California judge blasts drug war at pro-marijuana rally in Reno

RENO, Nev. (AP) - A Superior Court judge sharply criticized the drug war and renewed his call for the decriminalization of marijuana at a pro-marijuana rally Saturday.

Judge James Gray of Orange County, Calif., said the drug war has cost billions of dollars and resulted in the United States having the world's highest incarceration rate - with no end in sight to rampant drug abuse.

The former federal prosecutor said he has never smoked marijuana, but supports the strictly controlled distribution of pot to adults.

"We have made an illness into a plague. (This is) a failed and hopeless system," Gray said.

"I believe people should be entitled to do what they want to their bodies, but that they should be held accountable," he added.

Gray, 58, a lifelong Republican until he became a Libertarian earlier this year, has been a judge for 19 years. He's the author of "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It."

More than 60 people attended the "Rally for Cannabis Liberation" at Reno's Idlewild Park.

The rally was sponsored by Cures not Wars, a pro-marijuana group that was to hold similar rallies around the country this weekend.

Group spokeswoman Michelle Buck of Reno said the purpose of the rally was to raise awareness that tens of thousands of Americans are in prisons for non-violent drug crimes.

Of particular concern, she said, are thousands who have been arrested for legally or illegally supplying medical marijuana.

Some people held signs that read "Free Ed Rosenthal." The Oakland, Calif., man's arrest last year was among a string of federal raids of medical marijuana suppliers in California.

A 1970 federal law does not recognize any medical purposes for marijuana. A federal judge refused in January to allow Rosenthal to tell jurors he was operating under state law.

Jurors convicted Rosenthal. When they learned the details they were not told during the trial, several jurors said they regretted their verdict.

"We're here to show our support for people like Ed," Buck said. "Marijuana is not the evil drug the federal government has made it out to be."

In November, Nevada voters rejected a measure to legalize possession of up to three ounces of marijuana by a margin of 61 percent to 39 percent.

Gray, appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian to the bench, was the keynote speaker at a Libertarian Party of Nevada dinner Saturday night in Virginia City.

No, they apply Occam's Razor and prefer the simpler theory---people who are disposed to using drugs use drugs, and marijuana is more accessible than other drugs---over some mysterious "gateway" effect for which no biochemical mechanism has ever been proposed, much less demonstrated.

LOL! There is NOTHING "mysterious" about it. Good grief. Yes, people who are disposed to abusing drugs usually start with pot. Where's the argument? That is precisely the point. If pot is legal and even MORE accessible even MORE people who are predisposed to drug use will become hard drug addicts. If pot is less accessible then even MORE people who would be predisposed to graduating to hard drug use WILL NEVER GET THERE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T START WITH POT. You'd have to be pretty damned stoned to not see the logical connection.

Then alcohol is THE gateway drug, since most illegal drug users started there. Shall we therefore ban alcohol?

Yawn. Here we go...the pothead's pet argument. I'm not here to defend alcohol, so don't expect me to. Yes, booze is a gateway drug for some, but if you'll run the numbers I'm sure you'll find that a much HIGHER (pun intended) percentage of pot smokers abuse harder drugs later, then do people who drink alcohol. Evidently your argument is "well, we have ONE gateway drug that's legal...so...let's have another!" Again, it's warped logic. The line has to be drawn somewhere on what's legal and what's not. I'm fine with the line where it's at, although stricter enforcement of existing laws is a must.

I'm 20, but I guessing you figured that one since I mentioned my age in a previous post.

I am encourage however than you didn't bother challenging me again, did convince you that marijuana should at least be decriminalized?

And what about this????

If pot is legal and even MORE accessible even MORE people who are predisposed to drug use will become hard drug addicts. If pot is less accessible then even MORE people who would be predisposed to graduating to hard drug use WILL NEVER GET THERE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T START WITH POT. You'd have to be pretty damned stoned to not see the logical connection.

