The fact that this has to come to the supreme court under the guise of medical usage is so juvenile. Any body out there who has actually smoked marijuana think it should remain illegal? This seem like one of the silliest enforced laws on the book in a free country where alcohol and tobbaco consumption is perfectly legal, and caffeine consumption is accepted as mainstream as mom and apple pie.

The fact that this has to come to the supreme court under the guise of medical usage is so juvenile. Any body out there who has actually smoked marijuana think it should remain illegal? This seem like one of the silliest enforced laws on the book in a free country where alcohol and tobbaco consumption is perfectly legal, and caffeine consumption is accepted as mainstream as mom and apple pie.

most of them are on it all the time anyway

I burned enough joints from 13-35 to know it would be a very bad idea to make it legal. Cant bunch booze with cigs and coffee. Smoke a joint and eye drops and a mint and you can maintain with pratice but you will be a hazard on the road,operating machery and so on. I have enough friends that smoked as i did that totally agree.

The fact that this has to come to the supreme court under the guise of medical usage is so juvenile. Any body out there who has actually smoked marijuana think it should remain illegal? This seem like one of the silliest enforced laws on the book in a free country where alcohol and tobbaco consumption is perfectly legal, and caffeine consumption is accepted as mainstream as mom and apple pie.

Can you state the argument in terms of a universal priniciple, such as "substances that do not threaten death or serious bodily injury, nor are physically addictive to most users, shall not be prohibited"? I don't know if that is perfect, but I'd like to see some other versions. I think that would be a good start toward credibility on the issue.

Doug

I burned enough joints from 13-35 to know it would be a very bad idea to make it legal. Cant bunch booze with cigs and coffee. Smoke a joint and eye drops and a mint and you can maintain with pratice but you will be a hazard on the road,operating machery and so on. I have enough friends that smoked as i did that totally agree.

I have never understood this perspective. Who says because something is legal it should be legal under all situations? I would assume you are for a return to prohibition given the hazard alcohol involves "on the road, operating machinery and so on"?

Can you state the argument in terms of a universal priniciple, such as "substances that do not threaten death or serious bodily injury, nor are physically addictive to most users, shall not be prohibited"? I don't know if that is perfect, but I'd like to see some other versions. I think that would be a good start toward credibility on the issue.

Doug

How about "use of substances shall not be prohibited"?
I don't see it as the governments job to try to prevent "death or serious bodily injury" through laws that restrict freedoms.

How about "use of substances shall not be prohibited"?
I don't see it as the governments job to try to prevent "death or serious bodily injury" through laws that restrict freedoms.

Then there should be no FDA to regulate mainstream drugs (although it's up for debate how good of a job they've been doing with that). Heroin should be legal? How about crystal meth? Do you think that everything should be legalized so that, as you say, "use of substances shall not be prohibited"? Or just marijuana? I'm not too clear on your line of reasoning and or thought about this really. Give us some more enlightenment.

Then there should be no FDA to regulate mainstream drugs (although it's up for debate how good of a job they've been doing with that). Heroin should be legal? How about crystal meth? Do you think that everything should be legalized so that, as you say, "use of substances shall not be prohibited"? Or just marijuana? I'm not too clear on your line of reasoning and or thought about this really. Give us some more enlightenment.

Yes, I guess i would propose legalizing all recreational drugs or at the very least decriminalizing them. It only creates a black market and the associated crime. Think about, if it were legal, would you necessarily be running out to get some crack right now? What stops you from being a raging drunk?

Precisely. And if you went back to prohibition, the mob will be back in business.

Precisely. And if you went back to prohibition, the mob will be back in business.

I am of the thought process that there are a lot of victimless crimes wrapped up into drug prosecutions. Like something I heard last week about federal sentencing guidelines, where a guy had something like 5-6 ounces of weed, and got tossed into prison for 50 some-odd years because he also had a gun in the house (legal registered firearm I might add). So yeah, in this case, it is a burden on society as a whole, and the legal system, and I think there are tons of cases out there like this.

Say you have some sort of illicit drugs on you. You get busted. Personal use amounts should be a small fine or something of that nature. Less than a speeding ticket, because once again, victimless crimes there.

And there is really nothing that keeps me from being a raging drunk aside from the fact that I don't like to be hungover in the mornings, or afternoons, or evenings. Then again, maybe being a raging drunk would be a good time. :D

I generally think there are bigger fish to fry and wouldn't be too worried if it were legalized. I also wouldn't use the substance, but I suspect usage would rise. An employer should still have the right to test for drugs and certain professional circles would always shun it.

That said, I don't think the case before the Supreme Court has anything to do with legalization, but rather the criminal definition in a very narrowly defined situation. The concerns prohibiting marijuana for someone with a terminal illness. It seems pretty silly to wage a drug war against cancer patients.

I generally think there are bigger fish to fry and wouldn't be too worried if it were legalized. I also wouldn't use the substance, but I suspect usage would rise. An employer should still have the right to test for drugs and certain professional circles would always shun it.

That said, I don't think the case before the Supreme Court has anything to do with legalization, but rather the criminal definition in a very narrowly defined situation. The concerns prohibiting marijuana for someone with a terminal illness. It seems pretty silly to wage a drug war against cancer patients.

I know for a fact it's *not* adictive and look at the special insights it gives me. *Thumbs up* is all I can say about legalizing it!

Yes, I guess i would propose legalizing all recreational drugs or at the very least decriminalizing them. It only creates a black market and the associated crime. Think about, if it were legal, would you necessarily be running out to get some crack right now? What stops you from being a raging drunk?
I'd think that the demarcation line would be based on the addictivity (is that even a word?) of the substance. For example, I'd think pot is less adictive than alcohol but heroin is far more adictive than alcohol.

We've discussed this before. I'm in favor of the decriminalization of the use. I'm also in favor of legalizing any naturally occuring substance. Anything manufactured using any synthetic ingredients and/or requiring 'non-natural' processes as part of the manufacture should be illegal. This would make pot and some of the opiates legal but keep the real nasty stuff (coke, crack, H, meth, etc.) illegal. The key is that the manufacture must be completely nature's kitchen.

I'm not in favor if legalizing the highly addictive, I'll blow someone away for a dollar, junk.

People can be a hazard operating machinery or driving while taking cough medicine. I don't believe that should be the criteria with which this is measured. I like many here have extensive experience with the stuff :) Purely for educational purposes, of course. I think there are other inherent problems with it's legalization.

Controlling the sale of cigarettes to minors is difficult enough. How would one control the sale of weed and or the distribution of it after the sale? What about the security of the product while it's growing? Minors would have a field day with it! (pun intended:O) Seriously I think there are a lot of issues that need to be vetted before it could possibly be considered for legalization.

