Posted on 09/05/2006 8:16:10 AM PDT by tang0r
Generally, there are two types of marijuana users. First is the most commonly stereotyped “stoner,” depicted in the media of movies (e.g. Spicoli from Fast Times at Ridgemont High) and television (e.g. Shaggy from Scooby Doo). These are the dead-end job, ambitionless abusers who ingest marijuana to escape their already dismal lives. They represent the image which is most often associated with marijuana use. Certainly, the average American high school is teeming with similar directionless pot-smoking losers, further cementing this public perception.
(Excerpt) Read more at prometheusinstitute.net ...
> When your supplier also peddles his wares into my kids or grandkids hands, it is my business what you do.
Wait. So, if the local gun dealer sells guns to my kids, I lose the right to no unreasonable search and seizure? My second amendment rights go away?
> Society, yes even free ones like this, depend on basic laws and societal standards to exist.
Indeed. And we as a society have determined that there is an appropriate age for guns, smokes and booze, and that sellign to those below that age is illegal... but that this does not mean that those above that age are automatically assumed criminals.
What's wrogn with using the same sort of laws for pot as we have for booze... and vice versa?
Also, I have to doubt those numbers. Kids aren't honest about their pot use. It's more rampant than you think. And the statement that pot use leads to other drug use is also true, for a whole variety of reasons stated by others on this thread, not because it makes you crave other drugs.
It does make you more open minded towards them, plus they are there available among the pot user's peer group, and the peer pressure to try them is always there. Many drug fatalities occur from first time use of meth, the next socially acceptable drug up from pot. Smoke some pot, do a few navel shots, and their goes their inhibitions.
> 750,000 marijuana arrests last year.
And how many of these arrests were for, say, driving under the influence of pot, as opposed to being arrested for simply having the stuff? I suspect rather more of the latter than the former.
If pot had the same legal status as booze, that would mean driving stoned would still be illegal.... but it would not longer be a crime to have a joint - or a barn full of the stuff.
> I know you'd like us all to think that marijuana users are bothering no one
Who are pot smokers bothering, compared to the carnage inflicted upon society by the booze drinkers?
"Keeping teens away from illegal soft drugs (marijuana, Ecstacy, nitrous, GHB, etc.) helps to keep them away from illegal hard drugs."
Of course, there's an obvious corollary of that argument that comes to mind: Legalizing common soft drugs could help keep teens (and others) away from the hard drugs.
What about all the posters who are telling me that alcohol causes more violence than pot? That's not my definition of "more social". Seems to me that pot would be more social -- everyone sitting around, sharing joints, mellowing out.
Maybe you mean alcohol is a more socially accepted drug. That I can agree with.
It's legal (for adults) which implies a societal acceptance -- society saying that it's bad but not that bad. Making marijuana legal would send the same message to teens.
Currently, 30% of all marijuana users are underage. With legalization, that percentage is likely to rise. What are the benefits of legalization when close to half the users are still illegal?
No, like our standards before 1937.
Silly argument. First, it's illegal to sell guns to kids, and if the police have reasonable grounds to execute a warrant to search your house because of your kids stupidity then they may do so.
It's not you they will be charging, although I think they should since you are the kids parent, and are supposed to have him under your supervision and control. They won't however.
They also won't seize your guns unless they are unlawful, stored improperly, and accessible to your kid. I'm not sure about that last one, but you should loose your guns if you can't take proper care and responsibility of them.
Ah, you saw right through me, Bobby.
I asked a question. What you're not "into" is answers.
You mean back when the Constitution wasn't a "living document"?
Yeah, guns ... drugs... geez, how can someone be for one and not the other? Or, against one but not the other? Bunch of hypocrites, huh?
This is America, dagnubbit! If guns are legal then, by golly, everything is legal. It's right there in the Constitution, plain as day -- drugs "shall not be infringed".
Like booze and tobacco, there are limits as to how much of the stuff you are allowed to have in your possesion.As far as driving under the influence of pot, the only reason their aren't more arrests is because there aren't any tests for them currently. but watch out, it's coming. many states are looking at blood sample on demand laws.
Who are pot smokers bothering, compared to the carnage inflicted upon society by the booze drinkers?
Pot users do bother a lot of people. They cause property damage, get in car accidents, are loud and obnoxious, play loud music in the middle of the night, etc etc. In short, they do everything annoying that you accuse drinking parties of, and in fact are most often part of the same party. So how can you separate the two? Kids + pot + booze + cars + loud radio's +large numbers = bothersome, dangerous, annoying, rude, and often are deadly as well.
Not all pot users sit in their basement listening to AC/DC, just the old, washed up has been's do that.
"Just imagine what legal TV ads will do."
It doesn't have to be advertised.
> Silly argument.
It's YOUR arguement. Remember, you wrote: "When your supplier also peddles his wares into my kids or grandkids hands, it is my business what you do."
You are claiming that pot smokers should be arrested because some pot dealers will sell to kids. Replace "pot" with any other object or subtance that children shouldn't have.
"When your alcohol supplier also peddles his wares into my kids or grandkids hands, it is my business what you do."
"When your tobacco supplier also peddles his wares into my kids or grandkids hands, it is my business what you do."
"When your gun supplier also peddles his wares into my kids or grandkids hands, it is my business what you do."
There is already a legal rememdy for each and every one of these "horrible" things---why does pot's legal status enter into the equation at all?
Like we know? We have a Breathalyzer for pot?
And if they tested positive for marijuana, you'd be bitchin' and moanin' about how marijuana stays in the system for days and they weren't really impaired and all that liberal whining ACLU bull.
"Who are pot smokers bothering, compared to the carnage inflicted upon society by the booze drinkers?"
And that's just not right! Let's legalize maruijuana and get those numbers UP, dammit!
You don't think that it wouldn't be if it were legalized? Dream on. The real question would be if that was a truthful statement. Smoking pot is just as bad as smoking cigarettes, there is still tar, monoxides and hundreds of other toxins in pot that come along with the THC.
You ask the same (previously answered specifically to you) and you argue everything anyone says regardless are how many facts and sources are posted in your behalf.
Several other posters and I have posted numerous such evidence and all you reply with is questions proving your inability to read.
I'm not criticizing your approach. I am not in the mood for it.
>>"And how many of these arrests were for, say, driving under the influence of pot"
> Like we know?
So... you use statistics you don't understand. I see.
Pot will never be legal in a socialized country with cars, but fines for not wearing a seatbelt and for drunk driving will keep going up.
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.