| Author | Post |
|---|
clu
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | TOQC |
| Posts: | 515 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 05:52 pm |
|
Dublin Girl wrote: plus i though i heard once that weed kill brain cells even in occasional use so why would we want to legalize something that would make our country stupider as a whole?
I agree. Also, alcohol kills brain cells. It's legal. It's not entirely easy to make, so the feds control it. Weed is too easy to grow so too hard to control. Believing the legislative branch outlaws things because they are bad for us is naive. If that were true, big tobacco would have been outlawed decades ago. It's all about the money, unfortunately. That is the achilles heel in a replubic form of govt. It's very insidious!
|
Dublin Girl
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 05:38 pm |
|
Bambi wrote: Do we really want to see our kids locked up in a jail or prison because they smoked some pot? Do you know what happens to them in that prison? I didn't smoke pot, nor do I, because as I was growing up, my parents guided me thru that tangled mess called society's norms. They instilled in me the negatives of smoking and drinking, not government. If it begins in the home, then the road teens take will be overseen and guided by concerned parents, along with the schools and churches giving assistance down that road. It really does take a Village to raise our kids.
Let the punishment fit the crime, but don't destroy a young person's life by criminalizing pot. It is not a dangerous drug....Ron Paul has stated that and so have many others. Meth is a dangerous drug; heroin. Crimes are the end result of those drugs. Again, I say that alcohol is the biggest destroyer of lives, yet it's legal. If you decriminalize pot or alcohol (Temperance movement) or other drugs, you take the black market out of it...meaning you won't have a need for a DEA. When alcohol was deemed illegal, the Mafia was formed to handle the speakeasys flow of alcohol. Now criminals are competing and off go the guns. We as a country discovered that just isn't working so we legalized alcohol again and regulated it. Now, we don't have huge trucks shipping illegal alcohol. The McCains are still in business though with their huge distributing trucks, but alas, it's all LEGAL.
Now, those who abuse drugs should go to the right department and that is the "Health" Department, as it is an illness to be addicted to any drug, including alcohol or pot.
why are some laws okay to break but not others. I do believe it's a gateway drug all my friends in high school did weed, starting in 10th grade or so by there senior year the were tripping off purple acid gel tabs from the school drug dealer. These kids come from good homes were getting a good education almost all went on to college but yet they all were doing acid. i've never smoked weed nor have i done any other drug. and trust to look at these kids you would never think they would do acid makes me worry want the tried later, meth?
plus i though i heard once that weed kill brain cells even in occasional use so why would we want to legalize something that would make our country stupider as a whole?
|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1078 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 03:59 pm |
|
bigwavedave wrote: I see the moral compass makes his holier-than-thou self public again. How have you gone through life so pure that you can judge others?
Let's see Jiggles, last I checked the law is the one judging drug users. That is very judgmental of them to have any rules, now that I think about it in your raver, free-loving way.
|
bigwavedave
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 607 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 04:46 am |
|
CrimeFighter wrote: TheBigShow wrote: well from personal experience I would tell you that's just not a reality. I smoked and unlike clinton I inhaled. I never had a thought in my head to try anything else and therefore didn't. If you apply that same theory to alcohol, anyone the enjoys a beer is somehow a future purchaser of everclear. Not true in either case.
Good thing you are in Austrailia now that you are admitting illegal drug use on a public forum. I see the moral compass makes his holier-than-thou self public again. How have you gone through life so pure that you can judge others?
|
TheBigShow
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1081 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 04:24 am |
|
| I'm not in Australia. And if a cop wants to arrest me for something I did 12 years ago, by all means go for it.
|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1078 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 04:10 am |
|
TheBigShow wrote: well from personal experience I would tell you that's just not a reality. I smoked and unlike clinton I inhaled. I never had a thought in my head to try anything else and therefore didn't. If you apply that same theory to alcohol, anyone the enjoys a beer is somehow a future purchaser of everclear. Not true in either case.
