Case in point: Just Ignorant.

I've forgotten more about the law than you will ever know. I am a staunchly conservative civil libertarian, and the closest I come to agreeing with you is when you say that you should have your freedom as Jefferson intended. But freedom can be regulated. So the government can say you can buy a house, get married, have a summer place on the lake, and do damn near anything else, but you can't smoke pot, and your "freedom" argument is shot out of the water because every right enumerated in the constitution can be reasonably regulated. It's why we have weapons bans, and permits for speaking in public. Freedoms not enumerated in the constitution can be read into it by the Supreme Court, or banned altogether if not deemed a "freedom." And guess what they've said about pot smoking? It's not a freedom. It has been deemed to be a mind-altering controlled substance, and I don't care what stance you take I think it's undisputed that it's smoked for the purpose of altering your physical and or mental state. Or else why smoke it at all? The government has determined that a reasonable regulation of alcohol is that it should not be consumed in excess, and a reasonable regulation of pot is to ban it. I hapen to agree with the ban, for the reasons that have been posted by me and dozens of others in this and dozens of other threads. When presented with studies both for and against pot, I happen to side with those against it. You happen to see things differently, and that's fine with me. But don't thik that my stance is based on ignorance, it's based onmy personal experiences and the fact that nothing I have seen has operated to rebut those experiences. I know that there are exceptions to my generalizations, but its the general public that is to be worried about. Most people are ignorant fools, and getting them high has, is my experience, a bad idea.

And none of this crap about "but alcohol is legal..." that has nothing to do with this argument. Not any more than my gateway beliefs, anyway, which you all dismiss. You can't simply dismiss every argument that is contrary to your beliefs, while heaping straw men on the opposition.

And on top of it all, it is still your burden to over turn the law. That you think otherwise just shows your ignorance of the system.

cuprous2, while i generally find your statement true, generalizations as a whole are unreliable

cuprous2
Stoners don't fight, rape, stab, etc.

Of course we do! Just as much as anyone else. I mean, I do, but, uh...

That is, I personally don't, but I'm sure that, uh...

Never mind. I'm gonna go get in a fight, stab somebody, and rape them. Then smoke weed...to support terrorists. Because it's illegal. Or something.

2004-05-18 04:33:59 PM itsfiveoclocksomewhere
Pot is illegal. Therefore, using pot is criminal. Whether you think that's right or wrong, it's the way it is.

5oclock, do you believe that we should NOT change laws that are unjust or plain don't make sense? we should just blindly follow every regulation regardless of whether it would hurt or help society in general? slavery, jim crowe laws, denied suffrage, etc...those are all unjust things that we had to change with laws and we did. understand, i'm not trying to attack you, i just want to know your position.

America is a place for individualism (i.e. personal freedom), we should be able to do what we like as long as:

A. we do not hurt others in the process
B. we do not damage the property of others in the process

Wouldnt it then be silly to use one set of figures in an argument if the couterpart set is unreliable/unavailable?

No, because in alcohol's case you can test for immediate intoxication, i.e. whether the person is currently inebriated and impaired. Marijuana tests however only show whether there are inert marijuana metabolites in the blood stream, and they could have been there for 1/2 hour or up to 3-5 weeks.

That's why the DUID (driving under influence of drug laws) that are being debated in Congress currently are totally farked up.

itsfiveoclocksomewhere: No bills pass by 70% any more, so this would truly be a landmark vote.

Unless, of course, you don't really think a bill would pass...

I don't really give a shiat if a bill passes--or what the "majority" thinks about this issue. The majority can fark off for all I care. Seriously. A majority of people (in the US anyway) thought Saddam did 9/11. A majority of people believe in an imaginary man in the sky...Why would I ever give a rat's ass what any of those losers think about my affinity for the ganja?

