minorities or social deviants, although there is no shortage of them. *Marijuana is dangerous in certain circumstances, much like alcohol is dangerous in certain circumstances. *Even so, you, AZWW, are given the opportunity to show that you can drink alcohol responsibly, while right now some drunk is driving, or beating his wife, or molesting his daughter, or shooting a cop. Should we bring back prohibition?

{ There is no such thing as "causes no harm to others". *While your non-extreme pot usage MIGHT work, let's look at the extreme - do you think a heroin addict is not going to subversely (sic) affect his family?}

That is where I take issue: *legislate based on “EXTREME” behavior. *How many heroin addicts do you know? *Would you be surprised to know that an adequately supplied heroin addict can maintain his job, his family, and would look to you or me like any average law abiding citizen? *The nature of the drug requires that more and more is ingested to maintain the appearance of normalcy. *Heroin is a very bad substance, no argument from me. *That drug was what sent Edgar Allen Poe into madness. *Those with the resources to regularly ingest pure heroin can function in society for an extended period of time. *It is when that supply is interrupted that others in the addict’s family and society are adversely affected. *But let’s not delve into blanket legalization of all drugs, because that would be nightmarish—we are not disciplined enough to make that work. *Marijuana is not as dangerous by any stretch of the imagination as heroin. *But it does have its dangers, as does alcohol and cigarettes. *I am arguing parity in laws dealing with substances that do not pose a substantial societal threat. *That is my educated opinion of marijuana.

{ As long as the criminal lawyer can point out an inconsistenty (sic) in the paint lines on the highway, no-one is going to be held responsible for $#!t. *Instead, the city will be sued for neglect. *That, my friend, is why lawyers get the stigma that THEY get.}

Stigma or not, if you are that wrongfully accused person, you want your lawyer to argue every possible explanation that you did not commit the crime. *Unfortunately, we cannot pick and choose who has the right to be proven guilty by a jury of their peers beyond a reasonable doubt, so some criminals are exonerated on a technicality—that being a weakness in the government’s case that will not permit the jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

{ Nope... I think the human emotions like sleepy, angry and inattentive have the problems of their own - they happen naturally, and on their own. *They should be seperated (sic) by the affects that CAN be avoided (and mixed) with those emotions - such as pot and alcohol. *I just fail to see the benefit of pot, or why we should legalize it. *You still haven't shown that case to me, and I'm still interested in seeing it. *Everyone wants to tax the hell out of cigarettes, but legalize pot. *The logic eludes me, but I'm sure you're ready to educate me.}

Another thing that happens naturally are THC receptors in the human brain. *THC, or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol , is the psychoactive chemical that “potheads” introduce into their systems by smoking. *Such natural receptors implies that we have similar chemicals that cause the euphoric and relaxing effects that the naturally occurring THC in the pot plant causes. *So what “naturally makes us sleepy” is not an emotion, but a chemical process in the brain, mainly the hypothalamus, which is the area of the brain affected by pot. *

On the other hand, heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, opiates, and a host of other substances flood the brain with serotonin that causes euphoria. *When the serotonin saturates the brain, the high is intense, and those levels must be maintained or withdrawal symptoms will follow. *So severe are those withdrawal symptoms that the addict must do whatever it takes to keep that level up. *The desire to regain that high and avoid the withdrawal is the driving force behind criminal activity that furthers the addict’s quest for the next fix. *Withdrawal so severe that it justifies prostitution and stealing to avoid the pain of “coming down”.

Marijuana does not work in that way, and no physical withdrawal symptoms occur when the supply is abruptly halted. *Some psychological addictions occur, such as the inability to deal with adversity unless high, irritability, loss of appetite or insomnia, but nothing that would drive the average pothead to rob a liquor store in order to get high. *Most people who smoke pot have trouble finding pot, not the money to buy pot, because it is illegal. The threat to society by allowing pot to be smoked in the privacy of one’s home is minimal, and needs to be taken into consideration when passing legislation that will drain taxpayer’s resources. I am saying LEGALIZE AND TAX THE HELL OUT OF POT. *Maybe cigarettes would come down from $5 a pack!

{ This formerly good citizen was trying to pick off the officers before they could reach their patrol unit. *This person was sure the police were going to find the stash.}

That marijuana played a significant role in the shooting in not in dispute. *But I have a hard time believing that this guy only smoked marijuana once and this happened. *Psychologically, this guy was a mess. *Now I ask you, if marijuana possession hadn’t threatened his freedom, would he have felt it necessary to “protect his stash”? *I would be willing bet my annual income that this guy had a daily habit that would make any psychiatrist look into other possible explanations for his behavior.

{ I really don't see how any of this story could be misinterpreted as the police officers fault in any way.}

Since I had very few facts to go on, I had to assume every possibility. *Thanks for clearing up that they followed protocol. *

{ Oh.....it was only pot! *Pretty high amount in blood too! *Probably spent most of the afternoon smoking alone (which they found out to be the case on cross)!}

Only pot? *So an MRI was done while in custody to rule out any other brain abnormalities such as an aneurism? All possible psychological tests were conducted and compared with prior mental evaluations? *How many tests were conducted after pot was found in his system? What is a “high amount”? *If you have the transcript of his trial, I would like to see it. *

{ The criminal in this case should have been made an example of, as marijuana use in the "country" is extensive because it is easy to grow and easy to hide your "field". *It is the most abused substance there, and easy for most anyone to purchase - just ask the local teenagers.}

He should be made an example of for shooting at a uniformed officer. *He should be evaluated for psychological problems masked by his admission to using pot. *He duped the jury and the prosecution by making them believe that marijuana was the sole reason for his behavior, and was set free with little more than a slap. *You have a justifiably negative view of marijuana because your sole exposure to it was through the travesty of justice that was his conviction. *You say it is the “most abused substance there” without any indication of what “pot abuse” means? *

By your logic, if we suddenly outlawed alcohol, again, would AZWW’s desire to drink a beer, even though he could take it or leave it, considered abuse? *It is easier for teenagers to get than cigarettes and alcohol, I will give you that. *They can also get spray paint for huffing, but I am not precluded from buying the stuff because it can be used for huffing.

