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 ...
> Like booze and tobacco, there are limits as to how much of the stuff you are allowed to have in your possesion.
There are limits to how much booze you can own? I've never heard that. So much for wine cellars, I suppose.
> In short, they do everything annoying that you accuse drinking parties of...
Like get into lethal fist/knife/gun fights?
Why should it? It's illegal, so therefore being under the influence of an illegal substance is an offence as well.
Even if it were legal, I would expect driving under the influence offences to just the same for pot as they are for booze.
Ramming into somebody while driving stoned and crippling them for life or killing them should land you in jail just as drinking and driving does.
In fact, many trucking co.'s have manditory testing for drugs, even the slightist amount of THC will cost you a job at them, and that's fine with me. many life insurance companies will not insure you if you test positive for THC.
Could be that instead of 10% of 5 million illegal marijuana users going on to hard drugs, we'd have only 5% of 10 million legal marijuana users going on to hard drugs.
Would you support the legalization of all soft drugs?
Obviously, in the case of wine cellars, the limits are generous, or, those laws aren't enforced. Tobacco amounts aren't as liberal.
Nothing says "living document" like the statement, "I have a constitutional right to do drugs".
You mean back when the Constitution wasn't a living document?
I'm thinking nashville calls:
"Don't let the potheads ruin freedom,
Don't let the stoners wreck our lives,
Don't let the potheads ruin freedom,
Let's just cancel Amendments one thru five!"
25 million Americans have illegally smoked pot in the past year, and 15 million in the past month. A few hopeful posters here to the contrary, we don't (yet) have the national mentality to actually prosecute this and send all these people to prison.
So we continue to do what's been failing for decades. The few traffickers we catch go to prison, a few hundred thousand particularly unlucky or stupid users who get caught usually get off with community service and court costs, and the other 24.5 million dopers break the law and discover that nothing happens.
This is the death of our foundational laws and standards. Not lack of law, but surfeit of law such that people learn empirically that the law is BS.
I should have answered none. If they were arrested for driving under the influence of pot, that would fall under the category of "driving under the influence". The 750,000 arrests were for possession or dealing. I would bet only a handful of users were arrested in the privacy of their home. How many do you think fall into that category?
Or worse, like shoot their wife and her brother, then themselves in front of his 2, 4 and 8 year old kids. Just harmless pot smokers/dealers all. No booze was involved at all in that case. I wonder what effect that will have on those kids, especially the oldest one, who always saw his parents sitting around smoking "harmless weed" from the day he was born.
To say that pot smokers are generally harmless, mellowed out giggling goofballs is B.S. They have to deal with the same things life throws at them as everyone else. Cases like the one above show that they are in fact less able to do so.
As for children/babies exposed to second hand dope smoke during those first years of rapid brain development, who knows what effect it has on them.
Who is going to admit to doing that study? Kid's who grow up in those kinds of enviroments have their problems blamed on other things, one seems to be A.D.D. Give them some ritalin and all is well.
That's what I'm asking you---why should it? Does it make a difference whether the intoxicated driver who smashed into my car is high on oxycontin, cocaine, or marijuana?
Just continue to generalize about "facts" and "sources" you "and others" have posted "numerous" times, and if I question your post it's conclusive evidence to you that ... I can't read.
You are the kind of person that makes this forum what it is, that's for sure. When you're ready to post something of some worth, let me know.
> The 750,000 arrests were for possession or dealing.
Then the statistic is entirely meaningless when comparing pot to booze, as booze is legal. If the government declared tomorrow that the possession of purple shirts was illegal, a lot of people would get arrested, but that would say nothing about the actual danger of purple shirts.
"Could be that instead of 10% of 5 million illegal marijuana users going on to hard drugs, we'd have only 5% of 10 million legal marijuana users going on to hard drugs."
Who knows? Maybe less, maybe more. This is all supposition and speculation with little if anything to back it up.
"Would you support the legalization of all soft drugs?"
Possibly. Define "soft drugs." MJ, and what else? LSD? Ecstasy? Mushrooms? What's the dividing line between "hard" drugs and "soft" drugs? How addictive they are? None of the latter 3 are known to be addictive in the classic sense of the word. I would actually argue that MJ is mildly addictive, in as much as there are mild withdrawl symptoms when chronic users stop. Mostly the "addiction" is psychological, to the high. Actually I believe that is true of most drugs, with the exception of alcohol, where for alcoholics sudden withdrawl can have very nasty effects.
So, to answer your question, yes, I probably would support the legalization of all "soft" drugs. In theory I support legalization of all drugs, but I'm not so sure about how it would work out, especially with our modern culture of drug-taking. I mean, up until the later 1800s or so, most all drugs were freely available in multiple forms to anyone who wanted them and could pay. But then there were also many people who were addicted to laudunum, cocaine, and so on that was contained in many patent remedies.
Nothing says "living document" like the statement, "I have a constitutional right to do drugs".
> Or worse, like shoot their wife and her brother, then themselves in front of his 2, 4 and 8 year old kids.
Sounds like your average booze-soaked episode of "Cops."
There's a reason why somebody going buggo while stoned is newsworthy. Somebody going buggo while drunk or tweaking on meth... not newsworthy. All too common.
Subtitle: "Why We Should Shill for George Soros"
> It's right there in the Constitution, plain as day -- drugs "shall not be infringed".
Yes. It's the 21st amendment. Passed when they realized what an unutterable disaster the War On Booze was. Far less of a disaster than the War On Drugs, of course.
You do have some valid points there. I don't know why so many people feel the need to be high or drunk to have a good time. Personally I can't stand wasting my time talking to a drunk. I hate the fights and tears. My father owned bars and I learned early to avoid drunks, mainly him. I have seen the ugliness come out in drunks. You made a point about heroin use and needles. You don't need a needle to use and become addicted to it, just a straw or a dollar bill. Heroin has become a cheap drug and in my town there are many teens using it. We have many people dying from it and ruining their lives. Such a shame.
Ok, how about this. Owning a firearm Pot is illegal unless you buy a license to use it. To get a license for personal use only, you pay 30,000 a year. That way only the high achievers can get it and the rednecks pot heads won't get guns it legally.
Here's a better idea: I won't bother you about what's in your stash if you don't bother me about what's in my gun safe. We'll each pretend that the other is an adult and able to make decisions on his own.
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.