Prohibition? Give it a rest. All illegal drugs are " recreational". I love when people use that. Smoke a joint,get stupit and brain block and there is,no doubt about it,lasting effect. I dont know anybody that smoked for 20 years or more and i mean a joint aday for that time and quite that wont tell you they know it has a effect on the brain,forever. Get high in the morning,go to school and you wont learn sh$t. Dont give me this booze or cigs orcoffee crap. Were are talking about smoking dope. You kids dont know what the hell your talking about.

I can only provide anecdotal evidence: Two close relatives who were diagnosed with cancer in their 20s, and are now non-users age 48 and 55, both say they couldn't have made it through chemotherapy without weed. That doesn't prove anything, but it does raise some questions. Even if they only THINK it helps, what's the problem with letting them use it? The only reason I've ever heard is "because it's a drug." ALL drugs have side effects, and many are harmful, but we ban only a few selected ones. If we could get over the hysteria and do controlled studies, maybe we could find out the truth, but the feds won't allow even that.
This whole stupid Republican-driven controversy (remember, they're the party that wants government out of our lives) reminds me of the debate over pain treatment in terminally ill patients. There are still doctors who withhold drugs because they're afraid of addiction--in people who'll be dead in a few weeks.

skok I know a few highly educated and very intelligent people- yes they are mutually exclusive- that have been smoking weed for 20 or more years and operate at a very high level. I do believe there are health risks similar to cigarette smoking, but have not seen any evidence that conclusively says it scares the brain, impairs cognitive thought or reduces brain functions. However your spelling and syntax may prove me wrong :)

People can be a hazard operating machinery or driving while taking cough medicine. I don't believe that should be the criteria with which this is measured. I like many here have extensive experience with the stuff :) Purely for educational purposes, of course. I think there are other inherent problems with it's legalization.

Controlling the sale of cigarettes to minors is difficult enough. How would one control the sale of weed and or the distribution of it after the sale? What about the security of the product while it's growing? Minors would have a field day with it! (pun intended:O) Seriously I think there are a lot of issues that need to be vetted before it could possibly be considered for legalization.



How doesn't any of that apply to alcohol? And as a minor I certainly had no trouble obtaining it anyway despite it being illegal. I just can't bring myself to see how legalizing marijuana has anymore pitfalls than the current legal liquor trade, and for my money pot is a far superior drug to alcohol with far fewer secondary consequences.

I know for a fact it's *not* adictive and look at the special insights it gives me. *Thumbs up* is all I can say about legalizing it!

It is somewhat psychologically addictive, isn't anything that gives pleasure? About as much as a great cup of coffee. If you smoke too much, you go to sleep, and wake up rested and refreshed. Heroin, cocaine, methamphetamines, nicotine and alchohol, on the other hand, are highly addictive and can kill if overdosed. They shouldn't be treated in the same class as pot, but the government is only slowly realizing that.

I find a real disconnect between the aggressive advertising for Viagra, Cialis and the like, and the repression of pot. What's the point of priming the hardware, if you aren't going to enjoy it. ;)

[QUOTE=KenB]I'd think that the demarcation line would be based on the addictivity (is that even a word?) of the substance. For example, I'd think pot is less adictive than alcohol but heroin is far more adictive than alcohol.

QUOTE]

I seem to remember learning in a psychology class that tobacco is actually one of the most addictive drugs, even more so than heroin. On the other hand, alcohol is actually relatively hard to become addicted to.

However if you look at the consequences of becoming addicted to a drug (or I guess prolonged heavy regular usage to be more accurate) alcohol is one of the most damaging.

And then there are the psychodelics like LSD and mushrooms that aren't known to have any conclusive negative consequences and are actually "anti-addictive", in that, you are less and less likely to use them over time once you've started.

As a Pepsico (Doritos,frito-lay,ect) shareholder, I say hell yes.

skok I know a few highly educated and very intelligent people- yes they are mutually exclusive- that have been smoking weed for 20 or more years and operate at a very high level. I do believe there are health risks similar to cigarette smoking, but have not seen any evidence that conclusively says it scares the brain, impairs cognitive thought or reduces brain functions. However your spelling and syntax may prove me wrong :)




You dont impress me.

How about "use of substances shall not be prohibited"?
I don't see it as the governments job to try to prevent "death or serious bodily injury" through laws that restrict freedoms.

I agree, but that's totally unrealistic. I'd love to be a pure Libertarian, but I don't really think it would work. Libertarian philosophy sort of assumes that adults are free to what they want, and that they are intelligent enough to make the right choices, as long as they don't infringe on others' rights. Sure, smoking a joint in your basement isn't really hurting anyone else, but I think far too many people would abuse the right. We already have a mess from alcohol related deaths, injuries, and other problems, which is not going to go away, so why pile on some more problems? I like the consistency argument, academically, that is, that alcohol and tobacco are legal, so why not pot, but then we have all sorts of inconsistencies in the law; consistency isn't apparently valued that much.

A good philosophy to me is prohibit the injuries to others, not the substance. In other words, prohibit drunk or high driving, not alcohol or pot. Ban only the injurious conduct. However, seeing a pot smoker going to jail and being able to sue him won't bring back my dead son who the smoker ran over while high. No doubt alcohol is bad, too, but I'd argue why *expand* the potential for harm, rather than restrict it? We know we aren't getting rid of alcohol, so no need to even go there. Let's at least limit the deaths if we can.

Nonetheless, I see absolutely no need to ban medical use; leave it up to the doctors/scientists. All sorts of drugs are controlled, but not banned. That's just stupid.

[QUOTE=KenB]I'd think that the demarcation line would be based on the addictivity (is that even a word?) of the substance. For example, I'd think pot is less adictive than alcohol but heroin is far more adictive than alcohol.

QUOTE]

I seem to remember learning in a psychology class that tobacco is actually one of the most addictive drugs, even more so than heroin. On the other hand, alcohol is actually relatively hard to become addicted to.

However if you look at the consequences of becoming addicted to a drug (or I guess prolonged heavy regular usage to be more accurate) alcohol is one of the most damaging.

And then there are the psychodelics like LSD and mushrooms that aren't known to have any conclusive negative consequences and are actually "anti-addictive", in that, you are less and less likely to use them over time once you've started.
Yeah, cigs are pretty bad. Acid and shrooms, well... more acid than shrooms, I believe that too -- way too many 'bad trip' stories.

I really sit on the fence about this stuff. The libertarian part of me is all about personal liberty and the right to kill yourself if you so choose. The pragmatist part of me sees the visible damage drug addiction (alcohol and tobbacco included) causes society. Is my wife and kid getting carjacked so some crackhead can pay for his fix worth it? Not to me. Also, I honestly don't think that legalizing the really hardcore drugs will make things better. Sure, quality will be regulated and the product taxed but the costs of all the necessary support programs will cause the taxes on the products to be so high that a black market will still form. It's like that with cigarettes now. So, in the end, well have more people addicted, committing more real crimes to support their habit in addition to the turf crime from the black market dealers. I just don't see full legalization being a good thing in the end.

