should marijuana be legalized?

[cubsfirstplace]

do you think marijuana should be legalized? personally i do. it makes no sense that its illegal and alcohol isnt. alcohol is more addicting, you can overdose on it, more dangerous for your health, and it makes people violent. if weed was legalized the government could save billions of dollars and create new jobs. also it would free up space in the prisons. i dont even smoke weed it just enrages me that a mostly harmless drug is illegal while many harmful drugs are legal.

[Yetra Flam]

well i mean yeah, of course, i think most people think that marijuana should be legalized, or at the very least decriminalized.
i guess there's bigger issues than the fact that it is a fairly "harmless" drug.

[ericlee]

This is only poll I've voted on in like for ever but the answer is..

The fuck is it again? I forgot.

Woo wee, lookie, I have a keyboard.

Yes. Period.

[Adam]

I voted yes. But it's not 'mostly harmless'. Most people taking it do so by smoking it, which is mostly harmful.

You know some kids still believe that you can't get cancer from just smoking pot. They think its tobacco only.

Which is another reason why it'll never get legalise as their is poor education on both sides or one side pushing their own agenda more. They will never be a proper debate about it because as soon as some1 says 'mostly harmless' for example, it WILL get taken out of context and can easily get shot down thus end of debate as the pro-drug lobby are liars.

Not having a go at ya about it, just setting the record straight before the no crowd get here ;)

[Drederick Tatum]

legalize - tax - put tax money into drug education, rehabilitation, health care - get on with more important things.

[Guy Incognito]

legalize - tax - put tax money into drug education, rehabilitation, health care - get on with more important things.

i think uk tobacco's price is close to 90% tax, if its similar if they legalised it then it could cost me a fortune!

i havent voted cos i am undecided, better the devil you know i suppose

[Adam]

i think uk tobacco's price is close to 90% tax, if its similar if they legalised it then it could cost me a fortune!

i havent voted cos i am undecided, better the devil you know i suppose

But the money made from smoking does not cover smoking related diseases costs to the NHS.

So I suppose it'd end up costing the government more money if they did legalise it where they have free health care.

[checkyourprez]

i think it should be legalized no doubt about it.


the reasons why its illegal are stupid as fuck. it had a lot to do with racism, and economics at the time. no white americans even really used weed when they first made it illegal. it was mostly mexicans in the southwest and the governement banned it (illegally at the time) to screw them over. also DuPont, played a large roll in making it illegal. they saw the other uses for marijuana (i.e. hemp, paper, ect.) and since they were in the business of such things they rallied to help make it illegal.

especially in the tough economic times that we are in, the government could most defiantly use the additional revenue in the form of taxes. local, state, and national resources could be diverted to more useful purposes instead of wasting the money and time in prosecuting and policing weed use. on top of that farmers that the government currently pays to NOT farm crops could be growing weed for them instead. a win win win for all.

on that note, its about that time.... ;)

[TurdBerglar]

they day they legalize it everyone in american is gonna be on a weed binge for like a year or two. maybe longer.

and the government won't be able to tax it. because who the fuck is gonna buy it when you can just easily grow it yourself.

[Yetra Flam]

well they'd make it like tobacco where it's illegal to grow it by yourself, and you can only smoke from like, government regulated crops.






duh

[checkyourprez]

why grow shitty weed, when you could buy that bomb hindu white widow acculpoco gold kush from the government son?


but i doubt if they made it legal they would just let it be a free for all like that. it would be more regulated.

[TurdBerglar]

well they'd make it like tobacco where it's illegal to grow it by yourself, and you can only smoke from like, government regulated crops.


uh yeah


lets see that be easily inforced

[Yetra Flam]

so essentially, what it is, while the smoking of marijuana will be legalised, the cultivation would still be illegal. so in a sense, it will be illegal anyway.

[TurdBerglar]

cultivation?

all you fucking need is a pot of soil....

[Yetra Flam]

all you need is a pot of soil

[Lyman Zerga]

aslong as people just smoke it in their homes i dont care

[mathcart]

the issue is that it should be DECRIMINALIZED not legalized- since that will never happen (no matter where you stand on the issue it just will never happen) but decriminalization of marijuana has been endorsed by a very large percentage of large city police chiefs (current and former) as well as most leading voices on BOTH sides of the drug law reform issue. Criminalizing addicts/causally recreationally using responsible citizens is ultimately crazy!

[checkyourprez]

cultivation?

all you fucking need is a pot of soil....

you'd still get arrested for that. why would you want to risk that when you could just go buy cheap good weed from the government?

[Dorothy Wood]

wait, it's illegal to grow tobacco on your own?

I never really thought about that.


also, I can't decide if I want it legal or not. I think I just want it tolerated. I guess that means decriminalized.

[TurdBerglar]

you'd still get arrested for that. why would you want to risk that when you could just go buy cheap good weed from the government?

you really think it's gonna be any cheaper than cigarettes?

[Yetra Flam]

wait, it's illegal to grow tobacco on your own?


yeah, it is. i remember i used to buy ridiculously cheap tobacco from someone i knew who had some kind of plantation. it tasted pretty much the same.

[checkyourprez]

you really think it's gonna be any cheaper than cigarettes?

haha, dude 8ths go for 40 bucks. id much rather pay 5-9 dollars for a pack of joints.

[TurdBerglar]

i have a feeling that legal shit is gonna be crazy taxed and expensive

[monkey]

haha, dude 8ths go for 40 bucks.

around here 8ths go for 50-60. prices are rising my friends.

yes to decriminalize. fuck yes to medical use and legalization. but one step at a time.

[adam_f]

I don't smoke, my friends do, and every time they get high when I'm around, I want to stab them in the chest.

So no, don't decriminalize it so I don't go to jail for manslaughter.

[Lex Diamonds]

HELL NO, I'd be out of a job and I wanna stay paid...

[Dorothy Wood]

HELL NO, I'd be out of a job and I wanna stay paid...


*calls scotland yard*

[cubsfirstplace]

I voted yes. But it's not 'mostly harmless'. Most people taking it do so by smoking it, which is mostly harmful.

You know some kids still believe that you can't get cancer from just smoking pot. They think its tobacco only.

Which is another reason why it'll never get legalise as their is poor education on both sides or one side pushing their own agenda more. They will never be a proper debate about it because as soon as some1 says 'mostly harmless' for example, it WILL get taken out of context and can easily get shot down thus end of debate as the pro-drug lobby are liars.