Marijuana is as accessible as it needs to be. The current laws to jackshit to prevent people from obtaining it. And who cares if marijuana use even doubled after legalizing... marijuana use fluctuates all the time!!! Why do you worry about a small increase? Marijuana use DOUBLED over the past decade, while funding to eraticate it TRIPLED. Alcohol use never fluctuates over 10%. Since it's legal... its use appears to be very stable.

Ok, the problem with your arguement I'm seeing is your putting everything on this sad gateway theory. Marijuana is just one of dozens of intoxicating substances. If marijuana didn't exist, your gateway theory would point to whatever illegal drug that was most widely used. Just to let you know, I know more people who started of of painkillers to go on to harder drugs than marijuana. Yeah, have you ever heard of oxycotin, or vicodin, drugs that give you better highs than marijuana some people say... and their availability? Children can find them in their parents medicine cabnet. Maybe we should just make ingesting anything substance other than food illegal. That would solve all our problems right???

No I didn't know that you are 20 but thanks for telling me. I'm 40 FWIW.

Marijuana is as accessible as it needs to be. The current laws to jackshit to prevent people from obtaining it. And who cares if marijuana use even doubled after legalizing... marijuana use fluctuates all the time!!! Why do you worry about a small increase? Marijuana use DOUBLED over the past decade, while funding to eraticate it TRIPLED. Alcohol use never fluctuates over 10%. Since it's legal... its use appears to be very stable.

Ok, the problem with your arguement I'm seeing is your putting everything on this sad gateway theory. Marijuana is just one of dozens of intoxicating substances. If marijuana didn't exist, your gateway theory would point to whatever illegal drug that was most widely used. Just to let you know, I know more people who started of of painkillers to go on to harder drugs than marijuana. Yeah, have you ever heard of oxycotin, or vicodin, drugs that give you better highs than marijuana some people say... and their availability? Children can find them in their parents medicine cabnet. Maybe we should just make ingesting anything substance other than food illegal. That would solve all our problems right???

No I'm not putting everything on the gateway theory at all.

One thing about you that I appreciate is that you differentiate between legalizing ALL drugs which is an insane idea and leglizing or decriminalizing weed which is an idea worth considering. But try to think it as a police chief or as a person who cleans up after traffic accidents or as a parent of 8 kids or as a child trying to walk across the street, not just as a 20 yearold. Then it is a little less easy.

I agree that it is wrong to fill the prisons with people for having a bag of weed. It seems wierd to me that a weed that you could grow in your garden next to your tomatos is illegal and can cost you your house and car, though in practice it almost seems legal. I think speculation about human nature is not a very accurate science and the only thing to do is actually try it as a social experiment in the US. I'm surprised at how far we seem to be from doing that when we bring the hammer down on Canada for suggesting they might decriminalize the stuff.

those people who are predisposeed to using drugs but who didn't use pot because it's illegal will still not use harder drugs if they remain illegal

LOL! Since when do potheads...you for example...care about abiding by drug laws???

Since you didn't argue with my supposition that a much HIGHER percentage of people who smoke pot later try hard drugs than do people who drink alcohol, I can only assume that you don't dispute it. Wise move. ;-)

No, my argument is that if you're really worried about gateways you'll want to close them all---but if gateways are just an excuse then you won't.

I guess I'm missing something here. Are you suggesting that I don't believe pot is a gateway drug? LOL. WRONG. Despite your "research" I have absolutely NO DOUBT about it. Neither do the cops I talk to that have to deal with the societal effects of drugs on a daily basis. They would simply roll their eyes and dismiss your idiotic "research" as the nonsense it truly is.