I have to argue the point because I still believe that we need the revenue and that we cannot afford to fight a war on terror, a war against Iraq, keep North Korea in check, protect our borders, AND fight a war on marijuana that targets predominantly law abiding citizens (apart from the crime of possession). *My state could fill our budget shortfall by decriminalizing pot and allowing the crop of industrial hemp, which is the most I would argue for at this point, and could shift resources from enforcing the simple possession laws to that of protecting society from real dangers such as terrorists. *

{ I still think marijuana should be legal, and you all hopefully read my post on why... any takers? *Realistic? }

What? *Did you have a change of heart, or was that a typo that really should have read “I still think marijuana should be il-legal”. *Please tell me you are still opposed to legalization, I so enjoy the friendly debate.

By the way, would you call Carl Sagan stupid? *He was a daily pot smoker. *And Ben Franklin grew hemp, both for fiber and recreation.

Terri, how do I get notices that a reply was posted now that the topic has migrated to a non-corrupt sector on your server?

That was just one barrel. *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

R1 http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[realistic_one]

Replace "Lou" with "Lee". My apologies.

R1

[Leelanau]

No problem...it's not a very common name so the mistake is understandable. *But I'll assume you are not from MI if you haven't heard of Leelanau! *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[azwhitewolf]

Wow...

You've spent a lot of time putting your thoughts into this, so I'll try to respond. *But wow!

IMHO = In My Humble Opinion Quote[/b] ] In doing so, when there is no way to dispute that the event occurred and the accused is actually guilty of the crime, the next step is to appeal to the sympathies (the “LOSER ARGUMENT”) of the judge in a bench trial and a jury in a jury trial. *That, my friend, is my interpretation of the “appropriateness” of the punishment to the psycho who shot Lou’s family member. In honestly, I think it's the fact that the sympathies should merit such extreme "forgiveness" from the court, especially when "all of a sudden" someone can change their plea if they think they're about to get "found out". *Of course, that's my ideal world, and I enjoy living in it, but let's look at that. *The event occured, the accused is actually guilty of the crime. *Why not stop there? *Why not hand down the sentece to the crime, and just leave it AT THAT? *Why offer an excuse-for-lesser-sentence to our courts? *I mean, if the guy was beaten as a kid, weather or not it caused him to commit a crime, why allow that to be an excuse for the crime WEATHER IT'S TRUE OR NOT in order for him to get that reduced sentence. *

I mean, life's tough. *We all have our crosses to bear. *Let's imagine I did the same crime as Lee's situation. *But just because I grew up in southside Chicago and got mugged as a kid more than once (which is true), why should a guy who was high appeal the SAME CRIME COMMITTED and receive a lesser sentence just because his "story" jerked a few more tears from the jury? *That's not justice, that's emotion! *

Quote[/b] ]If Lou’s step dad was in uniform, then the psycho is a cold-blooded cop-killer who failed. But you'd defend him (and that's honorable), and look for the loophole that would give your client any kind of break for what we all know is true - a cold blooded cop killer who failed. (which is NOT honorable). *I'm not trying to be hard on YOU personally, but I think criminal defense lawyers have been given too much to work with. *

Quote[/b] ]So I come back to MY OPINION that marijuana has not been conclusively proven to be the cause (the “but for”) of the shooting. *It has, however, pacified the judge and prosecutor that there is an explanation for his actions that would warrant a light sentence. Even the words "light sentence" kinda tork me off. *Again, my issue. *So in this instance, I agree with you. *If marijuana was the "lame duck" that kept Lee's family from getting vindicated, that's injustice. * But then the problem isn't that marijuana caused it, it's that we have too few judges with enough balls to hand down a fair sentence. *The fact that marijuana pacified a judge - 2 wrongs make a right? - that puts the law in the back-seat, and empowers the criminals.

In the scenario of "I can kill a cop and get away with it because I was high" produces one of two results:
1. *I can kill, and justify (Moves from felony to misdemeanor, drops other misdemeanor)
2. *I can kill and get busted with an additional drug charge (keeps felony, ADDS misdemeanor) *

We're currently using #1, and we SHOULD be using #2.

Like you said, if you can't aruge that the crime took place, and the guy is guilty, you need to find a loophole. *Why not walk away, say that you did your job, and have the judge throw the book at him? *Why are we pandering to the LOWEST common denominator? *Quote[/b] ]Logic would tell us that if marijuana made him do it, it can make other people do it. *Eliminate marijuana and you eliminate crime. *That flies in the face of reason.That's an ideal thought, but agreed, that does fly in the face of reason. *And so does saying "drug use shouldn't be punished" or "drug use is a valid excuse in America's courts". * We also can't say that if you legalize marijuana, that's it's legal, safe and the smart thing to do. * You can't dictate morality, but you can punish immorality. Quote[/b] ] People who by all other accounts are good, productive citizens who like to get high in the privacy of their own homes, all bills and taxes paid.Okay, there's a good point. *Members of NAMBLA, are, by all other accounts, good productive citizens who like to have sex with children in the privacy of their own homes, all bills and taxes paid too, but I don't think the legalization of that is merited either. *I guarantee you, in less than 20 years from now, you'll be having the same argument with a lawyer who defends NAMBLA people, and you'll wonder, "How the #### did we get to THIS point". *That's the place EXACTLY where I'm at now with legalizing drugs. Quote[/b] ]Even so, you, AZWW, are given the opportunity to show that you can drink alcohol responsibly, while right now some drunk is driving, or beating his wife, or molesting his daughter, or shooting a cop. Should we bring back prohibition?
Yeah - you got me there. *Personally, I'd rather bring back prohibition than have pot legalized. *

To answer your question in full, currently, No. * But I'm mixed on that. *Again, beer and pot are not exactly the priorities in my life. *But I realize that it's a minor (or major) part of someone else's, and I'm not about to assume their freedom for my preferences. *But what gets legalized after pot? *What's next, because there WILL be something... and pretty soon, there will be no drug that's considered "bad or illegal", but instead, PC terms like "less harmful - or - less desirable" coined for heroin, PCP, Shrooms, etc. * And THEN because the justice department LEGALIZED it, then it's THEIR fault, and I can smell the lawsuits on THAT one. *

We sue cigarette makers, yet we don't sue Anheiser-Busch. *And beer drinking causes more impaired drunk driving murders (some call drunk driving "accidents", but I don't subscribe to that) than cigarettes do. *

