Decriminalizing marijuana

[Insidious Rex]

Hey we're gonna need to delete this thread now. Too scary for the little ones.

[Lotesse]

HAH!!! Precisely what I was thinking, Rex. ;)

[Ragnarok]

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/EPH/8958.jpg

That poster ... :eek: :rolleyes: :( :mad: ... damn propaganda.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Hey we're gonna need to delete this thread now. Too scary for the little ones.
:p:rolleyes:;)

[Rían]

Ahhh, what a horrible poster! I can't STAND it! It's terrible!!
*runs away screaming*


(sends an "improper use of apostrophe" ticket to the poster maker - it should be "its", not "it's"!) :D

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Ahhh, what a horrible poster! I can't STAND it! It's terrible!!
*runs away screaming*


(sends an "improper use of apostrophe" ticket to the poster maker - it should be "its", not "it's"!) :D
nope, it's is right, the arms are a possessive to dope

[Sister Golden Hair]

Hey we're gonna need to delete this thread now. Too scary for the little ones.Whatever. Maybe you just don't appreciate moderation. Maybe you would be okay with everyone saying whatever they wish. When you buy Entmoot, or run it, you can make the rules IR, til then, live with it.

[Lotesse]

He was just being harmlessly sarcastic.

[The Gaffer]

nope, it's is right, the arms are a possessive to dope
And the possessive form of "it" is "its"; not "it's", which is short for "it is".

Ni!

The poster reminds me of those hilarious films from the 30s or something showing innocent white girls getting spliffed up and getting it on with assorted darkies.

Interestingly, the boot is now on the other foot, IMO, with an increasing body of evidence of harm from cannabis use set against the mythology of the "harmless weed".

[sun-star]

Interestingly, the boot is now on the other foot, IMO, with an increasing body of evidence of harm from cannabis use set against the mythology of the "harmless weed".

Yes, and it's the same case with the iconography - it's switched round, so that most of the popular culture you see about cannabis portrays it as cool. All those student rooms bedecked with posters about cannabis, those necklaces people wear, the T-shirts... Science won the harm debate, and drugs won the poster debate.

The misplaced apostrophe was the first thing I noticed too :o :D

[The Gaffer]

I don't know if we can say that the harm debate has been won by anybody, since it is still far less harmful (to say nothing of addictiveness) than, say, tobacco, alcohol or maybe even cheeseburgers. Most of the serious evidence is in the area of people with a predisposition to mental health problems.

What's needed is a bit more science IN the harm debate, not for science itself to "win".

I think that would actually serve the legalisation lobby better in the long run, because the risks would be seen to be far lower than other, more addictive, legal drugs. No-one claims that everything that's harmful should be banned. To my mind, however, because they seem to disregard the evidence in a rather glib fashion it's hard to take their contribution seriously.

[Snowdog]

(sends an "improper use of apostrophe" ticket to the poster maker - it should be "its", not "it's"!) :DMaybe the second-hand smoke caused them to miss this? :D

[sun-star]

I don't know if we can say that the harm debate has been won by anybody, since it is still far less harmful (to say nothing of addictiveness) than, say, tobacco, alcohol or maybe even cheeseburgers. Most of the serious evidence is in the area of people with a predisposition to mental health problems.

Well, I know nothing about the harm debate, so as far as I'm concerned, it consists of "does cannabis cause harm?" If the answer's yes, then science won the debate. It doesn't matter what substances you compare it to, or whether you use whatever answer you come to in order to talk about legalisation or not.

Please, feel free to call me simplistic. I take it as a compliment.

[Insidious Rex]

Whatever. Maybe you just don't appreciate moderation. Maybe you would be okay with everyone saying whatever they wish. When you buy Entmoot, or run it, you can make the rules IR, til then, live with it.

Oh but i DO appreciate moderation. I appreciate good fair even handed moderation that doesnt show clear bias. Is that ok or not?

[Sister Golden Hair]

Oh but i DO appreciate moderation. I appreciate good fair even handed moderation that doesnt show clear bias. Is that ok or not?That's absolutely okay, but I sense you are implying that's not what is happening here. Making a federal issue out of a small moderating call, and being sarcastic by spilling it over into other threads, doesn't exactly make moderators sympathetic to posters that do that and then expect fairness, even handed and unbiased moderating.

[Insidious Rex]

Have you read this whole thread? I stand by my assertion that if you cant mention how bad taking drugs are in another thread how can you possibly justify the celebration of them in many posts in this thread exactly? Just pointing that out... Im not saying you should actually censor this thread too. Im just saying what does that say about uneven approach to moderating. And theres probably hundreds of posts and dozens of threads going way back that would be considered inapropriate by the same measure as was used in the venting thread.

