|
Post by Saggitariutt Jefferspin (ith) on Feb 9, 2009 16:09:06 GMT -6
Taking a step back and laughing a bit...I found this segment to be hilarious: www.whotv.com/sports/Scroll down to "What's Bugging Andy 2/8/2009".
|
|
|
Post by Master Blaster on Feb 9, 2009 20:40:39 GMT -6
Like several above I usually don't, won't take the time to read links. I would still be willing to wager though if you do drugs, there is an excellent chance you have or will commit a crime to continue that portion of your life. Not all people have cash on hand or in the bank at any given moment to go buy a bag. You show me some dumbass out there with money on hand to go buy an ounce whenever he wants and I can come up with a list of people that don't have the cash and still do drugs. Where is the money coming from? I do "drugs". I've never committed a crime to support my "habit". I think you are confusing weed with crack. As far as your question as to where is the money coming from; you can say the same thing about the bums hanging out on the corner palming 40's all day. Where is the money coming from? I guarantee you there are a lot more people committing crimes to fund their alcohol dependency then their pot dependency. What it boils down to is hypocrisy. The government says its OK for us to suck down as many cigarettes and 40's as we want (both of which kill ass loads of people). Yet, when it comes to puffing a J, it's a crime. The reasoning behind that is ludicrous. All outlawing pot is accomplishing is costing taxpayers more money. It's a pointless and un-winnable war. The only thing it succeeds at is giving otherwise good citizens a criminal record and contributes to the fucking insane jail overcrowding problem we have. When it comes to this issue, the government is fucking retarded. And so is any one else that has a problem with the Rasta's herb. I'd say that bince the tar content in pot is sustantially higher than that of cigarettes and bince the number of people that smoke pot are high and will quite arguably go higher, that health care costs, my insurance costs and yours, will go up. Then you got to stop those that still will try to produce it illegally to avoid the taxes the government will throw on the production. In addition, having another legal substance on the books to check for DUI will cause police costs to go up. Do you honestly think that the legalization and taxation will cause illegal growth to come to a complete stop? Anyway, there are also a lot of questions to ask about legalizing besides just lifting the law. I'd like to know what the process is to set a legal age for use, who decides and what the punishment is for violating that limit. What about use on the school grounds by high school students that are of age? Will it be easier for them to get, thus causing the number of users to go up? How do we test for recent use such as driving under the influence and what is the legal limit? Do we put government into the process of funding "quitting pot" clinics? Do we get stupid "stop using tobacco" like commercials for MJ funded by the producers of MJ? How long until the infrastructure of laws and regulations is balanced and fair for those that use and don't use? What regulations go into effect for jobs that could suffer disasterous effects if the operator uses the weed (thinking of a pilot, but the long haul truck driver would also fit, as the forklift driver, heavy equipment operator, nuclear power plant operator, your local electrician wiring your home, etc) And if it is as simple as buying cigarettes, this will occur. Ideas and answers please? How do we safely implement the use of legalized pot? Your proposal to lift the ban needs to be a lot more than a simple lift it and tax it approach. Not bad for a fucking retard huh?
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyedug on Feb 9, 2009 22:13:38 GMT -6
I'd say that bince the tar content in pot is sustantially higher than that of cigarettes and bince the number of people that smoke pot are high and will quite arguably go higher, that health care costs, my insurance costs and yours, will go up. Then you got to stop those that still will try to produce it illegally to avoid the taxes the government will throw on the production. In addition, having another legal substance on the books to check for DUI will cause police costs to go up. Do you honestly think that the legalization and taxation will cause illegal growth to come to a complete stop? Anyway, there are also a lot of questions to ask about legalizing besides just lifting the law. I'd like to know what the process is to set a legal age for use, who decides and what the punishment is for violating that limit. What about use on the school grounds by high school students that are of age? Will it be easier for them to get, thus causing the number of users to go up? How do we test for recent use such as driving under the influence and what is the legal limit? Do we put government into the process of funding "quitting pot" clinics? Do we get stupid "stop using tobacco" like commercials for MJ funded by the producers of MJ? How long until the infrastructure of laws and regulations is balanced and fair for those that use and don't use? What regulations go into effect for jobs that could suffer disasterous effects if the operator uses the weed (thinking of a pilot, but the long haul truck driver would also fit, as the forklift driver, heavy equipment operator, nuclear power plant operator, your local electrician wiring your home, etc) And if it is as simple as buying cigarettes, this will occur. Ideas and answers please? How do we safely implement the use of legalized pot? Your proposal to lift the ban needs to be a lot more than a simple lift it and tax it approach. Not bad for a fucking retard huh? I put zero thought into this whatsoever, but on the surface you can just use the same rules that are in place for alcohol for pot. Pretty simple really.
|
|
|
Post by roxxstar on Feb 11, 2009 10:55:48 GMT -6
“I'd say that bince the tar content in pot is sustantially higher than that of cigarettes and bince the number of people that smoke pot are high and will quite arguably go higher, that health care costs, my insurance costs and yours, will go up. Then you got to stop those that still will try to produce it illegally to avoid the taxes the government will throw on the production. In addition, having another legal substance on the books to check for DUI will cause police costs to go up. Do you honestly think that the legalization and taxation will cause illegal growth to come to a complete stop?”