While I don't want to change the Prohibition, I STILL think that drunk drivers should be sentenced so heavily that it breaks their bank, and sends them to break a few rocks. *It's detestable, completely avoidable - but queerly, so COMMONLY accepted. * It's not a shock anymore to hear that one of my co-workers might have gotten pulled over for a "DUI". *Why? *Because it cost him a few nights in jail, $5,000, and community service. *Pah-SHAW! *He could have just as easily killed someone. * And I feel the same way with any "social substance" you want to throw out there. * Just make sure the punishment fits the crime, so to speak. *And make it hurt! *$5000 is spit pay. *It wouldn't cover the funeral he was more statistically likely to cause. *Quote[/b] ]And I do think that we are unduly hard on people who choose to escape reality by ingesting marijuana rather than alcohol. Oooh - we're narrowing it down here. *I think this is our disagreement. *I think we are not NEARLY hard on people who choose to do something - which causes them to do something stupid - which causes them to get arrested - which causes us to find the need to, at the end, feel sorry for him? *If your reality sucks that hard, why not spend some time CHANGING that instead of ESCAPING that? *I think your problem lies in defending the pitiful against the rights of a sober citizen. Quote[/b] ]we cannot pick and choose who has the right to be proven guilty by a jury of their peers beyond a reasonable doubt, so some criminals are exonerated on a technicality—that being a weakness in the government’s case that will not permit the jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.Well said. *I'd want the same for me, if I was wrong accused. *But funny - I've never been arrested. *Why is that? *I've always found it interesting that the people that have the least respect for our laws are bent on getting the best end of the deal when they're caught. *The victims - oh yeah.. the victims.... * Quote[/b] ]So what “naturally makes us sleepy” is not an emotion, but a chemical process in the brain, mainly the hypothalamus, which is the area of the brain affected by pot. And taking Nyquil and driving is a bad idea too. *Even Nyquil drivers would admit to being "impaired", while the common pothead would never admit that he was "imparied". *See the difference? *Most pot users really think that it's harmless and has no consequences. *Why legalize it and prove that misconception to be a "fact"? *Quote[/b] ]The desire to regain that high and avoid the withdrawal is the driving force behind criminal activity that furthers the addict’s quest for the next fix. *Withdrawal so severe that it justifies prostitution and stealing to avoid the pain of “coming down”.And we're so hellbent on feeling sorry for them after they chose that path. *Let's say that same crackhead broke into my house and I had to shoot him to keep my family safe? *You'd get HIS family sueing ME - again - on a loophole, saying somewhere that I should NOT have done that. *

That's the "loophole loser argument" I champion, because *I* was a honest, law-abiding citizen would be held to the fire for simply doing what comes naturally - protecting my family. *Common sense regulates that I don't have to determine what his problem is - except that he's breaking stuff and threatening me in MY house. *For me, that justifies enough to protect my family, and if using said gun is the result, so be it. *

Should I be sued for that? *No, but I will be, sure as the hair on my head! *I was in my house, I felt threatened, and we could go on and on. *But because of some STUPID loophole, we're going to justify MY actions against HIS actions, and in my opinion, he's CLEARLY in the wrong. *Place, House, whatever. *I'm going to be sent to jail and pay a lifetime of "reparations" to the family of the dead druggie I shot and never see any semblance of my normal American family life again. *For what - the pursuit of "justice"? *Please! * The victim pays more than the criminal any day of the week. *Quote[/b] ]By your logic, if we suddenly outlawed alcohol, again, would AZWW’s desire to drink a beer, even though he could take it or leave it, considered abuse? *It is easier for teenagers to get than cigarettes and alcohol, I will give you that. *They can also get spray paint for huffing, but I am not precluded from buying the stuff because it can be used for huffing. Heh - that's golden. *Abuse can be anything you position it to be, as long as you can convince other people of it. *You can hold up a picture of a white piece of paper, and if you position it to be black, and get people to admit, who CARES what color it REALLY is! * That's the problem. *

Paint, by the way, is locked up and can't be purchased by minors in our state. *A good idea. *But even if the kids could buy it, geez.. if you're that gosh-darned stupid to huff that stuff, you deserve the brain damage AND the eventual conviction you're likely to receive. *Maybe the paint won't get you behind bars, but your obvious signs of stupidity will not keep you out of trouble for long. *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif *Quote[/b] ]I have to argue the point because I still believe that we need the revenue and that we cannot afford to fight a war on terror, a war against Iraq, keep North Korea in check, protect our borders, AND fight a war on marijuana that targets predominantly law abiding citizens (apart from the crime of possession). *My state could fill our budget shortfall by decriminalizing pot and allowing the crop of industrial hemp, which is the most I would argue for at this point, and could shift resources from enforcing the simple possession laws to that of protecting society from real dangers such as terrorists. *
I'm gonna call you on this one. *If comparing drugs to terrorists (and costs associated of) is clearly your justification, then IMHO (In My Humble Opinion), you are doing the RIGHT thing... but for the wrong reason. *It's a WEAK argument. * We have money, we've been further in debt as a country, and we've come out smelling like roses - ask Clinton! *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif * We need to spend more to close our borders - and the amount of money we'd save by doing that - keeping illegals out (of the country, AND the social services system) would pay for itself AND your crime legislation. *THAT makes more sense. *

I think you're pulling the "terrorist excuse" BS on this one, and with all due respect, you're going to have to peddle that one down the street..... *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] ]By the way, would you call Carl Sagan stupid? *He was a daily pot smoker. *And Ben Franklin grew hemp, both for fiber and recreation.Ben Franklin also took "air baths", naked on his roof. If you listen to the liberals, he was an offensive womanizer with bad language, too. *Geez, I don't believe that crap for ONE minute. * And if you're going to tell me that Ol' Bennie "sparked the owl", I'm going to split my sides laughing. *

The editors of "High Times" are not exactly history revisionists, but I know they're trying!!! *

Ben Franklin: *"Wow, Jefferson. *I was TRIPPIN' last night. *I dreamed I flew a kite in the rain.. yeah weird, huh? But I have this GREAT idea on how lightning produces electricity.... the aliens told me how... " *At that point, Ben Franklin asks Thomas Jefferson for his Sour Cream Pringles and Hostess Ho-Ho's. *While Franklin works on his drug-induced electricity idea... Jefferson packs the pipe again and asks Franklin, "Would you like to "puff a fattie" with me?.....