... We already have a mess from alcohol related deaths, injuries, and other problems, which is not going to go away, so why pile on some more problems?...seeing a pot smoker going to jail and being able to sue him won't bring back my dead son who the smoker ran over while high...Let's at least limit the deaths if we can...

The argument, "why add another potential for harm" has been rebutted many times by pot users and controlled scientific research, like this one:

http://mojo.calyx.net/~olsen/HEMP/IHA/iha01206.html

The above study found insignificant impairment of judgement or reaction times while driving a car high, and that a small percentage of accidents, 4%, are caused by stoned drivers.

Alchohol and driving drunk is the killer. If fun seekers did pot instead of booze, the roads would acutally be safer. That's another good reason to legalize pot--as an alternative to booze. If pot were legal, teenagers wouldn't have the same motivation to drink alchohol.

Please don't get me wrong. I think cigarettes should become a drug of the past, as it is, slowly but surely. Alchohol and pot should be regulated the same: illegal to minors. I also agree with your idea that if harm is caused, it should be prosecuted, but studies have shown that this wouldn't be a big problem with pot users, especially if it were viewed as an alternative to getting drunk.

I agree, but that's totally unrealistic. I'd love to be a pure Libertarian, but I don't really think it would work. Libertarian philosophy sort of assumes that adults are free to what they want, and that they are intelligent enough to make the right choices, as long as they don't infringe on others' rights. A good philosophy to me is prohibit the injuries to others, not the substance. ..

Who profits from Pot being illegal? I just know that I've never seen a bar room brawl between two guys who just smoked a fatty, can't say the same for alcohol or the speed class of drugs.

The U.S. federal government spent $19.179 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs
(http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/03budget/index.html) . This does not include state spending which is approx. the same amount. Arrests for drug law violations in 2004 are expected to exceed the 1,579,566 arrests of 2000. I don't know what it costs to arrest, process, try, convict and then incarcerate someone but I reckon it is not cheap especially when you multiply that number by 1.6 million.

Again, what I really want to know is who profits most from "illegal" drugs, someone help me out here cause I'm at a loss. The war on drugs is a failure. Twenty plus years of money being poured into a giant black hole with no benefit to society and nothing but full prisons to show for it. Of course this a perfect segue into the parallels with the war on terror but that a whole different thread.

Who profits from Pot being illegal? I just know that I've never seen a bar room brawl between two guys who just smoked a fatty, can't say the same for alcohol or the speed class of drugs.

The U.S. federal government spent $19.179 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs
(http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/03budget/index.html) . This does not include state spending which is approx. the same amount. Arrests for drug law violations in 2004 are expected to exceed the 1,579,566 arrests of 2000. I don't know what it costs to arrest, process, try, convict and then incarcerate someone but I reckon it is not cheap especially when you multiply that number by 1.6 million.

Again, what I really want to know is who profits most from "illegal" drugs, someone help me out here cause I'm at a loss. The war on drugs is a failure. Twenty plus years of money being poured into a giant black hole with no benefit to society and nothing but full prisons to show for it. Of course this a perfect segue into the parallels with the war on terror but that a whole different thread.

The US prison population is now the largest in the world. Guess why?

http://www.charleston.net/stories/060103/wor_01jailbirds.shtml

"The new high of 2,019,234, announced by the Justice Department in April, 2003, underscores the extraordinary scale of American imprisonment compared to most of the world.

During the 1990s, the United States and Russia -- a far poorer country emerging from totalitarian rule and beset by official corruption and organized crime -- vied for the dubious position of the highest incarceration rate on the planet.

But in the last few years, Russian authorities have carried out large-scale amnesties to ease overcrowding in disease-infested prisons, and the United States has emerged unchallenged into first place, at 702 prisoners per 100,000 population. Russia now has 665 prisoners per 100,000.

United States imprisons at a far greater rate than developed Western nations and many impoverished and authoritarian countries. On a per capita basis, according to the best available figures, the United States has three times more prisoners than Iran, four times more than Poland, five times more than Tanzania and seven times more than Germany.

Bruce Western, a sociologist at Princeton University, says sentencing policies have had a glaringly disproportionate impact on black men. The Justice Department reports that one in eight black men in their 20s and early 30s were behind bars last year, compared with 1 in 63 white men. The chance of a black man going to prison in his lifetime is one in three, the department says.

For black male high school dropouts, Western says, the numbers are still worse: 41 percent of black dropouts between 22 and 30 were locked up in 1999. "I think this is one of the most important developments in race relations in the last 30 years," he says.

A major cause is the war on drugs. In 1980, says Marc Mauer, assistant director of the Sentencing Project in Washington, about 40,000 Americans were locked up for drugs-only offenses. Now the number is 450,000, three-fourths of them black or Latino, though drug use is no higher in those groups than among whites."

This is the land of the free?

Decriminalize drug usage and treat it as the health problem it is, legalize pot, and we could cut the prison population in half, if not more, by also eliminating many criminal activities surrounding the drug trade, such as petty theft, muggings, gang turf wars, etc.

Didn't know I was supposed to :)

I wouldn't have noticed - but i don't smoke any more, done my time long ago.

I personally couldn't care if they legalized every drug under the sun - in fact i would even go as far as to suggest it wise. take away the high cost and criminal element. make it cheap and readily available - most would binge before getting bored with it like they do with alcohol, and those that don't will end up ruining their lives and killing themselves anyway. It's obvious that laws are a waste of time and money and not working. People will do what they want.

I don't think i'm a rare case but I have tried every thing under the sun, at least twice and some with great commitment. I had some great times and interesting moments. Now, I don't really see the point and get my kicks from other things - Im not anti or saying it's bad, just that drugs ain't all that for me anymore. Sheet, i don't even drink any more - my Dad thinks it's not normal. But without reserve, and if a special occasion grants it so, i'll be happy to partake but grass (especially todays smelly stuff) would be the last on my list of preferences ......

I'd be more worried if I met somebody who had never smoked - some o'dem peep's are scary. Im tired of social double standards where alcohol is Ok but weed isn't - it's so righteous and conservative, out of touch and unrealistic. Yes, I have seen people waste their lives away from smoking pot, including one of my best friends but he would have found another medium to do the same - some cats just swing like that and you can't make people do anything they don't themselves wish to. everyone has a choice - not everyone is wise, that's life.

ciao

...I personally couldn't care if they legalized every drug under the sun - in fact i would even go as far as to suggest it wise. take away the high cost and criminal element. make it cheap and readily available - most would binge before getting bored with it like they do with alcohol, and those that don't will end up ruining their lives and killing themselves anyway. It's obvious that laws are a waste of time and money and not working. People will do what they want.

..and don't split hairs with moral distinctions.

