HR 5843 Personal Marijuana use federal penalty removal.

NWgamer666

NWgamer666

CAGiversary!
http://www.house.gov/frank/hr5843summary.html

An Act to Remove Federal Penalties for the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults,” sponsored by U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.), would eliminate federal penalties for thepossession or not-for-profit transfer of small amounts of marijuana. The bill would remove federal penalties at thefederal level only: (1) possession of up to 100 grams of marijuana and (2) the not-for-profit transfer of oneounce (28.3 grams) of marijuana. Additionally, this legislation would provide for a civil penalty of $100for the public use of marijuana.

The times, they are a-changing.
 
That definitely needs to pass. It should be a state issue. The situation in California is ridiculous since medicinal marijuana is legal there, but still against federal laws so people get busted by the feds. On the enforcement side it's a mess as the feds get no help from local law enforcement.

This bill would solve that problem.
 
Wow, I'm impressed.

Lets get three cheers for COngress!? Hip hip, Hooray! Hip hip, Hooray! Hip hip, Hooray!

For they're a jolly-good branch of government, For they're a jolly-good branch of government, For they're a jolly-good branch of government which nobody can deny.

Maybe I oughta hold off on celebrating until it passes.

Think it will pass?
 
I have no idea of whether it will pass. I think more importantly, it was sponsored, possibly reducing the stigma for it to be reintroduced and have additional cosponsors for the next congress. Similar to the universal health care bill (Conyors bill?) that is always sponsored every year. I really like how Barney Frank is framing the issue, as states rights, rather than a prohibition issue. I believe it will be more palatable to some in this regard.
 
I honestly hope it doesn't pass. The majority of my weed smoking friends are absolute loafers with no plans in life who just leach off of friends and family. Ever since they've been smoking their life has been in freefall. Add an age restriction to this (maybe 24) and this could gain some traction me thinks.
 
I betcha for every one of your friends, I could name one of mine who is an associate at companies like Delloite, an up and coming executive at GE, a lawyer, a medical school student, an event planner, a pharm. sales rep .....the list goes on and on).

True, we/they probably don't do it as much as we/they used to, but I just wanted to let you know, Magehart, that your friends are pieces of shit independent of their pot smoking. ;)

Quit watching the commercials where a girl smokes pot and gets pregnant, or a kid smokes a joint and hits a pedestrian: that shit happens with alcohol, not weed.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']I betcha for every one of your friends, I could name one of mine who is an associate at companies like Delloite, an up and coming executive at GE, a lawyer, a medical school student, an event planner, a pharm. sales rep .....the list goes on and on).

True, we/they probably don't do it as much as we/they used to, but I just wanted to let you know, Magehart, that your friends are pieces of shit independent of their pot smoking. ;)

Quit watching the commercials where a girl smokes pot and gets pregnant, or a kid smokes a joint and hits a pedestrian: that shit happens with alcohol, not weed.[/QUOTE]

QFT
 
Not surprised this is coming out of Massachusetts. Unfortunately, I'm sure it won't pass. It's for teh childrenz!!!!11

(I don't smoke, and never will, but I think they should consider legalizing it or at least stop this retarded drug war and work on fixing REAL issues.)
 
That may be true Pitt but one mans pleasure is anothers poison. If we look at how everything else that may be beneficial or enjoyable for many (alcohol, guns, weed, gas guzzlers, gambling) the few who abuse it to their own demise will require the gov't to prohibit it. That being said it will never pass.
 
[quote name='Magehart']That may be true Pitt but one mans pleasure is anothers poison. If we look at how everything else that may be beneficial or enjoyable for many (alcohol, guns, weed, gas guzzlers, gambling) the few who abuse it to their own demise will require the gov't to prohibit it. That being said it will never pass.[/quote]Do you have any idea how many people die every from alcohol related diseases? Far more than die from anything related to pot. If alcohol is legal, so should pot be.
 
I have been saying for years now... You want to fix the economy here is how..


Legalize and heavily tax marijuana

Lets say that a 1/8 ounce will cost a manufacturer $3.00 to grow (a very conservative figure)

Then lets sell it at the going street price of $50-70 depending on quality.