And anyway sgh havent you learned yet to just ignore me when I complain about this stuff by now? ;) Guaranteed that shuts me up faster.

EDIT: and by the way yer supposed to be fair and even no matter if im being an ass or not. ;)

[Sister Golden Hair]

Have you read this whole thread? I stand by my assertion that if you cant mention how bad taking drugs are in another thread how can you possibly justify the celebration of them in many posts in this thread exactly? Just pointing that out... Im not saying you should actually censor this thread too. Im just saying what does that say about uneven approach to moderating. And theres probably hundreds of posts and dozens of threads going way back that would be considered inapropriate by the same measure as was used in the venting thread.

And anyway sgh havent you learned yet to just ignore me when I complain about this stuff by now? ;) Guaranteed that shuts me up faster.

EDIT: and by the way yer supposed to be fair and even no matter if im being an ass or not. ;)You are making me dizzy going between these two threads. :p I have read this thread, but it has been a long time ago. It is old and it was only bumped because of what happened in the venting thread. Also, see my last post in the "venting" thread.

My dear Insidious Rex, you have got to be kidding me. I would never ignore you when you complain. Afterall, I love a good argument. Getting the last word is always a challenge. :D

Now to comment on your edit: Just because you don't think it's fair and even, doesn't mean it isn't. It's just that being an ass doesn't make it easier :p ;)

[Snowdog]

It is old and it was only bumped because of what happened in the venting thread. Also, see my last post in the "venting" thread.

Actually I bumped it because I saw I didn't tell LC of U thanks. :cool:

And because a discussion is old doesn't necessarily mean the topic is dead. If someone had started a new one, surely someone would post that a thread already exists on the subject, provide a link, and slap a padlock on it.

Now, both this and the Venting thread had moved on, but it seems to be brought back to that little issue of a couple days ago. As for the edit... of course its fair and even according to the powers that be. Thats the way it works in messageboarddom. *waves at the hidden forum* :D

Anyway, enough of that... back on topic.

The trouble with decriminalization is its still illegal, and the trouble with controlling it by legalization, like tobacco and alcohol, is taxation, quality control, and distribution. The issue is not really whether its good or bad for you.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Actually I bumped it because I saw I didn't tell LC of U thanks. :cool:

And because a discussion is old doesn't necessarily mean the topic is dead. If someone had started a new one, surely someone would post that a thread already exists on the subject, provide a link, and slap a padlock on it.

Now, both this and the Venting thread had moved on, but it seems to be brought back to that little issue of a couple days ago. As for the edit... of course its fair and even according to the powers that be. Thats the way it works in messageboarddom. *waves at the hidden forum* :D
Yes, who keeps bringing that issue back and wanting the last word on it? :p

Um, I didn't say "that because it was old, the topic was dead."

Actually, this is so minor and even a little silly now, that the hidden forum hasn't had anything to say on it. :p ;)

Now, yes, back on topic... :)

[Snowdog]

Yes, who keeps bringing that issue back and wanting the last word on it? :p
Not me ;)

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

the main reason for legalisation could be because i am a progressive libertarian

in other wodrs, live your life, it is your life, if you cock it up, that's your choice, if you make a success of it that is also your choice

words we can all live by

[Snowdog]

... and they are very good words indeed.

[Rían]

in other wodrs, live your life, it is your life, if you cock it up, that's your choice, if you make a success of it that is also your choice
Just be sure to not drive when you're high (or do anything else where your impaired judgement might harm someone), and don't use publically-funded health services for complications caused by your choice to use the drug.

(IOW, it's not that simple, IMO)

[Halbarad of the Dunedain]

(Just a crazy A$$ rant.... pay no attention and dont be offended)

Weed is no more harmful than a ciggarette! Perhaps even less so by means of actual "poisoning". As for the helucinating effects causing hazards, the consumption of alcohol causes more accidents and hazardes situations than Weed ever has. Two things that are 100% legal in the United States, Ciggarettes and Alcohol are more dangerous then Weed ever could be. If the only reason for making weed outlawd is for the safty of the potential users, i call BullSh*T on anyone who uses that lame cop-out, especially the lame U.S. government(who's U.S. government weed I have smoked on many occasion... damn hypocrites). Furthermore, it is to the individual to decide what he ort she will do with his/her body! This is not 1984, no thought police is gonna tell me I can't kill myself with cancer causing UV rays, or AIDs causing sex, or helucinegenic Weed! The government is not trying to help anyone... they do not have the monopoly on the weed and so they want to keep it out... its all about money and polotics... not about health.

