|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jan 22, 2009 22:30:57 GMT -6
Pretty good show documenting the emerald triangle. That drug czar under Dubya prolly hasn't taken more than 10 breaths through his nose in his whole life.
I loved the end when they asked this one knuckledragger if he thought the knuckledraggers were winning the war. He rattled off a bunch of statistics and crap but then conceded they weren't winning, despite sinking a cool 10 billion a year of federal cash into the sinkhole. It's like the dude was oblivious to the fact that there are virtually no barriers to entry and that with every plant they cut down, they drove the price up further creating an even bigger incentive for new growers to enter the market.
|
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Jan 22, 2009 22:50:29 GMT -6
Well of course "they" aren't winning the war. "They" obviously need more money. Double or triple up that 10 billion and you'll really see some results. I promise.
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jan 22, 2009 22:59:07 GMT -6
Well of course "they" aren't winning the war. "They" obviously need more money. Double or triple up that 10 billion and you'll really see some results. I promise. Yeah, no doubt. That's just fed money, too. Good thing we will be protected from the dangers of deregulation. |
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Jan 23, 2009 8:51:38 GMT -6
Cocaine Cowboys was a great documentary on the Cocaine trade down in Miami, if you haven't seen it look it up it's really good and kind of scary.
It was on HBO, showtime, or cinemax.
|
|
|
|
Post by Master Blaster on Jan 25, 2009 0:27:31 GMT -6
Ah, the deregulate and legalize pot discussion.
Maybe crystal meth should be legalized as well.
Saw the show and found the part about the high crime rate interesting. Also found it interesting that greed was a huge part of the industry. Just a bunch of dudes tryin to be mello right?
|
|
|
|
Post by hawk4life73 on Jan 25, 2009 2:01:03 GMT -6
Ah, the deregulate and legalize pot discussion. Maybe crystal meth should be legalized as well. Saw the show and found the part about the high crime rate interesting. Also found it interesting that greed was a huge part of the industry. Just a bunch of dudes tryin to be mello right? Man, if we're gonna make meth legal, we might as well make dangerous drugs like tobacco and alcohol legal too............oh wait! |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jan 25, 2009 8:41:11 GMT -6
Ah, the deregulate and legalize pot discussion. Maybe crystal meth should be legalized as well. Saw the show and found the part about the high crime rate interesting. Also found it interesting that greed was a huge part of the industry. Just a bunch of dudes tryin to be mello right? I don't think meth or heroin should be legal. I also believe that the worst elements of the marijuana trade exist primarily because of the fact that it is illegal. Violence is a result of the fact that one of those big plants in Mendecino County with 2 pounds of buds on it is worth several thousand dollars. Any time people know you have several thousand dollars in easily transportable property at your home that you can't report the theft of to the police, your home becomes a target. If legalized, the value plummets and the associated crime rate drops. The "gateway" drug argument is also diminished. The only reason weed is a gateway drug is because you have to go through a drug dealer to buy it. But for going to the drug dealer to buy weed, you'd have no idea where to buy blow, dancin' shoes, 'shrooms, x or whatever else they are selling. So I think you'd diminish demand for the really bad illegal drugs as well. However, the biggest problems are that legal weed would eat into the booze industry and to my knowledge, there is no good way to check for stoned driving in the same manner as there is for drunk driving. That would cut into the profit margins that local police earn, plus local police would forfeit all the property they confiscate that they deem part of the drug trade, so they clearly don't want any level of deregulation. |
|
|
|
Post by Master Blaster on Jan 25, 2009 22:55:01 GMT -6
