Marijuana: By the numbers
-
tcarrier32
i dont think voting would solve the issue. some posters may not believe what im about to say but i do. Government has no business controlling what i do with my body. at all. i dont care how many people in this country think that I shouldnt be able to smoke marijuana in my own home, the fact of the matter is that its none of their business.
ive never understood why people think that they need to outlaw that which they do not agree with. if you dont think marijuana should be used THEN DONT USE IT. dont try and tell me that i cant. -
dwccrew
^^^True, I would have no problem with that. We vote every few years for elected officials, might as well for the legalization for mentally altering substances. -
dancinbear
Sorry, but now that I'm screwed paying for everybody else's health care for the rest of my life, I'm all for government regulations on what people do with their bodies. I say we seize all fast food operations and buffet's.....lock em up and burn them down. See ya later obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes.tcarrier32 wrote: i dont think voting would solve the issue. some posters may not believe what im about to say but i do. Government has no business controlling what i do with my body. at all. i dont care how many people in this country think that I shouldnt be able to smoke marijuana in my own home, the fact of the matter is that its none of their business.
ive never understood why people think that they need to outlaw that which they do not agree with. if you dont think marijuana should be used THEN DONT USE IT. dont try and tell me that i cant. -
DeyDurkie5
YEAH! and while we are at it we can ban cigs, cars, airplanes, anything else that causes death!dancinbear wrote:
Sorry, but now that I'm screwed paying for everybody else's health care for the rest of my life, I'm all for government regulations on what people do with their bodies. I say we seize all fast food operations and buffet's.....lock em up and burn them down. See ya later obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes.tcarrier32 wrote: i dont think voting would solve the issue. some posters may not believe what im about to say but i do. Government has no business controlling what i do with my body. at all. i dont care how many people in this country think that I shouldnt be able to smoke marijuana in my own home, the fact of the matter is that its none of their business.
ive never understood why people think that they need to outlaw that which they do not agree with. if you dont think marijuana should be used THEN DONT USE IT. dont try and tell me that i cant.
How about having self control and learning to take care of yourself not basing your weight problem or high blood pressure on food. If you want to smoke cigs, then be my guest. if you want to smoke weed then be my guest. If you can't handle how much you intake then don't use it or deal with the consequences. Unreal how people can't control what they do. -
Fab1b
Kinda funny this was in Yahoo news today:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20100404/od_notw/nwx100404xml;_ylt=AuTSDwW5PzMLYkaePSk_p5XtiBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTJpOWpjNTJkBGFzc2V0A3VjLzIwMTAwNDA0L253eDEwMDQwNHhtbARwb3MDMjAEc2VjA3luX2FydGljbGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawNuZXdzb2Z0aGV3ZWk-
EAD STORY: Texas' nondiscriminatory justice system: similar penalties for murder, rape and possession of small amounts of drugs
More Texas Justice: In March, juries in Smith County and Matagorda County sentenced Henry Wooten and Melvin Johnson III to 35 years and 60 years in prison, respectively, for possessing small amounts of drugs (but enough under Texas law to allow jurors to infer an intent to distribute). Wooten, 54, had 4.6 ounces of marijuana (same penalty as for 5 pounds), and Johnson had 1.3 grams of crack cocaine (about half the weight of a U.S. dime). (Wooten's prosecutor actually had asked the jury for a sentence of 99 years.) [Tyler Morning News, 3-5-10] [Houston Press, 3-11-10] -
SQ_Crazies
SMH!Fab1b wrote: Kinda funny this was in Yahoo news today:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20100404/od_notw/nwx100404xml;_ylt=AuTSDwW5PzMLYkaePSk_p5XtiBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTJpOWpjNTJkBGFzc2V0A3VjLzIwMTAwNDA0L253eDEwMDQwNHhtbARwb3MDMjAEc2VjA3luX2FydGljbGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawNuZXdzb2Z0aGV3ZWk-
EAD STORY: Texas' nondiscriminatory justice system: similar penalties for murder, rape and possession of small amounts of drugs