Good thing you are in Austrailia now that you are admitting illegal drug use on a public forum.
|
TheBigShow
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1081 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 10:33 am |
|
| well from personal experience I would tell you that's just not a reality. I smoked and unlike clinton I inhaled. I never had a thought in my head to try anything else and therefore didn't. If you apply that same theory to alcohol, anyone the enjoys a beer is somehow a future purchaser of everclear. Not true in either case.
|
clu
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | TOQC |
| Posts: | 515 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 10:12 am |
|
What about the "gateway drug" theory? Is there any weight to that theory, or is it bogus?
|
TheBigShow
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1081 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 08:16 am |
|
luv2garden wrote: Here is a site that list both candidates positions. http://www.votegopher.com/index.php
Here is Obama's on marijuaa.
Marijuana
Obama supports keeping marijuana illegal, but also wants to reduce criminal penalties for marijuana possession. He is undecided on medical marijuana, and says that a decision on whether to allow it should be based on science. He has said he would not make federal raids on patients who use medical marijuana a priority because stopping violent drug crimes is more important.
Locking people up for smoking pot is a waste. The only circumstance I see for locking someone up for smoking pot is if their actions endanger the lives of others such as getting high and getting behind the wheel of a car. But if someone wants to toke up at home and eat way too many brownies, more power to em.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3245 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 06:03 pm |
|
QCVillager wrote: Bambi wrote: Regulate doesn't mean tax in this case. It means you regulate it just like you do beer, wine, prescription drugs, etc. It's McCain that is pushing deregulation. That has been on the news for several days now. Obama seeks regulation. You regulate marijuana for the medicinal uses, just like morphine when it's given to meth addicts to withdraw from the meth. It's all about the medicinal uses not recreation. Check out all the news sites and you will have a clearer understanding. And he and others before him have said that decisions on that type of use should be up to the States.
did you mean to say that McCain is pushing for deregulation of marijuana ? pls post proof of same if so.
No. I did not mean he is pushing for deregulation of MJ. I am stating that he is a proponent of deregulation of the financial entities. Regulation vs. deregulation. sorry for the inference.
|
luv2garden
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 05:16 pm |
|
Here is a site that list both candidates positions. http://www.votegopher.com/index.php
Here is Obama's on marijuaa.
Marijuana
Obama supports keeping marijuana illegal, but also wants to reduce criminal penalties for marijuana possession. He is undecided on medical marijuana, and says that a decision on whether to allow it should be based on science. He has said he would not make federal raids on patients who use medical marijuana a priority because stopping violent drug crimes is more important.
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 04:48 pm |
|
Bambi wrote: Regulate doesn't mean tax in this case. It means you regulate it just like you do beer, wine, prescription drugs, etc. It's McCain that is pushing deregulation. That has been on the news for several days now. Obama seeks regulation. You regulate marijuana for the medicinal uses, just like morphine when it's given to meth addicts to withdraw from the meth. It's all about the medicinal uses not recreation. Check out all the news sites and you will have a clearer understanding. And he and others before him have said that decisions on that type of use should be up to the States.
did you mean to say that McCain is pushing for deregulation of marijuana ? pls post proof of same if so.
Last edited on Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 04:48 pm by QCVillager
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3245 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 04:19 pm |
|
Do we really want to see our kids locked up in a jail or prison because they smoked some pot? Do you know what happens to them in that prison? I didn't smoke pot, nor do I, because as I was growing up, my parents guided me thru that tangled mess called society's norms. They instilled in me the negatives of smoking and drinking, not government. If it begins in the home, then the road teens take will be overseen and guided by concerned parents, along with the schools and churches giving assistance down that road. It really does take a Village to raise our kids.
