Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(High Times)   New Zogby poll shows half of Americans believe marijuana should be legislated and taxed like alcohol   (hightimes.com) divider line 597
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

9433 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Mar 2006 at 12:36 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



597 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-03-20 01:25:02 AM  
Mugato:

Anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, pain killers, glaucoma...yeah, I think the pharmaceutical companies have a bit to lose if weed were to be legalized.

Yeah, I remember from my trip to Amsterdam all the thousands crowding the coffe bars for 'medical reasons'.

/percent too small to count more likely
 
j z
2006-03-20 01:25:03 AM  
According to most pot heads marijuana doesn't affect their ability to drive a car or operate machinery. That's enough of a reason for me to keep it illegal. It's also proof that weed makes you dumb.
 
2006-03-20 01:25:53 AM  
Legalization is the smart thing to do.

The "War on Drugs" is the biggest crock of shiate ever sold to the American people.

Today no one would think of returning to alcohol prohibition and all of the derivative ills, yet today we have marijuana prohibition, which is just as bad.

Eventually someday people will learn (I wish)
 
2006-03-20 01:26:28 AM  
My uncle is a cop, and he said that he could go to dozens of domestic abuse calls over a weekend where some guy got drunk and beat up his girlfriend, but never once when some guy smoked a joint and beat someone up.
 
2006-03-20 01:26:51 AM  
MARIJUANA SHOULD NOT BE LEGALIZED

Seriously. And I may happen to use it every once in a while. And I understand that it has no real medical dangers that would warrant its bannination. HOWEVER, marijuana fits a perfect role as it is. Illegal, but won't really get you in too much trouble (if you are an average user and stuff). Marijuana may prevent people from using harder drugs! If we legalize marijuana, the long term usage will go DOWN. There are a lot of people out there who will use it less because it isn't illegal or cool anymore. Especially kids! The fact that it is illegal really adds to its allure for a lot of people. So if we legalize it, then some OTHER drug will become the next "cool" illegal drug of choice. More people will start using worse drugs. And that could be REALLY bad.

So no, I don't think marijuana is a gateway drug. I think it actually PREVENTS a lot of people from using harder drugs. If we legalize it, a lot of people (ie kids) will move on to the next cool, illegal drug and then we will have bigger problems on our hands.
 
2006-03-20 01:27:02 AM  
Mugato: I think the pharmaceutical companies have a bit to lose if weed were to be legalized. Then you get into the whole hemp business and the industries that would be hurt by that. A lot of people have a lot to lose with legalization. And again, this is coming from someone who doesn't use it.

You know, I wish that were a plausible theory... but I don't think it is.

Weed has been illegal since 1937, and just recently have attitudes began to shift towards it. Those same companies would just figure out how to produce it cheaply and make a profit. Yes, it's easy to grow-- but so is tobacco.

I mean, what politicians want to come out and say "My top priority is making weed legal"? Don't forget, the majority of America still wants to "protect my children!"

We made it illegal due to some misconceptions, and we keep it illegal due to many of those same misconceptions. But there's no big conspiracy.
 
2006-03-20 01:27:20 AM  
RockIsDead: Yeah, I remember from my trip to Amsterdam all the thousands crowding the coffe bars for 'medical reasons'.

Maybe the question should be, is Amsterdam as heavily medicated on prescription drugs as the US is (per capita of course).
 
2006-03-20 01:27:28 AM  
IIRC, you can get a pretty small (3 or 4%) margin of error with 500 or so randomly selected people, so yeah, it is a statistically useful sample with a small margin of error.

IF ( and only if ) the sample is actually representative of the population being sampled.

If all elements of the population do NOT stand an equal chance of being sampled, as is the case with RDD land-line phone surveys of the type used overwhelmingly by Zogby and their ilk, the flaws are painfully obvious.

Self-selection and 're-weighting' due to group distribution imbalances in the responding sample are just two of the many large sources of data distortion.

Mark Twain had it right.

...and if all you got was an 'A' in STAT101, you have a long way to go before you can understand the practical realities and difficulties in properly interpreting raw polling data...
 
2006-03-20 01:28:07 AM  
j z: According to most pot heads marijuana doesn't affect their ability to drive a car or operate machinery. That's enough of a reason for me to keep it illegal. It's also proof that weed makes you dumb.

*head asplode from bad logic*
 
2006-03-20 01:28:22 AM  
Marijuana is not physically addictive.

