When is the U.S. finally going to legalize pot?

TheArtOfScience wrote:

Alcohol and tobacco by their very nature need large corporate entities to turn profits.

Tobacco, maybe. Alcohol, no. We have an alcohol industry than runs the gamut from homebrew to small vineyards and microbreweries all the way up to giant industrial brewers. During prohibition there were no giant corporate entities engaged in alcohol production inside the U.S., and there was no shortage of alcohol.

Funkenpants wrote:
TheArtOfScience wrote:

Alcohol and tobacco by their very nature need large corporate entities to turn profits.

Tobacco, maybe. Alcohol, no. We have an alcohol industry than runs the gamut from homebrew to small vineyards and microbreweries all the way up to giant industrial brewers. During prohibition there were no giant corporate entities engaged in alcohol production inside the U.S., and there was no shortage of alcohol.

Not precisely correct.

There were, in fact, brewery empires and Prohibition just about destroyed them. Part of this was intentional as the owners of these beer empires were largely ethnically German and support for Prohibition was actually fueled, in part, by anti-German sentiment following World War One.

Legalising pot might also encourage more in the way of FDA testing, proper assessment of the health risks, warning labels on packaging, and so on. It's hard to know where to draw the line, though. I firmly believe ice should remain illegal due to the combination of health risks to the inidividual and risk of harm to others, but where would other drugs fall on the line? Heroin is addictive enough that it should probably be prohibited, but what about ecstasy? It's a complex area.

Legalising pot might also encourage more in the way of FDA testing, proper assessment of the health risks, warning labels on packaging, and so on. It's hard to know where to draw the line, though. I firmly believe ice should remain illegal due to the combination of health risks to the inidividual and risk of harm to others, but where would other drugs fall on the line? Heroin is addictive enough that it should probably be prohibited, but what about ecstasy? It's a complex area.

I've always thought that we should start with pot first, see how things go and then move on to the harder stuff. Ecstasy would be a good choice as the next step, and from what I hear there would be a market for it as people are injured or die every year from getting stuff laced with impurities or other drugs.

I'm not an expert by any means, but everything I know about heroin says that it's destructive enough to be considered a slow-acting fatal poison. Stuff like crack and meth may also fall into the 'poison' category. I'm just fine keeping that kind of thing off the shelves.

Paleocon wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
TheArtOfScience wrote:

Alcohol and tobacco by their very nature need large corporate entities to turn profits.

Tobacco, maybe. Alcohol, no. We have an alcohol industry than runs the gamut from homebrew to small vineyards and microbreweries all the way up to giant industrial brewers. During prohibition there were no giant corporate entities engaged in alcohol production inside the U.S., and there was no shortage of alcohol.

Not precisely correct.

There were, in fact, brewery empires and Prohibition just about destroyed them. Part of this was intentional as the owners of these beer empires were largely ethnically German and support for Prohibition was actually fueled, in part, by anti-German sentiment following World War One.

I think he was pointing out that the large breweries and distilleries were shut down during Prohibition.

Many would argue that Prohibition had been a growing movement since the Civil War, and really only became possible after the introduction of the income tax reduced federal dependence on alcohol excise taxes. Conveniently, it lost legislative support when incomes went in the toilet during the late 20's and early 30's.

Paleocon wrote:

There were, in fact, brewery empires and Prohibition just about destroyed them.

That wasn't the point. Based on what I've read, the volume of alcohol consumed rose during prohibition even absent the presence of big companies in the market. Other, non-legal players just stepped in. Enforcement of prohibition was impossible, and the only real impact was on the quality of the product consumed. Instead of beer, wine, and liquor, more people consumed cheap liquor and, in many cases, paint thinner and/or industrial chemicals marketed as liquor becuse there were no companies to build trade loyalty.

The thing that gets me when people talk about what would happen if we legalized pot is that opponents of legalization get to pretend that there isn't already a high volume of consumption. But the fact is that there is already a functioning market for pot. It's just a shadow market the government refuses to recognize. As though we were pretending that China didn't ship goods here or that all the oil consumed in America came from west Texas and Alaska. Government by delusion.

Minase wrote:
Legalising pot might also encourage more in the way of FDA testing, proper assessment of the health risks, warning labels on packaging, and so on. It's hard to know where to draw the line, though. I firmly believe ice should remain illegal due to the combination of health risks to the inidividual and risk of harm to others, but where would other drugs fall on the line? Heroin is addictive enough that it should probably be prohibited, but what about ecstasy? It's a complex area.

I've always thought that we should start with pot first, see how things go and then move on to the harder stuff. Ecstasy would be a good choice as the next step, and from what I hear there would be a market for it as people are injured or die every year from getting stuff laced with impurities or other drugs.