More Texas Justice: In March, juries in Smith County and Matagorda County sentenced Henry Wooten and Melvin Johnson III to 35 years and 60 years in prison, respectively, for possessing small amounts of drugs (but enough under Texas law to allow jurors to infer an intent to distribute). Wooten, 54, had 4.6 ounces of marijuana (same penalty as for 5 pounds), and Johnson had 1.3 grams of crack cocaine (about half the weight of a U.S. dime). (Wooten's prosecutor actually had asked the jury for a sentence of 99 years.) [Tyler Morning News, 3-5-10] [Houston Press, 3-11-10] -
Glory Days
yeah but then we would have people complaining like they are now with the smoking ban vote. oooooh but wait, they would be in favor of voting on marijuana because they support that issue haha. just not for smoking because it bans something.dwccrew wrote: This argument again? How many times can we have this argument? People aren't going to change their opinions. We should just put it to a vote in this country. If it passes, it passes. If not, continue making money on the black market. -
krazie45
Haha could you be comparing apples to oranges any more? The smoking ban in public places is different from marijuana prohibition. Personally I don't think the smoking ban should be in place but to insinuate the two are comparable to each other is both ignorant and asinine.Glory Days wrote:
yeah but then we would have people complaining like they are now with the smoking ban vote. oooooh but wait, they would be in favor of voting on marijuana because they support that issue haha. just not for smoking because it bans something.dwccrew wrote: This argument again? How many times can we have this argument? People aren't going to change their opinions. We should just put it to a vote in this country. If it passes, it passes. If not, continue making money on the black market. -
Fab1b
^agree and I am not asking to smoke pot in public places either!
-
Glory Days
its vote by the public either way. i am not comparing the smoking ban and marijuana legalization issues, i am comparing the actual vote. haha plus if the vote for marijuana legalization happend and it didnt pass, you would have an outcry because only people who wanted to keep it illegal voted and everyone else was too stoned to get out and vote haha.krazie45 wrote:
Haha could you be comparing apples to oranges any more? The smoking ban in public places is different from marijuana prohibition. Personally I don't think the smoking ban should be in place but to insinuate the two are comparable to each other is both ignorant and asinine.Glory Days wrote:
yeah but then we would have people complaining like they are now with the smoking ban vote. oooooh but wait, they would be in favor of voting on marijuana because they support that issue haha. just not for smoking because it bans something.dwccrew wrote: This argument again? How many times can we have this argument? People aren't going to change their opinions. We should just put it to a vote in this country. If it passes, it passes. If not, continue making money on the black market. -
I Wear Pants
That's way more sad than it is funny.Fab1b wrote: Kinda funny this was in Yahoo news today:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20100404/od_notw/nwx100404xml;_ylt=AuTSDwW5PzMLYkaePSk_p5XtiBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTJpOWpjNTJkBGFzc2V0A3VjLzIwMTAwNDA0L253eDEwMDQwNHhtbARwb3MDMjAEc2VjA3luX2FydGljbGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawNuZXdzb2Z0aGV3ZWk-
EAD STORY: Texas' nondiscriminatory justice system: similar penalties for murder, rape and possession of small amounts of drugs
More Texas Justice: In March, juries in Smith County and Matagorda County sentenced Henry Wooten and Melvin Johnson III to 35 years and 60 years in prison, respectively, for possessing small amounts of drugs (but enough under Texas law to allow jurors to infer an intent to distribute). Wooten, 54, had 4.6 ounces of marijuana (same penalty as for 5 pounds), and Johnson had 1.3 grams of crack cocaine (about half the weight of a U.S. dime). (Wooten's prosecutor actually had asked the jury for a sentence of 99 years.) [Tyler Morning News, 3-5-10] [Houston Press, 3-11-10] -
Fab1b
Correct more sad than funny
-
Gardens35The pay offs and the rip offs, and the things nobdy saw.
-
gutPersonally, I don't really care. I'm tired of the time and resources spent debating meaningless issues in the grand scheme of things.
I do think there's an inconsistency with marijuana and cigarettes. My contention with the smoking ban has always been to just make it illegal because that's obviously the driving intent - I don't care for backdoor illegality through legislation, sort of a two wrongs don't make a right.
None of this stuff is harmful in reasonable and responsible doses, for the most part. No reason a person shouldn't be able to enjoy a cigar or a joint on occasion. But people are generally weak and irresponsible. I guess my feeling is, at the end of the day, if we have to pay for healthcare and bear costs from the weak then the weak should be protected from themselves.