Not having a go at ya about it, just setting the record straight before the no crowd get here ;)

ya, but people smoke a lot more cigarettes than joints. its common for people to smoke 20 cigarettes a day and hardly anyone smokes 20 joints a day.

[Lex Diamonds]

I guess it depends on the person.

[mikizee]

I recently read a medical study from a medical journal... fuck I wish I can remember which one, which was a 20 yr study on the effect of weed smoke on the lungs.

It found that in the pot only smokers, there was absolutely no discernable increased risk of cancer of any type. NONE. NOTHING.

Only the people who also smoked tobacco had increased instances of cancers.

But, I do know a couple of people that have severe mental illness now after smoking pot for years. Schizophrenia especially. One person will have psychotic episodes that can (and will) last for days/weeks even if she smells pot! Her personality completely disappears, she basically turns into a vegetable, only a hallucinating vegetable! The docs have said that one day she may not come back at all from one of these episodes. Not saying that weed caused this problem, but it sure didn't help.

So weed can fuck with people's brains. But I still think it should be legalised. It's definitely no worse than tobacco/alcohol.

Its been decriminalised here since 1986. Since then this city has become the pot capital of Australia, being in quality and affordedness. (is that a word?) And me being a pot smoker, that suits me just fine.

Only 4 years ago you could grow up to 10 plants, hydro or otherwise, and only cop a $100 fine if caught. TEN FUCKING PLANTS.

Now its only one.

Shame about that.

[Otis Driftwood]

I'm missing the option to make it mandatory for everyone to be skyhigh 24/7.

[camo]

No. Policing drunk drivers is enough without adding to the problem.

[Adam]

cubsfirstplace - yeah. For me, I hate the taste of cigarettes but love pot. I just can't smoke tobacco unless wasted or at least 60% pot 40% tobacco split.

mikizee - are you saying the study saying that they compared smoking pot to not smoking or smoking pot to smoking cigarettes. Its that kind of blurry science that distorts peoples views on both sides. Inhaling any sort of smoke into your lungs can cause cells to damage and thus cause cancer. Even if you was smoking tea - its still smoke.

I've read many studies on smoking and cancer (since my dad died of smoking related cancer and my mum died of a random cancer as she was crazy healthy), and with the smoking related ones it has a lot to do with how you smoke. With a cigarette you have a filter. With a joint you have a roach. Because you are filtering less with the roach you can be more aggressive with the damage you are doing. BUT - you also tend to hold the smoke in more and take bigger drags which is better than taking short drags like you generally do with cigarettes.

Like I say*, depending on whose side you are on you can read many studies saying what you want it to say. This is why a proper debate can never happen, there is not many in influential power that can lead a study neutrally.

*I say 'like I say' too much

camo has a point to - there is not a easy cheap test for the police yet to test if someone is high (as far as I know) and thus shouldn't be operating machinery such as a car. You obviously shouldn't drive while intoxicated and until there is a method to test for this it should stay illegal. I'm sure they could develop one though.

Another thing is as well - most people grow out of it by 25. Ten years of smoking does make most people pretty damn dull and although most people can tell when they are ready to give up - some can't which is where you get your horror stories from. But most then (like me) take now and then but its generally not something you'd seek.

Sorry to go on again. There is too many damn variables.

[Guy Incognito]

But the money made from smoking does not cover smoking related diseases costs to the NHS.

So I suppose it'd end up costing the government more money if they did legalise it where they have free health care.

i wasnt really commenting on what the tax is used for just how it affects my pocket but now you have said it, does the money from road tax cover all the money the nhs spends on car accident related injuries? I doubt it. doesnt matter how much they tax stuff really.
I just think i am allright now, i dont spend that much on weed and i have many sources and am never really without so its not an issue for me. I just fear that if shit got changed it might not necessaily be for the best for people like me that is all

[checkyourprez]

i have a feeling that legal shit is gonna be crazy taxed and expensive

the real life price of marijuana should be no more than any other vegetable at your grocery store. it essentially is a weed, hence the nickname. it can grow almost anywhere, with little care needed. if the government made it more expensive than currently is, it gives no one a reason to buy government pot other than to not get in trouble. but people are already buying it now, when its illegal, so they clearly dont care about that. it should be priced so there can be a slight profit for the farmers and some tax on it to use for governmental spending. 10-20 dollar 8ths should be realistic with people getting a 50-75% price cut and the gov making a hefty amount there, both sides win. realistically it should be a couple dollars a pound but i doubt they would do that.

No. Policing drunk drivers is enough without adding to the problem.

someone please correct me if i am wrong, but i am pretty confident police have a swab that they can use on the inside of your cheek and it turns a certain color if you had used marijuana within a certain period of time. i could be wrong and this was just an idea for a possible solution to the problem, but ether way i think it sounds like a pretty easy inexpensive solution to solving the problem of dangerous people driving real slow cause their high on weed. ;-p

[mikizee]

mikizee - are you saying the study saying that they compared smoking pot to not smoking or smoking pot to smoking cigarettes. Its that kind of blurry science that distorts peoples views on both sides. Inhaling any sort of smoke into your lungs can cause cells to damage and thus cause cancer. Even if you was smoking tea - its still smoke.

I've read many studies on smoking and cancer (since my dad died of smoking related cancer and my mum died of a random cancer as she was crazy healthy), and with the smoking related ones it has a lot to do with how you smoke. With a cigarette you have a filter. With a joint you have a roach. Because you are filtering less with the roach you can be more aggressive with the damage you are doing. BUT - you also tend to hold the smoke in more and take bigger drags which is better than taking short drags like you generally do with cigarettes.

I'm searching for the particular article. It compared complete non smokers to smokers of pot and smokers of pot/tobacco. Lets not forget, even though you hold in pot smoke longer than cigarettes it is without the hundreds of toxic chemicals that go along with cigarettes. I know that smoking particular herbs, such as Mullien, actually acts an a lung cleanser (believe it or not).

[camo]

someone please correct me if i am wrong, but i am pretty confident police have a swab that they can use on the inside of your cheek and it turns a certain color if you had used marijuana within a certain period of time. i could be wrong and this was just an idea for a possible solution to the problem, but ether way i think it sounds like a pretty easy inexpensive solution to solving the problem of dangerous people driving real slow cause their high on weed. ;-p

I didn't mean the testing, I just meant the actual driving under the influence and having to police the matter. I don't know whether that means a load of people driving slow or not? Ha!