I agree, legalize it all, take away the prison sentences, and with it, much of the social approbation and guilt. Drugs are taken for fun, to be social and sexy, to belong with whomever you're taking drugs with, or for solace. I haven't met a pothead or crackhead or alchoholic, who couldn't hold down a job if he tried. If some people want to throw away their lives, they'll do it with whatever drug they can get. Enlightened societies treat drug addiction as a health problem, not a moral one.

I'm not saying for pot, but legalizing heroin, cocaine...etc is going to be just as expensive as the war on drugs. Sure, we like to think most people are responsible enough for responsible use, but in reality, not many of us are. And the super-addictive stuff is just going to cost society a bunch of $$ in state-run or federally funded treatment programs.

On the other hand, we can legalize everything and let the idiots cull themselves from the herd.

I don't have much experience (smoked pot twice a loooonng time ago) but I know it's not for me. For whatever reason, it scared the crap out of me. I guess I was the one seven year old in America who Nancy Reagan got to.

People can be a hazard operating machinery or driving while taking cough medicine. I don't believe that should be the criteria with which this is measured. I like many here have extensive experience with the stuff :) Purely for educational purposes, of course. I think there are other inherent problems with it's legalization.

Controlling the sale of cigarettes to minors is difficult enough. How would one control the sale of weed and or the distribution of it after the sale? What about the security of the product while it's growing? Minors would have a field day with it! (pun intended:O) Seriously I think there are a lot of issues that need to be vetted before it could possibly be considered for legalization.



I think it should be decriminalized. There's no sense throwing more people into our already overcrowded prisons for blazing on the weekends. As a teenager now I know far more people that have gotten in trouble with alcohol than with pot. Also, I would have to say it's at least as easy for me to get weed as it is to get alcohol or tobacco.

I think if all you adults knew the amount of kids that smoke nowadays you would be shocked, it's not just the stoner kids anymore, it's jocks and nerds and everyone. There was an article in the Washingtonian magazine about it a few weeks ago. My friends and I read it and had a good laugh over it. It's a good article, you all should read it.

Washingtonian: Getting High (http://www.washingtonian.com/people/gettinghigh.html)

Through my own personal use, I honestly would say that alcohol has done me more harm than pot has. I never have a hangover after I get high, at the worst I'm tired and hungry. Studies also show that alcohol kills more brain cells than pot does. Pot's not addictive. Pot is one of those things, it's a victimless crime, at the worst it should be a ticket, but no one should be facing jail over it. If the police arrested everyone who has pot now our prison system would be so overwhelmed, much more than it is now. It just should not be a crime to smoke a bowl every now and then.

The law is poorly enforced as is, almost all of their arrests and charges for pot possesion come from other crimes, pulling someone over and searching the car or likewise. The police aren't stopping anyone from smoking, thus the law is rendered useless due to its simple ineffectiveness.

all the time. Sure there is a percentage of people who use drugs and will let it ruin them but I know just as many, and perhaps more people who have ruined their lives and those around them from otherwise "normal" daily actions ..... overeating, religion, work, gambling, getting laid, sports freaks, yes ... even us bike junkies have been know to be wreckless in what is otherwise a healthy pursuit. Anything excessive is detrimental, obsession and focus on trivial stuff will kill us all, maybe not only phyisically but spiritually and psycologicaly. Anything excessive is sapping us of our given gift of life.

People fail - we become lost with our addictions, or consumed and don't keep balance and perspective in our lives. Why should a pot head be criminal when sitting and watching soaps all day isn't legislated against. Older societies and cultures would have no use for an individual that doesn't carry their weight, is detrimental or isn't usefull to the greater whole. There were people that were not functional but literally had to shape up or ship out. Modern life when you stand back to look at it creates a lot of zombies and if each person was asked to weigh up their actions against what purpose we claim to have, then we would have either a lot of hipocrits, liars or depressed people.

Here's where I get to preach: be equanimous with thine actions, know the reason behind each thing you do, focus on what truly matters, stop and think.

Think up all the time and energy you have spent till now - what amount was directly benificial, conducive to a good life, enriching or validating your existence and rewarding in the bigger scheme of things. Don't sweat the small stuff as life is short and beautiful and many don't follow their right path so to appreciate it. I know so many people who have everything yet are without happiness and contentment. I know people with what to us amounts to nothing yet to my eyes they are with bliss for each day that dawns and gratefull to be alive.

Life is simple, only we make it complex. Ordering people to live in a certain fashion has never worked, never will. Faking righteousness doesn't make for a better society. Those that choose to fry their brains and bodies are to me the same as those who become living zombies escaping through every day nonsense - both have given up and stopped searching for meaning. But I subscribe to the idea that a little bit of something matters not and is for the most part of being a human.

Live and let live.

ciao

I agree with steam, I know a lot of very intelligent people who smoke regularly. All the studies I have seen show alcohol to killmore brain cells than pot. I have heard pot is hard on the lungs, but it is as compared to cigarettes and generally a smoker will smoke for more cigarettes in a day than someone who smokes pot. I am yet to hear any definitive scientific evidence that pot really slows down your brain function with prolonged use.

It is somewhat psychologically addictive, isn't anything that gives pleasure? About as much as a great cup of coffee. If you smoke too much, you go to sleep, and wake up rested and refreshed. Heroin, cocaine, methamphetamines, nicotine and alchohol, on the other hand, are highly addictive and can kill if overdosed. They shouldn't be treated in the same class as pot, but the government is only slowly realizing that.

I find a real disconnect between the aggressive advertising for Viagra, Cialis and the like, and the repression of pot. What's the point of priming the hardware, if you aren't going to enjoy it. ;)

You wake up rested and refreshed? What kind of BS are you smoking?

all the time. Sure there is a percentage of people who use drugs and will let it ruin them but I know just as many, and perhaps more people who have ruined their lives and those around them from otherwise "normal" daily actions ..... overeating, religion, work, gambling, getting laid, sports freaks, yes ... even us bike junkies have been know to be wreckless in what is otherwise a healthy pursuit. Anything excessive is detrimental, obsession and focus on trivial stuff will kill us all, maybe not only phyisically but spiritually and psycologicaly. Anything excessive is sapping us of our given gift of life.

People fail - we become lost with our addictions, or consumed and don't keep balance and perspective in our lives. Why should a pot head be criminal when sitting and watching soaps all day isn't legislated against. Older societies and cultures would have no use for an individual that doesn't carry their weight, is detrimental or isn't usefull to the greater whole. There were people that were not functional but literally had to shape up or ship out. Modern life when you stand back to look at it creates a lot of zombies and if each person was asked to weigh up their actions against what purpose we claim to have, then we would have either a lot of hipocrits, liars or depressed people.

Here's where I get to preach: be equanimous with thine actions, know the reason behind each thing you do, focus on what truly matters, stop and think.