I can't emphasize this enough: I have a problem when my liberty is infringed upon via taxes to care for people's health problems stemming from their right to put whatever into their body. -
Glory Days
+1gut wrote: But people are generally weak and irresponsible. I guess my feeling is, at the end of the day, if we have to pay for healthcare and bear costs from the weak then the weak should be protected from themselves.
I can't emphasize this enough: I have a problem when my liberty is infringed upon via taxes to care for people's health problems stemming from their right to put whatever into their body. -
sej
I'd be interested in seeing the specifics of each case...criminal histories, details, etc.Fab1b wrote: Kinda funny this was in Yahoo news today:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20100404/od_notw/nwx100404xml;_ylt=AuTSDwW5PzMLYkaePSk_p5XtiBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTJpOWpjNTJkBGFzc2V0A3VjLzIwMTAwNDA0L253eDEwMDQwNHhtbARwb3MDMjAEc2VjA3luX2FydGljbGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawNuZXdzb2Z0aGV3ZWk-
EAD STORY: Texas' nondiscriminatory justice system: similar penalties for murder, rape and possession of small amounts of drugs
More Texas Justice: In March, juries in Smith County and Matagorda County sentenced Henry Wooten and Melvin Johnson III to 35 years and 60 years in prison, respectively, for possessing small amounts of drugs (but enough under Texas law to allow jurors to infer an intent to distribute). Wooten, 54, had 4.6 ounces of marijuana (same penalty as for 5 pounds), and Johnson had 1.3 grams of crack cocaine (about half the weight of a U.S. dime). (Wooten's prosecutor actually had asked the jury for a sentence of 99 years.) [Tyler Morning News, 3-5-10] [Houston Press, 3-11-10]
FWIW, I didn't read this whole thread. You guys make my head hurt. I've yet to see someone who got shipped to the state pokey solely for marijuana possession, and I've yet to ship someone back for that. I don't choose to do it for my own reasons. If someone wants to do it, that's just peachy. As sad as it may be, I pretty much do a happy dance when one of my guys tests positive for only THC. -
I Wear Pants
That attitude is the same attitude displayed by the bad guys in many works of dystopian fiction.gut wrote: Personally, I don't really care. I'm tired of the time and resources spent debating meaningless issues in the grand scheme of things.
I do think there's an inconsistency with marijuana and cigarettes. My contention with the smoking ban has always been to just make it illegal because that's obviously the driving intent - I don't care for backdoor illegality through legislation, sort of a two wrongs don't make a right.
None of this stuff is harmful in reasonable and responsible doses, for the most part. No reason a person shouldn't be able to enjoy a cigar or a joint on occasion. But people are generally weak and irresponsible. I guess my feeling is, at the end of the day, if we have to pay for healthcare and bear costs from the weak then the weak should be protected from themselves.
I can't emphasize this enough: I have a problem when my liberty is infringed upon via taxes to care for people's health problems stemming from their right to put whatever into their body. -
Heretic
Exactly. I don't care about being able to do it in restaurants, while walking down the street, at work (although that'd make the slow days go by more quickly!Fab1b wrote: ^agree and I am not asking to smoke pot in public places either!
), etc. I just want to be able to do it without worrying about any potential legal ramifications. -
gut
No it's not. I'm cool with it if they don't burden my healthcare and other costs (read: remove social/safety nets). But when I have to pay for other people's addictions and mistakes, I do have an issue with it.I Wear Pants wrote:That attitude is the same attitude displayed by the bad guys in many works of dystopian fiction.
I assume you don't advocate stealing cable. So why is it ok to effectively steal my hard-earned income by burdening the system with your own transgressions? -
krazie45
Again, you are assuming people are smoking it and therefore harming their health over a long period of time. However, once again, you simply ignore that fact that when vaporized or ingested there are pretty much no adverse health effects.gut wrote:
No it's not. I'm cool with it if they don't burden my healthcare and other costs (read: remove social/safety nets). But when I have to pay for other people's addictions and mistakes, I do have an issue with it.I Wear Pants wrote:That attitude is the same attitude displayed by the bad guys in many works of dystopian fiction.