[checkyourprez]

I didn't mean the testing, I just meant the actual driving under the influence and having to police the matter. I don't know whether that means a load of people driving slow or not? Ha!

you gotta figure theres lots of people already doing it. i personally know a bunch and im just 1 person. extrapolate that over all the weed smokers in this country i bet you would get a lot who already drive high. its surely not as safe as being sober, but i haven't seen anything where there's an epidemic of stoned drivers causing problems.

although, that could be the reason why Californians traffic problems are so bad, everyone's high going 35 in a 55.

[camo]

true, but say if it was legalised would it would be a safe bet to assume that there would be massive influx in people driving stoned and the accidents that could follow.

[checkyourprez]

influx, possible. massive influx, i would doubt. but neither of us are psychics.


see the way i look at it though. for the most part, the people who want to smoke weed, smoke weed. the people who dont, dont. and this is while its currently illegal. i doubt as soon as its legal all these people are going to go out and just start getting stoned because the law has changed. sure there may be some experimenters but i seriously have a hard time believing there would be a massive influx of weed smokers. and hence i doubt there would be any significant increase in accidents because of weed.

[fucktopgirl]

Yes and no

it should stay in the hand of the growers to sell it and the make the profit, like it is now. I dont like the idea that the state would take the lead and make the money. Weed growers would kinda be destroyed, the profit would go down.

So, i dunno if it is a good idea. Sure, if they would reinject the profit in the social system but rarely they do this kind of thing.

Anyway, i dont think they would legalized it all over, because, weed make you more anarchist in a way. You are less enslaved and dont really give a fuck about power and authority . Not good for a capitalist state where people are slaves of a system.


Anyway, maybe just decriminalized. Doing prison because you smoke weed is fucking stupid.

[Adam]

I'm searching for the particular article. It compared complete non smokers to smokers of pot and smokers of pot/tobacco. Lets not forget, even though you hold in pot smoke longer than cigarettes it is without the hundreds of toxic chemicals that go along with cigarettes. I know that smoking particular herbs, such as Mullien, actually acts an a lung cleanser (believe it or not).

I'm open minded, on the pro-legal side and everything but I do refuse to believe that. A problem with some of these articles as well, is that they argue from the standpoint of authority/qualification. Like with that whole MMR thing, its been proved bullshit over and over yet some people don't believe it and the media also don't because the idiot who made the false connection has Dr. at the beginning of his name.

I take anything that is not certified or endorsed by the British Medical Journal with a HUGE pinch of salt. I don't know the USA equivalent but they are constantly putting things write the media and government get wrong or misinterpret for their own agendas.

There is a article somewhere by Ben Goldacre somewhere called "why clever people believe stupid things". To me its the same - I am and I think all of us are influence by media, what we want to believe and what we do and don't want to accept so we seek out the answer we want to prove.

Even in all my posts here were I've tried to stay neutral I obviously haven't because I'm already the pro group and I am influenced by my favourite commentators and journals on the matter.

[Adam]

it should stay in the hand of the growers to sell it and the make the profit, like it is now. I dont like the idea that the state would take the lead and make the money. Weed growers would kinda be destroyed, the profit would go down..

Well, those who have invested time and money into grow houses would effectively become employed. They wouldn't shut them down because it takes £1000s to set up on a mass scale. The money they wouldn't have to spend on so many carbon neutralisers, security etc can be taken back from the smaller cut they'd no doubt take so it'd even out. So they'd have to start paying tax on their earnings etc and provide their workers with safe working environment - can't be such a bad thing all in all.

[checkyourprez]

yea but any and all of those growers besides the ones in like 2 states and a couple towns throughout the united states are illegal anyways. and technically all are still illegal under federal law. so i dont think they really have any right to complain.



my main problem with it being illegal is that it really is not harmful what so ever. its one thing if the government is doing it for our benefit but there is essential zero reason for them to get involved. it should be a personal decision as is to smoke tobacco or drink alcohol.

the whole gateway drug thing is complete bullshit propaganda. i know many kids who have done coke and other drugs under the influence of alcohol. i know very few if any kids who have springboarded from weed to H or something hardcore. those are people who were going to try stuff like that do so anyways. people with that "gateway" position act like weed is a gun pointing at someones head forcing them into hard drugs. taking anything is a complete personal choice.

[mikizee]

Here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html)

Here (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/marijuana-links-to-cancer-going-up-in-smoke/2005/10/28/1130400366837.html)

Here (http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer)

But also here :( (http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25033354-5006301,00.html)

[adam_f]

Story why I say no, and why I will kill anybody who smokes pot around me.

Last year, I'm leaving Blockbuster with my friend and his two friends I kinda know, but wouldn't call them friends. One, we'll call him Jim, decides, while driving, he was going to take his pipe out and light up. I'm in the back, and I begin to flip shit because that's about as bad as drinking and driving. I demand he stops the car, he won't, so I unbuckle my seatbelt, grab the pipe, and throw it out the window because I refuse to get killed on the way back from fucking Wal Mart.

Of course, this makes him stop, pull over, and get out of the car. Then he flips on me for throwing his pipe, so I get out of the car. I have about four inches on the guy, but he's built like a brick shithouse. Finally, I'd had enough and I punched him the face. He goes down, we get in a fight...I get arrested.

He did not.

I don't know how this happened, how he didn't get arrested, but I was irate at the time and the cops had to restrain me from going after him again. The other two in the car, Shari and Chuck (my friend) defended Jim apparently because they're potheads too and I took the first (of many) swings. Apparently they got rid of the weed or something, I don't really know. I haven't talked to either since.

So I have an assault charge on my record because I didn't want to get killed leaving Wal Mart at eleven at night. I didn't get any time or whatever, clearly, but still, I have pretty strong anti-pot feelings and legalizing it won't make it any better than it is now. You can say what you want about how alcohol is much worse and how weed doesn't have any ill effects other than getting high, but I don't care. Every bit of me wants him to go to jail because he could've gotten me killed.

Clearly my view is skewed because of personal reasons, but I don't care. Smoking it in the first place is irresponsible and I don't care what the fuck you say. You can try to justify it and I will shoot you down, I do NOT fucking care. You can say it doesn't have any long-term effects and in comparison to cigarettes and alcohol, it appears positively healthy. That does not matter to me. I don't smoke anything and I drink very sparingly, and somehow I manage to make it through my day just fine.

