"Here's wher you can store your weed"

[Mazzak]

Substances should not be illegal, doing stupid things under their influence should. Unfortunately this country is happy to just ban something, say they are having a "war" on it, and gasp at the fact that people are doing it anyway. Just legalize the stuff already, and watch the "chaos"* set in.



*Not really. Maybe initially a little craze, then people'd get bored of it, and those that didn't would get themselves killed or imprisoned for public acts of stupidity under the influence of an intoxicant (wouldn't I love to see a law against that...)

 

[Nightstalkers]

Originally posted by MrXarvox

Substances should not be illegal, doing stupid things under their influence should. Unfortunately this country is happy to just ban something, say they are having a "war" on it, and gasp at the fact that people are doing it anyway. Just legalize the stuff already, and watch the "chaos"* set in.

We should follow Europes example with the many a Cafe filled with pot smokers reading their daily paper.

 

[Mazzak]

quoting my corpse, I see.

 

[Ferret]

Originally posted by Nightstalkers
We should follow Europes example with the many a Cafe filled with pot smokers reading their daily paper.

Well, in order to pull that off we'd have to also get rid of our guns - legal AND illegal - create a a justice system that puts people away for a long time when they "do something stupid" under the influence. Also, they have a lot more overdoses per capita than the US has.

It sounds nice in theory, but the reality on a scale the size of the US would be disastrous.

-Ferret

"The disaster would entertain me for hours..."

 

[Spiderman]

Actually, I think ecstacy has been found to cause brain damage or something... it's certainly not "harmless"...

 

[train]

There are plenty of drugs that cause damage, whether the influence generated the damage, or the chemicals...

 

[whuppinboy]

basically here who has done drugs consistently, not this BS one time, i was in college crap? go on, raise your hand......

the problem with this kind of debate is that there is no grey area with anyone, they're either on one side of the fence or the other, or both. Personally, i would support cannabis cafes and the like simply because i'm naive and like to think that the kind of people that would frequent those types of places would have the common sense to keep their ass in there until the buzz died off, took a nap, had some nachos and mountain dew and went home.

but on the other hand i can see someone abusing it, getting a hold of some primo stuff, getting blown out of his mind and deciding to drive to the Dairy Queen, miss seeing a red light and crashing his Pinto into a family's mini-van and either killing some or all of them or injuring them severely (of course, he'd only be going about 5 miles an hour anyway and if it was one of those new fangled mini-vans, the pinto would just bounce off and roll backwards faster than it was going forwards ).

but if you look at what this country tried to do with alcohol (remember prohibition anyone?) banning and the enormous uproar that ensued until they finally backed the ban off, makes you think where the hell is this country's priorities?

it's a no win arguement for either side and there's no realistic solution in sight unfortunately.

and no, i still haven't been able to find the linky to government owned pot farms (but they're out there dammit! it's a conspiracy i tell you! Dam the man!)

but if absolutely had to choose, i would believe in the greater good of humanity and vote YES to any cannabis supported legislation. After all, if it was good for our founding fathers, it's good for us right?

 

[train]

*doesn't raise hand, but makes ntoes of all those doing so in his little "Train Log"... , then makes a note to send them samples of Coat...*

Which of my founding fathers smoked cannabis?...

 

[Spiderman]

The slight difference with alcohol (and tobacco) is that society is used to "seeing them" legal and using them. Whereas other drugs have been illegal from the get-go (although a couple of hundred years ago, opium was legal).

 

[whuppinboy]

society is used to seeing potheads as well. jeebus, they've made movies about it (Dazed and Confused for one), almost any slasher flick, you can see a bunch of dopes getting stoned and then getting killed (subtle message time anyone?).

that's the problem with society, they accept alcohol even though the death toll is outrageous on drunken driving but how many accidents do you read/hear about where the driver was stoned (yes it's a generic statement, how many accidents have you heard where the driver was stoned?). does it stop anyone from drinking and driving? you've got MADD and SADD and AA but alcohol is still a problem in this country, but it's an acceptable loss right? anyhoo......

thomas jefferson grew pot, ben franklin smoked it; to answer your question train

 

[EricBess]

But again, whuppingboy, I get the impression you are saying, "We allow alcohol, so we should allow pot." And again, every one of your arguments to me sounds like what we really should be doing is banning alcohol.