Ah, the deregulate and legalize pot discussion. Maybe crystal meth should be legalized as well. Saw the show and found the part about the high crime rate interesting. Also found it interesting that greed was a huge part of the industry. Just a bunch of dudes tryin to be mello right? Man, if we're gonna make meth legal, we might as well make dangerous drugs like tobacco and alcohol legal too............oh wait! So you think Meth and tobacco/ alcohol are on level playing fields? |
|
|
|
Post by roxxstar on Jan 26, 2009 11:59:48 GMT -6
Man, if we're gonna make meth legal, we might as well make dangerous drugs like tobacco and alcohol legal too............oh wait! So you think Meth and tobacco/ alcohol are on level playing fields? Do you think Meth and Weed are on level playing fields? |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Jan 26, 2009 14:23:59 GMT -6
Pretty good show documenting the emerald triangle. That drug czar under Dubya prolly hasn't taken more than 10 breaths through his nose in his whole life. I loved the end when they asked this one knuckledragger if he thought the knuckledraggers were winning the war. He rattled off a bunch of statistics and crap but then conceded they weren't winning, despite sinking a cool 10 billion a year of federal cash into the sinkhole. It's like the dude was oblivious to the fact that there are virtually no barriers to entry and that with every plant they cut down, they drove the price up further creating an even bigger incentive for new growers to enter the market. It's a small price to pay for the increase to productivity that we experience from reducing the amount of marijuana consumed. I'm sure you'd be just as happy if everyone sat around all day rolling doobies and collecting their fat EIC checks, but I'll be damned if I'll let that happen on my watch. |
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Jan 26, 2009 15:14:27 GMT -6
Ah, the deregulate and legalize pot discussion. Maybe crystal meth should be legalized as well. Saw the show and found the part about the high crime rate interesting. Also found it interesting that greed was a huge part of the industry. Just a bunch of dudes tryin to be mello right? I don't think meth or heroin should be legal. I also believe that the worst elements of the marijuana trade exist primarily because of the fact that it is illegal. Violence is a result of the fact that one of those big plants in Mendecino County with 2 pounds of buds on it is worth several thousand dollars. Any time people know you have several thousand dollars in easily transportable property at your home that you can't report the theft of to the police, your home becomes a target. If legalized, the value plummets and the associated crime rate drops. The "gateway" drug argument is also diminished. The only reason weed is a gateway drug is because you have to go through a drug dealer to buy it. But for going to the drug dealer to buy weed, you'd have no idea where to buy blow, dancin' shoes, 'shrooms, x or whatever else they are selling. So I think you'd diminish demand for the really bad illegal drugs as well. However, the biggest problems are that legal weed would eat into the booze industry and to my knowledge, there is no good way to check for stoned driving in the same manner as there is for drunk driving. That would cut into the profit margins that local police earn, plus local police would forfeit all the property they confiscate that they deem part of the drug trade, so they clearly don't want any level of deregulation. BTR is 100% correct on this issue. Chuck Storm has no flippin' clue Some of the nicest, most productive, solid citizens enjoy rolling doobies in their spare time. The fact is Chuck Storm is probably friends/acquaintances with these people (or possibly work with/employ these people) and has no clue they like to smoke the herb in a responsible, private manner |
|
|
|
Post by Master Blaster on Jan 26, 2009 21:01:41 GMT -6
I could probably live with weed being deregulated to tell the honest truth. A small, personal amount used responsibly is fine. That is what California was actually shooting for when they brought this into effect. The town is now trying to make the amount smaller in an effort to get the problem under control. SF has actually got shops you can buy it from over the counter with the medical card. Works for me as well as there is some control to the issue.
Problem is that greed will invariably take over and make it a problem to all citizens.