I assume you don't advocate stealing cable. So why is it ok to effectively steal my hard-earned income by burdening the system with your own transgressions?
But even then your argument topples like a house of cards. What if I said that I'm sick of my tax dollars going to treat alcoholics with liver disease? Alcohol should be illegal! Or if I was sick of my tax dollars paying for fat people that get heart attacks? Fatty foods should be illegal! Or that cigarette smokers are taking my tax dollars with their lung cancer? Tobacco should be illegal!
Do you see finally see where your argument fails, or are you just going to keep repeating the same stuff and figure that if you just keep saying it everyone (including yourself) will believe it's correct? -
Fab1b
I don't think it would make my day go faster as I think it slows everything downHeretic wrote:
Exactly. I don't care about being able to do it in restaurants, while walking down the street, at work (although that'd make the slow days go by more quickly!Fab1b wrote: ^agree and I am not asking to smoke pot in public places either!), etc. I just want to be able to do it without worrying about any potential legal ramifications.
!!
But yes I don't want to have to worry about being busted everytime I want to buy a little or enjoy a little! -
BigdoggLooks like California Might Legalize Pot, for Real This Time. Good read from Newsweek
http://mobile.newsweek.com/s/2499/InnerRSSFeedReader09;jsessionid=D9A0DB88810642B335376896FCC94560?itemUriVal=feed%23PEo2aoqgOk5fdcub%2FFICqcXvdix5nhQzf&fullStory=true&HeaderTltle=
California Might Legalize Pot, for Real This Time
Mar 26, 2010
In downtown Oakland, there is a nine-block area that locals call "Oaksterdam." Nestled among what was once a rash of vacant storefronts, it's a kind of pot utopia where everything moves just a little bit more slowly than the outside world. Here, where medical marijuana is legal, you'll find the Blue Sky Coffeeshop, a pot dispensary where getting an actual cup of Joe takes 20 minutes but picking up a sack of Purple Kush wrapped neatly in a brown sack takes about five. There's the Bulldog Cafe, a lounge with a not-so-secret back room where the haze-induced sounds of Dark Side of the Moon seep through thick smoke. There's a glass-blowing shop where bongs are the art of choice, and, of course, there's the fabled Oaksterdam University , a pot school operated by a man named Richard Lee.
At 47, Lee is a kind of unofficial Buddha to the pro-pot movement. He has transformed a neighborhood and brought thriving new businesses to Oakland's downtown. Now, as the sponsor of an initiative that was approved this week by the California secretary of state-to appear on November's ballot-Lee hopes the rest of California will join Oakland as a kind of trailblazer in the fight for marijuana legalization. If approved by voters, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act would make California the first state in the nation to make pot legal, allowing Californians 21 and older to grow and possess up to an ounce. And in much the same way Oakland has embraced the medical-marijuana industry, the law would pave the way for local jurisdictions to tax and regulate the marijuana trade-a concept that, with the California state government billions in the red, even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said should be up " for debate ." "People are no longer outraged by the idea of legalization," former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown wrote in a recent op-ed . "And truth be told, there is just too much money to be made both by the people who grow marijuana and the cities and counties that would be able to tax it."
Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron has estimated that the cost to the country of cannabis prohibition is $13 billion annually, with an additional $7 billion lost in potential tax revenue. With that in mind, Oakland voters became the first in the nation earlier this year to enact a special cannabis excise tax-$18 for every $1,000 grossed-that the city believes will generate up to $1 million this year. Lee hopes legalizing marijuana on a state level would do the same, only on a much larger scale. "The reality," he says, "is that we're creating jobs, improving the city, filling empty store spaces, and when people come [here] they can see that."
California has allowed for medical-marijuana use since 1996. But "medical" is something of an open joke in the state, where anyone over age 18 with a doctor's note-easy to get for ailments like anxiety or cramps, if you're willing to pay-can obtain an ID card allowing access to any of the state's hundreds of dispensaries, or pot shops. "You can basically get a doctor's recommendation for anything," one dispensary worker told NEWSWEEK. Federal law, of course, still forbids the cultivation and possession of marijuana. It was banned, over the objections of the American Medical Association, in 1937. But in February of last year, Attorney General Eric Holder stunned critics when he announced that the Department of Justice would cease raiding medical-marijuana dispensaries (in California and elsewhere) that had been authorized under state law. Obama's newly appointed drug czar, R. Gil Kerlikowske, has since condemned legalization , in a speech to police chiefs in San Jose earlier this month.