No, I don’t think illegal growth would come to a complete stop (I never claimed that to begin with). It will drastically reduce it though. Who needs to grow your own weed when you can just run to the store and purchase the finished product? How many people do you see growing their own tobacco plants? And for the record, I wouldn’t make it illegal to grow your own pot. I would just say you had to pay some sort of licensing fee or tax for the right to grow pot legally. Although, like I said, most people aren’t going to go through the hassle of maintaining a grow room when they can easily purchase the finished product.
“Anyway, there are also a lot of questions to ask about legalizing besides just lifting the law. I'd like to know what the process is to set a legal age for use,”
See above answer. Treat it exactly like tobacco or alcohol. If it were up to me, I’d say if you are 18 then you should be able to purchase/consume.
“who decides and what the punishment is for violating that limit.”
Uh, they are called lawmakers. The people we elect to represent us in our state government.
“What about use on the school grounds by high school students that are of age?”
They would be susceptible to whatever punishment the school sets for violating their policy. Leave it to the schools to decide how to discipline students. I would treat it the same as if a student showed up drunk or was caught smoking cigarettes.
“Will it be easier for them to get, thus causing the number of users to go up?”
Hopefully. It would be good for the world to have some of its tight asses loosen up a bit.
“How do we test for recent use such as driving under the influence and what is the legal limit?”
This one I’m not sure on. We would have to develop a way to test for actually being high at the moment you are driving. The tests they have now are ridiculous since they only test if marijuana is in your system (which can stay in there for months), not if you are actually currently high. Throw a little of the “War on Drugs” money to the scientists and help them create a system.
“Do we put government into the process of funding "quitting pot" clinics?”
If people feel they have a problem with weed and can’t quit (unlikely as it is not addictive) then sure. The government should help any citizen (that has a drug problem) quit if they want to. That’s what social services programs are all about (or should be).
“Do we get stupid "stop using tobacco" like commercials for MJ funded by the producers of MJ?”
Probably.
“How long until the infrastructure of laws and regulations is balanced and fair for those that use and don't use?”
I don’t know what this means.
“What regulations go into effect for jobs that could suffer disasterous effects if the operator uses the weed (thinking of a pilot, but the long haul truck driver would also fit, as the forklift driver, heavy equipment operator, nuclear power plant operator, your local electrician wiring your home, etc)”
These regulations should be handled by the employer directly. I would treat them the same way as if they had an employee show up to work drunk. This really isn’t as complicated as you are making it sound.
“And if it is as simple as buying cigarettes, this will occur.”
Beer is as simple to buy as cigarettes. Is there a huge problem with America’s workforce showing up drunk?
“Ideas and answers please? How do we safely implement the use of legalized pot?”
Here you go man. Here are my answers and ideas.
“Your proposal to lift the ban needs to be a lot more than a simple lift it and tax it approach.”
I disagree. I think you are over-thinking and over-complicating this.
“Not bad for a fucking retard huh?”
LOL, no not bad at all. At least you have some intelligent questions and aren’t just blabbing about how pot is the devil and makes people evil. And I never meant you, in particular, are a retard. I just have a general disdain for people who have a problem with pot, but have no problem with beer, tobacco or prescription drugs solely because pot is illegal and they are not. The hypocrisy behind it is laughable. You can’t base what you think about shit based on what the government drills into your minds. It’s never bad to question things. The government is not all-knowing and does not always have “the people’s” best interests at heart.
For the record, I take back the retard comment. That’s not my style to hate on or say someone is stupid just for having a conflicting view point. I actually hate people like that (i.e. bible thumpers, Republicans)
……..LOL…….just playing with the Republican comment………..you know I love you fuckers………………one love
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Feb 11, 2009 14:40:25 GMT -6
I read that Subway is going to continue Micheal Phelps'es sponsorship. . . . HOORAY FOR SUBWAY! EAT THERE!
I also read that Kellogg's is going to discontinue his sponsorship deal. . . BOO FOR KELLOGG'S!!! DON'T EAT THEIR CEREAL!!!