In theory, a majority of people could be convinced of the merits of a law that prohibited you, itsfiveoclocksomewhere, from banging your girlfriend in the privacy of your room in your parents' basement...You might not find your sexual endeavors objectionable, but a majority might. Where would you be then?...In the market for a lobbyist, perhaps? No, you'd rightly tell "the majority" to piss off and mind "its" own farking business.

At that point, you'd have a good idea of how pot smokers feel.

2004-05-18 04:52:45 PM Train_of_Thought

That's kinda my point.
Test A can be made and recorded.
Test B cannot.

Until test B can, how can one seriously say A is worse or better then B?

Freedoms not enumerated in the constitution can be read into it by the Supreme Court, or banned altogether if not deemed a "freedom." And guess what they've said about pot smoking? It's not a freedom.

Can you tell me where they've said this? And I don't mean the Controlled Substances Act. I mean, why when they decided alcohol shouldn't be a freedom they needed the 18th Amendment to take it away, which required both Congressional support and a 2/3 states majority for ratification. But for marijuana, this didn't happen.

So, why when deeming that marijuana isn't a freedom did they not need an amendment to remove that right? Since you've forgotten more about law then I'll even know, you should be able to answer this.

modernhamlet: You just got here, who are you to say what we are or are not debating? And if they want me to shut up, why do they keep asking me questions? Read the thread, then come back, moron.

bf+ That "don't know the rules of debate" wasn't about trolling, it was just to state that the "rules of debate" aren't necessary in this thread. In a court, which is where they would have to make their unjust-law argument, the burden of proof is on the proponent of change. It's that simple.

And come on, cuporous is a moron, we all know that. Pointing that out does not make me a troll. We need Harmonia, now that was a troll.

Just Ignorant: I think the world is pretty good. Aren't you the one arguing that the laws should change? Can't you keep up with who wants the status quo (me) and who is voicing outrage at the unjust world (you, cuporous, whidbey...)?

"And guess what they've said about pot smoking? It's not a freedom...."

Actually it is-- The marijuana tax stam act didn't make it illegal, you just need a licence. Number of liceneces available: 0
It was a dirty trick, and not what the law inteneded-- look it up.

"...The government has determined that a reasonable regulation of alcohol is that it should not be consumed in excess, and a reasonable regulation of pot is to ban it...."

Actually they also banned alcohol-- Organized crime lobbied for the ban.

"But don't thik that my stance is based on ignorance, it's based onmy personal experiences"

The two are the same.
Personal experiance is usually deceiving.
It builds false generalizations which lead to bigotism.

"And none of this crap about "but alcohol is legal..."
I generally agree here-- Alcohol is off topic, unless the claimed "reasons" that pot is illegal is also true of this other, legal substance.

Since you've forgotten more about law then I'll even know, you should be able to answer this.

He can't, 'cause he forgot it.

"Marijuana" by Brian Robbins

Well once upon a time in 1776 Thomas Jefferson signed his name on a piece of marijuana, and this document was a symbol of freedom and of liberty, at least for the rich, white, gentry. And time marched along, this plant that I referred to has been used for everything from medicine to the American flag. And now it seems to me that somewhere along the way things got messed up, yeah, messed up, for marijuana.

A gift of God to my brothers and me. Oh marijuanathe government wants to test me when I pee.

Well some say a conspiracy, ? chemical and pulp paper industries combined to kill the competition, government hysteria, monopoly, and conflict of interest, with total impunity. Yeah, so, if you dont buy the conspiracy, just look at the reality that your tax dollars go to spray poison on the fields of a farmer in South America. And as an added bonus, your neighbor might be the proud recipient of that poison weed.

Oh marijuanathe government wants to test me when I pee. Oh marijuanaa gift of God to my brothers and me. Oh marijuanayou cant legislate your own morality. Oh marijuanathe government wants to test me when I pee.