Factor in a profit of about $7 per 1/8 ounce for the manufacturer and the rest would include federal and state taxes. (Roughly speaking 40-60 bucks)

We would have a trillion dollar surplus fast than you can say "where's the cheetos"
 
I am 100% for this bill to pass. Even though I have never and most likely will never smoke pot, I don't see why it shouldn't be legal to smoke. From the little blurb, it didn't say that it was legal to sell, but I'd be for that as well. Turn it into an industry, tax it and make those that get high subject to the same laws as alcohol (e.g. DWI, DUI etc). that being said, I don't see this bill having any chance of passing.

Edit: Looks like I should have read the full thread, it looks like gobz said basically what I did..
 
It just shouldn't be criminal to own it. I don't smoke it, and never will, but there are FAR more important things to worry about than someone using weed. If you are an adult I really don't care if you smoke it or not and spending taxpayers money to fight it is wasteful.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Quit watching the commercials where a girl smokes pot and gets pregnant, or a kid smokes a joint and hits a pedestrian: that shit happens with alcohol, not weed.[/QUOTE]


Sure, right, nobody who's high then drives and gets into an accident because of it, or has unprotected sex, or whatever. Of course, that only happens with alcohol, not another drug like marijuana. :roll:
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Sure, right, nobody who's high then drives and gets into an accident because of it, or has unprotected sex, or whatever. Of course, that only happens with alcohol, not another drug like marijuana. :roll:[/quote]Thats not the point. Sure that can happen if you're high, but it can happen (and does) when you're drunk too.

Anything that could happen while you're high, could happen while you're drunk too, yet alcohol is legal and pot isn't.

Alcohol is at least as dangerous as pot, if not more.
 
Marijuana was originally criminalized as a pretext to arrest and deport Mexicans. It's a racial thing, or at least was originally.

I'd really like to debate anybody who thinks that alcohol should be legal and weed shouldn't be. JJ's last sentence above should read: "Alcohol is MUCH MORE dangerous than pot."

Good ideas gobz, and thespamofpower people who are high ARE subject to the same laws as alcohol (e.g. DWI, DUI etc), it's just harder to prove b/c weed doesnt affect eye hand coordination, balance, speech, or decision making as much as alcohol, and it won't show up on a breathalyzer.
 
There's obviously a double standard with alcohol, but at the same time that doesn't mean it would be good for every drug to be legal. If you legalized marijuana you'd have some weed bar type businesses crop up since it would no longer be illegal to be so public about it, and subsequently more people would drive high and there would be more car accidents.

It also wouldn't stop the drug war since there are more drugs than weed and I imagine after everyone is used to weed then cocaine or heroin or some other drug would fill in that illegal gap. People can get drunk legally, so why use marijuana or cocaine or heroin in the first place? It's more expensive and you can get arrested for possessing it, yet people do it all the time. So I don't see how legalizing marijuana would stop people from doing other illegal drugs, even if it is the most popular.
 
Did anyone ever say that legalizing pot would stop people from using other drugs? Anyone?

Theres no reason tot think that legalizing pot would cause more car accidents. Pot doesn't enough impair driving as much as being stone cold drunk does. Besides, the same people who are irresponsible enough to drive drunk , would probably be the same ones who would drive while high anyway.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Did anyone ever say that legalizing pot would stop people from using other drugs? Anyone?[/quote]

No, someone mentioned the drug war, which is a war on illegal drugs, which would still be used if marijuana was legal. I premised that paragraph with the sentence:

"It also wouldn't stop the drug war since there are more drugs than weed and I imagine after everyone is used to weed then cocaine or heroin or some other drug would fill in that illegal gap."

Am I that hard to understand? I mean seriously, do I write things in a particularly confusing way? I've had the same problem in the expelled thread.

Theres no reason tot think that legalizing pot would cause more car accidents. Pot doesn't enough impair driving as much as being stone cold drunk does. Besides, the same people who are irresponsible enough to drive drunk , would probably be the same ones who would drive while high anyway.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that every person who would drive high would have otherwise driven drunk anyway, so the number would still rise. Any drug that impairs your perception is a driving hazard and even if driving high doesn't impair you as much as driving drunk it will still cause accidents. There certainly is reason to believe that more people driving under the influence of marijuana would lead to more car accidents.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Thats not the point. Sure that can happen if you're high, but it can happen (and does) when you're drunk too.

Anything that could happen while you're high, could happen while you're drunk too, yet alcohol is legal and pot isn't.