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Doofenshmirtz (Heywood) on Feb 11, 2009 14:42:37 GMT -6
I read that Subway is going to continue Micheal Phelps'es sponsorship. . . . HOORAY FOR SUBWAY! EAT THERE! I sense a new marketing pitch for $5 foot longs!
|
|
|
Post by Saggitariutt Jefferspin (ith) on Feb 11, 2009 14:52:57 GMT -6
I read that Subway is going to continue Micheal Phelps'es sponsorship. . . . HOORAY FOR SUBWAY! EAT THERE! I sense a new marketing pitch for $5 foot longs! Subway is smart. They know their clientele.
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Feb 11, 2009 15:43:45 GMT -6
Kellogg's dumb.....as Channel 13 pointed out in DSM.....kids and stoners eat their sugary cereal products.......they've just pissed off 1 or those 2 groups.
More lettuce for my footlong, please
|
|
|
Post by Saggitariutt Jefferspin (ith) on Feb 11, 2009 15:48:20 GMT -6
Kellogg's dumb.....as Channel 13 pointed out in DSM.....kids and stoners eat their sugary cereal products.......they've just pissed off 1 or those 2 groups. lpcalihawk - that's the video I was referring to at the top of this page..."What's Bugging Andy". Pretty funny.
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Feb 11, 2009 16:36:36 GMT -6
Kellogg's dumb.....as Channel 13 pointed out in DSM.....kids and stoners eat their sugary cereal products.......they've just pissed off 1 or those 2 groups. lpcalihawk - that's the video I was referring to at the top of this page..."What's Bugging Andy". Pretty funny. Good call, my fault on missing that
|
|
|
Post by Master Blaster on Feb 12, 2009 20:20:05 GMT -6
"For the record, I take back the retard comment. That’s not my style to hate on or say someone is stupid just for having a conflicting view point. I actually hate people like that (i.e. bible thumpers, Republicans)
……..LOL…….just playing with the Republican comment………..you know I love you fuckers………………one love"
I wasn't offended, don't sweat it. Truly my biggest fear with pot is some jackass getting behind the wheel of a car high as hell looking to get munchies and taking out a family. Yes it happens with booze, but it still ain't right.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Feb 12, 2009 20:29:07 GMT -6
"For the record, I take back the retard comment. That’s not my style to hate on or say someone is stupid just for having a conflicting view point. I actually hate people like that (i.e. bible thumpers, Republicans) ……..LOL…….just playing with the Republican comment………..you know I love you fuckers………………one love" I wasn't offended, don't sweat it. Truly my biggest fear with pot is some jackass getting behind the wheel of a car high as hell looking to get munchies and taking out a family. Yes it happens with booze, but it still ain't right. Yeah, that's why you make smoking and driving illegal, just like it is today. The thing is, a stoned guy is still a 10x better driver than the average gal, it's the stoned gal who poses the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Master Blaster on Feb 12, 2009 20:36:36 GMT -6
Uh, I am not touching that one with a ten foot pole. My wife is literally standing right behind me as I type.
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Feb 13, 2009 17:19:15 GMT -6
For the record Jesus, I have just as big of a problem with drunk drivers, alcohol abusers/of women, cigarettes as I do pot. I laugh my ass off every time I go to a business in the winter and I see some dumbshit standing outside in 10 degree weather, or colder, smoking a cigarette. I hope I just didn't piss off half the board with that but oh well, lol. I know and agree 100% about the hypocrisy of it all. Like MCPO said, you don't like it, change it. There are alot of things I would love to change about our political situation too but it probably won't happen.
When I was talking about criminals doing pot and where is the money coming from I was not talking about the people out there with good jobs and can support themselves doing it. I am talking about the highschool kid that steals money from his parents to be able to afford it. The guy that steals car stereos, hubcaps etc to support it. The guy that robs some couple coming out of the store to support it. You guys can deny that it don't happen but who are you kidding? I will repeat what I said earlier. Go to any cop/Sheriff/St. Trooper etc and ask him what effect pot in general has on crime. If he says nothing I will admit I am wrong. I don't think I have much to worry about though.
Until then.
|
|
|
Post by Saggitariutt Jefferspin (ith) on Feb 13, 2009 17:26:09 GMT -6
You guys can deny that it don't happen but who are you kidding? I will repeat what I said earlier. Go to any cop/Sheriff/St. Trooper etc and ask him what effect pot in general has on crime. If he says nothing I will admit I am wrong. I don't think I have much to worry about though. Until then. I will. I have three cops in my extended family. I'll let you know.
|
|
|
Post by Saggitariutt Jefferspin (ith) on Feb 13, 2009 18:02:04 GMT -6
Actually I'm not going to. I have an uncle cop, and two cousin cops. I haven't talked to any of them in years, so I don't want my first conversation in years to be about pot.