Think up all the time and energy you have spent till now - what amount was directly benificial, conducive to a good life, enriching or validating your existence and rewarding in the bigger scheme of things. Don't sweat the small stuff as life is short and beautiful and many don't follow their right path so to appreciate it. I know so many people who have everything yet are without happiness and contentment. I know people with what to us amounts to nothing yet to my eyes they are with bliss for each day that dawns and gratefull to be alive.

Life is simple, only we make it complex. Ordering people to live in a certain fashion has never worked, never will. Faking righteousness doesn't make for a better society. Those that choose to fry their brains and bodies are to me the same as those who become living zombies escaping through every day nonsense - both have given up and stopped searching for meaning. But I subscribe to the idea that a little bit of something matters not and is for the most part of being a human.

Live and let live.

ciao

I take it you are a Libertarian?

When someone runs down and kills a child while stoned, what do you say to the parents? No philosophy will be consoling at that point. Shouldn't we limit wreckless behavior, even if we cannot completely stop it?

Precisely. And if you went back to prohibition, the mob will be back in business.
The mob never went out of biz. Who do you think gets the coke and heroin into this country?

A good philosophy to me is prohibit the injuries to others, not the substance. In other words, prohibit drunk or high driving, not alcohol or pot. Ban only the injurious conduct. However, seeing a pot smoker going to jail and being able to sue him won't bring back my dead son who the smoker ran over while high. No doubt alcohol is bad, too, but I'd argue why *expand* the potential for harm, rather than restrict it? We know we aren't getting rid of alcohol, so no need to even go there. Let's at least limit the deaths if we can.


People smoke pot and drive now. It is happening. We already have laws for it. If you are caught driving while high you can get arrested for DUI though I'd argue that someone legally drunk is more impaired for driving than someone who is just stoned. Pot is also very easy to get even though it is illegal. Why not legalize it and reap the tax benefits? It is also ridiculous that someone can test positive for pot use in a drug test nearly a month after last smoking while a crack user can test clean in less than a few days.

I have heard pot is hard on the lungs, but it is as compared to cigarettes and generally a smoker will smoke for more cigarettes in a day than someone who smokes pot.
You can always use a vaporizer to smoke it or make "special" brownies if you don't want to fry your lungs. Or at least that's what I've heard... ;)

I take it you are a Libertarian?

When someone runs down and kills a child while stoned, what do you say to the parents? No philosophy will be consoling at that point. Shouldn't we limit wreckless behavior, even if we cannot completely stop it?
Doug...don't bury your head in the sand. Just because pot, crack, acid, etc are illegal doesn't mean people will not drive after using said substances. Look at any police blotter today where someone is involved in an alcohol-related accident--usually they find pot as well. At least it's very common. To answer your question...you'd say the same thing to them as if they had killed the child while drunk and driving.

When someone runs down and kills a child while stoned, what do you say to the parents? No philosophy will be consoling at that point. Shouldn't we limit wreckless behavior, even if we cannot completely stop it?

You can legislate consequences for reckless behavior, as you suggested above. 99% of people driving stoned make it home at night without incident. Most people can even act responsibly when fairly high on alchohol when they have to.

Should someone who swerves off the road and runs over a kid on a tricycle while fiddling with a cell phone or tuning the radio, not be treated exactly the same as a drunk or druggie for the same offense? The consequences are the same. The degree of irresponsibiliy is the same. If you make a distinction, it's no longer based on consequences, but a pre-judgement on the immorality of using drugs. When a state tries to legislate human behavior based on bodily fluids, there is no longer indiviudal freedom. The drug laws are failing for the same reasons that prohibition failed. Too many people just didn't buy into it.

You can legislate consequences for reckless behavior, as you suggested above. 99% of people driving stoned make it home at night without incident. Most people can even act responsibly when fairly high on alchohol when they have to.

Should someone who swerves off the road and runs over a kid on a tricycle while fiddling with a cell phone or tuning the radio, not be treated exactly the same as a drunk or druggie for the same offense? The consequences are the same. The degree of irresponsibiliy is the same. If you make a distinction, it's no longer based on consequences, but a pre-judgement on the immorality of using drugs. When a state tries to legislate human behavior based on bodily fluids, there is no longer indiviudal freedom. The drug laws are failing for the same reasons that prohibition failed. Too many people just didn't buy into it.

Man,you scare the hell out of me,really.

Man,you scare the hell out of me,really.

As Bo said, life is a fatal disease. Live it to the hilt, with respect for others, watch out for falling trees, and you'll be okay.

I take it you are a Libertarian?

When someone runs down and kills a child while stoned, what do you say to the parents? No philosophy will be consoling at that point. Shouldn't we limit wreckless behavior, even if we cannot completely stop it?

I am not stupid to suggest because I think all drugs should be de-criminalized there should be a free for all where others would be possibly harmed. Driving a car can be dangerous if the driver is not alert and capable. whether old, with bad vision, unskilled, stoned, drunk, careless or speeding. why should that have bearing on the question of what somebody does in their own home, in a safe enveironment or without infilicting harm on others?

Your arguement is knee jerk, and doesn't really address the issue or offer a sound counterpoint. If somebody harms another due to their lack of responsibilty then they are an idiot and deserved of severe reprimand. Where is it mentioned that i said it's cool to go shopping with a syringe in your arms? C'mon Doug.

my view is that the war on drugs is a waste of time and considerable money, and that by making it legal, and channeling just a small percentage of the billions wasted in fighting it to offering support to those with addictions and raising awareness of possible consequences of abuse to people who use is a far more effective and sound program for those who see it as a problem. people will ultimately do what they want but any person with sane mind shall keep things in control and in perspective if shown what can happen or offered avenues out if they have fallen. basic motivation will teach any of us to choose a better way to live than a life of pain and self abuse but there are always people who slip through cracks whether legal or illegal. why should we deem shame or stigma on those who do something if they can manage their lives and live well according to a rule of society and order? why is it Ok to tipple a little single malt after dinner with friends yet dangerous to snort some colombian beige in the same enveironment.

We have been through this before and as a father of 2 boys it is probable that at some stage they will try something that is illegal. the best thing you can do is to explain to them realistic consequences as you would for sex, benefit of education, manners, watching too much TV, keeping healthy etc etc. better theythey know that even if you don't agree with their actions that they feel comfortable in being honest and not hiding it from you. it's reality Doug, and more than likely if you have a close bond with them they will see your life as an example and follow suit when making their choices. I know you are a good father but in taking the high road you then offer the chance that they may not seek the advice of the person who loves them most. Telling them it's illegal is not a deterrant. If you have no idea on how prevalent drugs are in the lives of the young then i consider it prudent you learn fast. A child will make no distinction of legal vs. not legal when seeing a parent of family member who thinks it fine to booze it up - they will see it fine to get kicks and choose varied options.

another thing I have a problem with is the plight of the Cocaleros who are just growing a harvest to support their family and eek out a living where there otherwise is no choice. where they to grow tomato's or cucumbers their produce would have no market value or room for export. yet the war on drugs squashes these little guys and barely scratches any big crime syndicate that is evident and entrenched even within the drug agencies and governments. the coca leaf growers aren't making moral judgements and just doing good by their families. the afghans who harvest opium do so because they'll earn more than the $15 a month they would for growing corn. we burn these fields in an effort to supress demand (how stupid is that) and yet we in no way show sincerity for offering alternate means of income for people who's only intention is to live. the whole drug war is assbackwards on every level yet few are brave enough to face reality and tackle the issues effectively.