However, I feel that weed should remain outlaw'd! I would much rather blow smoke in the governments face by saying I would break any law you throw at me then follow your misguided rules. It tastes so much sweeter when far enough back there is an underlying F U to the government.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Just be sure to not drive when you're high (or do anything else where your impaired judgement might harm someone), and don't use publically-funded health services for complications caused by your choice to use the drug.

(IOW, it's not that simple, IMO)
well you could transpose all of that onto alcohol, something you can legally take in britain from the age of 5 years (in your own home) or 18 in public

[Lotesse]

Halbarad, Bravo! My sentiments EXACTLY!!!!

[Janny]

well you could transpose all of that onto alcohol, something you can legally take in britain from the age of 5 years (in your own home) or 18 in public


People do, especially with cigarettes, but are told it's an incursion on civil liberties.

[The Gaffer]

Halbarad is absolutely right. Well said.

The question of whether society should pick up the tab for our lawbreaking would, to my mind, be a powerful argument in favour of legalisation (with associated regulation and taxation). Why else do you think that tabs and booze are legal?

The tax taken from tabs in the UK is greater than the health costs. These people are also killing themselves younger so they're not taking out their pensions or hanging on for years in some care home, so they indirectly save the state money too.

Meanwhile, the health costs of dope would be negligible, but the tax revenue would be substantial.

[Rían]

well you could transpose all of that onto alcohol, something you can legally take in britain from the age of 5 years (in your own home) or 18 in publicYou certainly could! I'm not saying that pot is the only thing around that's harmful; I'm just saying that IMO it's not as simple as saying "It's their own life, let them do what they want to!" We need to consider each case separately.

[Snowdog]

...its my life and I'll do what I want
its my mind and i'll think what I want
show me I'm wrong, hurt me sometime
but someday I'll treat you real fine...


The trouble is you don't want to affect others.
But why bother a guy who grows and smokes in his own home?
If you are going to use the argument of the public health and money in treatment for an accident that occures while one is high, then it too will apply to you who eat fast food and have health problems, or motorcycle riders who don't wear helmets, etc. Why single out just this one substance?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

all the people that i know do not, nor would ever, smoke out in public, or anything where they could put themselves, or others, in danger, and believe me i know a lot of people who smoke or eat. and never would they conceive of doing such a thing as driving or any other such thing as that whilst under the influence.

mind bending fact: cannabis actually heightens your judgement, which is why you notice things more acutely, however it lowers your self awareness, reactions things like that

[Lotesse]

The only reason it's illegal is so that the law enforcement can keep their jobs. When Prohibition was started, a new group needed to be created to enforce the law. When Prohibition ended, instead of telling the enforcers to get new jobs, they just gave them something else to regulate: marijuana..


This is an excellent point you've made, Treebeard's apprentice wherever you may be roaming now... and a viewpoint I very definitely agree with. Booze should be more regulated, Marijuana should be legalised. Does anyone realize how much more terribly destructive alcohol is compared with pot? There's almost no comparison. Just ask Cypress Hill! ;)

[IronParrot]

So a headline story in Canada these past few weeks concerns one Marc Emery, decriminalization activist and leader of British Columbia's provincial Marijuana Party. He's been running a business dealing seeds online for some time, to customers from both Canada and abroad - technically illegal, but Canadian authorities never intervened.

About two weeks ago he was charged by the DEA and promptly arrested up here in Canada, and the United States government demanded his extradition. If extradited, he likely faces a life sentence to be served in the US. The decision hasn't made its way through the judicial system yet, so it's made for a huge international relations issue here.

Thoughts?

[Lotesse]

He's Canadian? Then what is the DEA doing screwing with him?! Freakin' U. S. government, what harm has he done the US? Honestly, pot busts are SO wrong, they ought to be putting money & effort in tracking down and busting the opium traders and coke importers, and leave the potheads alone.

[IronParrot]

Well, it's a question of legality, right? He has been selling pot seeds to American customers, and that's a direct violation of both domestic laws and international treaties. Is the question of whether or not busting marijuana is a thing worth pursuing even a factor?

There's no straight answer, hence the debate, but I'd lean towards no. It's one thing to push for a change in the laws that govern you, but violating them before they have been changed is not an appropriate way to go about it, nor is it effective.

[Lotesse]

It's one thing to push for a change in the laws that govern you, but violating them before they have been changed is not an appropriate way to go about it, nor is it effective.