Show me a way to make use responsible, get the crime out of it to a reasonable level, and I'll reconsider. Until then, sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jan 26, 2009 22:11:17 GMT -6
I could probably live with weed being deregulated to tell the honest truth. A small, personal amount used responsibly is fine. That is what California was actually shooting for when they brought this into effect. The town is now trying to make the amount smaller in an effort to get the problem under control. SF has actually got shops you can buy it from over the counter with the medical card. Works for me as well as there is some control to the issue. Problem is that greed will invariably take over and make it a problem to all citizens. Show me a way to make use responsible, get the crime out of it to a reasonable level, and I'll reconsider. Until then, sorry. I think the liberal fascists who outlaw it are greedier than those who would produce and sell it in a legal setting. The vested interests in keeping it legal are the alcohol industry, knuckledraggers who justify their job based on "drug control" and state and local police who have benefited from the enactment of draconian tax and seizure laws whenever marijuana is present. I see no reason that the marijuana farmer would be any greedier than the tobacco farmer or the hops farmer. All are reliant on the peddling of a vice. Frankly, I'd like to see the hippies who were featured on the CNBC presentation put out of business. The way to do that is through legalization. And as a practical matter, I'm turning into an old man, but back in the day, I heard it used to be a lot easier to score a bag of weed in high school than a case of beer due to the age restricted nature of beer. Yeah, there's plenty of beer around, but adults know they can get busted if they buy it for kids, so the supply was diminished, chiefly because of the fact it was legal and age restricted. As for making use "responsible," I'm not sure what you mean. Legal products are used in an irresponsible manner all the time, there are tens of thousands of alcoholics, paint huffers and oxycontin poppers in this country, yet I hear no credible cries to criminalize alcohol, paint or oxycontin. Responsibility is what free citizens have to exercise, I don't think lpcalihawk needs the nanny state telling him to be responsible, he understands that he needs to be responsible to be a productive member of society and keep his job, his house, his car, etc. And as for crime, if the product is legal, the black market premium disappears and so does the crime. Of course, there is a credible argument that I have heard that there is an underclass of hippies out there who refuse to work, and if their source of wages from selling marihuana dries up, they'll enter other criminal enterprises. |
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Jan 27, 2009 14:26:37 GMT -6
I could probably live with weed being deregulated to tell the honest truth. A small, personal amount used responsibly is fine. That is what California was actually shooting for when they brought this into effect. The town is now trying to make the amount smaller in an effort to get the problem under control. SF has actually got shops you can buy it from over the counter with the medical card. Works for me as well as there is some control to the issue. Problem is that greed will invariably take over and make it a problem to all citizens. Show me a way to make use responsible, get the crime out of it to a reasonable level, and I'll reconsider. Until then, sorry. I think the liberal fascists who outlaw it are greedier than those who would produce and sell it in a legal setting. The vested interests in keeping it legal are the alcohol industry, knuckledraggers who justify their job based on "drug control" and state and local police who have benefited from the enactment of draconian tax and seizure laws whenever marijuana is present. I see no reason that the marijuana farmer would be any greedier than the tobacco farmer or the hops farmer. All are reliant on the peddling of a vice. Frankly, I'd like to see the hippies who were featured on the CNBC presentation put out of business. The way to do that is through legalization. And as a practical matter, I'm turning into an old man, but back in the day, I heard it used to be a lot easier to score a bag of weed in high school than a case of beer due to the age restricted nature of beer. Yeah, there's plenty of beer around, but adults know they can get busted if they buy it for kids, so the supply was diminished, chiefly because of the fact it was legal and age restricted. As for making use "responsible," I'm not sure what you mean. Legal products are used in an irresponsible manner all the time, there are tens of thousands of alcoholics, paint huffers and oxycontin poppers in this country, yet I hear no credible cries to criminalize alcohol, paint or oxycontin. Responsibility is what free citizens have to exercise, I don't think lpcalihawk needs the nanny state telling him to be responsible, he understands that he needs to be responsible to be a productive member of society and keep his job, his house, his car, etc. And as for crime, if the product is legal, the black market premium disappears and so does the crime. Of course, there is a credible argument that I have heard that there is an underclass of hippies out there who refuse to work, and if their source of wages from selling marihuana dries up, they'll enter other criminal enterprises. The conservative do-gooders who want government off their backs in all matters except drug control, abortion and other social issues are the foe in the fight. These same do-gooders who champion "states rights" are nowhere to be found when the Feds go in and raid a pot shop in a state where the citizens voted democratically to make it legal. The hypocrisy surrounding this issue is laughable (and not a giggly high laugh either). There are people in our society who use pot, coke, and other illegal drugs in a more responsible manner than some who abuse alcohol, Rx meds, and cigarettes. It all comes down to the individual who chooses to use a substance. Can that person be responsible and take a mind-altering substance? If the answer is "yes", then why is it appropriate for the government to say "no". |
|
|
|
Post by Master Blaster on Jan 28, 2009 22:33:53 GMT -6
I'd say because the vast majority cannot use this responsibly. I mean, if it is already illegal, and they continue to use, grow, sell pot - are they responsible? I've watched enough young men and women end their Navy career using this stuff. Is that responsible?
Yes there are users that are more responsible, but I bet they are the minority vice the majority.