Alcohol is at least as dangerous as pot, if not more.[/QUOTE]

If you look at what I quoted, it said that "happens with alcohol, not with weed." That is bullshit, it happens with both, and would happen more if pot were legalized since more people would then use it.
 
[quote name='SpazX']No, someone mentioned the drug war, which is a war on illegal drugs, which would still be used if marijuana was legal. I premised that paragraph with the sentence:

"It also wouldn't stop the drug war since there are more drugs than weed and I imagine after everyone is used to weed then cocaine or heroin or some other drug would fill in that illegal gap."

Am I that hard to understand? I mean seriously, do I write things in a particularly confusing way? I've had the same problem in the expelled thread.



I don't believe that every person who would drive high would have otherwise driven drunk anyway, so the number would still rise. Any drug that impairs your perception is a driving hazard and even if driving high doesn't impair you as much as driving drunk it will still cause accidents. There certainly is reason to believe that more people driving under the influence of marijuana would lead to more car accidents.[/quote]
Look at it this way, alcohol is legal and we live with the possibility of people driving drunk. Even though it does happen, i wouldn't say it's an epidemic. I see no reason why we shouldn't take an equal chance with people driving while high. It's hypocritical, that one mind altering substance is legal, while another is not. Especially when like i said, it doesn't impair your driving as much as alcohol.

I'd even wager to guess that there are more alcoholics in the US than drug addicts. Shouldn't alcohol be made illegal if that is the case? Oh wait, we tried that once already and it failed miserably.
 
El Principe ans spaz, your points would be true about eating copious amounts of turkey, or fiddling with the radio station, but they can't outlaw that. So your point that marijuana should be illegal because of increased accidents really doesn't resonate with me at all.

Besides, all of this is in response to the fact that alchol is legal, so you really can't argue that marijuana should be illegal without throwing alccohol under the bus as well, since that causes FAAAARRRR more impairment, poor decision making, aggression, and perhaps most importantly: loss of life, than marijuana ever could.

Moreover, none of this addresses the fact that drug laws were instituted to target racial and social groups, which is complete fuckin bullshit in and of itself.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']El Principe ans spaz, your points would be true about eating copious amounts of turkey, or fiddling with the radio station, but they can't outlaw that. So your point that marijuana should be illegal because of increased accidents really doesn't resonate with me at all.

Besides, all of this is in response to the fact that alchol is legal, so you really can't argue that marijuana should be illegal without throwing alccohol under the bus as well, since that causes FAAAARRRR more impairment, poor decision making, aggression, and perhaps most importantly: loss of life, than marijuana ever could.

Moreover, none of this addresses the fact that drug laws were instituted to target racial and social groups, which is complete fuckin bullshit in and of itself.[/quote]

We're not talking about making something else illegal, we're talking about legalizing marijuana. Marijuana is already illegal, so I'm not making any arguments that it should be outlawed, only that it shouldn't be legalized.

You need a reason for which to legalize marijuana. You can't say "this is bad and it's legal, therefore this other bad thing should be legal too" as that's not a positive reason to legalize marijuana. What good reason is there to legalize marijuana? What positive impact will it have? What good will it do for society? Do the positives outweigh the negatives? These are the questions to have to ask before you make it legal, not what other similar bad things are already legal.

It doesn't make any sense to me to argue that legalizing marijuana won't make it more popular and therefore have more people drive after using it and therefore cause more car accidents. That seems inevitable to me. Regardless of how many accidents alcohol causes, marijuana will only add to it, so it's a negative aspect of legalizing it. Honestly if it were up to me I would get rid of alcohol because if the accidents it causes (car and other) and the stupidity it justifies, but that hasn't worked well in the past.

I'm not entirely sure that the negatives outweigh the positives really. I think that jails are full of people who really didn't do anything wrong by possessing or using marijuana and I can see the positive aspect in legalizing and taxing it as that would make it better regulated and less likely for people to get hurt or jailed because of it.

But to argue that it should be legal because alcohol is legal and it is bad for you also is a terrible argument. People get high all the time without negative consequences, but there are plenty of times when people do stupid things when they're high, don't try to deny that. It doesn't make sense to me to say that we should add more stupid to the stupid pile.
 
[quote name='SpazX']We're not talking about making something else illegal, we're talking about legalizing marijuana. Marijuana is already illegal, so I'm not making any arguments that it should be outlawed, only that it shouldn't be legalized.