So should it be legalized? No, it shouldn't. You want to smoke? Fine, I want to make it hard for you to get your weed. I want you to have to make deals in the parking lot next to Subway at 2 am because you need your pot. Either way, you're going to get it and I can't stop you. All I'm saying is that I want to make it very fucking hard for you to get behind the wheel of a car, pipe in hand. And if you do it, I have no problem with going back to jail.

I would also like to point out this is the first time I shared that story with anybody other than the family that lives in my house. Aunts and uncles and friends don't know this. So I guess it's a breaking news story if any of them are some alias on here nobody has ever heard of haha.

[mikizee]

Smoking pot and driving is hardly as bad as drinking and driving.

Its still bad, but there are varying degrees of bad.

Drinking + driving = taking more risks, driving faster, poor vision, bad reaction times

Smoking + driving = taking less risks, driving slower, worse reaction times.

Just taking this from personal experiences (myself and other people)

Replacing stoned with violence, yeah, that sure is the way forward! Violence is far the better option.

Kill anybody who smokes pot around you. How fucking rediculous.

[mikizee]

He did say he asked him to stop the car and the driver didn't. Which he should have.

[adam_f]

You get put in that situation and see if you don't throw the first punch.

[Myu-to]

When I was a senior inhigh school we had this thing called "Mock Congress". Students were members of either the house or the senate, and we would carryout a session for congress for six weeks. Everyone had to write a bill, and if your bill got passed, you would receive an "A" for the entire semester. Needless to say, I thought I went with a sure fire winner, to legalize pot, and I got to see true politics first hand. Some of the teachers let their classes know if anyone voted for my bill, they would receive an "F" for the six weeks. My bill was killed in committee, I then tried to bring it back on the floor, and without enough votes it died again.

Damn the man.

Oh yeah, the high school stopped having "Mock Congress" after my class.

[adam_f]

Originally posted by Ms Crafty
no, i would have said what i needed to say to the person and just walked away. if that person hit me, then i might have hit them back in self defence but i'm never the one to throw the first punch. well, not since i was a child.

Admirable but the circumstances don't always work out where you can just walk away. Just saying.

[Lex Diamonds]

you started shit with him by throwing his pipe away, bad move. then it was you who threw the first punch, another bad move.
Exactly. Sorry bro but that story makes you sound like a total dildo.

Moaning at the guy and throwing things out of the car is a lot more likely to get you killed than smoking at the wheel. It doesn't require concentration to smoke, but it does to deal with some flailing pussy who is dropping your shit out of the window. Realistically you were putting three other people's lives at risk in that situation, not him.

The fact you hit him afterwards is the icing on the cake. You really are a certified douche.

[mikizee]

Yep, besides the fact that the driver didn't stop to let you out, that post shows a level of immaturity that is difficult to fathom.

I agree with Padster, you put all those people at risk by fucking around in the car.

[checkyourprez]

Story why I say no, and why I will kill anybody who smokes pot around me.

Last year, I'm leaving Blockbuster with my friend and his two friends I kinda know, but wouldn't call them friends. One, we'll call him Jim, decides, while driving, he was going to take his pipe out and light up. I'm in the back, and I begin to flip shit because that's about as bad as drinking and driving. I demand he stops the car, he won't, so I unbuckle my seatbelt, grab the pipe, and throw it out the window because I refuse to get killed on the way back from fucking Wal Mart.

Of course, this makes him stop, pull over, and get out of the car. Then he flips on me for throwing his pipe, so I get out of the car. I have about four inches on the guy, but he's built like a brick shithouse. Finally, I'd had enough and I punched him the face. He goes down, we get in a fight...I get arrested.

He did not.

I don't know how this happened, how he didn't get arrested, but I was irate at the time and the cops had to restrain me from going after him again. The other two in the car, Shari and Chuck (my friend) defended Jim apparently because they're potheads too and I took the first (of many) swings. Apparently they got rid of the weed or something, I don't really know. I haven't talked to either since.

So I have an assault charge on my record because I didn't want to get killed leaving Wal Mart at eleven at night. I didn't get any time or whatever, clearly, but still, I have pretty strong anti-pot feelings and legalizing it won't make it any better than it is now. You can say what you want about how alcohol is much worse and how weed doesn't have any ill effects other than getting high, but I don't care. Every bit of me wants him to go to jail because he could've gotten me killed.

Clearly my view is skewed because of personal reasons, but I don't care. Smoking it in the first place is irresponsible and I don't care what the fuck you say. You can try to justify it and I will shoot you down, I do NOT fucking care. You can say it doesn't have any long-term effects and in comparison to cigarettes and alcohol, it appears positively healthy. That does not matter to me. I don't smoke anything and I drink very sparingly, and somehow I manage to make it through my day just fine.

So should it be legalized? No, it shouldn't. You want to smoke? Fine, I want to make it hard for you to get your weed. I want you to have to make deals in the parking lot next to Subway at 2 am because you need your pot. Either way, you're going to get it and I can't stop you. All I'm saying is that I want to make it very fucking hard for you to get behind the wheel of a car, pipe in hand. And if you do it, I have no problem with going back to jail.

I would also like to point out this is the first time I shared that story with anybody other than the family that lives in my house. Aunts and uncles and friends don't know this. So I guess it's a breaking news story if any of them are some alias on here nobody has ever heard of haha.

hate to break it to you but smoking while driving its not really that bad. not worse than people talking on their cell phones, or eating, or putting on makeup or whatever else that people do and that shit is done all the time while driving. hell i wouldnt be surprised if we all didnt drive near someone who was stoned atleast a couple times each week. and you dont really see many accidents from it now do you.

you really overreacted and are just bitter about the whole situation.

[Lex Diamonds]

He's so bitter about getting in trouble for attacking this guy that he wants to "kill anybody who smokes around him". What a fucking nutjob.

[Drederick Tatum]

So I have an assault charge on my record because I didn't want to get killed leaving Wal Mart at eleven at night.

nah brah, you've got an assault record 'cause you've got the maturity and social skills of a 10 year old.

[Adam]

You know reading this thread. I'm kinda heading towards the 'no' side.

Driving while intoxicated on anything is a bad idea. Violence is also a bad idea. I'm sure adam_f would play if different if he could do it all again. So smoking pot driving is not as bad as drink driving? Its still pretty bad. Substances have different effects on others - its still 'bad'.

I read those links mikizee. None linked the journal the studies have been published in - might have a search in the web for them later to find out who published them. Like I say, I take them with a pinch of salt. I'm too much of a cynic to not believe all (inc the ball cancer one) has some pseudoscience about it.