You know a pothead is backed into a corner when they start getting hysterical, stomping their feet and whining "Alcohol! What about alcohol!?" So, booze is really bad which means you want to make it illegal? And your answer is, "Ummm, NO! I want to keep big bad booze perfectly legal...and let's make pot legal while we're at it, too!" LOL Wow. Is that how one's mind works in a drug-induced stupor? I'll repeat this for you so maybe it will sink in through the smoky haze. I'm not here to defend alcohol. I don't drink, so if you think you're going to scare me by suggesting that perhaps alcohol should be illegal because it's no better than pot, GUESS AGAIN. Alcohol could be made illegal tomorrow and it wouldn't effect me in the slightest as long as I live. You're going to have to take your silly alcohol argument and find someone that will actually listen. Alcohol has indeed been the cause of many problems in society. Legalizing pot will not help that in any shape, manner, or form.

Here's your problem if you want to be frank. You are more interested in legalizing your vice than to see what you consider an even more dangerous vice be made illegal. Simply put, you care not what is best for society, but only what will satisy your selfish desires. Yes, it's natural for people to think of #1 before anyone else. And this is why we have laws.

I guess there a a few people who argue more legalization of marijuana becuase they want to use it without the hassles of it being illegal.

But what we're saying that doesn't seem to sink into your head. Our entire platform states legalized marijuana would be far preferable to illegal marijuana. There really isn't way to prove it, but it's a fact that if marijuana was legalized tomorrow, there would be less deaths every year from the crazed drug war.

I also understand that this issue must seem crazy for you. Whenever you hear people arguing in favor of legalzing. But trust me, it's not because we (non-drug using legalization supporters) support self destructive behavior, but that we honestly believe less people would killed, hurt, and positive steps can be taken to minimize many of the health problems we have today. At least you can understand it would be much easier for drug addicts to recieve the help they need when their addiction wasn't illegal.

If pot is legal and even MORE accessible even MORE people who are predisposed to drug use will become hard drug addicts.

those people who are predisposed to using drugs but who didn't use pot because it's illegal will still not use harder drugs if they remain illegal

LOL! Since when do potheads...you for example...

I use no drugs, including the deadly addictive drugs alcohol and tobacco.

care about abiding by drug laws???

YOU claimed (in the text I quote above) that illegality was keeping some people from smoking pot. Having trouble keeping your argument straight?

Since you didn't argue with my supposition that a much HIGHER percentage of people who smoke pot later try hard drugs than do people who drink alcohol, I can only assume that you don't dispute it.

Wrong. Which part of "Proof by 'you're sure.' Very impressive." did you not understand? Your "supposition" stands unsupported by any evidence and is thus worthless.

Alcohol has indeed been the cause of many problems in society. Legalizing pot will not help that in any shape, manner, or form.

But by your "logic" banning alcohol would help that---yet you hypocritically refuse to support the banning of alcohol.

We can circle the MJ bush as many times as you like.

YOU claimed (in the text I quote above) that illegality was keeping some people from smoking pot. Having trouble keeping your argument straight?

No. Not at all. Perhaps you're having a little difficulty keeping up. Shall I type slower? People who smoke pot illegally now have proven they are not concerned with remaining within the law, therefore it's ludicrous for you to suggest that if we'd just make pot legal, then the potheads wouldn't be criminals and they wouldn't do drugs that would still be illegal. Also, somone who was reluctant to do pot because of it being illegal, will be more likely to use it if it becomes legal. What then? You hope that they will stay away from other drugs that are still illegal? Foolhardy. Look at what is happening in Canada with the decrim of pot. Prices and crime are expected to rise. LOL. And here I thought decrim and legalization was supposed to take care of all that. Why would prices increase? MORE DEMAND, PERIOD. Then again, I guess your philosophy is "fine, let's have a bunch more people stoned on pot, cuz tobacco and alcohol are legal, by gum!" Yeah, that's the ticket. Good grief.

So you disagree that a HIGHER percentage of people who smoke pot move on to harder drugs than do people drink alcohol? LOL Do you REALLY want to stick with that story? Please make my day and say "yes!"

you hypocritically refuse to support the banning of alcohol.