I agree, prohibition turned out to be a big hoax as the government gave in to deep pockets. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't have happened. In fact, I think that revoking prohibition was a huge step in the wrong direction in this country.

I see where you are coming from with "don't ban the substance, ban the stupidity caused by the substance." But then you go on to point out the exact problem with this attitude. The problem is that the people on such substances (and I include alcohol) have impared judgement. While under the influence, they have limited control of themselves and what they do and innocent people often end up getting killed.

Its a bit of a double standard, if you ask me. If I were to hand a loaded gun to a child and tell him to go play with his friend and one of them was shot and killed, I would (rightly so) be found guilty of neglegent homicide, if not worse, because there is a foreseeable outcome.

I would argue that alcohol and drugs have the same foreseeable outcome. Not every drunk is going to kill someone, but then again, not every loaded gun handed to a child will kill someone. You're still puting a dangerous weapon in the hands of someone who doesn't have the mental capacity to use it properly. And if you want to argue that it's different because driving drunk is illegal, then suppose I didn't hand the gun to my child, but I had it sitting on the kitchen counter and told him to leave it alone? I would still be just as liable for neglegence.

 

[Spiderman]

whuppinboy: My point was that certain drugs have been banned from the get-go as opposed to others like alcohol, where it is more accepting to society.

That's not to say I think alcohol shouldn't be banned; I do think however, that the penalties for drunken driving are outrageously lax (again, goes in hand with the idea that driving is an American "right" and everyone is entitled to it, so when accidents happen, it's "no big deal").

But like I said originally, I don't know enough about pot to know whether it should be legalized. The idea is intriguing though...

 

[Nightstalkers]

And while laughy taffy is banned in the U.S. many a Nightstalker will gladly sell out their services to smugle the stuff into the country

Wow... Anyone here want to join me in a little trip to belgium? I'll pay for the tickets, you pay for the smoke.

 

[whuppinboy]

exactly, there's always consequences no matter how careful the person is. what's the saying? "guns don't kill people, people kill people". it's a redundant debate and there are people that are in the right on both sides and there are people in the wrong on both sides. it's a great evil and it's not.

honestly, this is a pipe dream, but i'd like to see the government legalize pot for one year and see what kind of results happen. bet pizza stock would go thru the roof !

 

[Nightstalkers]

Just like they tried to ban alcohol a while back... then had to stop that little speil because of various reasons

 

[EricBess]

Agreed, whuppingboy. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But my point is, where exactly is the line drawn on what is killing someone and what is not killing someone?

Do you personally think that if I hand a gun to a child and tell him to play with it that I should be held accountable for anyone who gets killed? Did I kill that person or did the child?

Personally, I feel the same way about alcohol. And as such, I agree with Spiderman about the fact that we are too lax with drunk driving laws. And if you consider it a "right" to be able to drive, then society should consider it a "privelidge" to drink and start enforcing very tough penalties when things happen.

Do you make the bars and liquor shops liable? I think you could argue for holding a bar liable for letting someone get in a car after they've been drinking, but I doubt it would stick and I'm not sure it should as long as drinking is legal. Perhaps it should depend on the blood alcohol level of the driver. But what about people who drink at home and then go for a drive? Doesn't happen enough to worry about?

And quite frankly, you may be right that we would discover that pot is less dangerous than alcohol. But personally, I have enough problems trying to stay away from second-hand smoke that I prefer not to have to deal with second-hand pot smoke if I can avoid it.

 

[Ferret]

Originally posted by whuppinboy
society is used to seeing potheads as well. jeebus, they've made movies about it (Dazed and Confused for one), almost any slasher flick, you can see a bunch of dopes getting stoned and then getting killed (subtle message time anyone?).

This makes me thing quite a bit about California - northen mostly. They want tobacco banned everywhere, but they want it to be okay to smoke pot. From another thread from a couple of months back we found that most people don't want to be around smokers. So, why is it that most of the people that opposed smoking tobacco are supporting marijuana? Both can cause cancer - although, the average pothead doesn't smoke as many joints as they do cigarettes...

Now, if pot is legalized they can smoke more and get cancer faster. Will we have families sueing marijuana manufacturers because they weren't warned properly that they'd get cancer (and/or other lung related diseases). Also, if someone is killed under the influence the corporations and/or owners of the Pot Cafes would risk getting sued.

When you look at everything, there's so much stacked against legalization that maybe we should just go w/ the status quo - at least, until someone can come up w/ a REASONABLE sollution.