There needs to be several massive studies involving governments, universities, medical councils which lasts a good 5 or so years. Then there needs to be a proper debate involving more than one nation. They will never spend money on such a venture so it will never get legalised.

[checkyourprez]

that kid pulled out a bowl.

its not like he had eaten a brownie an hour ago, just took a gravity to the face before stepping into the car, and now was going to hit this pipe. that is one thing. but come on.


has anyone had a beer or two with dinner and drove home? probably everyone here. im sure this kid wasn't getting ripped out of his mind off a couple hits of a bowl.

ill be the first to admit, when you are super ripped, yea driving is not easy. but for the most part its not that big of a deal to drive with a little stone.

[Nuzzolese]

Do you think if it were legal people would stop acting like smoking it was some super awesome inside joke? High people are annoying, and pot heads are really annoying. If it was legal they'd be loafing all over the shameless public, giggling and not making decisions and holding up the whole process. Even if the legalization of it brought down the inside-jokeyness, I'm sure that for a couple of years, at least, there would be some huge hippie bachanalian rejoicing. Do you want that? What we need is to make it illegal to be high in public, just the way it is with alcohol intoxication.

[checkyourprez]

Do you think if it were legal people would stop acting like smoking it was some super awesome inside joke? High people are annoying, and pot heads are really annoying. If it was legal they'd be loafing all over the shameless public, giggling and not making decisions and holding up the whole process. Even if the legalization of it brought down the inside-jokeyness, I'm sure that for a couple of years, at least, there would be some huge hippie bachanalian rejoicing. Do you want that? What we need is to make it illegal to be high in public, just the way it is with alcohol intoxication.

because they annoy you?

[Nuzzolese]

because of all the reasons that public drunkenness is illegal

[Lex Diamonds]

I don't mean any offence when I say that I thought you were more progressive than that, Nuzz. I try my best not to let my judgement be clouded in these matters and I do disagree with a lot of the weed culture, particularly those who claim it is harmless and should be made totally legal. However making it illegal to be stoned in public would be a terrible move, especially for Obama's fresh presidency. The public drunkenness law itself to me seems pretty totalitarian and that would be another step towards a police state.

[checkyourprez]

a completely intoxicated person is 1000x more of an annoyance than a completely stoned person.

you can't even compare and make an argument out of that. they are on opposite sides of the spectrum.

[Rock]

Speaking at a landmark press conference today, California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) introduced comprehensive legislation to tax and regulate the commercial production and sale of cannabis in a manner similar to alcohol.

The proposal is the first marijuana legalization bill ever introduced in California.

“It’s time for California taxpayers to stop wasting money trying to enforce marijuana prohibition, and to realize the tax benefits from a legal, regulated market instead,” said Dale Gieringer, director of California NORML, a sponsor of the bill.

As introduced, Ammiano’s measure would allow for the licensed production and sale of cannabis to consumers age 21 and over. Licensed cultivators would pay an excise tax of $50 per ounce of cannabis. In addition, the proposal would impose a sales tax on commercial sales. (Ammiano’s proposal would not affect the state’s medical marijuana law, allowing patients and caregivers to grow their own medicine.)

If enacted, the measure would raise over $1 billion per year in state revenue, according to an economic analysis by California NORML, available online here.

Ammiano’s bill comes at a time of growing public support for legalizing marijuana. A recent Zogby poll reported that nearly six in ten west coast voters support taxing and regulating marijuana like alcohol.

Faced with a $40 billion budget deficit, other public officials have joined in endorsing Ammiano’s bill, including San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessy and Betty Yee, a member of the State Board of Equalization, which oversees collection of sales taxes.

Currently, tens of millions of dollars are paid annually in state and local taxes by licensed distributors of medical marijuana. However, these sales only represent a fraction of the overall statewide marijuana market. “The millions of dollars raised each year on the sales of medicinal cannabis is only the tip of the iceberg,” Gieringer said. “Kudos to Assemblyman Ammiano for proposing a path-breaking bill that would benefit our economy, safety and freedom by making marijuana a winning proposition for California.”

http://norml.com/

[checkyourprez]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

for the shortest most condensed explanation of why it should be legal, look above.

[Nuzzolese]

Alright well, maybe not illegal to be high in public, but frowned upon to be high when working at your job or operating a vehicle. Although, it's not technically illegal to drive while on cough medicine, just unadvised.

[checkyourprez]

^this chick is on point today.

[Nuzzolese]

How would you propose that it be controlled? Not at all? Would there be an age limit on legal consumption? Some of those who are pro-legalization of it seem to be against government restrictions like this, in fear of a "police state," but would you argue for the free-for-all commercialism of it, private companies distributing it themselves in a competitive market like tobacco and beer?

Just as with alochol and tobacco, there would most likely be taxes and restrictions on those who buy and distribute it so it would be an entire commercial production on its own - not necessarily guarunteed to be a benefit to any economy especially if there is speculative trading on its profits then it's no better to have another business of this kind than to have another car production company - you argue that this is reason enough to legalize it because it is no worse than other commercialized business, but it's no better either, right?

[Nuzzolese]

Holland also has a lot of problems with harder drugs because people from other countries travel there to do and trade those harder drugs because of the nature of Holland's tolerance. Just what I read on wikipedia.

[Nuzzolese]

Same with prostitution?

[Nuzzolese]

What's the best ethical reason for making something illegal?

[Nuzzolese]

So you're anti-abortion?

[Adam]

state control of a lot things can have its benefits.

I started a thread on prostitution being legal a bit back because of human trafficking. There was a big problem with it once in Sheffield. Probably still is.

Holland are kinda on a backlash at the moment. They are putting more control over their drugs policy as they are having a few too many problems where cafe's can't have alcohol and pot anymore and cracking down on street smoking and selling.

It does have to be state controlled. They are doing well with cigarettes over here in my opinion. I know a lot of smokers are hating it but a ban on smoking in public buildings could be extended to a ban on smoking pot in public at all. Kinda like with drinking (although you can still drink on the street in most part of Sheffield to - unsure about other cities). Cigarettes are also going under the counter now. If legal bars and stuff should have to apply for a license to be able to allow patrons to use it. Again, some will hate it but with such harmful substances, some people need control - especially the 16-21 year old crowd.

State control can work. The reason I was ready for hitting the no button after reading this thread as I think some have no clue on the consequences beyond their own blinkered point of view about legalising it and thinking we live in a police state.

