Decriminalize ≠ legalize subby.

Legalization != decriminalization

All those cops need to be able to take the land, homes and cars of pot smokers.

They would start a War on Murder and Rape, but those people are dangerous and they could get hurt.

TiltedKilt: Decriminalize ≠ legalize subby.

While true, and decriminalization is a great step forward, I really think it should be legalized.

However that's a difficult thing to push for considering how stupid* most people are.

*generally I don't think people who disagree with me are stupid, but if you think marijuana should remain illegal and possession/dealing/etc should be a criminal offense, you're braindead.

Just think of all the possible tax revenue that is currently being funneled to criminals.

Marcus Aurelius: Just think of all the possible tax revenue that is currently being funneled to criminals.

But...it is an immoral plant, nothing good could ever come from it!

I mean, what has the opium poppy ever done for mankind?

The only reason it is not legal is because of Phillip Morris/Nabisco and their propaganda shiat. It isn't any more harmful than alcohol and will generate billions in taxes. It will also make the drug less "exotic" and thus younger people may be a little more willing to wait until they were 18/21 to try it.

I often wonder if weed would bring people together like it does if it were legal. I don't think it would.

(click the pic)

Come on Obama, I know you can end this shiat! You like to party!

Nemo's Brother: The only reason it is not legal is because of Phillip Morris/Nabisco and their propaganda shiat. It isn't any more harmful than alcohol and will generate billions in taxes. It will also make the drug less "exotic" and thus younger people may be a little more willing to wait until they were 18/21 to try it.

I hate it when you're right. *sigh*

Red Fist Of Harmony: Legalization != decriminalization

TiltedKilt: Decriminalize ≠ legalize subby.

Decriminalize is less than legalize for all real numbers.

/Let x = decriminalize, and y = legalize. As x --> infinity, it approaches y asypmptotically.

Nemo's Brother: The only reason it is not legal is because of Phillip Morris/Nabisco and their propaganda shiat.

DuPont had the most to do with it. They were starting to produce a whole bunch of synthetic materials in the 30's that had to compete with hemp.

Nemo's Brother: It will also make the drug less "exotic" and thus younger people may be a little more willing to wait until they were 18/21 to try it.

I'm with you on the "exotic" part, but, just as with alcohol, expecting everyone to wait until [insert quasi-arbitrary age here] to start using is a bad idea.

Parents should be required to teach their kids about responsible alcohol and drug use as they're growing up, not treat it as a big secret which becomes the holy grail.

If 14 year olds had half a beer with dinner every once in a while they wouldn't need to go bingeing when they hit college. They might also develop some taste in beer, so Keystone could go to its well-deserved dirtnap.

grinningdeamon: DuPont had the most to do with it. They were starting to produce a whole bunch of synthetic materials in the 30's that had to compete with hemp.

But hemp is, as always has been legal, no?

/were they doing it wrong?

cousin-merle: Come on Obama, I know you can end this shiat! You like to party!




/i took two puffs of a marihuana cigarette and it turned me into a bat!

burndtdan: /i took two puffs of a marihuana cigarette and it turned me into a bat!



I'm, like, flying, man!

Persepolis: grinningdeamon: DuPont had the most to do with it. They were starting to produce a whole bunch of synthetic materials in the 30's that had to compete with hemp.

But hemp is, as always has been legal, no?

/were they doing it wrong?


Sure. Go grow some hemp. See what happens.

I understand that Obama has seen some of the horrors of marijuana consumption first-hand. "Hanging out" and "having a good time" are the leading causes of death among young adults aged 18-24.

cousin-merle: I'm, like, flying, man!

i always laugh at that picture because to me, the guy right behind her looks like he's thinking "the roofies are kicking in, time to party"

Um, isn't this Congress' purview, and not the President's? Cuz last time I checked, Congress makes laws, and the President does not. Right?

Persepolis: But hemp is, as always has been legal, no?

/were they doing it wrong?

It is illegal now. It didn't used to be. It was also legal during WW2.

Zagloba: Nemo's Brother: It will also make the drug less "exotic" and thus younger people may be a little more willing to wait until they were 18/21 to try it.

I'm with you on the "exotic" part, but, just as with alcohol, expecting everyone to wait until [insert quasi-arbitrary age here] to start using is a bad idea.

Parents should be required to teach their kids about responsible alcohol and drug use as they're growing up, not treat it as a big secret which becomes the holy grail.

If 14 year olds had half a beer with dinner every once in a while they wouldn't need to go bingeing when they hit college. They might also develop some taste in beer, so Keystone could go to its well-deserved dirtnap.
====================================

Naw, binging is a result of group-think. You just have to teach your child to be responsible for themselves, first. Binge drinkers are just kids who were never taught that actions have repercussions. When my son turns 14 I'd probably allow him to have a sip on a holiday or something but I don't think you teach kids to be responsible by nudging them into adulthood. There are limits in life. Period. No, my son can't drink occasionally when he's 14 and there will be 1,000 other things that he won't be able to do when he's an adult. He might as well get used to it. He won't be able to fark little girls in the house either, but I don't think that will make him a rapist when he grows up.