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mdr11.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mdr11.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mdr11.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mdr11.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mdr11.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mdr11.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mdr11.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mdr11.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mdr11.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mdr11.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mdr11.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mdr11.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mdr11.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mdr11.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mdr11.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mdr11.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mdr11.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mdr11.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mdr11.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mdr11.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mdr11.gif

So you know what? * I think that's crap. *Maybe he DID grow hemp - but back in those days, it was for clothes, luggage and baskets. *

But again - my opinion is just as good as yours. *I'd like to see your reply to some of my (more serious - heh) comments. *

That Ben Franklin thing - man, I had to add a little humor in this. *I'm getting too serious. *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

AZWW

[realistic_one]

NAMBLA? I am starting to lose faith that you have any sound argument and are reaching for extremes to support your WEAK argument supporting the status quo.

Why, again, is marijuana cunsumption wrong apart from the fact that breaking the law is "wrong"? You still have managed to skirt the issue. You have yet to point to any evidence besides your "humble opinion" that its use is evil as are those who use.

Effectively, you have skirted the issue of "why" and have tried to justify a failing system by assuming that no sensible legislation can incoporate "legaliazation of pot" without going down the slippery slope of legalizing everything regardless of whether there is a victim. Your NAMBLA argument is ludicrous.

Where is the victim in the crime of smoking marijuana in the privacy of one's own home?


{So you know what? I think that's crap. Maybe he DID grow hemp - but back in those days, it was for clothes, luggage and baskets.}

If you think smoking marijuana is a modern vice, you are truly niave.

As for the great Mr. Franklin, he was allowed to grow hemp, and neither you nor myself has any proof that he did or did not grow for recreation in addition to growing for fiber. I will suggest many things, AZWW, and you will no doubt take it out of context. The point was that it was legal to grow hemp, an industry was created, and the government was more concerned with independence and freedom than legislating what could be put in one's own body. Whether he got baked with his revolutionaries or not is undeterminable, and irrelevant. Why can't my state's farmers grow hemp to compete in the global market? Why are they deprived of a valuable cash crop because we think we need to tell people not to put mind-altering substances into their bodies? But you have no idea how many intelligent people have and still do enjoy recreational consumption of marijuana--without a victim. Why is it such a stretch to envision anyone doing anything but eating Ho-Ho's and laughing uncontrollably?

Explain to me why hammering on the "injustice" that I agreed occurred in Lee's situation is at all relevant to a discussion on how marijuana is a social evil? We are all in agreement that the criminal justice system has it's problems, but those problems are there to protect us from a runaway government, not to protect the truly guilty, even though that happens at times.

I will not defend my profession here. But if you are accused of being associated with NAMBLA, I would defend you, zealously, honorably, within the law, and hold the government to its responsibility to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, regardless of whether you are truly guilty, and if I lose the case, I still have won because someone vicitmizing children would have been brought to justice. That is what makes me proud to be an American--being able to participate in a system that is designed to protect us from our government. Once sentencing comes, I really don't have such zeal for defense--I believe in consequences for violating someone's rights and would not have promoted the "marijuana made me do it" excuse from a cold-blooded killer.

{I think you're pulling the "terrorist excuse" BS on this one, and with all due respect, you're going to have to peddle that one down the street.....}

No, Bush and his ONDCP are peddling that line of BS. I am taking the realistic view that in our "knee-jerk" legislation and reaction to the lack of communication in our most resource-draining bureaucracies, the FBI and CIA, we have created another budgetary drain called the Office of Homeland Security to, among other things, facilitate communication between those bureaucracies. That costs money. We are mounting an offensive in Iraq. That costs money. We are soon faced with dealing with the rogue nation of North Korea. That costs money. We are fignting a war on drugs. That costs money. We have to protect our citizens from criminals. That costs money. If you think we have an endless supply of money for anything the government wants, you are fooling yourself. The only way that money becomes "endless" is through increased revenue, and guess what, that means an increase in taxes.

With all due respect, I am selling nothing. My opinions are free, if lengthy.


Barrell two. Watiting fro return fire. . .

[azwhitewolf]

Awww.. come on... even though this is a TOTALLY heated debate, remember, we are more than likely on the same side. *(maybe barring this issue, but I digress...)
Quote[/b] ]NAMBLA? *I am starting to lose faith that you have any sound argument and are reaching for extremes to support your WEAK argument supporting the status quo. I’ve posted my argument quite a few times, and I’ll explain it again. *There is no BENEFIT for legalizing marijuana. *None. *While I AGREE with you that not spending money on “fighting drugs” might have it’s benefits, I DISAGREE with you that the actual act of smoking weed is good for society.

The point I was making was in response to YOUR quote: *Quote[/b] ]Realistic_one SEZ: *People who by all other accounts are good, productive citizens who like to get high in the privacy of their own homes, all bills and taxes paid.And the MAIN point I'm trying to drive home is the fact that the "just because someone is doing it in the privacy of their own home" does not itself point to a conclusion that it's right or moral, and therefore, thrust on the American people. *

Somehow the "privacy of one's home" is the issue you bring up. *But I call it a pointless issue because in all social terms, if Marijuana WAS legalized, it "wouldn't be used in the privacy of one's home". *It would be at bars, sporting events, in public and at school during lunch break. *Again, explain the benefits.

You may not like the NAMBLA comparison, and true, it is not TOTAL apples and apples. *But let me point out why I said that. *

1. It’s currently illegal.
2. A small minority with loud voices condemn the fact it’s illegal.
3. Making it legal would make it common – dare I say “rampant”?
4. It benefits individuals who are going to do it anyway, while providing no protection for the rest of the citizens (or victims) on it’s adverse affects
5. It leaves victims. *You deny marijuana leaves victims, but it does. *
6. Legalization will only cause more innocent people to either hurt themselves, or *someone else. *Or in simple terms – “Dude, it’s harmful”. *
7. It’s being pushed to a crowd that indeed considers it a social ill, regardless of how THEY want THEIR freedom. *“Forced Legislation” comes to mind…

While the victims that NAMBLA types leave behind (emotional, scarring, some people never recover), *marijuana does the same with the EXCEPTION that the victim is NOT always a minor, and the act itself is non-sexual. So what’s the difference? *While NAMBLA is far more of a cancer (yes, in my opinion – that’s what we’re expressing) than marijuana, I still see no benefit to police, to citizens, to kids to ANYONE except pleasing a very small minority voice. *

At what point do we say, “Hey, enough is enough”? *I think now is the perfect time. *And most parents, LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE think pot is a bad choice for young people to pick up. *Do you disagree?