But Ms Crafty has had some good points in all this.

[checkyourprez]

bottom line is drugs are here. they have been here for thousands of years. we can never win a war on drugs. what kind of politician would get elected on a platform of going to war with another country until the end of time? there is no difference between that and the war on drugs. its a gross misuse of tax dollars, "law and order's" time and budget, and this is not even really scratching the surface of how much economic help illegal drugs offer to all types of gangs, mafiosos, and terrorists.

what do you think the bloods and crips no.1 money maker is?

what do you think the Sicilian mobs no.1 money maker is?

what do you think al quedas (Afghanistans economy is based on the poppy plant, it is 80% of its exports) no.1 money maker is?

whats that you say, you have an answer...

ding ding ding we have a wiener.....its DRUGS!!!!

[Dorothy Wood]

I just wanted to say to the people who are vehemently against marijuana need to calm down. adam f, you seem like a cool dude, but what you did was ridiculous. it's okay to be against using substances, but you can't vilify the people who do.

I have news for the anti-drug set as well: people who want to get high and drive already do. people who want to be high at work, are. if anything, I'd think that the number of people driving stoned would go down because they'd have to come up with some kind of test to prove it. now if someone's driving, they can't automatically prove the person is high and charge them with something.

lots of high (no pun intended) functioning adults smoke weed. it's a fact. it's not hard to get. it's not that expensive. and it doesn't turn everyone who smokes it into a giggling hippie who sits on his/her ass all day long doing nothing.

and you know, alcohol is legal, but people still drink it during the day and while driving. I'd venture to say we all encounter substance abusers in the daily processes of life without even realizing it. there are a lot of alcoholics that are drunk all day long, but you wouldn't necessarily know it. they don't carry around jugs with x's on them while wobbling about and hiccuping.

people like to feel good, and with anything, some people take it too far. there's no logical reason why anyone should say drinking is okay, but smoking is not.

[mikizee]

A refreshing voice of reason.

[cubsfirstplace]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29374351/
how could the legalize marijuana in california if it a federally scheduled drug? wouldn't it have to be legal in all 50 states? i can not compute

[checkyourprez]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29374351/
how could the legalize marijuana in california if it a federally scheduled drug? wouldn't it have to be legal in all 50 states? i can not compute

that is why some people do get arrested for it in california.


but look at gay marriage. thats legal in a state or two now currently. ( i do recognize the fact that gay marriage is not illegal, its just not legal, but than again is something thats not legal, illegal? thats a whole nother shit storm though, lets stick to drugs)

[Lyman Zerga]

most anti drugs people don't care when their favourite celebrities use drugs, they still like those celebs.

but people don't like the normal everyday druggie. that doesn't make sense.

i dont want to hang around with druggies, they make me think of sickness, dirt and sometimes come off like 'satan' or whatever owns them (speaking off harder drugs than marijuana)

i like famous people because of their talent but i dont care what they do or take in private life since i got no contact with them

[Lyman Zerga]

i know it became more normal taking drugs than taking none which is quite sad actually

drugs turn people into shit which explains why most people are shit

[Drederick Tatum]

you're a simpleton.

[Lyman Zerga]

you're a simpleton.

youre not even that

[Lyman Zerga]

yeah but im quite a massive hypochondriac and i dont want to get in touch with those people, especially not those who take heroin

it's like i kinda feel sorry for the addictive ones but at the same time they gross me out so you should see why it makes sense that you like celebrities who take drugs but dont want such people hang around near you

[Lyman Zerga]

well, how do they gross you out exactly? the way they look?

more like how they act and i assume most heroin addicts got aids and are whores, maybe that isnt right but it's just how i feel

maybe they draw a nicer picture of druggies in london but here i grew up with that opinion

taking drugs = cant sink any lower in life

and i dont care if marijuana gets legalized aslong as people smoke that shit in their homes, already normal cigs bugged me all my life

[Pres Zount]

Two cents. I think it would probably be the best thing to decriminalise it, but I'm hardly campaigning for it. There's more importnat things going on in the world.

I hate weed, I think it stinks.

[b i o n i c]

if anything, now is the time for the government to profit from it and tax it. i read yesteday that nancy pelosi is for reform and medical maryjane.

[taquitos]

fuckin weed man. i'm smokin it.

[Lex Diamonds]

maybe they draw a nicer picture of druggies in london but here i grew up with that opinion

taking drugs = cant sink any lower in life
It's not about "drawing a picture", and maybe you would share our outlook if you had experienced these people yourself. Don't rely on caricatures in the media to form stereotypes about such huge groups of people. Every "druggie" is a person, and all people are different.

[checkyourprez]

Two cents. I think it would probably be the best thing to decriminalise it, but I'm hardly campaigning for it. There's more importnat things going on in the world.

I hate weed, I think it stinks.

hah i used to think that.

now i love it. i also dont mind the smell of skunks like i used to.

[Lyman Zerga]

It's not about "drawing a picture", and maybe you would share our outlook if you had experienced these people yourself. Don't rely on caricatures in the media to form stereotypes about such huge groups of people. Every "druggie" is a person, and all people are different.

nah youre criminals, stay away

[Nuzzolese]

You know, if it was legal and taxed it might become more expensive. Are you prepared to accept that without bitching?

[Dorothy Wood]

You know, if it was legal and taxed it might become more expensive. Are you prepared to accept that without bitching?

now, because it is illegal, the risk involved factors into the price. also, supply and demand. if there is a legal supply with little or no risk, I would think the demand would fall because of the increased availability, and thereby the prices would be lower. but, I'm sure opportunists and tobacco companies (the industry best-equipped to process and market smokable things) are foaming at the mouth at the thought of raking in the dough by selling drugs legally, so they would inflate the prices.

so I guess we won't know until it happens.

I think I'm back to decriminalization. I don't think I want corporations selling weed.

[Lyman Zerga]

You know, if it was legal and taxed it might become more expensive. Are you prepared to accept that without bitching?

me? im just being honest not bitching you bitch

i was speaking of heroin but maybe you love to hang around people with needles in their arms and dont forget to show that glorious life to your future kids

[b i o n i c]

^ <3<3<3<3 ^ yes

[Lyman Zerga]

why should it be a crime to be in possession of drugs but not alcohol?

im no fan of alcohol either
make it illegal i dont care

also, herion can be smoked and is smoked by many users, so there's no need for needles.



now youre getting pedantic here well you know what i mean

you shouldnt take shit that fucks with your soul or even ruins it, taking drugs is just a weak way of 'dealing' with life

[checkyourprez]

You know, if it was legal and taxed it might become more expensive. Are you prepared to accept that without bitching?

for reasons i can explain there is no possible way that would happen.