It is, however, psychologically addictive.

Then again, MOST things are psychologically addictive. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to play Half-Life 2.
 
2006-03-20 01:28:47 AM  
Put me with the non-user but legalize it crowd. Is there some sort of group I can join? The NUbLers?
 
2006-03-20 01:30:12 AM  
lmacker: If all elements of the population do NOT stand an equal chance of being sampled, as is the case with RDD land-line phone surveys of the type used overwhelmingly by Zogby and their ilk, the flaws are painfully obvious.

Nonsense. Landline surveys have very little distortionary effects in modern America. You're reaching.
 
2006-03-20 01:30:57 AM  
j z: According to most pot heads marijuana doesn't affect their ability to drive a car or operate machinery. That's enough of a reason for me to keep it illegal. It's also proof that weed makes you dumb.

Because it being illegal is preventing them from smoking up enganging in these activities?

From what you're telling me, they're already doing it to begin with.

madcat033: but won't really get you in too much trouble (if you are an average user and stuff).

That's not true. If you get busted for a drug crime, you're ineligable for getting financial aid, plus what constitutes an 'average user'?

If we legalize it, a lot of people (ie kids) will move on to the next cool, illegal drug and then we will have bigger problems on our hands.

I disagree. Snorting cocaine is a big deal. You can overdose and die. It goes straight to your brain and numbs it. Weed on the other hand is... well... weed. It's funny, it gets you high for a few hours and that's that. I don't think kids are going to just disregard the relative danger due to it's legalization.

In fact, I think legalizing will have an opposite effect-- kids will have less reasons to interact with drug dealers. Right now, you want weed, you go find a dealer. Chances are, your dealer isn't affiliated with nice people. By associating with people who do illegal things, you run a higher risk of being turned on to higher drugs.
 
2006-03-20 01:31:29 AM  
madcat033: So no, I don't think marijuana is a gateway drug. I think it actually PREVENTS a lot of people from using harder drugs. If we legalize it, a lot of people (ie kids) will move on to the next cool, illegal drug and then we will have bigger problems on our hands.

That is just dumb. People don't get addicted to drugs because they are "cool." That is the greatest myth of all in the drug wars.
 
2006-03-20 01:32:02 AM  
I disagree with the thing about landline polls.

I'm one of several people I know who currently use cable for internet and ONLY own a cellphone for personal communication outside of emails and IM.

Landlines are quickly becoming obsolete in America.
 
2006-03-20 01:32:06 AM  
madcat033
I think it actually PREVENTS a lot of people from using harder drugs. If we legalize it, a lot of people (ie kids) will move on to the next cool, illegal drug and then we will have bigger problems on our hands.

It's an interesting point. But the alternate is also possible, that since it is illegal, and sold on the black market, weed smokers are exposed to criminal elements who don't care about the legal issues, they just want to make more money. By exposing people to the black market and the dealers, you give the dealers more opportunity to push the harder drugs, for more profit.
 
2006-03-20 01:32:11 AM  
tarrant84: Those same companies would just figure out how to produce it cheaply and make a profit. Yes, it's easy to grow-- but so is tobacco.

They would make a profit? Off of a plant that you can grow yourself that would replace a dozen or so prescription medications that they've spent millions in R&D developing? I don't think so. The pharmaceutical lobby is huge and they have been fighting legalization for at least the last 20 years, maybe more. As is the lumber industry and others threatened by hemp. It's not a conspiracy. It's right there in the open, it's called American politics.
 
2006-03-20 01:33:15 AM  
tarrant84: In fact, I think legalizing will have an opposite effect-- kids will have less reasons to interact with drug dealers. Right now, you want weed, you go find a dealer

That was my experience. I only smoke weed now, but decades ago I could visit someone for pot and have a virtual TG&Y of illegal chemicals to choose from.
 
2006-03-20 01:33:45 AM  
OK, I know they're teaching all this new math and stuff, but is 46% a majority now??

Um, RTFA again. It said the majority of people on the coasts.

IF ( and only if ) the sample is actually representative of the population being sampled.

Except that isn't what you originally said. You said that the sample size was too small, which many people have pointed out was a dumb thing to say.

As for you other points, I have no desire to argue about them but I have significant experience in statistics, research design, and data collection. The "painfully obvious" flaws you speak of are not really things you can assess with the given article. It would require more information.
 