True, *I* think there will be more problems of people "driving while high”. I don’t see that as a helpful option when it can be easily avoided. *I don't like your dismissal of that as "minor". *It's pretty darn "major" when it happens to you. * It's the "legalize it because I like it" mentality, or perhaps the “legalize it because you have no reason to NOT legalize it” mentality. *Either way, I’m not convinced. *It's completely self-interest for a MINORITY of Americans, and affects a MAJORITY of the Americans in a negative way - more pot heads, more addiction, more EXCUSES for car "accidents"... the list of BAD is so long, the benefits would be considered a “drop in the bucket”. * If you're going to tell me that marijuana is going to ENHANCE the life if anyone, and you think it's a GOOD idea for them to do it, I lost your argument and you win. *Because I can't legislate your morality. *I think it's a misguided conclusion, but it's your right to think that if you want. *But that's on the basis of MY morality. *But don't try and say it's not a "moral issue". *That's completely what it is. *

Marijuana laws are not a "wrong" that have a coherent NEED to be "righted". *It's not going to produce ANY benefits socially for anyone. *Except Snoop Doggy Dogg gets to get high LEGALLY now, but even HE does it in the privacy of his own house AND in public, and HE is not exactly in jail - last I saw, he was filming a "Girls Gone Wild" commercial. *Quote[/b] ]Effectively, you have skirted the issue of "why" and have tried to justify a failing system by assuming that no sensible legislation can incoporate "legaliazation of pot" without going down the slippery slope of legalizing everything regardless of whether there is a victim.Do you see us turning UP any slippery slope by legalizing marijuana? *Oh sure, crime will go down – just make everything legal! *I think we continue to make it a status-quo faux-pas, and we’ll save ourselves a LOT of problems down the road. *

So, let’s not skirt the issue anymore: *Here is WHY. *

Look, as a nation, we caved in and gave teenage girls birth-control pills. The minority voice said: "It'll cause less pregnancies". *Do you see the amount of pregnancies going UP or DOWN?

We gave boys and girls condoms at taxpayer expense. *The minority voice said: "Teens will be safe from AIDS". *Do you see STD levels going UP or DOWN?

Could it be that sticking to the "STATUS QUO" when the same Conservatives opposed THESE minority ideas... that maybe these people were right ALL ALONG? *Hmmm..... http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif *I thought I saw you insinuate that I'm only against pot because of it's stigma. *Not true. *It's because it's history that's about to repeat itself, only with a consequence that we can't take back. *Let me explain.

NOW: *We legalize marijuana, and arrests will go down, and crime will lower, and society will be safer.... *- *that is the message I hear from you. * I'm afraid I draw the same conclusion as the "optimism" of condoms and birth control. *NOW the problem is out of hand, AND we can't just "make it illegal again". *If we DID, then we open a Pandoras box of people that tried it BECAUSE it was legal, and LIKE IT. *And thus, the problem will be worse than if we had never done it in the first place.

As you can see, "furthering a cause" to appease a small minority (pot smokers) HURTS the majority... and is usually misguided by an ulterior motive, AND the result is worse than when it started.

THAT, my friend, is a perfect historical example of why I oppose marijuana legalization.


Bah-dum-Bum! (cymbal crash)

(AZWW humbly bows)

(somebody does a golf clap, another onlooker belches)

If you legalize a gateway drug like marijuana, you might as well start watching the transformation of “pot peddlers” turn into “coke, PCP, Heroin peddlers”. *I can assure you, you will NEVER be out of work if pot gets legalized. *The courts will be so jammed up until we “legalize coke, under 1 gram”, or legalize Shrooms (inside the privy of your house, of course!) *

Kids are getting high, hooked, and committing crimes to continue the habit. *You say that marijuana is a solution - for less crime. *I’m asking you, how do you draw that conclusion? *It IS habit forming. *It DOES make you stupid. *It DOES give way to bad judgement. *While I don’t champion Abolishment, I don’t think we need to freely add to the problem by including another ingredient, not as a replacement, but an addition!

While I disagree that Porn Shops are truly protected under the First Amendment (vaguely), I accept the fact that they exist, and that some people frequent them. *However, I take the “Not in My Neighborhood” approach, because I think it’s harmful to say to kids that “pornography is normal”. *Acceptable in my society, iffy. *Acceptable for my kids, no. *Acceptable to me, no. *And that’s the same approach I take with marijuana. *But if I could avoid a sex shop being built in the vicinity of my house, I would picket, write my elected officials, or find a loophole if I could in the law. *“Constitutionally Protected” porn, it may be! *But that doesn’t change the fact that the housing vicinities around a porn shop suffer – just the store existing in a neighborhood ups the crime stats, homelessness, violence, drug usage and hurts the value of homes around it, in EVERY instance without fail. *Wouldn’t it be wise to say, “Hey, maybe a gas station would be better?” than appease the minority of supporters that WOULD rally behind an adult shop? *What would be a better benefit to the community? *Giving the community what they really want, or forcing someone’s preference as a “right”? *

I'm not asking you to defend your means of living, and I'm sorry if I insinuated a negative towards you - it was a bad call on my part. *Any job is a worthwhile job, and noble in itself. *

I'm glad you're out there defending people. *But you tell me how much crime has risen due to drug problems, or take a look at people who DO drugs, and you'll find that statistics show that drug users often have a larger "rap sheet". *. *It's a common connection. *People who get high DO STUPID THINGS. *That's not anyone's morality, that's common sense.

Quote[/b] ] I am taking the realistic view that in our "knee-jerk" legislation and reaction to the lack of communication in our most resource-draining bureaucracies, the FBI and CIA, we have created another budgetary drain called the Office of Homeland Security to, among other things, facilitate communication between those bureaucracies. *That costs money. What “communication is lacking”? * That the word “drug” is associated with “crime” – and rightfully so. *What communication is missing?

I am rather fond of the FBI and CIA, and I’m certainly supportive of a “Homeland Security”. *It should have been done years ago. *In fact, Repubs begged Clinton to do it, and instead, Clinton CUT the military. *I was mad! *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/fire.gif *I’m glad we have more money going into the security of our nation. *My tax dollars finally go to something that I agree with! *Hooray!
Quote[/b] ] *If you think we have an endless supply of money for anything the government wants, you are fooling yourself. *The only way that money becomes "endless" is through increased revenue, and guess what, that means an increase in taxes. * So what does legalizing marijuana DECREASE? *We are still going to need a DEA for the said coke, heroin and shrooms – we’re not ousting an agency there. * How about our already tapped HEALTH CARE system, which already takes care of illegals? *How about the health problems associated with marijuana? *Ooh- here’s a losing combination – an illegal alien who has health problems due to marijuana use – now we need to “supply the costs of rehab”! * *How about cleaning up the “mess” after someone gets high and stupid? *Hollywood shows a bunch of “mellow fellows” sparkin-a-doobie. *But that’s not real life either. *

Here’s AZWW’s plan on getting more federal money, while keeping marijuana illegal.