I'm the hypocrite??? What a hoot. You decry the "deadly addictive" booze and cigarettes, then turn around and want pot legalized??? YOU, sir, are the hypocrite. I was wondering why it took you so long to bring the cigarette strawman into the discussion after using the alcohol argument. Doesn't the "handback for legalizing pot arguments" suggest a little quicker response time? Sorry, I don't use tobacco products either, so you'll just have to keep scrambling for SOMETHING! Has Burgers and Fries made it to the list of "deadly addictive" drugs in your little handback there? I confess. I do occassionally eat fast food! Shall we return to reality now are or you content to continue to live in la-la land? Clearly, the genies are out of the bottle (pun intended) in regards to alcohol and cigarettes. I'm not prepared to criminalize behavior (drinking a glass of wine) that Christ was "guilty" of. Yes, alcohol has been abused. Yes, that should be illegal. As for cigs, I have no problem with further restrictions. Perhaps the process of chemically altering or treating tobacco to make it more harmful or addictive should be outlawed. I also believe in stricter enforcement of current laws, especially those involving minors.

Now then, I am STILL waiting for your response on how legalizing pot makes the problems of alcohol and tobacco any better whatsoever? WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER, SIR?

Secondly, let's play devil's advocate here for a bit. If you want pot legalized, please tell me why cocaine should remain illegal.

it's ludicrous for you to suggest that if we'd just make pot legal, then the potheads wouldn't be criminals and they wouldn't do drugs that would still be illegal.

I never suggested that.

Also, somone who was reluctant to do pot because of it being illegal, will be more likely to use it if it becomes legal. What then? You hope that they will stay away from other drugs that are still illegal? Foolhardy.

No, completely rational---those that avoid breaking the law, avoid breaking the law.

Look at what is happening in Canada with the decrim of pot. Prices and crime are expected to rise.

That's not what IS happening, but what SOME people PREDICT. Have any actual facts?

So you disagree that a HIGHER percentage of people who smoke pot move on to harder drugs than do people drink alcohol?

I have seen no evidence for it.

You decry the "deadly addictive" booze and cigarettes

No, I merely note that I don't use them.

Yes, alcohol has been abused. Yes, that should be illegal.

How would we enforce a ban on abuse but not use? And why ban only abuse of alcohol but ALL use of other drugs?

As for cigs, I have no problem with further restrictions.

Still less than the TOTAL restrictions on other drugs (which, according to research cited by the Institute of Medicine, are less addictive than tobacco).

I am STILL waiting for your response on how legalizing pot makes the problems of alcohol and tobacco any better whatsoever?

I never claimed it would.

If you want pot legalized, please tell me why cocaine should remain illegal.

It shouldn't.

Keep spinning, sir, and pretty soon you'll be a human tornado. You can try to twist and turn all you want and pretend that pot is not a gateway drug and those who didn't smoke pot when it was illegal won't do harder drugs should they start smoking pot if it were to become legal.

When you smoke pot, you've broken a barrier, so it's somehow easier to do the next thing down the line. Only with drugs, you don't progress into something better, you progress into something more dangerous and harmful. Actual studies done by rational, logical people DO show that if you smoke pot, you're more likely to try things like crystal meth or cocaine or heroin. Not only is marijuana dangerous in its own right, it also screws up your judgement, making you more likely to use other drugs. A gateway drug, like pot, breaks down a psychological barrier against doing other drugs. Once you've crossed the line with a gateway drug, you're more likely to go there with other drugs, too. Gateway drugs also impair your judgement. If you're high, it's easier to say yes to cocaine or whatever else is around. These drugs break down your inhibitions, so you're more susceptible to peer pressure or experimenting. And they don't just impair your judgement when you're on them-these drugs can change the way you feel about drugs in general, putting you on a really ugly path that'll get you in trouble and make you quite unhappy. With impaired judgment and that "barrier" crossed with pot, the fact that other drugs are illegal will certainly have a lessened effect on someone with access to the drugs. This, sir, is why ALL drugs, INCLUDING POT, need to remain illegal. Besides, if things were run your way, your imaginery belief that people who didn't do pot until it becomes legal won't do harder drugs that are still illegal is moot. You want ALL drugs legalized, right?