Good point to make; and furthurmore, if he really wanted to be making pioneering changes, he shouldn't have flirted with potential disaster by "jumping the gun" and dealing pot-seeds as if it were already a foregone conclusion that it was a legal thing to do. Now the fight to legalise marijuana is short one leader. Counter-productive of him to slip 'n fall like that.

[MrBishop]

The flipside of this argument is that if MJ is legalized and taxed, that's more money in the GVT's pockets, but will we start having to deal with DWS (Driving While Stoned) laws?

DUI laws don't define Influence in any other way than alcohol-related. :eek:

[Lotesse]

DUI laws don't define Influence in any other way than alcohol-related. :eek:

Actually, they do. It's driving while under the influence of a drug OR alcohol; not sure about the exact wording, I guess I could google it. That point you make about the government turning around and profiting off pot is so true, though. It really IS a double-edged sword, because either way, the gov't gets paid. It's a damn shame.

[Nurvingiel]

So a headline story in Canada these past few weeks concerns one Marc Emery, decriminalization activist and leader of British Columbia's provincial Marijuana Party. He's been running a business dealing seeds online for some time, to customers from both Canada and abroad - technically illegal, but Canadian authorities never intervened.

About two weeks ago he was charged by the DEA and promptly arrested up here in Canada, and the United States government demanded his extradition. If extradited, he likely faces a life sentence to be served in the US. The decision hasn't made its way through the judicial system yet, so it's made for a huge international relations issue here.

Thoughts?
There was a very interesting article in the Globe and Mail the other day. The author basically pointed out that if there was an American who used a website to sell Canadians handguns, we'd be pissed, and we'd want to try him in our courts, according to our gun control laws. It would be fair to ask for this - after all, this hypothetical American was selling guns in Canada. Our laws should be applicable to him.

Well, we have a Canadian who sold pot seeds in the States. Why is it unfair that they want to try him under their drug control laws? Granted, this starts to get highly complicated, but the USA isn't wrong for wanting to try him.

If he was selling pot seeds solely to Canadians, of course his trial would stay in Canada. Isn't international law tricky.

We insist that Americans obey our gun control laws on our side of the border, it's only fair we obey their drug laws on their side of the border.

[The Gaffer]

Yes, the difference with dope being illegal is that there is no concept of a "legal limit" while driving. So, if you test positive from passive inhalation of your flatmate's jazz tabs then you are DUI.

I agree that it's a waste of resources going after some Canadian hippie. Still, he took his chances so I don't feel any particular sympathy.

Double standards abound in this debate. Are they going after the Afghan warlords who've reinstated the world's heroin supply with the same alacrity? Oh wait, they're on our side in the War on Terror™....

The UN should make cannabis bombs and drop them over war zones. All conflict stopped at a stroke.

[Nurvingiel]

Gaffer, I really enjoy your posts and your sense of humour. "Some Canadian hippie" hits the nail on the head. :D

It is possibly relevant that he is the leader of the Marijuana Party, and a huge pot activist. Still, it does seem as though there are worthier international criminals to persue. (Even though they certainly have a point, now that they've caught him. It may not have taken a lot of resources to find him anyway. ?? )

[Lotesse]

The UN should make cannabis bombs and drop them over war zones. All conflict stopped at a stroke.

:D WORD!! :D That is the best idea for ANYthing that I've heard in days!!

[The Gaffer]

They actually tried this with LSD in the 60s: once they'd found out that it made soldiers stop fighting ("wow man, this is really heavy") and wasn't practical as a chemical weapon to stop enemy soldiers from fighting they banned it.

[Spock]

..Cheech & Chong had it right...build a van of it and drive around :D :D

[hectorberlioz]

i think its bad bad bad to have drugs anywhere they could take them wronge and be all screwed up!

What a cool avatar you have!:)

[Alcuin]

This thread began over 17 years ago. (Didn’t think about how long Entmoot has been running, did you?) It ran strongly for about 46 months, and has since been quiet. Time for a little review.

When last the thread ran, marijuana decriminalization was controversial, to say the least. Now it appears to be coming to a conclusion, though exactly when and how is another matter.