1. Find all students on expired visas. Deport them immediately. *Charge them upon capture, a tax, for enjoying the benefits of freedom and a fine for breaking the law.
2. Deport all illegals. *This will save money on education, health care, prisons (25% of prison inmates are illegal aliens) and welfare. *WOW – imagine that one ALL BY ITSELF! *BILLIONS, my friend.
3. Refer victims seeking asylum to your local churches or charities, not the government.
4. Cut welfare checks after Generation 2. *Someone should be able to find a job in two generations of reproduction.
5. Speaking of reproduction, eliminate Federal funds from Planned Parenthood
6. Eliminate funding for the NEA – National Endowments for the Arts. *Art should support itself – PBS does. If there’s a demand, it will come from the public sector – not the gov’t. *

Wow. *If you get rid of THOSE things, imagine all the money we’d have for all the things you mentioned, and possibly extra to boot!

Quote[/b] ] As for the great Mr. Franklin, he was allowed to grow hemp, and neither you nor myself has any proof that he did or did not grow for recreation in addition to growing for fiber. You’re insinuating that Ben Franklin smoked pot; *why else would you add that to the discussion? * That’s equally, if not more, far reaching than my NAMBLA comparison. *“Oh… well, the PRESIDENT did it….”. * And so what? *But hemp was used as a resource and we DO have proof of that, no proof that it was used as a “recreational drug” as we know it. *The Indians probably smoked a little ganga in their “peace pipes” too… but that’s not our culture today either. * They also had slaves, and many beat their wives. *They made laws to avoid that back then - because it was better for society and women, and I think our laws on marijuana use are specifically tailored for the safety and betterment of Americans, as they were back in the day. *THAT is why I hold my status-quo-like attitude – its betterment for the general public. *Look at our culture today, and you tell me where pot best fits in. *Schools? *Sport events? Boy Scouts? *The government money we spent on fighting drugs would TRULY be wasted if we threw our hands up in the air and say, "Remember that 'don't do pot' commercial? *Forget it. *Here's a match". *Imagine even 20% of our population high. *How sick and sorry would THAT picture be? *You'd NEED the NEA if you ever painted that one. *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Quote[/b] ] With all due respect, I am selling nothing. *My opinions are free, if lengthy.Mine aren’t…. that’ll be one dollar, please. :P

As much as I challenge your position, and you challenge mine, I do enjoy this debate. *Perhaps one of us will break….. ahhhh.. but probably not!

AZWW

[realistic_one]

THE point you missed was "privacy of one's own home" necessarily included: "with no victim". My concern is that you are answering all of my questions, AZWW, with examples of the extremes. I will give you the points you want so badly to back up your position, hopefully resulting in a more focused debate that does not venture off into the realm of silliness. Yes, smoking ANYTHING is unhealthy. If Dr. Jones did his job well, why would we care if he wanted to smoke a fattie on Saturday night, assuming, of course, he is not on call or in surgery?

I am well aware that you think that marijuana is dangerous. I would like to have a laundry list of dangers inherent in consumption of pot that equates with the damage done to innocent children by proponents of NAMBLA.

All of your negative comments with respect to the use of marijuana are equally as applicable to alcohol, which, last I checked, is legal to consume.

As for my comment about the great Ben Franklin, I do not expect you to "buy" the argument that he smoked pot. I do expect you to concede that he was "permitted" to grow hemp, and that, by being permitted to do so, he could make a profit. My point: why can't farmers in my state do the same?

I have apparently failed in conveying to you that I am not advocating "more pot smoking" as you have assumed. It is my opinion that we would be better off using the resources trying to stop the average pot smoker from consuming for combating drugs that are more dangerous to society, of which alcohol, IMHO, should be included.

Marijuana is not a "gateway drug". You will have to dig a little bit deeper to convince me that marijuana legalization is the death-knell of morality in the US.

As for your contraceptive argument, it is irrelevant and a Puritanistic line of BS I will not entertain. No offense.

Your impression that marijuana enthusiasts compromise a small minority of the population is only true in the GOP population in which you shield yourself. In the real world, no one feels as threatened by marijuana as the GOP. Maybe it is because one under the influence of marijuana just might have an independent thought.

Neither pot nor alcohol have any place in schools, sporting events, or the Boy Scouts. No teenager sohould introduce any chemical into the body while the brain is developing. Current anti-drug policy has not stopped it. In fact, teenagers are most likely to sell it because it IS illegal.

So from your PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, how does marijuana threaten society? Give me one case sutdy where someone has smoked themselves permanently stupid.

I have to know so I can change my view.

No drum roll here, the band couldn't make it, something about needing to find some pot.

(If you review some of the previous posts, you could focus on the argument a little better. I am not here to push a liberal agenda, I am trying to rationalize our current anti-marijuana policy and the resourses used to further such an irresponsible policy.)

[azwhitewolf]

Heh... (deep breath) *Okay... Let's hit these points.

Quote[/b] ]I have apparently failed in conveying to you that I am not advocating "more pot smoking" as you have assumed.Quote[/b] ]I am not here to push a liberal agenda, I am trying to rationalize our current anti-marijuana policy and the resourses used to further such an irresponsible policy So let me get this straight - you are not advocating pot smoking, but you think that we have an irresponsibile policy because pot is illegal?

Quote[/b] ]THE point you missed was "privacy of one's own home" necessarily included: "with no victim". *My concern is that you are answering all of my questions, AZWW, with examples of the extremes. Well, sure I take the examples of extremes. *What else is there? *I don't subscribe to the ideology that if you legalize hemp that people are going to make baskets and backpacks, nor are they going to "smoke it once a year". *

Nor do I think that people will JUST smoke in their own homes. *What people do in their own house is their problem, and people can smoke weed in their own house, and under Illegal Search and Seizure laws, they don't even have to answer the door if the cops ring the bell! *How about THAT? *So as it stands, without adding a silly "pot legalizing" law, *Mr. Jones can continue to smoke in his house without fear of reprocussion. *That is status quo!