I'm not an expert by any means, but everything I know about heroin says that it's destructive enough to be considered a slow-acting fatal poison. Stuff like crack and meth may also fall into the 'poison' category. I'm just fine keeping that kind of thing off the shelves.

Pot is in an interesting position - it's certainly harmful with high (sorry) usage, but it's hard to say how harmful it is relative to alcohol, cigarettes, and other legal substances. Ecstasy looks to be similar, although I'm less familiar with it. Certainly there are a lot of problems associated with people taking tainted E, but at what point does personal responsibility kick in? Does the harm to users prevented by legalising E outweigh the potential harm to people who might otherwise have not used it?

This argument has resurfaced recently here after a 17 year old girl died at a music festival. She saw some police sniffer dogs and took the three E tablets she was carrying, and died shortly afterwards. Quite a few people have blamed the police (if they didn't have sniffer dogs she wouldn't have OD'd), which strikes me as a bit ridiculous...

There are some drugs that are really genuinely dangerous and should stay illegal or medical use only. Cocaine and its variants, PHP/angeldust, and most narcotics come to mind.

I've only tried pot myself, and I know that's pretty harmless, certainly no worse than tobacco. (it may be worse for you per inhalation, but it's not like cigs; you don't puff away on them for nearly the same duration.) From people I knew that did other drugs, it sounds like mescaline, ecstasy, and LSD are probably not terribly dangerous.

I really think marijuana being illegal encourages other drug use. It IS a gateway drug, but not for the reason that the authoritarians think. Kids try pot, they realize it's no big deal, and then they figure that adults must also be lying to them about all the other drugs too. It's a gateway drug BECAUSE it's illegal, not in SPITE of it. Were it legalized, I suspect you'd see more kids stop there.

Malor wrote:

There are some drugs that are really genuinely dangerous and should stay illegal or medical use only. Cocaine and its variants, PHP/angeldust, and most narcotics come to mind.

It's not so bad if they can stop with the hypertext preprocessors, but we've lost too many good men to .Net and Perl.

I would love to see marketing campaigns surrounding pot paraphernalia or pot itself. It could make for some truly entertaining reading/viewing.

I think it should be legal, but controlled. To use it, you would have to sign a waiver releasing the public from ever having to pay for medical issues that COULD arise from smoking pot. If you choose to use it, and develop some known possible health ailment from it, you are on your own forever regardless of whatever nationalized health program eventually gets established.

Same for smoking and alcohol, too.

Ha! I've been in computers too long. PCP.

Probably after Canada does it. Once we've proved that the country won't fall to reefer madness then the USA will follow. We're America's lab rat.

Its not going to happen. Doesn't matter how you rationalize that it should, its just not going to happen.

sheared wrote:

I would love to see marketing campaigns surrounding pot paraphernalia or pot itself. It could make for some truly entertaining reading/viewing.

I think it should be legal, but controlled. To use it, you would have to sign a waiver releasing the public from ever having to pay for medical issues that COULD arise from smoking pot. If you choose to use it, and develop some known possible health ailment from it, you are on your own forever regardless of whatever nationalized health program eventually gets established.

Same for smoking and alcohol, too.

How about requiring waivers for hamburgers, soda pop, guns, swimming pools, and videogames while we're at it? Though I agree, in principle, that it shouldn't be government's job to pick up the pieces after individual's self destructive behavior, denying people access to public health for relatively benign recreational behavior isn't very productive. I suspect that a preteen skateboarder or high school football player will probably end up using the emergency room far more often than a recreational pot user.

Sonicator wrote:

I firmly believe ice should remain illegal due to the combination of health risks to the inidividual and risk of harm to others

Is ice some sort of code that I'm not aware of for some kind of drug, or do you actually mean frozen water? I don't care for frozen water, either, and I don't use it myself, but surely it's not that bad!

Sonicator wrote:

Pot is in an interesting position - it's certainly harmful with high (sorry) usage, but it's hard to say how harmful it is relative to alcohol, cigarettes, and other legal substances.

I'm not so sure about that, but I don't know. All I know is that I've known plenty of potheads, and other than a love of Spongebob, they didn't have any problems. Some of them were even crazy intelligent. And some of them were complete idiots. All I really know is that you can't overdose on pot, and I still really want some frigging brownies!

MechaSlinky wrote:
Sonicator wrote:

I firmly believe ice should remain illegal due to the combination of health risks to the inidividual and risk of harm to others

Is ice some sort of code that I'm not aware of for some kind of drug, or do you actually mean frozen water? I don't care for frozen water, either, and I don't use it myself, but surely it's not that bad!

Sonicator wrote:

Pot is in an interesting position - it's certainly harmful with high (sorry) usage, but it's hard to say how harmful it is relative to alcohol, cigarettes, and other legal substances.