2006-03-20 01:33:57 AM  
madcat033

Uhhh that's a fallacy if I've ever heard one.

Most of the people I've gotten it from also sold those other things.. no idea why you think it'd be any different. If a person is going to buy LSD they were probably going to do it anyway.
 
2006-03-20 01:35:23 AM  
I've never smoked it, but nearly everyone else I know has at least tried it. I can count the ones that haven't on one hand.
 
2006-03-20 01:35:41 AM  
Well the solution is quite simple. What it takes to change the system as it stands is a shift in priorities for the world. Humanity is smart enough and technically advanced enough to end hunger and poverty. The population problem could be slowed.

The problem is getting rid of the cultural models the world has. I mean, we are so out of touch with nature and ourselves that we have inherited a system that is so out of whack that you have serial killers. Not to many serial killers in the chipmunk population or cats banning catnip.
 
2006-03-20 01:35:43 AM  
23 Enigma: Ditto. I haven't had a landline in almost 3 years.
 
2006-03-20 01:36:21 AM  
desolationrow: By exposing people to the black market and the dealers, you give the dealers more opportunity to push the harder drugs, for more profit.

That's my theory, in a nutshell.

I knew a kid who went to rehab for pot and came out a freakin' Ph.D in drugs. He ended up stealing his parents car and selling it for crack.

However, most kids I know who got really into drugs started with pot but were exposed to the hader drugs through their dealer (or dealer's cool friends). Because pot is illegal, it's MUCH easier to get in high school than alcohol

Now look at the kids who get into alcohol in college. They get it from a frat brother or cool upperclassmen. Generally they don't get exposed to anything except beer pong. There's no added element to be exposed to.
 
2006-03-20 01:38:15 AM  
and the other half of us think alcohol should be made illegal but become untaxed...

did you know that people with cable television buy 75% of the high value goods on the market... but that 85% of "people" have cable television... so the 15% of people who do not have cable television make an inordinately large percentage of the purchases of high value durable goods?

brighthouse... wonderful florida math... btw I became a floridian last week, terrible terrible place, but it's not giving me mild heart attacks like atlanta was and I've not struggled to breathe in more than 100 hours

bye bye Clarkston!
 
2006-03-20 01:38:18 AM  
As far as pot being a "gateway drug," you tend to see people use multiple drugs. Very few addicts use just one drug (even alcoholics). And generally the progression is easy to see--alcohol, pot, some other drug. But that has nothing to do with "gateway" as much as availability. During one point in my life, I could get pot a lot easier than I could get someone to purchase alcohol for me. And pot was much easier to find than most other drugs, too. Thus, pot would be the easiest drug for many people to do if they were doing drugs.

Notice that the government never points out alcohol in the "progression." They got that part right, at least.

Tobacco is more likely to alter the brain and inhibit cessation, anyway.
 
2006-03-20 01:38:53 AM  
For all of you people insulting each other over the details
of the 1000 people chosen and the actual statistics involved,
an important thing to remember is that it's very hard to
have a truly random sampling. If I sample 1000 people in the
west coast I really don't have a sampling of the US.

Often the method of choosing eliminates certain groups. The
election was great for this kind of crap. If you only call
"land lines" for opionions odds are you're not sampling the
young voters who mostly only have cell phones. If you sample
by asking people at the mall or park you'll miss out on
many professionals that don't get out as much as say stay-
at-home moms or college students. Ask the right group
you'll get the answer you want. . .

You can argue the details all you want, but it's rare and
difficult for a survey to truly have a random sampling.


/legallize it, tax it, have groups like AA ready until
society can deal.
 
2006-03-20 01:39:26 AM  
...and as far as the physical or psychological effects argument, there's nothing with weed that compares to alcohol. I've smoked pot a total of three times in my life but more importantly I have a lot of friends who smoke, (all but one, very successful in the IT industry) and weed doesn't touch alcohol in terms of negative changes in behavior, judgement, reflexes, etc. And the withdrawls, forget about it. I drink and have gone through horrendous withdrawls that I've never heard about with weed. So purely as a drug, weed is a hell of a lot more benign than booze, which is of course, legal.
 
2006-03-20 01:39:37 AM  
even for that segment of the population that still prefer hard-wired phones to cell phones, and don't have voice-mail, caller-id screening, or an old-fashioned answering machine, how many ( and *who* ) are willing to spend time chatting with a phone survey person about dope?

think a bit, with however many brain cells are still active...