Now then, in studies I have looked at alcohol use by children and young adolescents DOES serve as a precursor to and predictor of future use of illicit drugs, while alcohol use that begins after the age of 16 does NOT appear to be linked directly with use of other illicit drugs.

This is why it is ENTIRELY consistent and NOT hypocritical to suggest that POT should remain illegal and alcohol need not be made illegal BUT USE BY MINORS MUST BE DEALT WITH SERIOUSLY. Several studies have found that, if society can prevent an individual from using any of the gateway drugs until age 21, the chances are 93-7 that that person will not use illicit drugs OR use alcohol in a high-risk manner.

The most hypocritical stance of all is to complain about the "deadly drugs of tobacco and alcohol" and then turn around and say "all drugs should be legalized". As you yourself admitted, making pot, heroin, and cocaine legal will do NOTHING to address the problems of alcohol and tobacco. Indeed you will have created many more problems.

Perhaps this simple logic will escape you as well. Drug use should remain illegal because IT IS WRONG. Period.

Now then, in studies I have looked at

Did these studies have titles and authors?

alcohol use by children and young adolescents DOES serve as a precursor to and predictor of future use of illicit drugs, while alcohol use that begins after the age of 16 does NOT appear to be linked directly with use of other illicit drugs.

So we can suppose either that there is some mysterious never-identified biochemical "gateway" mechanism that disappears at adulthood---or recognize that those predisposed to use drugs will typcally have managed to use them by age 16.

If what you say is true, then both alcohol and marijuana are "gateways" in youth but not adulthood---so how do you figure that one should be legal and the other illegal?

The most hypocritical stance of all is to complain about the "deadly drugs of tobacco and alcohol" and then turn around and say "all drugs should be legalized".

As I already explained to you, it's not a "complaint" but an observation; I consistently support the legality of all recreational substances, including the deadly and addictive ones.

Mysterious??? That is quite hilarious. Perhaps you need to go re-read my previous post. There is NOTHING "mysterious" about it. I would agree with you that those who are predisposed to using drugs will start sooner than those that aren't. Again, this is so obvious that it's ridiculous to even have to say it. Then again, I'm getting used to having to state the obvious in this discussion.

If what you say is true, then both alcohol and marijuana are "gateways" in youth but not adulthood---so how do you figure that one should be legal and the other illegal?

You are the one making the assumption that pot does not serve as a gateway drug for adults. I don't concede that point. Again, a line has to be drawn somewhere. I'm not going to call for criminalizing an adult drinking a glass of wine (as Christ did on occassion). Public intoxication IS a crime and should remain so. You can drink alcohol without getting drunk, but the idea of smoking dope IS to get stoned. This puts pot in the same category as cocaine, heroin, crank, etc. These are all self-destructive substances that can't be used "responsibly". Despite the fact that some people abuse alcohol it CAN be used responsibly. Those that do abuse it SHOULD be penalized appropriately. I had a brother killed by a drunk driver, so believe me, I'm not "soft" on booze.

it's not a "complaint" but an observation; I consistently support the legality of all recreational substances, including the deadly and addictive ones.

And you are consistenly wrong. And your statement about your "observation" is quite revealing. In an effort to justify your position of wanting ALL drugs legalized you set up alcohol and tobacco as these horrible "deadly addictive" substances. You identified these as a problem. And your solution? None whatsoever. Nada. Nothing. Zilch. In other words, you really have no concern about how deadly or addictive these drugs are. It's just a convenient argument. Simply put, it's a pathetic attempt to rationalize legalizing drugs. You should be ashamed of yourself for your callous attitude and lack of regard for your fellow citizen. Yes, they are serious problems, and they DO need to be addressed. I have already stated (numerous times) some measures that should be taken. In the meantime, pick an argument and stick with it, instead of jumping from one to another. If you want to discuss the effects of alcohol and tobacco on society, FINE! Let's talk about that and what should be done. But you really don't want to talk about that do you? Because you really don't care, do you? Your attitude seems to be one of "hey, I'm not abusing these, so WHO CARES about those who are?!". Your REAL argument is that you want ALL drugs to be freely and legally abused. So let's cut to the chase, shall we? See if you can form an argument of WHY cocaine, heroin, crank, LSD, etc should be freely and legally available WITHOUT using alcohol and tobacco in your reasoning.