Free from madness, chronic sadness, what is the half-life of bad propaganda? The policies fail, denied bail, you made him a demon now pay for his trip to prison. Hard to promote the status quote, but what is the shelf life of bad legislation? The hypocrite smirks, its a moral disgrace as he reads from the law that was written about the same time that he had his last original thoughts. Men said he was dying and the nausea and the pain left him wasting away and unable to keep a meal down. So he tried everything prescription could obtain but to no avail. The side effects were worse than the pain. So now he breaks the law to use the one thing that seems to help him out. But the people say, Oh hes just gettin high. Not to change the subject but, didnt you ever wonder why getting highs a crime. Yeah a crime.

Oh marijuanaa gift of God to my brothers and me. Oh marijuananow the government wants to test me when I pee. Oh marijuanathe government wants to test me when I pee. Oh marijuanathe government wants to test me when I pee. Oh marijuanathe government wants to test me when I pee. Oh marijuana(this is the part where everybody would sing along) when I pee.

/better late than never

That's kinda my point.
Test A can be made and recorded.
Test B cannot.

Until test B can, how can one seriously say A is worse or better then B?

There are tests that can be done, they're just not employed by law enforcement at this time. I posted this above but I'll repost it in case you missed it:

A recent study of actual driving ability under the influence of cannabis -- employing the same protocol used to test the impairment-potential of medicinal drugs -- evaluated the impact of placebo and three active THC doses in three driving trials, including one in high-density urban traffic. Dose-related impairment was observed in drivers' ability to maintain steady lateral position. However, even with the highest dose of THC, impairment was relatively minor -- similar to that observed with blood-alcohol concentrations between .03 and .07 percent and many legal medications. Drivers under the influence of marijuana also tended to drive more slowly and approach other cars more cautiously. The authors conclude that "THC is not a profoundly impairing drug."
Source:Robbe, H. and O'Hanlon, J., Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance, Washington, DC: Department of Transportation (1993).

There's also other methods, outside of testing, that will show similar results. For people only intoxicated on marijuana, the accident rate was much lower than for alcohol alone. For example, an economic analysis of the effects of decriminalization on marijuana usage found that states that had reduced penalties for marijuana possession experienced a slight rise in marijuana use and a decline in alcohol use with the result that fatal highway accidents decreased. That analysis was found in: "Do Youths Substitute Alcohol and Marijuana? Some Econometric Evidence" by Frank J. Chaloupka and Adit Laixuthai, Nov. 1992, University of Illinois at Chicago.

itsfiveoclocksomewhere

I've been here all along and have read all of the posts. You'll note that I posted far up in the thread, long before you did. I know exactly what you're debating. But thanks for another Ad hominem.

That link is still there whenever you're ready to learn something or debate without personal attacks.

Bukharin, i'd be willing to bet even with Test B's false postives Test A would be found to have higher numbers.

just a educated guess, nothing to back it up

The sad part, is that 5O'Clocks arguments very accurately highlight the main "argument" of the anti-re-legalization crew.

On the other hand, researchers report they still can't find a good reason to not smoke marijuana

The best reason not to smoke or admit to smoking herb is the no knock warrent and soon the no warrent no knock warrent. "GET DOWN ON THE FLOOR!" BANG BANG BANG "They were resisting sir, we had no choice." "Good job sargent. However, next time, dont shoot the sleeping children, we need them for the work camps."

train: The 18th Amendment was an abuse of the constitutional process in an era of puritainism. Banning gay marriage would also be an abuse, as would banning flag burning, which I support as a protected form of free speech (there goes the republican/Nazi jack-booted image of me that some of you morons have, at least in part).

Since then it has been realized that many things can be regulated, due to the development of federal laws and constitutional jurisprudence, that do not require a constitutional amendment. In short, the Spreme Court created their place in history early in the process in Marbury v. Madison, wen they established that they had the right to say what the law is. Fox guarding the henhouse, but it stuck--mostly because nobody challenged it at the time. Since then it has been established that the federal government can regulate certain things by statute, even when it has no inter state effect. Drugs happens to be one of the main ones.

This is a very short answer. To really educate you on Consstitutional law would take months, and involve issues that you're probably too stoned to understand.