You need a reason for which to legalize marijuana. You can't say "this is bad and it's legal, therefore this other bad thing should be legal too" as that's not a positive reason to legalize marijuana. What good reason is there to legalize marijuana? What positive impact will it have? What good will it do for society? Do the positives outweigh the negatives? These are the questions to have to ask before you make it legal, not what other similar bad things are already legal.

It doesn't make any sense to me to argue that legalizing marijuana won't make it more popular and therefore have more people drive after using it and therefore cause more car accidents. That seems inevitable to me. Regardless of how many accidents alcohol causes, marijuana will only add to it, so it's a negative aspect of legalizing it. Honestly if it were up to me I would get rid of alcohol because if the accidents it causes (car and other) and the stupidity it justifies, but that hasn't worked well in the past.

I'm not entirely sure that the negatives outweigh the positives really. I think that jails are full of people who really didn't do anything wrong by possessing or using marijuana and I can see the positive aspect in legalizing and taxing it as that would make it better regulated and less likely for people to get hurt or jailed because of it.

But to argue that it should be legal because alcohol is legal and it is bad for you also is a terrible argument. People get high all the time without negative consequences, but there are plenty of times when people do stupid things when they're high, don't try to deny that. It doesn't make sense to me to say that we should add more stupid to the stupid pile.[/quote]

Actually, what you/the gov. need is a reason to criminalize marijuna. Any substance's default is legality, and only becomes illegal if laws are made that outlaw it. The onus is on you/the gov. my friend, to come up with plausible reasons as to why it should be illegal. Reasons other than racism or classism. This is an impossibel burden to carry in light of the fact that alcohol is legal and poses much greater risks and threats to society.

As far as the negatives and positives, you already seem to be convinced that the positives do outweigh the negatives.

Smoking pot, like smoking tobacco is a liberty. It is a freedom. For the government to take it away, without proper (or any) justification is tryanny. This alone is enough to make its criminalization unjust. So justice, and a sense of the natural right of humans to make use of those plants, herbs, and animals that naturally occur on our land is where the entitlement vests. Just like our right to eat apples or smoke tobacco.

Overall I really don't disagree with much of what you have to say Spaz, since you acknowledge that the good outweigh the bad; perhaps I don't have as big of a problem with pointing to the legality of alcohol to demonstrate the hippocracy and senselessness of marijuana being illegal as you do. IMO, it is not "tacking one more bad" and on the contrary could do a lot of good, only some of which you mentioned (tax flow, less spending on jails). More positives could be: a more credible/sensible drug policy, less crime, happier people, less friction b/w fed and state gov, less animosity/distrust of the government, more use of the drug in medicine, more creative and enjoyable videogames, less shouting, less hyptension and anxiety, more peace and love-making and less war, funnier movies, booms to the economy localized in the cartoon, sofa, and mini-mart sectors....the list goes on and on.

The entire reason for the comparison to alcohol is to refute and draw the sting out of the "Marijuana should be illegal because it is bad" argument.

Look, if the government actually sat down, had research performed and ran tests to find accurate truths about marijuana, then from a policy standpoint weighed the pros and cons of its use, then took a vote to decide if and how it should be regulated, and then after all that decided it should be illegal, I'd STILL have a problem with it but much less so. This is obviously not what happened however, b/c logically, there is no way this analysis could have been done with both weed and alcohol considering the respective legalities of each.

I'm not saying that alcohol should be illegal. Only that if it is, then so too should pot be.
 
Coincidentally, these statistics were released today:

15.1% of Americans admit to DUI in the last year (I must say I'm surprised this is as high as it is, but it does show how dumb so many people are)

4.7% of Americans admit to driving while under the influence of illegal drugs

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2234801320080423

So there we have it. Far from being a non-factor, driving while high is about a third of DUI, even with the substances being illegal. Since no one in their right mind would deny that legalization would lead to increased usage, we would see this number increase. The only question would be by how much. In 2004 alone 16,700 people died because of drunk driving. Extrapolating, that would mean around 5,600 died because of driving while high. Therefore, your plan would add another 5,000-10,000 traffic fatalities yearly in my estimation due to increase marijuana usage.

Of course, this is only one facet of this issue, but very telling.
 