There is NOTHING "mysterious" about it.

Then what is the biochemical mechanism? Or is there none---in which case, what exactly is the dreaded "gateway"? And why does the research YOU claim to have seen show the "gateway" closing by age 21?

You are the one making the assumption that pot does not serve as a gateway drug for adults.

YOU are the one who claims to have seen evidence that "if society can prevent an individual from using any of the gateway drugs until age 21, the chances are 93-7 that that person will not use illicit drugs OR use alcohol in a high-risk manner." So where is the "gateway" for adults?

the idea of smoking dope IS to get stoned. This puts pot in the same category as cocaine, heroin, crank, etc. These are all self-destructive substances that can't be used "responsibly".

You haven't proved "can't be"---merely "aren't." And criminalization of a substance encourages irresponsible use; how many people during Prohibition went to a speakeasy and had just one glass of wine?

you set up alcohol and tobacco as these horrible "deadly addictive" substances. You identified these as a problem. And your solution? None whatsoever.

Correct---most of life's problems have no governmental solution.

You should be ashamed of yourself for your callous attitude and lack of regard for your fellow citizen.

Thanks for outing yourself as a bleeding-heart liberal.

If you want to discuss the effects of alcohol and tobacco on society, FINE! Let's talk about that and what should be done.

What should be done? Nothing governmental.

See if you can form an argument of WHY cocaine, heroin, crank, LSD, etc should be freely and legally available WITHOUT using alcohol and tobacco in your reasoning.

There is no sound basis for the restriction you want to impose on my argument. Here it is:

Relegalizing drugs would reduce the following effects of the War On Some Drugs: deaths of innocents in drug-turf wars; deaths of users due to impurities or unexpectedly high potencies; enrichment of criminals; corruption of the justice system by enriched criminals; and lessened respect for the law in general.

Not to mention upholding the principle that adults should be free to make their own non-rights-violating choices (even if the choices they make are stupid).

Then what is the biochemical mechanism? Or is there none---in which case, what exactly is the dreaded "gateway"? And why does the research YOU claim to have seen show the "gateway" closing by age 21?

Once again I refer you to my previous post. Since you didn't re-read it, I'll quote myself: "When you smoke pot, you've broken a barrier, so it's somehow easier to do the next thing down the line. Only with drugs, you don't progress into something better, you progress into something more dangerous and harmful. Actual studies done by rational, logical people DO show that if you smoke pot, you're more likely to try things like crystal meth or cocaine or heroin. Not only is marijuana dangerous in its own right, it also screws up your judgement, making you more likely to use other drugs. A gateway drug, like pot, breaks down a psychological barrier against doing other drugs. Once you've crossed the line with a gateway drug, you're more likely to go there with other drugs, too. Gateway drugs also impair your judgement. If you're high, it's easier to say yes to cocaine or whatever else is around. These drugs break down your inhibitions, so you're more susceptible to peer pressure or experimenting. And they don't just impair your judgement when you're on them-these drugs can change the way you feel about drugs in general, putting you on a really ugly path that'll get you in trouble and make you quite unhappy. With impaired judgment and that "barrier" crossed with pot, the fact that other drugs are illegal will certainly have a lessened effect on someone with access to the drugs."