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jan 28, 2009 22:59:05 GMT -6
These same do-gooders who champion "states rights" are nowhere to be found when the Feds go in and raid a pot shop in a state where the citizens voted democratically to make it legal. The hypocrisy surrounding this issue is laughable (and not a giggly high laugh either). Federal pre-emption is a constitutional requirement. The supremacy clause means federal law trumps state law. In some respects, that is good, as I think the common market that the United States built is one of the biggest reasons for our prosperity. I also think it was good during the Civil Rights movement. It is an arcane matter beyond the purview of most citizens, but it is my understanding that President Obama is going to push to limit the EPA's emissions rule making ability to give states more rights to regulate auto emissions (no federal pre-emption means the states can fill the void). The potential downside is that you undermine the common market theme and make America less competitive for manufacturers to sell products into than other large common markets, like India, China and the EU. While the Supremacy Clause has positive uses, it has been used by big government proponents to pass laws that I think should be handled on a local level. Marijuana laws are a prime example. I honestly fail to see how a guy growing weed in his backyard for personal use can lawfully be prohibited from doing so under the Commerce Clause. The weed doesn't move in interstate commerce. There is no instrument of interstate commerce involved. His use does not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. No currency is used. I just don't get it. Of course, my views are in the substantial minority, but I think lp is somewhat correct in the above assertion and those who agree with the argument that say, for instance, abortion is a states' right issue (which I tend to agree with) should also concede that domestic, wholly local drug policy is also a states' right issue. |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jan 28, 2009 23:09:43 GMT -6
I'd say because the vast majority cannot use this responsibly. I mean, if it is already illegal, and they continue to use, grow, sell pot - are they responsible? I've watched enough young men and women end their Navy career using this stuff. Is that responsible? Yes there are users that are more responsible, but I bet they are the minority vice the majority. I think your argument is that because weed is illegal, any use today is per se irresponsible. This becomes the slippery slope, is the guy who speeds or doesn't use his turn signal irresponsible? I don't use the stuff, but I know people who do. They seem to be upstanding, taxpaying people. If they do it in their own house and it's done by consenting adults and it's not hurting anyone else, I don't really care what they do. If a guy in the Navy goes in to work under the influence of alcohol, weed or any other drug, he is not responsible. Full stop. I don't know the circumstances of the people you know who have ruined their careers, but my father in law knew of a lot of people who got kicked out of the military not for being under the influence, but rather for failing the random drug tests. Is that what you're referring to? Smoking a joint 2 weeks before going on a ship is not, in my opinion, any less responsible than getting insanely drunk 2 weeks before going on a ship, but a trace of that weed is going to stay in the sailor's system for a month (the guy won't be stoned for a month, he will just have traces of the drug). Taking weed or beer on a ship, on the other hand, is irresponsible. |
|
|
|
Post by Master Blaster on Jan 29, 2009 21:45:42 GMT -6
You hit on one of my points, if small personal use is all that is going to be done and the user will be resonsible, then go for it. It is the human nature part that will eventually kick in causing greed, corruption to kick in.
And yeah, getting bombed and driving home is wrong. Absolutely agree. Current Navy policy on DUI's is you go to trial under the city statutes, then go to trial under the navy's non judicial punishment system. That probably means a loss of a stripe, half months pay for two months and 45 days restriction and extra duties. In addition to that, you go to alcohol abuse screening. You get one freebie for alcohol abuse, after that you are seperated administratively from the navy. Not quite as severe as getting kicked out the first time caught with illegal drugs in the system, but nearly as painful. And the Navy is getting stricter in its policies on the alcohol use portion.
Put the two together and you get a common theme, use of a drug brings harsh consequences, regardless of whether or not it is legal. I agree with most of this. I don't have time to deal with the guy/ gal getting drunk or stoned and showing up late. Or doing drugs at lunch (substitute liquid lunch her if you'd like). I know plenty of people that use alcohol responsibly. I also know plenty of people that have slipped once in their responsible use and have paid a steep price. Are their different degrees, absolutely. You set that mark at one place and I set it at another.
|
|
|
|
Post by TBELL on Jan 31, 2009 19:39:09 GMT -6
|
|