You'd think it might make California users nervous-except that the drug czar does not have the legal authority to enforce drug laws. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy did not return NEWSWEEK's calls for comment, but experts say the reality is that the federal government doesn't have the resources, or the desire, to go after each and every Californian who is operating within their local laws. Federal punishment for marijuana possession of up to an ounce is harsh: up to a year in prison and a $1,000 fine. Under California law, the same crime is a misdemeanor-subject to a measly $100 fine. "We already have the Justice Department saying they're not going to interfere with practices that are in compliance with state law," says Paul Armentano, the deputy director of NORML , a pro-pot lobbying group. "That statement was made in reference to medical marijuana, but there's no reason to think the approach to recreational use would be any different."
The arguments against the passage of this kind of law are easy to list: that it glamorizes pot use, promotes a gateway drug, leads to abuse. And though studies show the health effects of marijuana are fairly mild in comparison to drugs like heroin, cocaine, or even alcohol, there are still risks to its consumption. Heavy pot users are more likely to be in car accidents; there have been some reports of it causing problems in respiration and fetal development. And, as the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Dr. Nora Volkow, put it recently , there are a number of medical professionals, and many parents, who worry that the drug's increased potency over the years has heightened the risk of addiction. "It's certainly true that this is not your grandfather's pot," says Mark Kleiman, a drug-policy expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. Opponents of the initiative, including California's Democratic Attorney General Jerry Brown, who is seeking the governorship, and San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, a Democrat who is running to replace Brown as attorney general, are gearing up for a fight. But Lee has pledged to use $1 million of his own funds from his various thriving businesses in Oaksterdam, and he has put together a highly organized group of allies, including former Clinton White House consultant Chris Lehane. It's also possible he'll tap multibillionaire investor George Soros and George Zimmer, the head of the Men's Wearhouse chain of clothing stores, who have donated to efforts to relax drug laws in the past .
The vote will be the second time in nearly 40 years that Californians have had the chance to decide the issue of legalization; the first one was Proposition 19 in 1972 (it failed). But much has changed since then, in both legal regulation and cultural attitudes. Thirteen states now allow medical marijuana, and a number of cities, such as Oakland and Seattle, have passed measures making prosecution of adult pot use the lowest law-enforcement priority. In April, an ABC/ Washington Post survey showed that 46 percent of Americans support legalization measures, up from 22 percent in 1997. And in California, a recent Field Poll showed that 56 percent are already on board to legalize and tax the drug. This month, NORML launched a national ad campaign that will appear in the center of Times Square, declaring " Money Can Grow on Trees! " And everyone from the president to the most successful Olympic athlete in recent history (Michael Phelps) has talked about smoking it at one point or another. "This is a new world," says Robert MacCoun, a professor of law and public policy at University of California, Berkeley, and the coauthor of Drug War Heresies . "If you'd have asked me four years ago whether we'd be having this debate today, I can't say I would have predicted it." We'll see if California voters will agree. -
Fab1b
I love how they pass this statement off as fact:
Um I would like to say that I can think of 500 things that could increase your chances of being in car accidents, having SOME respiration problems and certainly fetal development!!!Heavy pot users are more likely to be in car accidents; there have been some reports of it causing problems in respiration and fetal development. -
Society
Let's hear them. All 500.Fab1b wrote: I love how they pass this statement off as fact:
Um I would like to say that I can think of 500 things that could increase your chances of being in car accidents, having SOME respiration problems and certainly fetal development!!!Heavy pot users are more likely to be in car accidents; there have been some reports of it causing problems in respiration and fetal development. -
thavoice
Sure it would still exist. Ya wouldnt have pot stores all over the place..but the dealers would still be able to offer that type of service.Trueblue23 wrote:
If it was legal that black market wouldn't existLTrain23 wrote: People who smoke Marijuana should be drilled by moving automobiles.
0 deaths is a crock of BS. In the real drug world, people are being killed over this all the time.
Until it's legalized, you should donate your body to help smuggle it.
So..zero deaths huh.....
yeah right.