I'm not so sure about that, but I don't know. All I know is that I've known plenty of potheads, and other than a love of Spongebob, they didn't have any problems. Some of them were even crazy intelligent. And some of them were complete idiots. All I really know is that you can't overdose on pot, and I still really want some frigging brownies!

Yup.

I'm actually curious now if there has ever been a documented case of THC overdose. I think it would be far more likely for the user to die of asphyxiation from smoke inhalation. Compare that to the documented cases of acute alcohol poisoning in Fort Lauderdale, FL during a one month period around Spring Break of just about any year and it immediately reveals the hypocrisy in our national drug policy.

Paleocon wrote:
sheared wrote:

I would love to see marketing campaigns surrounding pot paraphernalia or pot itself. It could make for some truly entertaining reading/viewing.

I think it should be legal, but controlled. To use it, you would have to sign a waiver releasing the public from ever having to pay for medical issues that COULD arise from smoking pot. If you choose to use it, and develop some known possible health ailment from it, you are on your own forever regardless of whatever nationalized health program eventually gets established.

Same for smoking and alcohol, too.

How about requiring waivers for hamburgers, soda pop, guns, swimming pools, and videogames while we're at it? Though I agree, in principle, that it shouldn't be government's job to pick up the pieces after individual's self destructive behavior, denying people access to public health for relatively benign recreational behavior isn't very productive. I suspect that a preteen skateboarder or high school football player will probably end up using the emergency room far more often than a recreational pot user.

Nope -- just pot, cigarettes and alcohol usage (and any other "drug" that will eventually be legalized under this "awakening" of the country).

Anodyne wrote:
Malor wrote:

There are some drugs that are really genuinely dangerous and should stay illegal or medical use only. Cocaine and its variants, PHP/angeldust, and most narcotics come to mind.

It's not so bad if they can stop with the hypertext preprocessors, but we've lost too many good men to .Net and Perl. :(

Well done.

Malor wrote:

Ha! I've been in computers too long. PCP. :-)

PHP is even more dangerous.

An overdose on THC would require you to mainline it to bypass your body's shut down mechanism. Through inhalation you will always pass out / fall asleep before you read OD potential. It's much, much less dangerous than alcohol in that regard.

In honor of this thread.... A you tube video on Wood spiders!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHzdsFiBbFc

Pharacon wrote:

Hey I got a suggestion.. who gives a crap. If Pot was legal would it fix anything? No, so who gives a freaking damn. The problem I see with legalizing pot is people can get a contact high from people smoking around them, till this issue is fixed I don't want some dumbass pot head around me.

Judging by your comments, I'd say you seem to give a crap. By the way, a drunk can pick a fight with you, or hit you with his car. How's that for a contact high? When I was an RA in college I'd occasionally have to work with the police and they always told me they MUCH preferred dealing with potheads over drunks. Drunks are often belligerent and resist, and sometimes puke all over the squad car. You can get a pothead in the car just by acting like you're his buddy.

JC wrote:

In honor of this thread.... A you tube video on Wood spiders!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHzdsFiBbFc

That got better and better. I encourage everyone to watch it. Also, Canadian. I tell yah, we'll legalize here in Vancouver before anywhere else in North America.

JC wrote:

In honor of this thread.... A you tube video on Wood spiders!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHzdsFiBbFc

That made my day ... thank you.

On topic ... who knows when the powers that be will legalize it but I for one would like to see Obama take it on so I can watch the talking heads explode from arguing against it while trying so hard to avoid the racism angle. I'm not saying it is really a racist issue but it seems alot of common knowledge on pot comes from the Reefer Madness era in which it was considered a black and Hispanic thing. When I really start trying to make sense of why it is still illegal it makes my brain hurt. And then I need to smoke a bowl so ... yeah, madness.

Minase wrote:
Marijuana can be grown by anyone, meaning that if it were legal no one in their right mind would pay for it. If it can't be taxed and people can grow it themselves, it will stay illegal.

I've heard this argument before and I understand that most 'enthusiasts' will start growing their own, but I'm confident in the power of a) human laziness and b) tobacco-like marketing campaigns to get people buying packs of their favorite brand of mary jane.

It's kind of like preparing your own food - sure, I can usually make something that I really want that is as good as or better than what I'd get in a restaurant, and as long as I follow the recipe I will save money. But instead I like to go out as I don't have to buy the food, prepare it (my skill level isn't expert, so there is a chance that I will screw it up) and most importantly, spend time doing something I really want to do (like play video games!) instead of fussing around with food and cleanup.