[checkyourprez]

now, because it is illegal, the risk involved factors into the price. also, supply and demand. if there is a legal supply with little or no risk, I would think the demand would fall because of the increased availability, and thereby the prices would be lower. but, I'm sure opportunists and tobacco companies (the industry best-equipped to process and market smokable things) are foaming at the mouth at the thought of raking in the dough by selling drugs legally, so they would inflate the prices.

so I guess we won't know until it happens.

I think I'm back to decriminalization. I don't think I want corporations selling weed.

think about it. if companies inflate prices, there leaves an in for illegal drug dealers to fill the niche of lower priced drugs. they are already breaking the law now for profit. why would they not do the same if it was possible when it was legal? the ONLY way it would be workably possible would be if the gov. sold at current and in all likelihood lower than current prices.

if the government sold for inflated prices, i wouldnt buy, and i doubt many people would buy it. they would just go back to their old drug dealers where its cheaper. and the whole scenario repeats to illegal drug times. they need to make it worth the weed buying publics time to want to buy from the government. the way they do that is with lower prices. simple economics ya dig.

[Dorothy Wood]

yeah, I wasn't talking about the government selling it. I was talking about corporations selling it.

and as far as supporting organized crime, I don't. there are ways to get things that don't necessarily involve an organization.


ugh, I don't want to argue about this when I agree with what you guys are saying. I'm just trying to be practical.

[b i o n i c]

http://gawker.com/5162010/obama-pretty-much-legalizes-marijuana (http://gawker.com/5162010/obama-pretty-much-legalizes-marijuana)

[checkyourprez]

yeah, I wasn't talking about the government selling it. I was talking about corporations selling it.

and as far as supporting organized crime, I don't. there are ways to get things that don't necessarily involve an organization.


ugh, I don't want to argue about this when I agree with what you guys are saying. I'm just trying to be practical.


either or, if they tried to sell for a higher price they would open an avenue for an illegal operation to undercut the gov or corps.

[checkyourprez]

http://gawker.com/5162010/obama-pretty-much-legalizes-marijuana (http://gawker.com/5162010/obama-pretty-much-legalizes-marijuana)

that is the beautiful tits i love to look at.

[ericlee]

U.S. to yield marijuana jurisdiction to states

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, February 27, 2009


(02-26) 20:00 PST San Francisco -- U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is sending strong signals that President Obama - who as a candidate said states should be allowed to make their own rules on medical marijuana - will end raids on pot dispensaries in California.

Asked at a Washington news conference Wednesday about Drug Enforcement Administration raids in California since Obama took office last month, Holder said the administration has changed its policy.

"What the president said during the campaign, you'll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we'll be doing here in law enforcement," he said. "What he said during the campaign is now American policy."

Bill Piper, national affairs director of the Drug Policy Alliance, a marijuana advocacy group, said the statement is encouraging.

"I think it definitely signals that Obama is moving in a new direction, that it means what he said on the campaign trail that marijuana should be treated as a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue," he said.

Piper said Obama has also indicated he will drop the federal government's long-standing opposition to health officials' needle-exchange programs for drug users.

During one campaign appearance, Obama recalled that his mother had died of cancer and said he saw no difference between doctor-prescribed morphine and marijuana as pain relievers. He told an interviewer in March that it was "entirely appropriate" for a state to legalize the medical use of marijuana "with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors."

After the federal Drug Enforcement Agency raided a marijuana dispensary at South Lake Tahoe on Jan. 22, two days after Obama's inauguration, and four others in the Los Angeles area on Feb. 2, White House spokesman Nick Schapiro responded to advocacy groups' protests by noting that Obama had not yet appointed his drug policy team.

"The president believes that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws" and expects his appointees to follow that policy, Schapiro said.

The federal government has fought state medicinal pot laws since Californians voted in 1996 to repeal criminal penalties for medical use of marijuana.

President Bill Clinton's administration won a Supreme Court case, originating in Oakland, that allowed federal authorities to shut down nonprofit organizations that supplied medical marijuana to their members. Clinton's Justice Department was thwarted by federal courts in an attempt to punish California doctors who recommended marijuana to their patients.

President George W. Bush's administration went further, raiding medical marijuana growers and clinics, prosecuting suppliers under federal drug laws after winning another Supreme Court case and pressuring commercial property owners to evict marijuana dispensaries by threatening legal action.

The Bush administration also blocked a University of Massachusetts researcher's attempt to grow marijuana for studies of its medical properties. Piper, of the Drug Policy Alliance, said he hopes Obama will reverse that position.

"If you removed the obstacles to research," he said, "in 10 to 15 years, marijuana will be available in pharmacies."

[Lex Diamonds]

"The president believes that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws" and expects his appointees to follow that policy, Schapiro said.
Something that Bush would NEVER have said.

If the California thing works, it's only a matter of time before it starts getting decriminalised elsewhere. Given the UK's penchant for doing exactly as America does but a few years later, it's only a matter of time til I can get some high grade from the post office. (y)

[Kid Presentable]

you shouldnt take shit that fucks with your soul or even ruins it, taking drugs is just a weak way of 'dealing' with life

A bag of meat and bones claiming ownership of a soul is considered a weak way of 'dealing' with life in many circles.

[Schmeltz]

The whole buying/selling/pricing conjecture thing is moot because if weed is legalized then regular users aren't going to go to dealers or to the government to get it; they're going to grow it themselves. It's easy, it's fun, and it's vastly cheaper than paying for someone else to do it. Even a law that only allowed people to grow just a single plant for personal use would take a massive chunk out of the organized growers' market. And I think that legislation to that effect is much more likely to pass than any kind of proposal to monopolize government control over the production and distribution of the chronic.

Witness, for example, the article ericlee just quoted. If nothing else it seems to signal a possible loosening of the American federal policy approach to marijuana control and distribution, and whatever direct effects that has in the USA it will definitely prompt indirect effects elsewhere - like in Canada, where decriminalization was on the table for years until the Bushies started wagging their fingers. If the pressure goes down across the border we could witness the evolution of a new, clarified legal context for Canadian growers and users. At least I hope so. And maybe a similar trend could take hold in the more progressive regions of the States - California being a good place to start. We would quickly see many regular smokers switching from buying their weed from the HA's to just making their own, in tune with whatever it was they were after - medicinal, recreational, etc.