-Ferret

"...they also make movies about loveable bank robbers. Does that mean we should legalize that as well?"

 

[Spiderman]

Originally posted by EricBess
Do you make the bars and liquor shops liable?

Unfortunately, I could see this happen... there have already been pushes to sue the gun industry and the tobacco industry has already been sued (although more on the grounds that it was hiding evidence that it was addictive).

Ferret: Actually, I guess I am unaware that pot causes cancer. I thought it and tobacco were two different breeds; if they aren't and pot DOES cause the same cancer in the smoker or people around it, I will reverse my position and say keep it banned.

 

[whuppinboy]

As far as i'm aware, it's never been proven that pot causes cancer. it's been stated there's a likelihood that it could. it does cause short term memory loss in some people though (myself included ).

either way you look at it, there's no REASONABLE solution because no one can be reasonable about it. you're either for it or against it, and if you're on either side than you want even stricter laws to make sure that everyone is protected from the possible effects it could have. of course, if we look at the "strict" laws surrounding alcohol, pot's laws couldn't be much worse now could they.

EricBess: how do you draw a line that will please everyone? you're a judge right? do some of your rulings, based on the guidelines you've been given, make everyone happy? it's a no win situation and you either accept the little losses to make up for the greater good or you go crazy chasing ambulances.

Personally, i feel that if you teach your children at an early age about the proper use of guns or anything for that matter, that's all you can do. they're own psychological profile will decide the rest. i would never hand a gun to my child until i felt they were of an age to properly understand the power of life they hold in their hands when they're in posession of that firearm. and if i felt they were ready and i legally bought them a gun for their own use and they misused it, goodbye child, enjoy your new cellmate Buttrape Bubba.

now don't come down on me for being so callous about my "children", that's how i feel. and no, i do not have children so the above statement might change if i ever do, but that's how i feel about it right now.

as for making bars liable for drunken driving accidents, i agree we should. as a patron enters a bar, they give their keys to the bartender, when they try to leave the patron takes a breathalyzer (they have portable ones all over the place down here) and if he blows anywhere near or at or above the legal limit, bartender calls a cab. simple but flawed.

alcohol will never leave this country, nor will cigarettes. that's what's great about America, you can come to this country, produce a product that is shown to kill people and make billions!

 

[EricBess]

Well, for starters, whuppingboy, why should we even try to make everyone happy? The safest thing to do would be to simply ban alcohol, pot, and any other substance that inhibits rational thought to the point where it endangers innocent bystanders (and the person themselves, but that's their choice). People will scream and people will break the law (like the do with pot now), but it would reduce incidents.

But, I understand that we live in a democracy and I have a family that I want to protect (in more ways than one) and I have religious convictions and...

So, I will first start by agreeing with you. Either you are for it or against it. However, from a safety standpoint, I don't think that banning is necessarily unreasonable if enough innocent people are being killed each year. But, in order to determine that properly, we would need to take a few measures first.

Okay, so we leave things alone, but we increase enforcement. If you get behind the wheel drunk and kill someone, no defense of "reduced capacity" should get you off. It's vehicular manslaughter and depraved indifference and in nearly every case, you should serve the maximum. Enforce this and soon enough, the problems involved start taking care of themselves because the costs become too high for most people to take the risk.

After this has happened, then take a look at the statistics and see if any further action needs to be taken.

And whuppinboy, don't get me wrong. I think people should be free to choose to do whatever they want. If they want to smoke pot or drink alcohol in a way that doesn't affect innocent people around them, then who am I to tell them they can't. But the second they do anything that affects people around them, it needs to stop.

And even if it is legal, there need to be sufficient warnings, which cigarettes have, but which alcohol doesn't. If someone decides to smoke or drink, it should be an informed decision whereas right now, it is determined originally primarily by peer pressure.

Here's a question. How many people here when they turned 21 (or when the will turn 21) felt (or feel) like they were obligated to go bar hopping? It's like a sick rite of passage.

As far as holding bars responsible, I like the idea of taking the keys and administering a breath test. A bar's liability should extend only to whether or not they are following those procedures.

And I don't pretend to have all the answers. So, here's my line if you will, but I don't deceive myself into thinking it is a perfect answer. It is merely an attempt to present something that everyone can be happy with. Rebuttal and further suggestion is welcome.