Sure, lets make the world a better place for the majority but lets drop the BS, put things in perspective and actually make some progress.

make drugs cheap/legal, educate, turn the billions wasted into effective spending - society will improve even if it seems like a recipe for chaos and against tradition. by taking away the criminal element you are denying the vultures (do you know how big the drug business is ??) and also freeing up the police and courts to tackle more situations that are of concern and perhaps fruitful for the great majority.

I lived on ablock in harlem where the drug sqaud would swoop and arrest perhaps 20-30 people at a time. within hours fresh faces would assemble and continue pedaling. these were my neighbours who at 17 with 2 kids and not even a chance of a job at McDonalds were doing whatever they could to provide in a society that if not denied them a choice, certainly gave them the impression that taking drastic acts were the only chance. I didn't have to lock my door, never did i feel in danger and I had respect for them for trying to bust out of the crap they were in. all of them were bright, hardworking and could have easily held a job or career if given another outlet. their customers werealmost all from the conservative blue ribbon neighbourhoods who wave and rant about "the drug problem".

I don't know if I'm a Libertarian as you suggest. I consider myself conservative but realistic and know perhaps more truth than others would wish to acknowledge. Been there, done that.

Let's not marginalize society and let's be genuine in ways for improving it.


ciao

What you say makes too much sense Spirito. I think the question people need to ask is who benefits from certain drugs being illegal? In some cities the jail is a big source of income. I also think there is a racial aspect to why certain drugs are illegal. Back in the 50s the Mexicans and the jazz musicians (read: black folk) used to smoke pot all the time. Then white college students got hip to it and only then did it get to be a big issue. Same with coke. No big deal as long as it was just lawyers snorting lines at parties, but when the urban folk converted it to crack the penalties for posession went way up. Get busted with a bit of powder coke? Slap on the wrist. Get busted with crack? Go to jail.

I diid'nt know so many users were into cycling. Makes me abit sad. Most people smoking it wants it to be ok and most of us ex dopers know better. We dont need to add more problems because thats just what will happen. Keep it in the house to use and stay home after it,fine but like booze,that wont happen and drivers are bad enough clear headed.

I diid'nt know so many users were into cycling. Makes me abit sad. Most people smoking it wants it to be ok and most of us ex dopers know better. We dont need to add more problems because thats just what will happen. Keep it in the house to use and stay home after it,fine but like booze,that wont happen and drivers are bad enough clear headed.
I don't use pot now, but have in the past. I will say that if my kids ever decide to try drugs that I would be the least worried about them using pot as long as they are not driving while intoxicated. Of course, I would prefer they do no drugs, but at least with pot they won't die as a result of using it. You can't say that with too many drugs--alcohol included.

The fact that this has to come to the supreme court under the guise of medical usage is so juvenile. Any body out there who has actually smoked marijuana think it should remain illegal? This seem like one of the silliest enforced laws on the book in a free country where alcohol and tobbaco consumption is perfectly legal, and caffeine consumption is accepted as mainstream as mom and apple pie.

to spend it stoned. While you (the collective you) are trippin' out, kids take first steps, birds fly, the sun and the moon take their turns in the sky, and a whole host of amazing and wondrous things happen without the aid of cannabis sativa. And you missed it because you were thinking about that bag of potato chips.

Smoke or not, it makes no difference to me. I can't come up with a reason why I would want to escape reality by willfully consuming a drug that alters the world I experience. I guess if you're life is that crappy, you should do it. Mine, however, is not. I can't think of anything I'd want to miss.

What you say makes too much sense Spirito. I think the question people need to ask is who benefits from certain drugs being illegal? In some cities the jail is a big source of income. I also think there is a racial aspect to why certain drugs are illegal. Back in the 50s the Mexicans and the jazz musicians (read: black folk) used to smoke pot all the time. Then white college students got hip to it and only then did it get to be a big issue. Same with coke. No big deal as long as it was just lawyers snorting lines at parties, but when the urban folk converted it to crack the penalties for posession went way up. Get busted with a bit of powder coke? Slap on the wrist. Get busted with crack? Go to jail.

It's been awhile since I've studied this, but in 1900 pot and cocaine were legal in the US. Pot was prescribed as an appetite enhancer for underweight women. George Washington grew it and smoked it for asthma. Cocaine was famously imbibed by Sherlock Holmes, with no negative moral connotations, and was an ingredient in the true Coca Cola classic.

Both these drugs were banned along with drinking during prohibition, for the same reasons: they were all viewed as symptoms of moral decay, life dedicated to the pleasure principle, getting away from the work ethic. Then, as now, the country took a turn to the right. Conservatives came to power, Coolidge and Hoover, and evangelical preachers reigned, preaching about the moral depravity of the Roaring Twenties. The KKK had rallies on the national Mall, with huge membership.

It's been a fact since the 80's that one in 5 black men will go through the prison system in their lifetimes, mostly because of the drug laws. Picking up from what Spirito said and the want ad he shows, I knew some crack and pot dealers in Longview, Texas in the 90's, who were as sharp, motivated, and even honest, as any respected scion of the chamber of commerce. The one guy to finally "rise out of the ghetto" and get a job paying enough to live on his own, was the crack dealer. He was, like other dealers I've known, compassionate about his customers, a nice guy trying to make a living, very unlike the pariah image portrayed in the media. He gave it up as the police net tightened around him.

And, hey, shokhead, we're just like you. Why should that surprise you? We all went through the same experience you did and survived to talk about it. :)

to spend it stoned. While you (the collective you) are trippin' out, kids take first steps, birds fly, the sun and the moon take their turns in the sky, and a whole host of amazing and wondrous things happen without the aid of cannabis sativa. And you missed it because you were thinking about that bag of potato chips.

Smoke or not, it makes no difference to me. I can't come up with a reason why I would want to escape reality by willfully consuming a drug that alters the world I experience. I guess if you're life is that crappy, you should do it. Mine, however, is not. I can't think of anything I'd want to miss.

I haven't smoked pot regularly for years and don't even occasionally smoke it at this point in my life, but I think your idea that drugs are only used by those wishing to escape reality or who are unhappy is BS. I always viewed drugs as something like salt, it won't make food good but it can certainly enhance the flavor if used wisely. I can remember numerous times laughing to the point of tears while stoned, and that doesn't happen to me without it. I don't know how that can be a bad thing. Nor was I unhappy, in any sense of the word, at the time I was a regular pot smoker.

to spend it stoned. While you (the collective you) are trippin' out, kids take first steps, birds fly, the sun and the moon take their turns in the sky, and a whole host of amazing and wondrous things happen without the aid of cannabis sativa. And you missed it because you were thinking about that bag of potato chips.