Flawed logic elprincipe. Your argument rests upon one huge faulty assumption.:cry:

Assumption: The high from Marijuana is as disabling and affects motor skills/judgment/etc. in the same way as the intoxication from alcohol.

Everyone who has ever tried both can tell you that a drunk is drastically more dangerious behind the wheel than someone who is just high from pot.

Moreover, this does nothing to refute the inconsistency of alcohol being legal and pot being illegal. If anything, it is an argument FOR the legalization of marijuana, since there are far more accidents caused by an already legal substance.

Nice try through.;) Really.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Flawed logic elprincipe. Your argument rests upon one huge faulty assumption.:cry:

Assumption: The high from Marijuana is as disabling and affects motor skills/judgment/etc. in the same way as the intoxication from alcohol.

Everyone who has ever tried both can tell you that a drunk is drastically more dangerious behind the wheel than someone who is just high from pot.

Moreover, this does nothing to refute the inconsistency of alcohol being legal and pot being illegal. If anything, it is an argument FOR the legalization of marijuana, since there are far more accidents caused by an already legal substance.

Nice try through.;) Really.[/QUOTE]

Are you seriously arguing that being high doesn't impair your motor skills? I will admit not having personal experience, but I believe most would argue that point. And I'm not arguing the inconsistency at all since I don't care about it, quite frankly.
 
[quote name='SpazX']You need a reason for which to legalize marijuana. You can't say "this is bad and it's legal, therefore this other bad thing should be legal too" as that's not a positive reason to legalize marijuana. What good reason is there to legalize marijuana? What positive impact will it have? What good will it do for society? Do the positives outweigh the negatives? These are the questions to have to ask before you make it legal, not what other similar bad things are already legal.[/quote]

[quote name='The Declaration of Independence']We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.[/quote]

In the USA, activities don't have to have a "positive" impact on society-at-large to be legal. Example: I just played 2 hours of Xenosaga, there was no positive impact on society but it sure is legal.

I know that in the modern world of protest zones, the DMCA, and increasingly theocratic legislation this seems like a foreign concept, but let's not forget our old motto "the land of liberty".
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Are you seriously arguing that being high doesn't impair your motor skills? I will admit not having personal experience, but I believe most would argue that point. And I'm not arguing the inconsistency at all since I don't care about it, quite frankly.[/quote]

Close elprincipe. Allow me to highlight a quote from my previous post to demonstrate where you're misunderstanding me.

Assumption: The high from Marijuana is as disabling and affects motor skills/judgment/etc. in the same way as the intoxication from alcohol.
Click to expand...

My point is all in comparison to alcohol, a legal substance. All kinds of legal shit impairs your motor skills. Surely you don't advocate a litmus test of "non-motor-skill-impairment" for a substance's legality.

Further, nobody is saying it should be legal to drive DUI, and most of the available enforcement mechanisms could be used for marijuna as easily as they could for alcohol, pain killers, cough syrup, nyquil, etc.

You and I may disagree on whether weed should be legal, and that's fine. It's the differences that make this country great. But don't try to tell me (and I don't think you are, you seem to want to ignore it because you don't care about it) that it makes sense that alcohol should be legal and marijuana illegal.
 
[quote name='Magehart']I honestly hope it doesn't pass. The majority of my weed smoking friends are absolute loafers with no plans in life who just leach off of friends and family. Ever since they've been smoking their life has been in freefall. Add an age restriction to this (maybe 24) and this could gain some traction me thinks.[/QUOTE]

Same can be said for alcoholics, yet alcohol is legal in every state.

The government shouldn't be in the business of punishing people for things they do to themselves.

Take the money spent on enforcement, and money that could be raised from taxing legal drug sales and spend it on education, prevention and rehab programming.
 
[quote name='camoor']In the USA, activities don't have to have a "positive" impact on society-at-large to be legal. Example: I just played 2 hours of Xenosaga, there was no positive impact on society but it sure is legal.

I know that in the modern world of protest zones, the DMCA, and increasingly theocratic legislation this seems like a foreign concept, but let's not forget our old motto "the land of liberty".[/quote]

I think both you and pittpizza missed my point. Marijuana isn't legal, it's already illegal, you don't need to make arguments for why it should be illegal when it already is. In the past, for some reason (that I don't know), marijuana was made illegal. Things are made illegal (in a general sense) when they are a found to have a negative effect on the functioning of society. Murder is illegal because it's not good for the functioning of society, etc. I agree with the both of you that unless something is made illegal (implicitly or explicitly), it is legal.