/again, I was just joking about that last part, so relax cuporous

Villaim: If you don't care what the majority thinks, then prepare to always be on the short end of the stick. You'll never get anywhere with that attitude, which may be fine with you, but other stoners here seem to think that they have the majority on their side.

pharkitect: Again, I've covered that topic. Somewhere down the line it was decided to regulate pot by banning it. I happen t agree with that, and although I have seen pro-pot polls/studies/arguments, I happen to side with the anti-pot crowd. If you want more detail than that, RTFT.

Bukharin
You dont think the former prohibition of a beverage one can make with common kitchen tools is any way similar to the current prohibition of a plant than can grow in one's lawn?

I'm having trouble parsing that. I'm saying that if pot does cause any crime it's because it's in the control of the black market and they like to shoot eachother to settle disputes. Otherwise, the influence of pot is not responsible for 40% of violent crime!

Ever been to a bar or coffee shop in Amsterdam, the socialising in each is also similar.

Sadly, I haven't. But I can't imagine the stoners smash bottles over eachother's heads like they do here in america.

The stats you put up are useless without accurate stats for pot.

Fair enough, but I don't think they're useless. I just don't see pot's effects being responsible for that amount of violent crime.

Oh well. Time to go.
I'm sure my buddy and I will disscuss this while we are getting differently mellow after work. Our elevation will be so different, it wont even be compairable. We will hunger for radically different food and then go home to love our women in completely different ways.

Because booze and dope are nothing alike.

In short, the Spreme Court created their place in history early in the process in Marbury v. Madison, wen they established that they had the right to say what the law is.

Okay, and where does the Supreme Court rule that smoking marijuana is to be prohibited?

modernhamlet tells me to shut up, then cries about an ad hominem attack. What a pussy.

itsfiveoclocksomewhere

You have been so schooled in this thread, man.

It's pretty funny.

If there was ever evidence that the criminalization of marijuana is based on nonsense, it is this thread.

We should send this to our Senators.

Train: The Supreme Court has upheld federal drug laws in cases where there was no interstate effect. There are several cases, and there are hundreds, thousands more likely, of federal appellate cases where they have also been upheld. Do you want me to link to all of them?

well, if confabulat says so, I guess I change my mind and think pot should be legal.

Idiot.

don't fedral drug laws apply to classificatons of drugs not particular drugs?

if so the supreme court wouldn't have been ruling against pot, just the group of controlled substances which they have deemed pot a part of.

i could be wrong... i don't know much about federal drug laws.

if i am right what we need to do is get pot reclassified

It's good to know that pot is perhaps the single issue that virtually all of Fark can agree on.

Welp, looks like this thread is wrapping up. Which is good. Another useless flame war to write to mom about.
I leave you all with this sunset photo.
Good night!

The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws - NORML.org

http://www.askmen.com/sports/health/20_mens_health.html

itsfiveoclocksomewhere: Villaim: If you don't care what the majority thinks, then prepare to always be on the short end of the stick. You'll never get anywhere with that attitude, which may be fine with you, but other stoners here seem to think that they have the majority on their side.

"You'll never get anywhere with that attitude..."

Wow, does that ever sound like my Mom.

You failed to answer the question about what you would do if your preferred method of enjoyment/entertainment was suddenly on the list of banned activities. What then? Just follow the dictates of the masses? Break up with your girlfriend and go back to jerking off--all because a majority of people don't like what you do when you're together? If your answer to that last question is "yes," then may I preemptively call you a big, fat liar.

/Pants on fire!

You're avoiding the question...I don't want cases "upholding federal drug laws" because who has enacted those laws?

You said outside the Constitution the Supreme Court has established they can make laws. I want to know what law they've made that says smoking marijuana is illegal. I know most of their cases where they've 'upheld' the established laws, and they merely support or affirm a question about those laws. Nowhere do I know of where the Supreme Court themselves has made a law outlawing marijuana, and there certainly is no amendment that does it.