Your mind is obviously not going to change anyway...even if you say it would.
|
|
|
Post by Saggitariutt Jefferspin (ith) on Feb 13, 2009 18:31:34 GMT -6
"Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded, "Rather than inducing violent or aggressive behavior through its purported effects of lowering inhibitions, weakening impulse control and heightening aggressive tendencies, marihuana was usually found to inhibit the expression of aggressive impulses by pacifying the user, interfering with muscular coordination, reducing psychomotor activities and generally producing states of drowsiness lethargy, timidity and passivity." Source: Shafer, Raymond P., et al, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, Ch. III, (Washington DC: National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972). drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/53On Driving "Both Australian studies suggest cannabis may actually reduce the responsibility rate and lower crash risk. Put another way, cannabis consumption either increases driving ability or, more likely, drivers who use cannabis make adjustments in driving style to compensate for any loss of skill (Drummer, 1995). This is consistent with simulator and road studies that show drivers who consumed cannabis slowed down and drove more cautiously (see Ward & Dye, 1999; Smiley, 1999. This compensation could help reduce the probability of being at fault in a motor vehicle accident since drivers have more time to respond and avoid a collision. However, it must be noted that any behavioral compensation may not be sufficient to cope with the reduced safety margin resulting from the impairment of driver functioning and capacity." Source: Laberge, Jason C., Nicholas J. Ward, "Research Note: Cannabis and Driving -- Research Needs and Issues for Transportation Policy," Journal of Drug Issues, Dec. 2004, pp. 980. On the laws: "Since 1969, government-appointed commissions in the United States, Canada, England, Australia, and the Netherlands concluded, after reviewing the scientific evidence, that marijuana's dangers had previously been greatly exaggerated, and urged lawmakers to drastically reduce or eliminate penalties for marijuana possession." "Our conclusion is that the present law on cannabis produces more harm than it prevents. It is very expensive of the time and resources of the criminal justice system and especially of the police. It inevitably bears more heavily on young people in the streets of inner cities, who are also more likely to be from minority ethnic communities, and as such is inimical to police-community relations. It criminalizes large numbers of otherwise law-abiding, mainly young, people to the detriment of their futures. It has become a proxy for the control of public order; and it inhibits accurate education about the relative risks of different drugs including the risks of cannabis itself." Source: Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, Cannabis (London, England: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1969); Canadian Government Commission of Inquiry, The Non-Medical Use of Drugs (Ottawa, Canada: Information Canada, 1970); The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, (Nixon-Shafer Report) (Washington, DC: USGPO, 1972); Werkgroep Verdovende Middelen, Background and Risks of Drug Use (The Hague, The Netherlands: Staatsuigeverij, 1972); Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, Drug Problems in Australia-An Intoxicated Society (Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1977); Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, "The classification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971" (London, England, UK: Home Office, March 2002), available on the web from drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication-search/acmd/cannabis-class-mi... ; House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Third Report, "The Government's Drugs Policy: Is It Working?" (London, England, UK: Parliament, May 9, 2002), from the web at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/318/31... and "Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy," report of the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs (Ottawa, Canada: Senate of Canada, September 2002). A good read: www.rawstory.com/exclusives/amanda/legalizing_marijuana_violent_crime_731.htmI could go on...but I don't wanna.
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Feb 13, 2009 18:58:01 GMT -6
For the record Jesus, I have just as big of a problem with drunk drivers, alcohol abusers/of women, cigarettes as I do pot. I laugh my ass off every time I go to a business in the winter and I see some dumbshit standing outside in 10 degree weather, or colder, smoking a cigarette. I hope I just didn't piss off half the board with that but oh well, lol. I know and agree 100% about the hypocrisy of it all. Like MCPO said, you don't like it, change it. There are alot of things I would love to change about our political situation too but it probably won't happen. When I was talking about criminals doing pot and where is the money coming from I was not talking about the people out there with good jobs and can support themselves doing it. I am talking about the highschool kid that steals money from his parents to be able to afford it. The guy that steals car stereos, hubcaps etc to support it. The guy that robs some couple coming out of the store to support it. You guys can deny that it don't happen but who are you kidding? I will repeat what I said earlier. Go to any cop/Sheriff/St. Trooper etc and ask him what effect pot in general has on crime. If he says nothing I will admit I am wrong. I don't think I have much to worry about though. Until then. My wife was an assistant(and not "to the") DA in Carson City, NV for a little over four years. In her experience(anecdotal of course), crimes associated with pot, other than growing/possesion, were pretty much non-existent. Alcohol, meth, coke and heroin were the drugs that were associated with other crime. I'm not saying that a pot smoker couldn't steal to support his habit but it just isn't very common IMO. I'm glad that you agree with the hypocrisy of it all. Will you be pushing for prohibition(cigs too) any time soon?