Smoke or not, it makes no difference to me. I can't come up with a reason why I would want to escape reality by willfully consuming a drug that alters the world I experience. I guess if you're life is that crappy, you should do it. Mine, however, is not. I can't think of anything I'd want to miss.

I disagree with you on that. I'm very happy with my life and I don't smoke, when I do, which isn't a lot, to escape reality. I think it's nice to, every once in a while, kind of see things in a different light, from a new perspective. It's relaxing and kind of enhances things just a little bit.

I respect your viewpoint, clearly pot is not for everyone. To each his own, I suppose.

to spend it stoned. While you (the collective you) are trippin' out, kids take first steps, birds fly, the sun and the moon take their turns in the sky, and a whole host of amazing and wondrous things happen without the aid of cannabis sativa. And you missed it because you were thinking about that bag of potato chips.

Smoke or not, it makes no difference to me. I can't come up with a reason why I would want to escape reality by willfully consuming a drug that alters the world I experience. I guess if you're life is that crappy, you should do it. Mine, however, is not. I can't think of anything I'd want to miss.
Yet plenty of people take legal mind altering drugs and that's perfectly OK with the cons. And I'm not talking about just alcohol or tobacco here--think about Rush Limbaugh and his Vicodin. Think about countless people on mood stabilizers and tranquilizers. Antidepressants. Food used addictively. The list goes on. Why single out pot?

I think it should be legal...there is no way smoking a joint is more habit forming or dangerous than any number of legal vices out there. I don't take drugs, but criminalizing one recreational drug, but allowing a bunch of others that are arguably more dangerous is stupid.

Yet plenty of people take legal mind altering drugs and that's perfectly OK with the cons. And I'm not talking about just alcohol or tobacco here--think about Rush Limbaugh and his Vicodin. Think about countless people on mood stabilizers and tranquilizers. Antidepressants. Food used addictively. The list goes on. Why single out pot?
With having a discussion with you. When I voice an opinion that you disagree with, you then elevate your disagreement to a universal dislike for the "cons", or some other shadowy, undefined group of people, rather than respond to my particular post. I don't really care, except that suddenly I am lumped in a universe where I don't belong. I express my distaste for mind-altering drugs, and you make this generic statement "...plenty of people take legal mind altering drugs and that's perfectly OK with the cons." Well, it's not OK with me, and my "cons" card was never issued. Then, in that other distasteful thread, you take my statement about my support of abstinence and then lump my daughters into a demographic that you have constructed based solely on their ages. Once again, you don't know what you are talking about - literally.

If you have something to say to me, please make it relevant to my post. Please don't go off into a ranting, generic statement about a group of people that I may or may not belong to.

With having a discussion with you. When I voice an opinion that you disagree with, you then elevate your disagreement to a universal dislike for the "cons", or some other shadowy, undefined group of people, rather than respond to my particular post. I don't really care, except that suddenly I am lumped in a universe where I don't belong. I express my distaste for mind-altering drugs, and you make this generic statement "...plenty of people take legal mind altering drugs and that's perfectly OK with the cons." Well, it's not OK with me, and my "cons" card was never issued. Then, in that other distasteful thread, you take my statement about my support of abstinence and then lump my daughters into a demographic that you have constructed based solely on their ages. Once again, you don't know what you are talking about - literally.

If you have something to say to me, please make it relevant to my post. Please don't go off into a ranting, generic statement about a group of people that I may or may not belong to.
Point taken...you have shown a pattern of traditional conservative thinking and in true internet discussion board fashion I've reduced you to a "them". I should have said...yet most people in this country don't have a problem with legal mind altering drugs available via perscription such as tranquilizers, etc...basically illustrating America's hypocrisy when it comes to the aversion to certain drugs that the media, politics and culture have demonized for whatever reason. I apologize for attempting to lump you into the "them" group. You do tend to be one of the more thoughtful "cons" on this board. ;)

I haven't smoked pot regularly for years and don't even occasionally smoke it at this point in my life, but I think your idea that drugs are only used by those wishing to escape reality or who are unhappy is BS. I always viewed drugs as something like salt, it won't make food good but it can certainly enhance the flavor if used wisely. I can remember numerous times laughing to the point of tears while stoned, and that doesn't happen to me without it. I don't know how that can be a bad thing. Nor was I unhappy, in any sense of the word, at the time I was a regular pot smoker.

"I can remember numerous times laughing to the point of tears while stoned, and that doesn't happen to me without it."

Sad that you can't have that experience without a reality-altering substance.

Remember John Prine? He wrote a song called "Illegal Smile", goes something like this:

When I woke up this morning, things were looking bad.
Seems like total silence was the only friend I had.
A bowl of oatmeal tried to stare me down, and won.
And it was twelve O'Clock before I realized I was having no fun.
But fortunately, I have the key to escape reality.

And you may see me tonight with an illegal smile
It don't cost very much and it lasts a long while '
Would you please tell the man I wasn't killing no one
I was just trying to have me some fun.

Escaping reality is the point. "Enhancing" reality is just another name for "escaping". It just makes you feel better about your actions.

Escaping reality is the point. "Enhancing" reality is just another name for "escaping". It just makes you feel better about your actions.

Now I feel like a miserable worm for enjoying my teensy little toddy ...

I was just trying to have me some fun.[/I]

Escaping reality is the point. "Enhancing" reality is just another name for "escaping". It just makes you feel better about your actions.
Are you really saying you never feel the need to change reality? You must have one hell of a life if that is the case. I love most things about my life, but I'll admit that on occasion a few beers can be just the thing I need to get me out of my rut. Heck it doesn't have to be drugs. Cycling can do the same thing. Going camping. Whatever. It's not neccesarily bad to escape or change reality once in a while. It's part of being human.

Now I feel like a miserable worm for enjoying my teensy little toddy ...
That will be the Repub rallying cry for the next election...My opponent is an escapist!

Now I feel like a miserable worm for enjoying my teensy little toddy ...
I like the taste of Guinness, but I don't like what 3 or 4 of them do to me. I like a glass of wine, but I don't like what 3 or 4 of them do to me. I had plenty of experience with the devil weed a long time ago, but I don't like what it does to me. I like to experience life for what it is, good and bad, without additional substances to "enhance" it. I find that enhancing, as I said before, is just a euphamism for escaping.