And an amendment would be needed, whether you claim it's 'abuse' or not (seeing as how they followed the procedure specifically outlined in Article V, I don't see it as abuse).

What HoChiWaWa said is true, it is on the controlled substances schedule. How does that make it against my rights to partake of it as I choose though, a right the supreme law of the land affords me?

Google "Ed Rosenthal".

Keep your righteous law, 5oclock. I'll keep right on breaking it.

The world will be so much safer when we start enforcing all the ridiculous laws that managed to somehow get passed, eh? I like this one from Virginia myself: "Not only is it illegal to have sex with the lights on, one may not have sex in any position other than missionary." What a good egg to follow all the rules. Why, I think you've changed my position on government entirely. Hurrah for someone attempting to place restraints on my leisure time activities! I plan to start a "War on the Well-Lit Missionary Position" in Virginia.

Make your silly laws and try to enforce them. G'head, g'head! I'll be watching from my porch for the Revenuers down the long double barrel of my shotgun.

Troll.

Bonnie: Sounds like you've switched to crack.

Makes me piss my pants.
And at some point, I figured out that you can pick up chicks much more successfully if you don't piss your pants.

Well, OK, you can pick up some chicks if you piss your pants, but you might not really want to pick those particular chicks, KWIM?

.

Soup4Bonnie: I plan to start a "War on the Well-Lit Missionary Position" in Virginia.

I plan on starting a "War on the Over the Shoulder Boner Holder" here in Missouri.

Did you know that some people try to pull that move AND use lube at the same time? How Satanic.

I love da' reefer, but it makes me not want to work out and stuff. Otherwise, in the words of Sgt. Friday: "Marijuana is harmless." Okay--relatively harmless; if you smoke alot it will make your lungs hurt.


Re: pot / terrorism.

The link is tenuous but it exists. The statement itself is a little disingenuous, though. Anything black market is likely to end up buying guns and other equipment for some baaad folks, and Im not talking about your local dealer. Im talking about the people who basically run S. America. They do some seriously heinous thingsever hear of a Columbian necktie? Ill spare you the bad part, but its when they cut a hole in your throat and pull your tongue through it. People can do this because theyve bought off judges and other officials with money that (mostly) the coke trade buys them.

Still, if the govt was primarily concerned about anything like what the commercial portrays, theyd legalize it. I also wish I could recall a link to the study that was even more profound than this one in that (get this): They showed that not only is marijuana not a gate-way drug, but actually *less* people move on to harder drugs if marijuana is legal. Why not? If you can get your fix without a hassle, why go through all the lengths to obtain and use heroin?

Lastly, pot is cool because when Im reeeely high I think a bit like some liberal farkers herelike, I can see how the CIA is in it with Halliburton and shiat. Then I come down. No kidding neither.

itsfiveoclocksomewhere
modernhamlet tells me to shut up, then cries about an ad hominem attack. What a pussy.

Wow. Your logic is stunning.

My statement in its entirety:

There is a very coherent and well written argument for legalization here. Read and refute it with something other than an ad hominem or strawman. Otherwise, shut up. You're getting on everyone's nerves.

So I tell you to start arguing rationally (i.e. stop trolling) or stop posting and your response is two personal attacks on me?

You lose and you know it, farktard.

LittleCamel that link may exist through some sources... but some of us have pretty clear ideas where our pot comes from, My cheaper shiat is beasties imported from canada and my expensive headies are grown here in the USA

Alright, I've been reading this all day, here's what I've come up with:

About 20% of you have a clue as to what/why it's illegal.
MOST of you have NO CLUE how to get it legalized.
Quit comparing it to alcohol and tobacco- 3 different babies. It just makes us look silly. Because two "evils" are allowed, we should have a third? It should be legal because the current law destroys families, destroys careers, and fills our prisons with non-violent offenders while rapists, murderers and child molesters get out WAY too early. It is a victimless crime and is based on RACIAL INTOLERANCE, REPRESSION of a "smaller" cultural element, and LIES. yep, that's right, out and out lies made by Anslinger in front of Congress. Don't believe me? Read up on it. Yeah, that's right 5OC, read. Oh, but I'm a stoner so I don't read? jackass. Anyway, nothing's getting solved in the forum- except an excellent display of baiting by 5OC (even though he mad lacks the debating skillz) and SHAME ON YOU STONERS FOR FALLING FOR HIS BULLSHIAT. The guy's a monkey, let him swing from his own tree. You want to do something to shut him and all the other assh*les up? Try this! Put your money and your time where your mouth is. CITIZENJ has hereby declared this fu*king forum dead and is leaving his office to go home and get high as a kite. WAY TO GO 5OC, you killed it.

Bf+ - you got skillz, brains and balls. sometime, you, me, smoke.
NOW QUIT POSTING IN RESPONSE TO JACKAS...i mean..5OC

LittleCamel

HoChiWaWa's point aside and granting (the very dubious argument) that pot funds terrorism...

If pot were LEGAL, it wouldn't fund terrorism. People would get their pot from 3 sources:

1. Large corporations
2. Some guy they know that grows
3. They'll grow their own

Sounds like a good argument for legalization to me.

Actually, I have been smoking pot nearly every single day for the last 3 years. I manage to hold down a respectable job and I actually get very good pay. I do not find it effects my daily routines and i find it to be very sociable. The only bad thing about it is the price, damn its expensive to smoke everyday.

Pfffff, I'm as conservative as they come and I enjoy the occaisional bowl....at least 3 times a week. I'm a biochemistry and psychology major with a 3.8 GPA.

When you get down to it, pot's just farking fun. I've got a far greater chance of injury surfing....daily, than I do smoking pot.

Seriously, all the haters can suck it.

Remind him that oral sex is against the law in many states and whether he feels the next time he's getting a blowjob whether he should be imprisoned for it.

He's probably off desperately looking for a Supreme Court case to satisfy my question, unfortunately for him I'm leaving now. I'll probably check the thread later though.

Happy tokin' all

Well no way to read this thread without spending a day so I'll just sound off like everyone else for whoever might stop and read this one at random.

Anyhow, I just wanted to add to the criticism of those dumb enough to think it encourages terrorism.

The only drugs there was ever an inkling of a sad excuse for an argument for with this were poppy derived opiates such as heroin. Nevermind Afghanistan's poppy mostly goes to the Asian market, but now that the Taliban's out of power it's a non-issue. Terrorists have superior ways of raising and washing money, such as Tanzanite.

Sure, poppy is still a big cash crop in Afghanistan but wherever you have a lot of dirt poor people with next to no legitimate sources of income it's going to happen.

Most of the pot in the states indeed comes from this country and the Americas. It is mostly dealt by users. The market is only lucrative for growers and big time distributors. You'd be hard pressed to find a direct-to-consumer pot dealer making a living off it without growing it.

Because of this limited potential for profit, there is less violent crime in the pot trade than there is with other drugs that command a higher mark up, such as cocaine. Nevermind the fact the violent crime that there is would be neutralized with widespread decriminalization.

I'm not pretending it's completely harmless. It's just that the limited harm it does is greatly outweighed by the harm our current laws in regard to it are responsible for.

I can't see that four percent figure quoted in the article as being remotely accurate. If one were to judge from people online talking about pot alone, then it would seem closer to fifty percent. However, it's probably that a lot of potheads find wasting large amounts of time online suits their reversible lack of motivation:).

To all of you 'GATEWAY' wacko's.

Smokin weed DOES NOT lead to coke and heroin!

After 21 years of steady consumption, I still have zero desire for heroin or anything else.

Given the choice between booze and weed, I choose weed.

Besides, when I'm high, I can still drive to the liquor store, whereas when I'm drunk I cannot visit my dealer!