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Feb 14, 2009 11:53:27 GMT -6
"Our conclusion is that the present law on cannabis produces more harm than it prevents. It is very expensive of the time and resources of the criminal justice system and especially of the police. It inevitably bears more heavily on young people in the streets of inner cities, who are also more likely to be from minority ethnic communities, and as such is inimical to police-community relations. It criminalizes large numbers of otherwise law-abiding, mainly young, people to the detriment of their futures. It has become a proxy for the control of public order; and it inhibits accurate education about the relative risks of different drugs including the risks of cannabis itself."
You know, I think I used the same argument in the 90's when I used to drive home from the bar drunk. Like I said, ALL forms of drug and alcohol abuse are wrong. I realize now what a idiot and an ass I was being in back then by doing it. If you get to pick and choose which form of drug abuse is right or wrong, you are basically making the argument that you like doing it so it should be legal. IMO that is what it sounds like.
I may be one of the very few on the board that gets to watch daytime tv, due to my situation and I very well may get teased for this, but on Dr. Phil earlier this week he had a couple on there in their 40's that were on the verge of divorce. They had 2 sons, both into recreational use of drugs, mainly pot, and the 15 year old said, "I smoke pot every day and I love it. I have NO PLANS for my future." He got it from friends but any guesses how he would support that habit if his supply chain dried up???
Will I be pushing for the prohibition of cigarettes? I must say the State of Iowa took one very nice step towards that earlier this year. No complaints from me I will admit. My daughters both have asthma, the childhood kind, that they grow out of hopefully. We were looking for a van last week and our salesman was an obvious smoker. We took it for a test drive and he sat behind me and I thought I would puke. Cigarettes no doubt cause more harm than pot, I would admit that, but the cigarette industry is big I would guess in jobs down south and the tobacco lobby could disappear tomorrow with no complaint from me.
|
|
|
Post by Saggitariutt Jefferspin (ith) on Feb 14, 2009 14:46:41 GMT -6
I may be one of the very few on the board that gets to watch daytime tv, due to my situation and I very well may get teased for this, but on Dr. Phil earlier this week he had a couple on there in their 40's that were on the verge of divorce. They had 2 sons, both into recreational use of drugs, mainly pot, and the 15 year old said, "I smoke pot every day and I love it. I have NO PLANS for my future." He got it from friends but any guesses how he would support that habit if his supply chain dried up??? You've reached the bottom of the barrell. You're quoting a single example from a Dr. Phil show as opposed to my scientific studies citations.
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Feb 15, 2009 19:09:14 GMT -6
I may be one of the very few on the board that gets to watch daytime tv, due to my situation and I very well may get teased for this, but on Dr. Phil earlier this week he had a couple on there in their 40's that were on the verge of divorce. They had 2 sons, both into recreational use of drugs, mainly pot, and the 15 year old said, "I smoke pot every day and I love it. I have NO PLANS for my future." He got it from friends but any guesses how he would support that habit if his supply chain dried up??? You've reached the bottom of the barrell. You're quoting a single example from a Dr. Phil show as opposed to my scientific studies citations. The whole point is Aaron is that you continue to poach marijuana as a harmless do nothing, has no ill effects, that causes no harm to anyone, drug. I may very well be at the bottom of the barrel but at least I have someone to share it with. I hope you don't mind sharing the remote to the tv because I am kind of a tv hog.
|
|
|
Post by Saggitariutt Jefferspin (ith) on Feb 15, 2009 23:06:34 GMT -6
When I said 'bottom of the barrell', I meant your argument, not your overall situation. Sorry I didn't clarify that.
|
|
|
Post by isu is shit on Feb 16, 2009 11:18:41 GMT -6
What movie is this quote from?
"stay away from pills and powder, if it grows in the ground, it's probably ok?"
Not significant to the topic, but a funny movie.
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Feb 16, 2009 13:41:54 GMT -6
What movie is this quote from? "stay away from pills and powder, if it grows in the ground, it's probably ok?" Not significant to the topic, but a funny movie. A poster I bought in Amsterdam: Man made booze, God made pot.......who do you trust?
|
|
|
Post by isu is shit on Feb 16, 2009 13:46:11 GMT -6
Is it really on a poster? I got it from a movie.
|
|