If you insist on believing this survey is truly an accurate representatation of the entire broad spectrum of views in all 50 states, by all means, light up and inhale.

It's bound to enhance your objectivity.

( why do you think they call it 'dope' ? )
 
2006-03-20 01:40:00 AM  
Confabulat: That was my experience. I only smoke weed now, but decades ago I could visit someone for pot and have a virtual TG&Y of illegal chemicals to choose from.

You know, it's funny, because I knew where to get drugs in high school, but the higher up I go in the corporate world/education level, the harder it is to get (not that I'm looking).

I guess people hide it better now, coupled with the fact drinking does it for most of us. I'm shocked at how many functional pot smokers there are, though... in fact, the majority of the top 10% of my class are chronic smokers.
 
2006-03-20 01:41:49 AM  
Alveen: desolationrow: The pharmaceutical industry would take way too heavy a hit if pot ever got legalized

Which is why my version of the "legalize it" bill would include the provision that phramaceutical companies get the contract as distributors of the stuff, with currently government-subsidized family farmers given the first option on being the official growers.

Give Big Pharma a hunk of money for nothing, prop up a struggling class of Red-Staters, kill off two anti- lobbies with one stone.

Of course, that means that Big Pharma would have to give up their dreams of inventing diseases for new medicine, or turning our kids into whacked out junkies who are hooked on legal medication...

Come to think of it, there's the other argument to convince the conservatives: if Pot were legal, all the lefties would be so stoned that they wouldn't care what you did to the country. Left to be able to commit their one felonious vice in public, they'd just smile as Patriot Act VII was passed... No peeing in a cup? Doesn't matter if I've got a pocket full of weed? Uh... yeah... fark activisim already....

/leftie
//plant fan
///hell yeah, it would
////but legalize it anyway, already
 
2006-03-20 01:42:05 AM  
Yes, the pharmaceutical corporations are trying to keep weed illegal even though if it was legalized, they'd be in the best position to grow, market and distribute for maximum profits in the US.

I, for one, would love to see the moral dilemma for all of the stoned hippie "intellectuals" when most of America's weed is grown by Fortune 500 companies.

/pass me summa dat Halliburton budddddddddd
 
2006-03-20 01:42:25 AM  
brynthian: If I sample 1000 people in the
west coast I really don't have a sampling of the US.


No shiat?

If you sample
by asking people at the mall or park you'll miss out on
many professionals that don't get out as much as say stay-
at-home moms or college students. Ask the right group
you'll get the answer you want. . .


My contention is that you attended all your STAT 101 classes, but still failed the exam.
 
2006-03-20 01:42:39 AM  
confabulat

That is just dumb. People don't get addicted to drugs because they are "cool." That is the greatest myth of all in the drug wars.


Then why has pot use declined in those European countries where it has been decriminalized/legalized? It's not a myth at all. People are definitely attracted to things that are illegal. ARe you kidding me?

tarrant84

I disagree. Snorting cocaine is a big deal. You can overdose and die. It goes straight to your brain and numbs it. Weed on the other hand is... well... weed. It's funny, it gets you high for a few hours and that's that. I don't think kids are going to just disregard the relative danger due to it's legalization.


Do you think a lot of people think about the "relative danger?" NO! Why do you think people drink and drive? Or do anything stupid? They don't think about relative danger. Hell, kids especially are always doing things dangerous and they don't even care about it. And a lot of weed smokers do drive stoned. What about the relative danger in that? No one gives a fark about relative danger.


In fact, I think legalizing will have an opposite effect-- kids will have less reasons to interact with drug dealers. Right now, you want weed, you go find a dealer. Chances are, your dealer isn't affiliated with nice people. By associating with people who do illegal things, you run a higher risk of being turned on to higher drugs.


Dude, I am only 19 years old, and I have a lot of friends who are potheads, and none of them have ever had anything other than pot. They don't go to shady drug dealers. I've never seen a farking drug dealer! One of my friends is the closest thing to a "drug dealer" I know, as he buys giant bags of weed and pretty much supplies everyone in the nearby area, and he doesn't sell anything but weed. No harder drugs, no nothing. I don't even think he has taken harder drugs himself.

I have gotten stoned a LOT of times and never seen a dealer. It's just not like that. Weed is all over the place. You don't have to see Jose on third street in the alley behind the diner anymore. Trust me.