Quote[/b] ]If Dr. Jones did his job well, why would we care if he wanted to smoke a fattie on Saturday night, assuming, of course, he is not on call or in surgery?
Do you know any of the facts on what THC and over 400 of the other chemicals in marijuana do? *They SLOW the response system. *If Dr. Jones was a surgeon, his chances of hurting someone greatly increases over time - that's a professional ailment that I'd rather not introduce, but it was your example! *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif *But to answer your question directly, no-one cares. *If no-one knows. *I don't care if it's low-profile. *Quote[/b] ]All of your negative comments with respect to the use of marijuana are equally as applicable to alcohol, which, last I checked, is legal to consume.So why add another social drug when you don't have to? *You can get the "high" you're looking for, except for the problems of LONG TERM THC effects, which:
Doubles your heart rate (not slows it like alcohol),
Impaired Attention and Memory (great for Dr. Jones, yeah?)
Damages and Destroys nerve cells and causes pathological changes in the hippocampus.

Alcohol affects the liver. *Cigarettes affect lots of things. *Those aren't healthy either. *But this is enough - we don't need pot ADDED to the list. *

Quote[/b] ]I am well aware that you think that marijuana is dangerous.You don't mind if a doctor does it on his off time? *How about the night before operating on your heart or brain with shaky hands? *I think we have to agree to disagree on this. *You think marijuana is safe. *I don't know HOW, as you don't explain it, but you do. *
Quote[/b] ]I would like to have a laundry list of dangers inherent in consumption of pot that equates with the damage done to innocent children by proponents of NAMBLA. I explained my reasoning on that, comparing it to being a minority of pressure people, demanding that they get something that not only benefits THEM, but causes possible suffering from innocent people. *If you can't see past that, then I apologize for a bad analogy. *I'm done with the example. Quote[/b] ]It is my opinion that we would be better off using the resources trying to stop the average pot smoker from consuming for combating drugs that are more dangerous to society, of which alcohol, IMHO, should be included. *Okay. *So let's say we TRADE alcohol for MARIJUANA. *We prohibit alcohol and legalize pot. *

The body can clean out alcohol completely in a matter of hours, of course, depending on the metabolism of the body. *THC would stick around for a long time in the body. *But looking at the personal, and social issue (less drunk driving), I'm fine with that. *

THERE is an offer I can't refuse. *Old alcoholics have half their brain dried out too, so let's trade one evil for another. *I'm fine with that - I'm more fearful of drunk driving than high driving - or in your words, "sleepy driving". *I'm all for that. *And having been a bartender for a few years of my life, I can tell you what some of my regulars were like. *I think you're on to something.

Now... how do we prohibit alcohol? *Especially when we can make it in a bathtub (and I've seen that done too!) * If you can make that argument work, I'll agree with you. *If you can't completely abolish alcohol AND marijuana, then I'm not interested. *I'd rather keep marijuana illegal. *Quote[/b] ] I do expect you to concede that he was "permitted" to grow hemp, and that, by being permitted to do so, he could make a profit. *My point: why can't farmers in my state do the same?
Because making baskets and backpacks and bags and clothes were MORE THAN LIKELY what they did with the hemp. *Until the 60's, people were content NOT finding every plant on planet earth to dry, ground, light and smoke to have some color-induced psychological mental escape from reality. *Perhaps some revolutionary rebel was into that, (c'mon - explain the marlboro man - that's a joke... ok never mind) But if you suggest that smoking pot is some sort of "Olde American Tradition", I don't buy it. *

Farmers can't do it in your state because someone will plan a "Woodstock", and trample all the plants that they didn't smoke. *Jokes aside, because marijuana has been deemed "illegal", and by most American parents, "dangerous". The same reason they can't grow plants that produce cocaine, and the same reasons labratories can't "cook toxins" to make meth. *It's against the law. **

Quote[/b] ]Marijuana is not a "gateway drug". *You're right. *It is THE gateway drug. *It's the last stop between cigarettes and snorting coke. *Not every time, but when "pot" becomes okay, in the millions of minds in America's youth, so is cocaine, right? *The answer to the question of "How is the pot high different from the cocaine high" is simply, "Let's find out". *

At parties, how many kids spike cigarettes? *Few. *How many spike weed? *Many - and the question is WHY! *It's because you get an INHERENTLY larger high with weed. *

The same kids that disrespect alcohol laws and cigarette laws should be under the same punishment as weed laws. *In fact, because weed is illegal may help put a drunk kid in the tank for the night for "drug possession", which ups the chances that the roads are a LITTLE safer - and I'm all for that! *
Quote[/b] ]As for your contraceptive argument, it is irrelevant and a Puritanistic line of BS I will not entertain. *No offense.Offense taken. *My contraceptive argument holds the water, and begs for an answer. *

You are telling me how great it will be when marijuana gets legalized - how does that result differ from the promise of social betterment with condoms (that failed) and birth control (that failed), yet both of those promised AMAZING social benefits and "concrete" results - the same results you promise with legalizing pot? *

If it's such a Puritan line of BS, then debunk it quickly and then we'll move on. *
Quote[/b] ]Your impression that marijuana enthusiasts compromise a small minority of the population is only true in the GOP population in which you shield yourself. In the real world, no one feels as threatened by marijuana as the GOP. *Oh, the REAL world - the world that looks foward to such great feelings as "the spins" and "coming down".. and "addiction". *Ahhhh... *And it's the nasty GOP Fundies that are keeping this from happening, isn't it? *We're "taking all the fun away", just like usual. *That's a simplistic and immature accusation, based on nothing whatsoever. *Sounds more like a bite for the Green Party, which exists mainly FOR the legalization of marijuana. *Why not look at how America responds to the "Green Party", and you'll see that it's not just people "like me" or "groups like" the GOP that oppose marijuana.