I like the taste of Guinness, but I don't like what 3 or 4 of them do to me. I like a glass of wine, but I don't like what 3 or 4 of them do to me. I had plenty of experience with the devil weed a long time ago, but I don't like what it does to me. I like to experience life for what it is, good and bad, without additional substances to "enhance" it. I find that enhancing, as I said before, is just a euphamism for escaping.
What do you do to relax? I would argue that people who don't use drugs--legal or not--have some other means of "escaping". Be that through meditation, cycling, reading novels...whatever.

I like the taste of Guinness, but I don't like what 3 or 4 of them do to me. I like a glass of wine, but I don't like what 3 or 4 of them do to me. I had plenty of experience with the devil weed a long time ago, but I don't like what it does to me. I like to experience life for what it is, good and bad, without additional substances to "enhance" it. I find that enhancing, as I said before, is just a euphamism for escaping.

You can relax with a Guiness and it is okay. Another can relax with a spliff, so that must be okay.

Devil Weed....born again, right?

BJII, the simple fact of the discussion is that the conservative stance rules for everyone. There is no choice or liberty. Because MM smoked alot of pot before but now has quit, it should therefore be illegal for everyone.

The libertarian stance is choice and freedom, MM. You have a choice to oppose, and to not smoke pot. Others do. Just like a Guiness. There are alot of people who smoke a joint because they don't like what alcohol does to them. Should they force you to go without your Guiness?

What do you do to relax? I would argue that people who don't use drugs--legal or not--have some other means of "escaping". Be that through meditation, cycling, reading novels...whatever.
Fix things at home. Build things in my shop. They can be said to be methods of escaping, but what they do not do is cloud my judgment. I have often found solutions to problems while pedaling along. The difference between solutions discovered that way versus solutions discovered after a few hits on a bong is that my way, I know the solutions are real and do-able, not the product of an overactive and drug-induced imagination.

Fix things at home. Build things in my shop. They can be said to be methods of escaping, but what they do not do is cloud my judgment. I have often found solutions to problems while pedaling along. The difference between solutions discovered that way versus solutions discovered after a few hits on a bong is that my way, I know the solutions are real and do-able, not the product of an overactive and drug-induced imagination.
I would argue that the body is a chemical producing machine. What would allow a person to be able to amputate his own limb when the need arises? What allows a runner to continue the last 10 miles in a 100 mile run when they are bonking and delerious? What allows a monk to endure extreme heat or cold when meditating? It is said that the body produces natural opoids not unlike their synthetic counterparts that--in times of need--can be used to alter pain or allow one to endure an otherwise unendurable situation. Many scientists have talked about how a solution to a vexing problem had come to them in a dream or trance-like state. I wouldn't immediately discount the benefits of different states of conciousness.

Fix things at home. Build things in my shop. They can be said to be methods of escaping, but what they do not do is cloud my judgment. I have often found solutions to problems while pedaling along. The difference between solutions discovered that way versus solutions discovered after a few hits on a bong is that my way, I know the solutions are real and do-able, not the product of an overactive and drug-induced imagination.

by two quick shooters of Early Times and a 30-mile bike ride to my old way of problem-solving, 500 micrograms of blotter acid rounded off with Afghani hash.

We all grow and change with the passage of time.

You can relax with a Guiness and it is okay. Another can relax with a spliff, so that must be okay.

Devil Weed....born again, right?

BJII, the simple fact of the discussion is that the conservative stance rules for everyone. There is no choice or liberty. Because MM smoked alot of pot before but now has quit, it should therefore be illegal for everyone.

The libertarian stance is choice and freedom, MM. You have a choice to oppose, and to not smoke pot. Others do. Just like a Guiness. There are alot of people who smoke a joint because they don't like what alcohol does to them. Should they force you to go without your Guiness?
To not say that it should be illegal for everyone, even though, aside form the medical exemption, it currently is. Please get your facts right before making your judgment.

Thank you.

You can relax with a Guiness and it is okay. Another can relax with a spliff, so that must be okay.

Devil Weed....born again, right?

BJII, the simple fact of the discussion is that the conservative stance rules for everyone. There is no choice or liberty. Because MM smoked alot of pot before but now has quit, it should therefore be illegal for everyone.

The libertarian stance is choice and freedom, MM. You have a choice to oppose, and to not smoke pot. Others do. Just like a Guiness. There are alot of people who smoke a joint because they don't like what alcohol does to them. Should they force you to go without your Guiness?

Maybe MM smoked enough and long enough he knows way it should not be legal. You dont think all that sh$t in a pot pipe isnt in your lungs? You think after a couple of hits,driving is cool? There is already enough of that,make it ok,easier to get and watch out,you asked for it.

Maybe MM smoked enough and long enough he knows way it should not be legal. You dont think all that sh$t in a pot pipe isnt in your lungs? You think after a couple of hits,driving is cool? There is already enough of that,make it ok,easier to get and watch out,you asked for it.

Well...I didn't say anything about driving while stoned (insert Heavy Metal reference here). Apologies to MoneyMan, I realize his stance was not on illegality. Sure it is bad, alot of things will hurt you if you do too much. Hell, I rode my bike too hard (climbing in the big ring) and lost a racing season for it. Doesn't make it immoral.

The rest of your post doesn`t make any sense.

Well put! It's just a little change of perspective, all kinds of things can bring that about. I've been as trashed mentally from a good hard race as I've ever been smoking pot. Just baffles me that people care or want to limit how somebody else gets their kicks when it in no way affects them. I think of all my friends who smoke(d) pot and how they all turned out to be O.K. citizens, probably better than your typical lot. I would consider them all to be fundamentally good caring people, to think that one of them could have had their life dramatically altered and labeled a criminal for something as benign as smoking pot is ludicrous.

This is my last on it. Why do you think they call it dope? Medical,fine.

"and the God created the herb bearing seed and said that it was good"
sorry on a theological kick today. In reality cigs are harder to kick than heroin
(I have had friends who were addicted to both) and kill a person every 10 minutes.
Alcohol's death toll is in the 100,000's yearly. If we were to base 'legal' staus on bodycounts our system is inversed.
chilling....... nice block of thai opium, bottle of Barolo and a dimly lit room with red walls.

This is my last on it. Why do you think they call it dope? Medical,fine.

This is absolutely brilliant reasoning. We can now dismiss all religion as complete folly, and nothing but an escape from reality, after all they call it the opiate of the masses.

This is absolutely brilliant reasoning. We can now dismiss all religion as complete folly, and nothing but an escape from reality, after all they call it the opiate of the masses.
The grammar and style of shokhead''s writing and the logic therin suggests he was stoned when he penned it. ;)

It must be nice to have sh$t that does'nt stink. If you must know, i've been drug free since my daughter was born in 84.

It must be nice to have sh$t that does'nt stink. If you must know, i've been drug free since my daughter was born in 84.
Sorry...I shouldn't have penned the personal insult. I have no idea what you do in your personal life. Whether or not someone uses pot recreationally doesn't really bother me one way or the other though. Same as if they enjoyed a few beers after work or on the weekends.