Bottom line: "drug dealers" aren't really so shady or scary anymore.

leviathanial

Uhhh that's a fallacy if I've ever heard one.

Most of the people I've gotten it from also sold those other things.. no idea why you think it'd be any different. If a person is going to buy LSD they were probably going to do it anyway.


See above. And no, that's not true. If less people use MJ, more people will use other drugs. Some people would buy harder drugs who would not otherwise.
 
2006-03-20 01:45:21 AM  
img71.imageshack.us
Didja ever smoke weed...ON WEED?

img71.imageshack.us
Freedom 35!
 
2006-03-20 01:45:34 AM  
There is just too much bias in the system (namely the bias toward previous investments) to ever hope of legalizing these drugs. The government has simply sunk too much money and too much political capital in the "war on drugs" (aka. the war on ourselves).

Even with an overwhelming majority strongly in favor of legalization, it would still take an epic struggle to end the war. Now look around you. Americans and the media are all too happy to buy whatever the government is selling, all too happy to sell out even our civil liberties. You really think regular America has the balls left to fight and win that type of battle?
 
2006-03-20 01:46:17 AM  
drunkMSUguy: Yes, the pharmaceutical corporations are trying to keep weed illegal even though if it was legalized, they'd be in the best position to grow, market and distribute for maximum profits in the US

Why would that be, exactly? We're talking about a plant here. You're basically saying that if you could make Prozac with a couple grocery store products that you would still buy it from Pfizer because...of some nebulous reason. WTF?
 
2006-03-20 01:46:52 AM  
Hey, marijuana has more poll strength that our current US president, so I say, vote Reefer in '08! Woo Hoo!
 
2006-03-20 01:47:06 AM  
The main reason drugs like this should be legal is to
prevent drug related crimes. Illegal substances can't be
disputed legally so the only way to solve debates over them
is with violence (remember Chicago's boot leggings crime lords
during prohibition??) Since they made booze legal and state
regulated you don't here about "Booze crime lords". There's
no need. It's only worth a criminal action if it's hard to
get and valuable. Legalizing alcohol made it neither.

Black markets create/ support crime. If I can buy pot at the
local CVS there's no need for a drug lord. Frankly
the free market will put him out of business and people will
be able to openly discuss and deal with the substance without
all the shame and issues that go with "illegal substances"
 
2006-03-20 01:47:53 AM  
madcat033: What about the relative danger in that? No one gives a fark about relative danger.

Um... yeah they do.

"Yo tarrant, you wanna try crack?"
"No way dude! That shiat can kill you!"

As opposed to...

"Yo tarrant, you wanna go get drunk?"
"Dude! Sweet!"

Of course they consider the relative danger! I tried pot because it was harmless. I've never tried coke (or any other drug) because that shiat is dangerous. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the *VAST* majority of pot smokers have not tried coke.

I've never seen a farking drug dealer! One of my friends is the closest thing to a "drug dealer" I know

But the question is, where does your boy get it from? Case in point, it has to be coming from somewhere. Chances are, that somewhere could be smuggled in from Mexico, Columbia, or a drug cartel. Generally those willing to sell large amounts of weed also dabble in other things, because the risk/benefit ratio is about the same.
 
2006-03-20 01:50:03 AM  
Um, that cartoon is wrong. Cocaine isn't Schedule I, it's Schedule II (they use it in eye surgery, I believe).
 
2006-03-20 01:52:28 AM  
tarrant84: Case in point, it has to be coming from somewhere. Chances are, that somewhere could be smuggled in from Mexico, Columbia, or a drug cartel. Generally those willing to sell large amounts of weed also dabble in other things, because the risk/benefit ratio is about the same.

If I may interject, the situation in Canada is very different. Penalties for marijuana use are far lighter than for most other drugs. Most dealers seem to buy their weed from folks who grow it hydroponically in the closet, or from people who use giant abandoned factories as grow-ops.

I suppose my point is that even if Americans don't want to legalize weed, who can argue that it shouldn't be treated with much more leniency than, say, crack.
 
2006-03-20 01:53:55 AM  
madcat033: Bottom line: "drug dealers" aren't really so shady or scary anymore.

You seem wiser than 19 years old. I would disagree with you here, though. I've never known a scary drug sealer, and I have been around a bit longer than you (17 years). I'm sure scary drug dealers exist, and I am sure drugs are bad for you.

Legalize anyway. the War on Drugs is more harmful than the drugs in the first place.
 