You won't see the government switching from "You can't smoke weed" to "You have to buy your weed from us." If anything it seems you'll see them switch to "You can smoke weed but only under these circumstances", similar to alcohol. And that will definitely be a welcome change.

[Schmeltz]

A bag of meat and bones claiming ownership of a soul is considered a weak way of 'dealing' with life in many circles.

Also, this is on point. Saying something fucks with your soul is like saying something fucks with your aura. It's laughable.

[Lyman Zerga]

Also, this is on point. Saying something fucks with your soul is like saying something fucks with your aura. It's laughable.

why?

[Schmeltz]

People don't have souls and even if they did drugs wouldn't be able to fuck with them. There are plenty of arguments against taking drugs but the danger to your prospect of immortal salvation isn't really a very good one.

[Dorothy Wood]

every single person on this messageboard is going to hell. except for Waus.

[Lex Diamonds]

The whole buying/selling/pricing conjecture thing is moot because if weed is legalized then regular users aren't going to go to dealers or to the government to get it; they're going to grow it themselves. It's easy, it's fun, and it's vastly cheaper than paying for someone else to do it. Even a law that only allowed people to grow just a single plant for personal use would take a massive chunk out of the organized growers' market. And I think that legislation to that effect is much more likely to pass than any kind of proposal to monopolize government control over the production and distribution of the chronic.

Witness, for example, the article ericlee just quoted. If nothing else it seems to signal a possible loosening of the American federal policy approach to marijuana control and distribution, and whatever direct effects that has in the USA it will definitely prompt indirect effects elsewhere - like in Canada, where decriminalization was on the table for years until the Bushies started wagging their fingers. If the pressure goes down across the border we could witness the evolution of a new, clarified legal context for Canadian growers and users. At least I hope so. And maybe a similar trend could take hold in the more progressive regions of the States - California being a good place to start. We would quickly see many regular smokers switching from buying their weed from the HA's to just making their own, in tune with whatever it was they were after - medicinal, recreational, etc.

You won't see the government switching from "You can't smoke weed" to "You have to buy your weed from us." If anything it seems you'll see them switch to "You can smoke weed but only under these circumstances", similar to alcohol. And that will definitely be a welcome change.
Nobody's saying the government will be selling it. If it's legal they will be able to tax the sale of it which = big bucks. It will be a huge asset for the government, same as alcohol & tobacco tax.

[mikizee]

You can grow one plant here legally, and it hasn't really taken any chunks out of the market... I know many pot smokers and not many (if any) grow it, besides for commercial purposes.

[Lyman Zerga]

People don't have souls and even if they did drugs wouldn't be able to fuck with them. There are plenty of arguments against taking drugs but the danger to your prospect of immortal salvation isn't really a very good one.

just cause you got no soul doesnt mean that no one has one

well fine then, drugs also destroy your brain
better?

[checkyourprez]

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=4226712&cl=12453418&src=news


Oregon is thinking about growing medical marijuana themselves and selling it with a tax.



Like I've said in this thread earlier. It would work if its below street level prices. In that video they say they would put a $98 tax on 1 ounce. If they are selling the ounce very cheaply, basically at cost (which is realistically only a couple of dollars, literally) plus the $98 that would work. However, if they sell it at street prices, anywhere from $150=shitty swag--to $500=bomb hindu kush an ounce + add that $98 dollar tax on top of it then they are retarded. If they make you pay normal prices, why buy the pot with a $98 tax on it from the government, when you can just call up donnie the dealer and get the same pot just $98 dollars cheaper. Get what im saying here?

[checkyourprez]

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=4226712&cl=12422707&src=news

Another good video I just saw that is evidence legalizing drugs is the way to go. It's about the extreme violence currently going on in Mexico and fears that it may spill over into the United States.

Highlights of the vid...

90% of the cocaine that comes into the US comes in through Mexico.

Americans spend an estimated 23 BILLION dollars a YEAR on drugs.


So basically Mexicans are killing each other (over 1,000 this year alone) to be able to control that 90% of the cocaine (and other drugs) that comes into America each year. Which also leads to the possibility that the violence may spill into the United States to boot.

Also Americans have created a huge underground economy in the drug trade. That is 23 billion dollars a year going to drug lords someplace, most likely outside of the US, untaxed by our government.

If drugs were legalized that eliminates a reason for those gangs and drug lords to be murdering each other and innocent people in Mexico and else where in general. Also allows for that huge amount of money to be diverted to the government in some capacity.



On top of all this guess who is number 701 on this years Forbes annual list of billionaires...Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman the reputed leader of one of the Mexico's most violent drug cartels, with an estimated $1 billion fortune. A guarantee he is not on that list if drugs were legal here.




I haven't burned since Sunday (after a good 5 months of doing it everyday, previous to which I went 8 straight with out doing it), getting back in shape for summer soccer and getting that beach bod going. Even if bud was legal I wouldn't be doing it. That is the case with most people, they do it now because they want to. Its illegal. When they want to stop for whatever reason they do. If it were legal there would be no difference. The only difference would be the money saved in policing and from the prison system, and the money earned in taxes. Plus the deaths from people using shitty product made by some shiesty redneck wanna be chemist.



Phew.

[checkyourprez]

idk what it is but there have been a bunch of weed related articles in the past couple days on yahoo. heres another....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090313/us_time/08599188495600

and just the first paragraph....

Could marijuana be the answer to the economic misery facing California? Democratic State Assembly member Tom Ammiano thinks so. Ammiano introduced legislation last month that would legalize pot and allow the state to regulate and tax its sale - a move that could mean billions for the cash-strapped state. Pot is, after all, California's biggest cash crop, responsible for $14 billion in annual sales, dwarfing the state's second largest agricultural commodity - milk and cream - which brings in $7.3 billion annually, according to the most recent USDA statistics. The state's tax collectors estimate the bill would bring in about $1.3 billion in much-needed revenue a year, offsetting some of the billions in service cuts and spending reductions outlined in the recently approved state budget.

[cubsfirstplace]

now that i look back at it the D.A.R.E program in school was completely biased agaisnt marijuana. They made it seem like that if you tried weed you would be moving on to cocaine the next week. The gateway drug theory also applies to tobacco and alcohol, but they never once mentioned that.