Sorry Pot is a very hardy plant and grow anywhere. A couple guys that where working for my dad when I was in high school discovered a 4 foot pot plant growing in their front yard (which they never watered) they took it inside put it in a waste basket filled with dirt and put a flash light on it when they went out to work. It turned into a freaking forest of plants, I'm not sure what happen to them but I do know they quit working and started selling pot full time.

Growing pot is totally easy, prepping for smoking is just waiting till it gets big enough and then hanging it upside down to dry. Fseven has a really good point, I also believe in the whole drug lord supported anti-pot stance.

What I say is with all the other f*cked up things going on who cares about pot? If the libertarian party would get off their whole drug kick they just might get elected THEN they can work the drug issue. Out of the few Libertarian rallies I have been too they all devolved into legalizing pot and then talking about how cool it is to be high, like that is the only thing that matters.

Its not going to happen. Doesn't matter how you rationalize that it should, its just not going to happen.

10 years ago, I would have said the same thing about a black President. Things will change, it will just take time for the brainwashed to die off.

Pharacon wrote:

Sorry Pot is a very hardy plant and grow anywhere. A couple guys that where working for my dad when I was in high school discovered a 4 foot pot plant growing in their front yard (which they never watered) they took it inside put it in a waste basket filled with dirt and put a flash light on it when they went out to work. It turned into a freaking forest of plants, I'm not sure what happen to them but I do know they quit working and started selling pot full time.

Growing pot is totally easy, prepping for smoking is just waiting till it gets big enough and then hanging it upside down to dry. Fseven has a really good point, I also believe in the whole drug lord supported anti-pot stance.

Bad anecdote is bad. FSeven's point was that growing marijuana is so easy relative to raising tobacco or fermenting stuff into alcohol that the gov't won't allow it because everyone is doing it. Growing marijuana is likely no harder or easier than keeping any other plant alive -- but that doesn't mean I have my own cilantro garden or my own mint garden despite using copious amounts of those plants in my mexican food and mojitos, respectively. The point is that regardless of how "easy" it is to keep a photosynthetic organism alive, the majority of people won't feel like it, resulting in a taxable solution. Hell I pay for grass seed for my yard -- and thus pay sales tax -- despite the fact that weeds are free.

(plus, I will bet you 1,000 dollars that your friends in high school did a little more than point a flashlight at a plant to get that type of response... ;))

What I say is with all the other effed up things going on who cares about pot? If the libertarian party would get off their whole drug kick they just might get elected THEN they can work the drug issue. Out of the few Libertarian rallies I have been too they all devolved into legalizing pot and then talking about how cool it is to be high, like that is the only thing that matters.

Why the hostility? I can feign apathy over any cause I want, but typically don't because I don't think it's respectful to say, for example, that the plight of asthmatic black kids in the city is a largely useless cause to spend money on when people are starving in Africa. If you're that up in arms about forum complaints regarding a law clearly and severely restricting the rights of the individual concerning an action that has killed far less people than causes like gun control, I'd suggest you........

take a toke and chill out, man. =)

(sorry)

MechaSlinky wrote:
Sonicator wrote:

I firmly believe ice should remain illegal due to the combination of health risks to the inidividual and risk of harm to others

Is ice some sort of code that I'm not aware of for some kind of drug, or do you actually mean frozen water? I don't care for frozen water, either, and I don't use it myself, but surely it's not that bad!

Crystal methamphetamine! Not sure if the slang is different between countries, or if you're just being MechaSlinkyish.

MechaSlinky wrote:
Sonicator wrote:

Pot is in an interesting position - it's certainly harmful with high (sorry) usage, but it's hard to say how harmful it is relative to alcohol, cigarettes, and other legal substances.

I'm not so sure about that, but I don't know. All I know is that I've known plenty of potheads, and other than a love of Spongebob, they didn't have any problems. Some of them were even crazy intelligent. And some of them were complete idiots. All I really know is that you can't overdose on pot, and I still really want some frigging brownies!

A couple of my friends had their memory and attention span screwed up pretty badly by pot, but they were really heavy users. Anecdote =/= data, of course.

It's possible that wasn't due to the pot. Or maybe it was. My attention span has never been affected, but my memory can be terrible at times. I don't remember if it has always been terrible.

I have several friends that have smoked daily for twenty plus years and I hate to say that they aren't the sharpest tool in the shed anymore. But, then again, if they drank like fishes everyday they'd probably be in worse condition.

Pot should be legalized and taxed. It's pretty damn harmless and current laws for DUI, etc. can be adapted to cope with people who are high. It's an absolute waste of taxpayer dollars to go after the people that grow and especailly those that smoke pot.

Crank, coke, crack, horse, etc. need to stay on the no-go list, but smoking a bowl is no worse than having a double scotch or two (better, because you won't feel like sh*t the next day).