Let the punishment fit the crime, but don't destroy a young person's life by criminalizing pot. It is not a dangerous drug....Ron Paul has stated that and so have many others. Meth is a dangerous drug; heroin. Crimes are the end result of those drugs. Again, I say that alcohol is the biggest destroyer of lives, yet it's legal. If you decriminalize pot or alcohol (Temperance movement) or other drugs, you take the black market out of it...meaning you won't have a need for a DEA. When alcohol was deemed illegal, the Mafia was formed to handle the speakeasys flow of alcohol. Now criminals are competing and off go the guns. We as a country discovered that just isn't working so we legalized alcohol again and regulated it. Now, we don't have huge trucks shipping illegal alcohol. The McCains are still in business though with their huge distributing trucks, but alas, it's all LEGAL.
Now, those who abuse drugs should go to the right department and that is the "Health" Department, as it is an illness to be addicted to any drug, including alcohol or pot.
Last edited on Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 04:20 pm by Bambi
|
gsbill
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 04:05 pm |
|
Obama wanted to decriminalize marijuana..then he changed his mind. Decriminalizing is the first step towards legalization.
From Normls website...
Presidential Candidate Barack Obama Backs Federal Decriminalization -- “I think the war on drugs has been a failure, and I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws.”
Share This Page Share This Page on del.icio.us Share This Page on digg Share This Page on Stumble Upon Share This Page on Facebook
January 31, 2008 - Washington, DC, USA
Washington, DC: A newly discovered video of a 2004 appearance at Northwestern University by Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama, in which he calls for the federal decriminalization of marijuana, was posted online today by The Washington Times. In that appearance, Obama states, "I think the war on drugs has been a failure, and I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws." Obama continued, saying that while he supported decriminalization, he did not support the full legalization of marijuana.
In contrast, Senator Obama appeared to oppose decriminalization in a 2007 Democratic primary debate when MSNBC moderator Tim Russert asked candidates who opposed then-candidate Senator Chris Dodd’s support of decriminalization to raise their hands. In the video, Senator Obama is seen hesitantly raising his hand halfway before quickly lowering it again.
When asked about the two different answers, Senator Obama’s campaign stated that he has "always" supported decriminalization, and that Obama misunderstood the question when he raised his hand in the debate.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3245 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 03:55 pm |
|
| Regulate doesn't mean tax in this case. It means you regulate it just like you do beer, wine, prescription drugs, etc. It's McCain that is pushing deregulation. That has been on the news for several days now. Obama seeks regulation. You regulate marijuana for the medicinal uses, just like morphine when it's given to meth addicts to withdraw from the meth. It's all about the medicinal uses not recreation. Check out all the news sites and you will have a clearer understanding. And he and others before him have said that decisions on that type of use should be up to the States.
|
clu
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | TOQC |
| Posts: | 515 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 03:47 pm |
|
"420 Life" posted this in another forum but I wanted to bring it up for discussion.
420 Life wrote: Barack Obama, U.S. Senator (D-IL), stated in a Mar. 22, 2008 interview with Gary Nelson, Editorial page editor for the Oregon newspaper Mail Tribune:
"When it comes to medical marijuana, I have more of a practical view than anything else. My attitude is that if it's an issue of doctors prescribing medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma or as a cancer treatment, I think that should be appropriate because there really is no difference between that and a doctor prescribing morphine or anything else. I think there are legitimate concerns in not wanting to allow people to grow their own or start setting up mom and pop shops because at that point it becomes fairly difficult to regulate.
That last word "regulate" seems to me to be meant as "taxed." They don't want mom + pop growing dope because they can't TAX it.
Obama says there really is no difference between a doctor prescribing dope and morphine or anything else.
This sounds like a strange statement. Is there really no difference in prescribing dope and morphine or anything else?
Do you think Obama will really pursue to vacate the federal marijuana laws, and leave it to the states? Or is he just pandering to the dope smokers for their vote?
Why hasn't the media brought this up?
Last edited on Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 03:49 pm by clu
|
Current time is 02:46 am | |
|