Persepolis: But hemp is, as always has been legal, no?

Your answer is in your question:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-17-hempsuit_N.htm?csp=34

burndtdan: cousin-merle: I'm, like, flying, man!

i always laugh at that picture because to me, the guy right behind her looks like he's thinking "the roofies are kicking in, time to party"
===================================

Yeah. He farked Hillary that night. I'd put the house on it.

/Bill probably watched from a dark corner, smoking a cigar

I think we got bigger fish to fry before we tackle the all important "I wanna get high" crisis facing our nation.

log_jammin: I think we got bigger fish to fry before we tackle the all important "I wanna get high" crisis facing our nation.

That's a downer or I need a downer or something...

grow up and do coke like an adult

Marla Singer's Laundry: Nemo's Brother: The only reason it is not legal is because of Phillip Morris/Nabisco and their propaganda shiat. It isn't any more harmful than alcohol and will generate billions in taxes. It will also make the drug less "exotic" and thus younger people may be a little more willing to wait until they were 18/21 to try it.

I hate it when you're right. *sigh*

The main reason it isn't legal is because there's no elaborate and effective DUI test for it.

/Date a stoner
//Prefer bourbon

DROxINxTHExWIND: Naw, binging is a result of group-think. You just have to teach your child to be responsible for themselves, first. Binge drinkers are just kids who were never taught that actions have repercussions. When my son turns 14 I'd probably allow him to have a sip on a holiday or something but I don't think you teach kids to be responsible by nudging them into adulthood. There are limits in life. Period. No, my son can't drink occasionally when he's 14 and there will be 1,000 other things that he won't be able to do when he's an adult. He might as well get used to it. He won't be able to fark little girls in the house either, but I don't think that will make him a rapist when he grows up.

There are plenty of chronic binge drinkers that would disagree with you on it being group think. I think the problem is that most kids go to college at 18, but booze isn't legal until 21. They drink anyway because it's college and party time, but they don't know how to handle their alcohol because they have less experience drinking. They also have to party at someone's house, unsupervised by anyone but their drunken buddies. This leads to problems. The idea I like is doing it like a learning permit for driving. Allow 18-year-olds to buy beer in bars where there are other people who can make sure they don't go too crazy, but don't allow them to buy liquor at the store.

DROxINxTHExWIND: No, my son can't drink occasionally when he's 14 and there will be 1,000 other things that he won't be able to do when he's an adult. He might as well get used to it. He won't be able to fark little girls in the house either,

Since my son will either be farking girls in the house or out of the house, I'd rather him be doing it in the house, where I can make sure there's a pack of condoms in his nightstand.

Same goes for my daughter. You think I'd rather have her out in the back seat in the woods where she can't call out if he starts going too far?

The debbil weed took me and turned me from a conscientious, mild-mannered, bright-eyed 21 year old into a conscientious, mild-mannered, red-eyed 27 year old with a job. THE HORROR!!!

// one of California's past AGs said he estimates a $3 billion jump in revenue with decriminalized cheeba
// *passes left*

log_jammin: I think we got bigger fish to fry before we tackle the all important "I wanna get high" crisis facing our nation.

That "I wanna get high" crisis could generate a metric assload of tax revenue that would go a long way toward digging us out of this mess.

Nemo's Brother: The only reason it is not legal is because of Phillip Morris/Nabisco and their propaganda shiat.

Partially. It was also as a way to control/tax Mexican immigrants in Texas. It also doesn't help that ideologues keep ending up in charge of enforcement, which is sort of like Ashcroft a few years back limiting the use of plea bargains -- even if the letter of the law is extreme, laws tend to shake down to moderation in application, but there's never been that opportunity with drug laws. You're more likely to get out of a DUI.

Krymson Tyde: log_jammin: I think we got bigger fish to fry before we tackle the all important "I wanna get high" crisis facing our nation.

That "I wanna get high" crisis could generate a metric assload of tax revenue that would go a long way toward digging us out of this mess.

Not to mention the massive savings from not fighting the war in the first place. How much does it cost to lock up all these stoners again?

Right now MJ is legal in like 10 states I think. However, the DEA is still busting the grow houses and distributor shops.

Hopefully Obama would just tell the DEA to stand down in those states where it is legal for medical use.

Federal laws concerning drugs will remain unchanged until armagedon.

Next topic please.

Marcus Aurelius: Just think of all the possible tax revenue that is currently being funneled to criminals.

As opposed to the actual tax revenue being funneled to criminals?

8 trillion is quite a sum of money.

Persepolis: grinningdeamon: DuPont had the most to do with it. They were starting to produce a whole bunch of synthetic materials in the 30's that had to compete with hemp.

But hemp is, as always has been legal, no?

/were they doing it wrong?

