Poll: Legalize it?

[Shredder]

It's been legal here in MI for medical use since spring. Prop 1 (MJ) passed with 63% of the vote higher than that for Obama. Only adverse affect I've seen so far is police raids on legal folks, then later have to eat crow because they did not check to see if the folks were legal or the police just not knowing the law. No excuse.... I know. But the police around here are slow learners going by the rate people sue them. I did read where one fellow was kicked out of a hud subsidized house because of his legal MJ use in MI, and that is now in court, so he may be able to live there yet. Back in April I seen a notice in the local rag for a compassion club meeting. For the heck of it I went. Much to my surprise the place was full of old timers, most of who were crippled or disabled. I expected a bunch of youngins looking to get high, but did not see any of that. It really swayed my opinion seeing that crowd, it would hard to say no now, they really did not seem like a threat to me or mine.......shredder

 

[mickeyd]

Much to my surprise the place was full of old timers, most of who were crippled or disabled.

Seems like an interesting Medicare issue to me.

 

[unclemick]

The country has been going downhill ever since that dang trouble maker George Washington mobilized the militia and put down the whiskey rebellion. They moved to Kentucky and started NASCAR.

We needed hemp for cloth, rope, and sails back then. Till cotton replaced homespun.

heh heh heh - Old George's plantation was making 1/4 of the colony's rye whiskey back then - was that a noble gesture or a way of limiting competition? Speaking tin foil hat wise. .

 

[TromboneAl]

Ingesting Marijuana Versus Smoking Marijuana - Associated Content

 

[jIMOh]

"Obama has already called the drug war an "utter failure."

How often have we heard someone say this? And yet I don't remember anyone saying why it is an "utter failure"

I have said on numerous occasions that Obama is "an utter failure" too.

LOL

 

[Purron]

Ingesting Marijuana Versus Smoking Marijuana - Associated Content

The classic brownies vs. bong debate

 

[dixonge]

"Obama has already called the drug war an "utter failure."

How often have we heard someone say this? And yet I don't remember anyone saying why it is an "utter failure"

um, because it failed? *shrug*

If illegal drug use were rare, if the drugs were hard to find, then one might be able to claim some success. But the fact is that if one merely *wants* to try a drug it can be found without too much effort. Someone you know knows where to find some. When I 'dropped out' of normal society for awhile in the late 80's (divorce) I was utterly amazed at the availability of drugs. Even though I looked rather clean-cut I was regularly approached by people just wanting to share a joint or trade. As far as they knew I was a NARC and yet it happened a lot. I had easy access through several people to pot, pills and speed. An old acquaintance from school turned out to be a mule who made runs to border towns. The list goes on and on.

I see no difference between the current state of things and if we had no war on drugs at all...

 

[dixonge]

Just an aside on the Salvia issue. It's a mediocre drug, short lived buzz, not much fun. The states getting involved in outlawing it are creating a situation where the kids are going to try it. "If it's illegal, it must be fun!" I can flat out guarantee that if pot was legal or decriminalized NOBODY would be smoking Salvia. It's just not that good. It's like bathtub gin. Nobody kept drinking it once prohibition was over.

I agree that legal pot would decrease any demand for salvia. But that is an apples/oranges comparison. Salvia is more akin to LSD than pot.

Up until this afternoon I would have agreed re: salvia and legalization. Now I'm not so sure. I think the case can be made for making salvia illegal immediately, all ages, period.

 

[summer2007]

I'm totally clean living so I have no interest in pot but....

There are countries that have legalized it and have far far less serious crime than the U.S.

Also think of all the OTHER drugs that are legal like prescription drugs and even alcohol...it might be just a drop in the bucket.

And this is coming from someone who dose not even do caffeine!

Jim

 

[Tadpole]

I support the legalization of all drugs but not as a store-front buy. I think that these drugs should be on a prescription and that addiction should be considered as a disease warranting treatment, including providing the drug to the addict when other treatment has failed. The drugs necessary should not be highly taxed and should even be subsidized if an addict is in treatment with a medical doctor.