To argue that marijuana should now be legal (as it is already illegal), you would have to make the argument that it is worse for society for it to be illegal than for it to be legal. If society functions better with something illegal rather than legal, then why the hell would you make it legal (and vice versa)?

I'm not saying I really know which way would be better. It might be that legalizing marijuana would fix more problems than it would create. I'm just saying that the argument from alcohol isn't a good reason to make marijuana legal.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I think both you and pittpizza missed my point. Marijuana isn't legal, it's already illegal, you don't need to make arguments for why it should be illegal when it already is. l.[/QUOTE]

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. It's more or less a roundabout way of saying we shouldn't question the justness of laws, and just accept them as they are.

But to go along with your asinine argument, there are numerous reasons drugs being iillegal causes more problems that legal drug use would.

The main one is crime. Being illegal leads to a lucrative black market, and spawns organized crime, gangs and so forth by giving them a reliable and constant source of income. Thus cities are plagued by the violence surround this.

Additionally, prices are much higher due to the illegal nature, so addicts turn to robbery, burglary, theft, and other income generating crimes to support their habit. Look at the homeless drunks, most of them just beg as alcohol is cheap enough that panhandling can support their habit. Still undesirable behavior, but obviously not as bad as robbery etc.

The other big issue is that in the current system drug addicts are treated as criminals rather than people with an addiction that need counseling and help to get their life sorted out. Again, legalize drugs, tax them and put the money towards treatment and prevention efforts rather than law enforcement of non-violent drug users.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. It's more or less a roundabout way of saying we shouldn't question the justness of laws, and just accept them as they are.[/quote]

No, it's logic. You don't argue for something that already is, you argue against it. If you think marijuana should be legal you make an argument for why it should be legal. When something is illegal you don't have to make an argument for why it should be illegal because it already is.
 
[quote name='SpazX']No, it's logic. You don't argue for something that already is, you argue against it. If you think marijuana should be legal you make an argument for why it should be legal. When something is illegal you don't have to make an argument for why it should be illegal because it already is.[/QUOTE]

No you do both.

You argue for why it should be legal (benefits of legalality), and at the same time why it shouldn't be illegal--which in this case is the specific harms caused directly by drugs being illegal. Those aren't benefits directly tied to legality--they are benefits tied to removing criminal penalties which cause more harm than good, not anything to do directly with drug use.

That's not arguing for something that already is--that would be arguing for drugs to be illegal when they already are. By arguing for why they should not be illegal you are arguing against their illegality.

You have your logic/semantics mixed up.
 
[quote name='SpazX']No, it's logic. You don't argue for something that already is, you argue against it. If you think marijuana should be legal you make an argument for why it should be legal. [/quote]

Here's one: Because alcohol is!

[quote name='SpazX']
When something is illegal you don't have to make an argument for why it should be illegal because it already is.[/quote]

I sort of see what you're getting at spaz, and it's a decent point. It's sort of a "who should carry the burden" type of analysis.

IMO, when government restricts a liberty, the government should and should continue to prove to those people whose liberty they are restricting that our nation is better because of the restriction. It is not a once-and-done proposition (see prohibition and its repeal).

Since you admitted that you don't know why marijuana is illegal, allow me to enlighten you: RACISM. Pure and simple. Well, that with a healthy dose of scapegoatism, but primarily racism. Any drug historian can tell you, marijuana was orignally outlawed in response to xenophobic feelings towards mexicans.

"So that we can have a pretext to more easily arrest and deport/imprison Mexicans" is not a good enough reason to outlaw marijuana (or keep it outlawed). As a matter of fact it's a pretty fuckin despicably horrible one.

Heck, I'll even admit that "So we are safer, more productive, healthier and have less DUIs" could even be a legit reason if conclusively proven, (but I doubt it could be: they tried, see The Rockafeller Report) but not in light of the fact that alcohol is hunky dory in the eyes of the law.

This thread got me to do some poking around. There is an interesting article and 5 minute video that attempts to try to answer the question "Why is marijuana illegal?" http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html I'm not saying it's unbiased, but the facts it gives are not really challenged either.
 
This bickering reminds me of something...oh yes!