Hemp is currently legal to own or use in the U.S: You can have hemp cloth, paper, oil or whatever. Growing it, however, is illegal in the U.S.

cousin-merle: Krymson Tyde: log_jammin: I think we got bigger fish to fry before we tackle the all important "I wanna get high" crisis facing our nation.

That "I wanna get high" crisis could generate a metric assload of tax revenue that would go a long way toward digging us out of this mess.

Not to mention the massive savings from not fighting the war in the first place. How much does it cost to lock up all these stoners again?

A third reason to decriminalize it would be so I could get stoned and not have to worry about losing my job.

The "ass load of taxes" would be avoided the way it is now. If there is money to get made it will get grown and sold illegally here or smuggles in. Sure they won't make as much but its not like we stop much of it as it is.

And the savings would be tiny. The lights will still be on at the county courthouse and the jail isn't going to close up. All the DEA people would either get tasked to stop "blackmarket" pot. Or go to some other agency.

The only thing that would happen is the HS kid won't pay a 50 dollar bond and go home with mom and dad. Which is a good thing. But it aint going to change anytime soon and it sure as hell wouldn't be the magical wonderland some people think it would be.

Somebody give me one single valid farking reason why Cannabis should be illegal.

Seriously, one reason, anybody...

mpirooz: Somebody give me one single valid farking reason why Cannabis should be illegal.

Nobody passed to Johnson/Nixon/Ford/Carter/Reagan/Bush/Bush?

// we know it got passed to Clinton
// motherfarker wasted it

Now I'm no fan of keeping drugs illegal, but I'm slightly confused about this call to legalize and tax marijuana. How can the government tax something that can be grown in your own home?

If Obama actually wanted any sort of decriminalization/legalization of marijuana, he wouldn't have put Eric Holder, a known drug warrior, up for the Attorney General slot.

funk_soul_bubby: The main reason it isn't legal is because there's no elaborate and effective DUI test for it.

There isn't one for alcohol either. BAC does not measure impairment of the individual.

BAS was originally devised as a point where it could, from a medical standpoint, be assumed beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was seriously impaired. That point was .15 BAC. The whole purpose at the beginning was to go after the chronic drunks who are a danger to everyone. The people who get pulled over and test .2+ was what they were after.

The people who had less alcohol may be slightly impaired, but generally weren't any more dangerous than other drivers who were impaired in some other way. (Fatigue, cold medicine, slapping the kids in the back seat, etc.)

Well, this campaign was effective and the problem was being addressed. Unfortunately, this left MADD with no reason to exist. The problem of chronic drunk drivers had been address and was being taken care of. The focus became less of getting SERIOUSLY impaired drivers off the road and more on some arbitrary BAC in order to manufacture a non-existent crisis. So they began their prohibitionist march to make ANY alcohol unacceptable. Their founder left the organization at this point.

This needs to continue to happen at the state level. And the Feds need to back the fark off the states that have chosen to loosen marijuana laws.

I don't expect MJ to be suddenly legalized/decriminalized at the national level overnight. But states can start by reducing the severity of punishments for marijuana convictions, upping the amount that you must be in possession of in order for it to be illegal (as I believe Michigan just did), pushing through more medical marijuana allowances, etc.

Baby steps...

I have no doubt that decades from now our great grandchildren will laugh at us for having pot illegal for so #!@$% long, and based entirely off of a bullshiat propaganda campaign launched in the 1950's combined with drug companies that want to continue to sell us the same relief in a $20 pill.


/doesn't smoke pot, but knows bullshiat, paranoia-fueled nanny state-ism when he sees it

//majorly #!@$ up that people are in jail for a drug that isn't actually a drug

Snarfangel: Decriminalize is less than legalize for all real numbers.

/Let x = decriminalize, and y = legalize. As x --> infinity, it approaches y asypmptotically.

In that case:

Because then the hippies will have won.

Zagloba: DROxINxTHExWIND: No, my son can't drink occasionally when he's 14 and there will be 1,000 other things that he won't be able to do when he's an adult. He might as well get used to it. He won't be able to fark little girls in the house either,

Since my son will either be farking girls in the house or out of the house, I'd rather him be doing it in the house, where I can make sure there's a pack of condoms in his nightstand.

Same goes for my daughter. You think I'd rather have her out in the back seat in the woods where she can't call out if he starts going too far?
==============================================


Man, I get it but you all have to understand that you can't be everywhere. There's going to be a time when your daughter wants to fark and she's closer to the woods than she is to your house. It will be thse times when you have to pray that you've armed her with enough common sense to make an informed decision. The only thing she learns as a teenager if you allow her to fark in the house is that her mother/father will allow almost anything. She'll have "the cool house". Nothing more. It won't teach responsibility for you to cuff her boyfriend's balls.

I saw legalize, and i've never touched it in my life.

Why? Added tax revenue, and hey, if we're all stoned, no one will care about the economy. Heck, some companies like the Coke company and Frito-lay may see such massive gains that they can kick start an economic upturn.