And I shield myself with common sense and the ability to look at the most probable outcomes, not blinded by "what I want - when I want it". *

But I'll give you your due: *You speak considerably well, and are probably the only person I've had the ability to continue this conversation with. *Sorry, but many potheads ARE lazy dreamers, they wear yesterday's clothes, the smell like burned patcheki oil, and are, for the most part, very disinterested in analyzing anything. *My reasons for pushing so hard FOR the status quo is because I don't want my kids (or heck, my neighbors!) to dis-evolve into mindless dolts with joints hanging out of the corners of their mouths and drooling with that glazed look in their eyes. *It's an eyesore, a social problem, and completely avoidable. *

I don't get that impression with you. *Your points are few, though, very well thought out, and I like your insistence and aggressive nature. *It's obvious that pot was only for a season of your life, and not a very considerable amount, if I had to guess. *We'll see how you respond to the contraceptive argument http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin2.gif
Quote[/b] ]Maybe it is because one under the influence of marijuana just might have an independent thought. *
No doubt, enchanced by that wonderful healthy drug known as THC. *

I'll bet proponents for the legalization of heroin subscribe to the same "enlightened" status. *Do you truly think that marijuana users have "an edge" that soundly pummels us "have nots"? *

You know, you make pot sound like you're trying to sell vitamins. *If you think it takes pot to have an independent thought, fine. *I have plenty of independent thoughts, and most of the are likely more clear, than your average pot smoker. *I can tell which of my mechanics smoke pot. *I can tell which lifeguard at the local swimming pool smokes pot, just by having a short conversation. **Quote[/b] ]Neither pot nor alcohol have any place in schools, sporting events, or the Boy Scouts. *No teenager sohould introduce any chemical into the body while the brain is developing. And you speak often of how legalizing pot would actually REDUCE the strain on our state and federal forces. *You're right when you say it has no place in the above mentioned activities. *But with legalization, you completely INTRODUCE it to every aspect of society. *Again, out of the realm of the "privacy of one's home". *Quote[/b] ]Current anti-drug policy has not stopped it. *In fact, teenagers are most likely to sell it because it IS illegal. *And where do you get THAT reasoning? *When it's legal, one guy can buy it at the store, and share it with 10. *When it's illegal, one guy can afford enough to maybe share with one. * If teenagers like to do illegal stunts, fine. *That definately seperates them into two different categories during job interviews, meeting parents, etc. * And having been a non-pot-smoker all my life, I have a better chance of getting a job when my resume doesn't include misdemeanors and felonies for which I've been convicted, now does it? *

As a parent, and someone who hires people, *I certainly take a look at who's been arrested, and judge them on their accomplishments AND crimes. *Society does the same - you certainly can't insinuate that I stand alone. *If you legalize pot, then millions of people who HAVE hurt people and broke the law can get their record looking cleaner than my leather shoes before I leave for work. *How is THAT fair to citizens that have kept the straight and narrow? *Quote[/b] ]So from your PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, how does marijuana threaten society? *Give me one case sutdy where someone has smoked themselves permanently stupid.

I have to know so I can change my view.
First of all, let's not fool anyone - I'm not going to change your view by answering this question. *But secretly, I was hoping you'd ask this anyway.

I went to my 10 year reunion and saw a couple of fellows that were the "behind the gym" potheads, and were SO very proud of that. *They were smart kids, quick and witty (usually with an insult, but I'll give em that!). *Ten years later, one of them was completely incapable of completing a sentence, because he kepts sidetracking himself with "maaaan" and "duuuuude"... and "woooaahh". * When I asked one of his buddies (who significantly suffered less, obviously) if something bad happened to him, do you know what his response was? *"Oh, he's ALWAYS been like that!". *This is a kid who NEVER did ANY harder drug than pot. *I wasn't convinced, so I really pressed them on the issue, and they kept responding, "Nope, he just gets too high". *

Wow. *Looks like pot really enlightened the both of them, doesn't it? *His buddy didn't even know how screwed up his friend was - because they kept laughing at each other. *Wait.. let's take a look at what you said: *Quote[/b] ]Maybe it is because one under the influence of marijuana just might have an independent thought. *Independent of reality. *That is, unless us "sobers" can "catch up"!
I rest my case. *Quote[/b] ]No drum roll here, the band couldn't make it, something about needing to find some pot. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rofl.gif Great work ethic, those potheads. *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif That's why MY drummer was here!
Quote[/b] ](If you review some of the previous posts, you could focus on the argument a little better. *I am not here to push a liberal agenda, I am trying to rationalize our current anti-marijuana policy and the resourses used to further such an irresponsible policy.)I try and stick to the subject, I really do. *If you're truly looking to rationalize our current anti-marijuana policy, why not tell me how much we DO spend, what it goes to, what it solves (if known) and how it would benefit us as citizens to do so? *I mean, even though it might do a LITTLE good, explain how something different could be better. *

From what I've read so far, it seems like a drop in the bucket compared to what we spend on other un-necessary social ills, which is why I don't hold it to such high regard. *If you could give me some info on why this problem would be such a great victory (financial, social, etc), show me, and we can revisit those issues too. *So far, all I'm riding on is how it compares to other ills (which we agree on) and weather or not it hurts people (which we don't agree on), but tell me in YOUR words why your policy works and what it will solve. *I can only hold a status quo role for so long before I have nothing left to say, but this is a really good argument, and you're a great "sparring partner". *

My stand is this: *There is no shortage of marijuana. *If you REALLY want it, you can get it. *If you REALLY want to smoke it in your house, you can probably get away with it for years with no police trouble. *So why go to all the trouble to legalize it with no real benefit except that more people (most likely kids) can "get high"? *Alcohol and cigs get you high already in their own different ways. *I just can't justify the reason to add ONE more way to get high, legally. *I just don't see it. *So point out WHY, and I'll be more receptive to your argument, and we can continue. *

And by the way, I have to correct myself from a previous post. *PBS is not self supported - it does get Governmental Grants. *This of course, does not change my view that the NEA should be dumped from Federal funding. *If you call Elephant Poop (even as the "party" animal of the Repubs) smeared into shapes on canvas, it still only makes it $#!t on a shingle, IMHO! *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

But I think he likes it!*http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/elefant.gif

[Der Alte]

Sounds like a couple of want to be lawyers - Jeez, you are long winded. Seems that the longer the post the more chance of winning the argument.

1. Marijuana is illegal.

2. Science has found that it damages the brain.

3. Since suicide is illegal, wouldn't killing yourself with drugs be the same?

4. Comparing it to alcohol is wrong - If you come to work reeking of alcohol you can be sent home or fired. Coming to work on a sensitive job high on marijuana that can't be detected could result in the death of individuals that rely on your being able to do the job correctly.

5. Lastly, all great nations have always crumbled from within by losing their moral compass and marijuana is just one step in that direction.