1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: Where'd you get the coconuts?
King Arthur: We found them.
1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: Found them? In Mercia? The coconut's tropical!
King Arthur: What do you mean?
1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: Well, this is a temperate zone
King Arthur: The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land?
1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
King Arthur: Not at all. They could be carried.
1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: What? A swallow carrying a coconut?
King Arthur: It could grip it by the husk!
1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.
King Arthur: Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here?
1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right?
King Arthur: Please!
1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: Am I right?
King Arthur: I'm not interested!
Second Swallow-Savvy Guard: It could be carried by an African swallow.
King Arthur: Will you ask your master if he wants to join my court at Camelot?
1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: Oh yeah, an African swallow, maybe, but not a European swallow. That's my point.
Second Swallow-Savvy Guard: But then the African swallow's not migratory...
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='Kyz']This bickering reminds me of something...oh yes![/quote]

I fart in your general direction!

Your father was a hampster, and your mother smells of elderberries!
 
In order for something to become illegal it must be found that it has a negative effect on society at large. Default is legal, not illegal

Alcohol is legal.

Because when used in moderation and with discretion it does not negatively impact society as a whole, in this capacity it is not habit forming and can create a pleasant atmosphere to converse and better get to know strangers, friends and loved ones.

Murder is illegal.

Because even when used in moderation it still negatively impacts society as a whole. You can prove that everytime someone murders someone it has a negative effect on society. Pain and suffering of loved ones on both sides is enough in and of it's self.

Cannabis should be legal.

Because when used in moderation and with discretion it does not negatively impact society as a whole, in this capacity it is not habit forming and can create a pleasant atmosphere to converse and better get to know strangers, friends and loved ones.

You can not prove that Cannabis negatively impacts society. So it can stand on it's own as a defense that it was unjustly illegalized. The point that seems to come up about how "alcohol is legal so pot should be" is at best additional reason to legalize but not a primary one. Here is a little fuel for that fire.

There are hundreds of reported deaths due to alcohol consumption. The consumption of alcohol, and it's resulting impairment also directly cause tens of thousands of deaths in the U.S. each year. According to http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm, in 2001, there were 331 alcohol overdose deaths, while 0 marijuana overdose deaths.
Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

If you can't give sound reason as to why Cannabis should continue be illegal based on what we already find to be the standard for legality than Cannabis should default back to it's formerly legal status.



Cannabis: Tax it like Tobacco, Regulate it's mass cultivation like Vegitables and Prosecute it like Alcohol.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']I betcha for every one of your friends, I could name one of mine who is an associate at companies like Delloite, an up and coming executive at GE, a lawyer, a medical school student, an event planner, a pharm. sales rep .....the list goes on and on).

[/QUOTE]

Great so you want your lawyer or your doctor to be stoned on weed?
 
[quote name='dopa345']Great so you want your lawyer or your doctor to be stoned on weed?[/QUOTE]

Not while they're working, but I couldn't care less what they do in their free time.

I'm sure most of them are probably drinking and maybe even getting shit faced every now and then. How's that any worse than smoking a joint (stupid illegality aside)?
 
[quote name='dopa345']Great so you want your lawyer or your doctor to be stoned on weed?[/quote]

No, I was responding to the implication that "all potheads are worthless pieces of shit who just sit on the couch and play videogames."

In addition to what Dmaul said, I'd also like to point out that I'd much rather they be stoned on weed than drunk off of alcohol.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Great so you want your lawyer or your doctor to be stoned on weed?[/quote]

This is too funny when it's right above your sig.
 
[quote name='horrorfilmkid']Cannabis: Tax it like Tobacco, Regulate it's mass cultivation like Vegitables and Prosecute it like Alcohol.[/quote]
fuck that. That is why I don't want it to be legalized. Its fine just how it is. And its as simple as that.:)
 
It's so depressing that the vs forum is a gaggle of the same nobodies (myself included) week in and week out.

Then, when someone mentions weed, the riff-raff comes out of the woodwork, bongs and all.

I guess it is true that some folks are just concerned about that which they can see in front of their faces, and that's it.

POP QUIZ: How many dead Chinese are there now as a result of a natural disaster? Also, what was the natural disaster? Where, specifically, was it located?

Here's another:

POP QUIZ: Bong, pipe, or joint?

I'm disappointed in advance for knowing which one you will pass and which one you will not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top