First, it is noteworthy that as of January 9, 2019, ten states in the United States along with the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana. (https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_john_stossel/legal_weed) Seven years ago, in 2012, Rasmussen Polling reported that nearly 9 of 16 people in the United States favored legalizing and regulating its use. (https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/may_2012/56_favor_legalizing_regulating_marijuana) Yesterday in Kentucky, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was featured in photographs standing in a field of hemp. (https://freebeacon.com/issues/cocaine-mitch-drops-hemp-filled-b-roll-montage-for-supporters/)

McConnell’s support is telling on several levels. Marijuana was restricted in the United States by the Federal government through the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_Tax_Act_of_1937) and again by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act). Hemp was the major agricultural product of Kentucky until it was outlawed, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp_in_Kentucky) its principal use being rope, particularly for rigging on ships: in 1943, production in Kentucky reached 52,000 acres (over 21,000 hectares). In 2014, the Obama Administration seized the hemp seed stockpile of the Kentucky Department of Agriculture, (https://www.wkms.org/post/comer-sues-federal-government-over-hemp-seed-seizure) which Kentucky contested in court.

In this coming week, the US House of Representatives will debate two bills that propose to legalize marijuana. (https://www.marijuanamoment.net/congress-will-debate-two-bills-to-legalize-marijuana-at-hearing-with-dea-witness-next-week/) McConnell, who opposes the Democratic-controlled House leadership on a number of critical issues, not least of which is their party-line impeachment of President Trump, has strongly signaled his support for legalizing hemp.

And yet, at the same time, the Federal government is increasingly restricting the sale of tobacco, raising the minimum age for purchasing tobacco to 21. (https://csnews.com/fda-federal-tobacco-21-law-now-effect) This matches the age American citizens must reach before they can legally purchase or consume alcohol. You can join the Army and be killed at age 18, or 17 with your parents’ permission, but you can neither purchase nor consume alcohol or tobacco in this country. You can vote for public servants, run for public office, and sign over your entire future to charlatan legal wizards, but you’d better not enjoy a cigarette or a beer!

The recent faux panic over vaping, (https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/10/the-misplaced-moral-panic-over-vaping-is-killing-smokers/) in which electronic cigarettes were falsely blamed for damaging lungs by the Centers for Disease Control, (https://reason.org/commentary/cdc-started-a-vaping-panic-now-its-admitting-vitamin-e-acetate-in-illegal-products-is-to-blame/) is a sign that manufactured fear is driven more by political ends than by solid research. (https://reason.com/2019/10/14/the-vaping-crisis-is-a-moral-panic-led-by-anti-smoking-crusaders/) Even the CDC’s website on this subject (https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/severe-lung-disease.html) requires that you read far down into the page to find updates that demonstrate its initial reaction was based not upon good medicine, but upon political expediency. (https://www.city-journal.org/cdc-trump-vaping)

Given the number (https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/06/inspector-general-report-shows-special-counsel-replicated-fbi-abuses/) of serious failures (https://www.politico.eu/article/accurate-prophecy-or-misleading-project-fear-how-referendum-claims-have-panned-out-so-far/) by government and mass media (https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/zuesse-proof-americas-deep-state-exists-and-controls-government) in this country (https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/26/if-the-fbis-contempt-for-the-law-is-not-reined-in-its-abuses-will-get-worse/) and others (https://www.politico.eu/article/accurate-prophecy-or-misleading-project-fear-how-referendum-claims-have-panned-out-so-far/), it is increasingly clear that our “betters” are not only not better than their fellow citizens, they appear (https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/jeffrey-epstein-s-slap-wrist-raises-lot-question-doj-needs-ncna946176) to be (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11391314/Rotherham-child-sex-abuse-scandal-council-not-fit-for-purpose.html) much worse. (https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2020/01/05/jeffrey-epstein-murder-60-minutes/) One wonders what is yet to come. (https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/why-central-banks-are-rushing-buy-gold)

[Valandil]

I'm not at all crazy about legalization. Yet here I am living in Colorado, which legalized several years ago. And... my long home of Illinois has just legalized recreational marijuana, as of January 1, 2020.

When I moved west 4-1/2 years ago, I first tried to find a job in Colorado... I knew it somewhat, while the rest of the west was a complete unknown. I ended up in Casper, WY... and I was really glad for a time that it worked out that way. Seeing the changes in Colorado (not just the legalization - but the population explosion, and the difficulties with traffic and other infrastructure along the front range due to fast increases in population), I decided at the time that I would NEVER move to Colorado.

Well... we now know how that worked out. Just about like me NEVER wanting to move to Chicago for most of my college years. Watch out young folks... never say NEVER!

Anyway... states look at legalizing marijuana as a way to increase revenue. I'm concerned about the costs... hidden costs and social costs as well as costs that are more measurable. I think it's a mistake... one that we're making all across this country.

[Salohvise]

They have a lot of different opinions it's nice !