Why? The best way to get drugs off the street is to make them cheaper for people who must have them. The street drug industry depends on new addicts to maintain profits. If one removes any addict created on the street from the future profit pool of street dealers and their suppliers, the amount of street drugs will decline and the number of new addicts should decline.

I am more concerned about the crime and violence created by the underground drug market than I am about any moral consideration. I also understand that people who develop addictions are unlikely to go cold turkey or to visit a rehab center for serious treatment. If treatment is designed to include the possibility that a person might not be able to kick the drug, the society would be better off supplying drugs to this person than allowing the violence and crime to accelerated year by year.

 

[lets-retire]

I voted yes. While in college I had to do a paper on my opinion about this very topic. I hate just giving an opinion without some evidence to back it up. When I looked into the damaging chemicals found in marijuana it turned out they were no more harmful than the combination of cigarettes and alcohol. Most people who go out to party also smoke, so they are in fact receiving the same level of harmful chemicals when they go party as they would if they smoked a little grass. something else I learned was as long as your body contains enough THC to test positive, it effects your ability to perform. So with that, standards would have to be developed for driving, operating heavy equipment, and certain career fields would effectively be prohibited from indulging due to the time it takes to clear the body. We wouldn't want the police, doctors, EMT's, or firefighters working under the influence.

The concept of a gateway drug is very flawed. It works up the chain not down. So if you ask people who use coke how many had used marijuana it works, but if you ask how many people who smoked marijuana if they used any harder drugs, it doesn't work out so well. A better example is with cigarettes and marijuana. Every person possessing marijuana I've arrested, also had cigarettes, but not the other way around. Using the concept of "gateway drugs," cigarettes would be a gateway substance to marijuana use.

 

[Martha]

Lets-retire, interesting stuff. Thanks.

 

[haha]

Most people who go out to party also smoke, so they are in fact receiving the same level of harmful chemicals when they go party as they would if they smoked a little grass.

I would sure like to hear some proof of this particular "most people..." assertion. For example, in Seattle and maybe across the whole state I am not sure, smoking is banned in any public place, including bars and nightclubs. You can't even smoke within 20 or 30 feet of a door or window! I have gone clubbing on and off during most of my life, and even before the ban I would say at most "some people who go out to party also smoke". As well as some people who do not go out "partying".

Be that as it may, I think drug prohibition is stupid and harmful in a typically authoritarian American way.

Ha

 

[lets-retire]

I would sure like to hear some proof of this particular "most people..." assertion. For example, in Seattle and maybe across the whole state I am not sure, smoking is banned in any public place, including bars and nightclubs. You can't even smoke within 20 or 30 feet of a door or window! I have gone clubbing on and off during most of my life, and even before the ban I would say at most "some people who go out to party also smoke". As well as some people who do not go out "partying"

I must admit this is based on personal observation. I doubt anybody has done any reasonable, reliable research. In my defense though the personal observations have been conducted in several states (mostly red states) and at several bars in those states. The few places I have gone where smoking was prohibited inside the bar had crowds just as large outside smoking as they had inside not smoking. Since few non-smoker are likely to go outside to enjoy the fresh air of cigarette smoke, but most smokers will go inside to enjoy the entertainment in a smoke free environment, it is easy to say most of the people attending the entertainment smoke at least while indulging in alcoholic beverages.

 

[haha]

... it is easy to say most of the people attending the entertainment smoke at least while indulging in alcoholic beverages.

Also easy to say that the moon is made of green cheese. See, I just said it!

 

[lets-retire]

Also easy to say that the moon is made of green cheese. See, I just said it!

Big difference between what you did and what I did. Support your statement with logic or evidence. Otherwise your just attempting to start an argument that has nothing really to do with this thread.