I really don't know how more obvious the "gateway" effect can be. It's right there for everyone to see. Unless, of course, someone refuses to see it. Again, it's nothing "mysterious" or "biochemical". It's easily explained and understood human nature. What about this aren't you getting? Shall we do a study to see if people that shoplift are more likely to move on to other acts of theft than people who don't? No, I'm sure we wouldn't find any "gateway" there either. LOL

Again, this is a side issue in which you try to derail the discusssion from getting to the main point. In reality, you could care less about "gateways". It makes no difference to you. You want ALL DRUGS LEGALIZED, PERIOD. Please don't waste my time anymore with these silly, moot arguments that in the end are meaningless to your main objective.

most of life's problems have no governmental solution

Of course that is true, but government should at least not be part of the problem.

Thanks for outing yourself as a bleeding-heart liberal.

LOL! Fine. If not wanting to see people destroy their lives makes me a "lib", so be it. Of course you are 100% wrong again. I guess in your world there are pure Libertarians who would put no restrictions on adults rights, while everyone else is a "bleeding-heart liberal". Whatever. While I do believe in as much personal freedom as possible, I also believe every right has its limitations. The counter-balance to rights is responsibility. There are certain self-destructive actions that simply should not be legal. Perhaps your ideal utopian society is a "value-free" one with no moral or ethical standards to base its foundation on. Mine is based upon the Judeo-Christian tradition, such as this country is. This provides a moral "anchor" for a society to base itself upon. Part of that tradition is that life is a gift from the Creator. While personal liberty is to be protected and preserved by a society for its citizens, society also has a right to set minimal standards of acceptable behavior for its citizens. You obviously disagree. Fine. I will put my Judeo-Christian society up against your value-less society and watch mine survive long after yours has crumbled from within.

I can't help but note your hypocritical statement of calling me a "bleeding-heart liberal" because I have concern for other citizens. Then, when you make your argument of why drugs should be legalized, your top 2 reasons concern the well-being of other citizens. Nice try. We both know you have no concern for your fellow citizens well-being (God forbid someone accuse you of being one of those "bleeding-heart liberals").

Again, let's just clear all of this other rubbish out of the way and get to the main point. You believe that government should have absolutely no say whatsoever in somoene's private behavior. Anything goes, right? I happen to disagree, and this is where differ fundamentally. Whether pot is a gateway drug or not isn't going to alter your position in the least bit, now is it?

Yes, it's absolutely true, around 90% of pot smokers use it responsibly. Obviously your definition of "responsibly" isn't on the ball. I will give you this... someone who doesn't smoke marijuana has made a better choice than someone who does.

Source for that statistic came from a book I recently read. I forgot the name of the book, but if you don't trust me I'll stop by the library and check it out again.

Tell me this, what's irresponsible about someone smoking a joint of marijuana, once a week in their home? Over half of America's pot smokers use it less than 4 times a month.

No, I haven't demonized a "mere plant". Drug abusers have demonized and abused plants (coca leaves, poppies, hemp) not me.

Huh? Ok drug abusers abuse drugs... well... yeah you're right there I guess... but your wrong when you say you haven't demonized this plant. You want our Government to continue to spend over 20 billion dollars a year putting people in jail for growing it... and arresting people who simply possess it! What we should do is make plants like daffodils, mistletoe, elderberry illegal. They all have killed numerous people...your logic would say yes?

I'll keep making the sexual analogies. Please tell me one way we can get teens to stop having sex before they are married. The answer is that we can't but condoning it is obviously not the solution.

Well, again there's a problem with your sexual analogy. You're equating legalization as condoning drug use. I've heard this arguement before... "We don't need to be sending messages to our children that marijuana use is ok."

Legalization, without any guide-lines may be condoning... but we would never sell this stuff to children. Not even Holland allows children into their cannabis cafes. Legalizing marijuana would save the US Government over 20 billion dollars a year. 20 billion would be enough for the government to pay for drug tests for every child 8 - 17 years old the entire US, twice a week, while still have around 10 billion left over.

Obviously this sounds nuts right? Drug testing every child in America; but then isn't spending twice that, and not accomplishing anything even more nuts?

Anyway, through proper restrictions, school courses, and advertising, it could be made very clear that these policy changes are not in any way encouraging people to try drugs.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.