2006-03-20 01:54:05 AM  
I have little doubt that a national vote would come close to getting it legalized.
 
2006-03-20 01:54:22 AM  
Mugato: Why would that be, exactly? We're talking about a plant here. You're basically saying that if you could make Prozac with a couple grocery store products that you would still buy it from Pfizer because...of some nebulous reason. WTF?

Last time I checked, McDonalds sold inferior food at prices higher than food from a grocery store. What is this world coming to?!?
 
2006-03-20 01:55:03 AM  
Think of the marketing possibilites if the big pharmaceutical companies did get into the business...

Pfizer Pfattie (or Pfizer PfourTwenty)
Glaxo Waxo
Johnson & Johnson Jonesin'
Roche Roach
Bristol-Myer Squiff

I can't think of anymore right now. But feel free to add to the list (clicky-pops to list of Big Pharma companies).
 
2006-03-20 01:55:23 AM  
Most kids who 'deal drugs' are just doing it for the cool aspect. I went back to Canada a few years ago, and everyone called themselves drug dealers, selling little bags of weed to friends, carrying cell phones, acting the shiat. Real drug dealers are not nice individuals. I've bought from drug dealers, real ones- not kids peddling dimebags. They work in a competitive market where you have to take care of your own business. What are you going to do when another dealer wants your business or robs your carriers? Call a cop? The black market is a dangerous place, and exposing kids to it who just want some weed increases the danger they're subject to.
 
2006-03-20 01:55:52 AM  
tarrant84

Of course they consider the relative danger! I tried pot because it was harmless. I've never tried coke (or any other drug) because that shiat is dangerous. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the *VAST* majority of pot smokers have not tried coke.


Yeah, but i'm saying that if pot is legalized, usage of other drugs will increase. Bet on it. Not everyone thinks about relative danger. If everyone thought about relative danger then NO ONE would use those drugs! Jeeze.


But the question is, where does your boy get it from? Case in point, it has to be coming from somewhere. Chances are, that somewhere could be smuggled in from Mexico, Columbia, or a drug cartel. Generally those willing to sell large amounts of weed also dabble in other things, because the risk/benefit ratio is about the same.


Of course he does. But I know quite a few people who could be considered "weed dealers," probably about 5 people. And none of them has anything other than weed. And I have never met a shady drug dealer. Hell, I have seen weed so many times, and I have never even SEEN any other drug. Literally. I have a lot of experience too, living in both New Hampshire and Los Angeles. You'd think that in Los Angeles the drug dealers would be a lot more shady but the guy who is the main weed dealer is just another college kid and has nothing but weed.

And even if they did buy it from shady people, that's just one guy who can buy a lot and supply everyone else. So everyone else is shielded from the shadiness.

Case in pont, weed is really easy and safe to get. Most people don't have to worry about going to shady dealers. See, this is what you said:

In fact, I think legalizing will have an opposite effect-- kids will have less reasons to interact with drug dealers. Right now, you want weed, you go find a dealer. Chances are, your dealer isn't affiliated with nice people. By associating with people who do illegal things, you run a higher risk of being turned on to higher drugs.

But the thing is, kids DON'T have to interact with drug dealers. That what you are missing. If you want weed, you DON'T have to find a dealer. Well, it depends on the definition of "dealer." Weed is so widespread that a lot of kids have large quantities who aren't technically "dealers" but have enough to sell.
 
2006-03-20 01:55:54 AM  
hitchking: I suppose my point is that even if Americans don't want to legalize weed, who can argue that it shouldn't be treated with much more leniency than, say, crack.

Absolutely.

See, that's the thing, once you get into dealing 'large' amounts, we start to treat it like crack. So if you're a guy dealing weed and you say "Hmmm, I could get 5-10 from this..." why not just go all out and sell crack, too? Thus, often times when kids are exposed to a drug dealer, they are exposed to a variety of drugs. If they start hanging with their drug dealer, they also meet other drug users.

Which is why if weed were legal, I don't think kids would be exposed to that element as frequently.
 
2006-03-20 01:57:36 AM  
hitchking

My point was that reality usually trumps theory, so arguing
the details is pointless especially since we don't know the
details. People like you often miss the obvious and go
straight to insults. You're like Intelligent Design,
no foundation with nothing to add but you're farking quick
to comment on everyone else.
 
Displayed 50 of 597 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report