If Marijuana Production Were Legal: Projected Tax Revenues, by State

[Are_grits_groceries]

http://www.sloshspot.com/blog/11-13-2009/If-Marijuana-Production-Were-Legal-Projected-Tax-Revenues-by-State-245

When will people catch a clue. We waste money on law enforcement, tie up the courts, and put people in prison who don't belong there.

[havocmom]

1. And we spent a lot of health care $ on drugs that don't work as well as pot

for many conditions. It is insane.

[Are_grits_groceries]

2. That's probably a very big reason.

Big Pharma never wants anything to get in the way of profits.

[havocmom]

5. That would be reason 1

But since for-profit private corporate prisons are becoming more common, that little branch of capitalism will be in favor of stiff sentencing for victimless crime of using a helpful plant.

Did pot become illegal when Prohibition was repealed? Read years ago that several drugs were made illegal at that time to appease the mob bootleggers who owned a lot of politicians. The bootleggers needed to be compensated for loss of revenue when booze regained legal status. Don't know if what I read was accurate, but it seems plausible. Never researched the timing. Guess I should add that to my bucket list? :smoke:

[Are_grits_groceries]

8. Here is a good article: Why is Marijuana Illegal?

<snip>
You’ll also see that the history of marijuana’s criminalization is filled with:
Racism
Fear
Protection of Corporate Profits
Yellow Journalism
Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt Legislators
Personal Career Advancement and Greed

These are the actual reasons marijuana is illegal.
<snip>
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/

It's long but informative. I learned a few things. I would also venture to say that the above reasons are still much in play today.

[havocmom]

23. Thanks, that is a helpful chronology

But I take exception to how one element in article is used, or misunderstood at the very least. Makes me wonder what other cultural/historical nuances might have been missed in there. Makes me cautious that other pertinent details might be missing. As argument for my concern that the article missed some essential nuances of local histories: the quote of a politician from the Butte, Montana newspaper seemed to have been misunderstood.

Beets grown in Montana are sugar beets. and sugar can make booze. That remark: ...in 1927, the Butte Montana Standard reported a legislator’s comment: “When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff… he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies.” uses racism as a cover for something else entirely.

Back then, in Montana, political foes (and economic rivals) were sometimes dealt with by gang killings. Chicago, New York, Kansas City had no monopoly on mobsters running the booze and ruling the trade by violent means.

There were gangster turf-wars in Montana (Butte, especially, was a particularly wild place), just like other places in the America. Who got to make, transport, and sell booze was serious enterprise. Turf was well defended.

Some people did not like gang rule and went into alcohol production competition, or provided moonshiners with the materials needed to make alcohol. Mob wars broke out, here as in other parts of the country.

Easy to mislabel local wars ("execute all his political enemies") for the readers of newspapers. The politician quoted was likely voicing his mob bossess' annoyance with independent beet farmers (the providers of sugar and therefore, business rivals in the bootlegging industry) than he was with real concerns over Mexicans.

Yes, plenty of anti-Mexican sentiment here, then and now, but the "beet-farmer" label is a dead give-away as to the real meaning of the comment. The ethnic slur, while perhaps telling of the man's sentiments, was more likely hot-button-pushing color-commentary for the general newspaper reader. Keeping the masses whipped up and focused on the distractions rather than the realities is not a new practice.

Like FOX today, powerful forces used propaganda and pushed emotional hot buttons to get their way, in Montana and everywhere else in America.

Article glosses over timing the repeal of Prohibition and the war on Marijuana going full in propaganda until it was made illegal. A very few years in between there, time for the mob bootleggers to get their politicians in place to do something about the economic losses they were suffering from the repeal.

The article is good for basic chronology and further study. Bookmarked with thanks for the resource.

[Are_grits_groceries]

26. Thanks for pointing out those things.

I'm still hunting info about the repeal of Prohibition and the illegality of marjuana.

[havocmom]

27. The time frame in your linked article pretty much says it all

Repeal, then just few years time (lost revenue and time to recruit, elect more 'useful' politicians) all makes sense. It seems unlikely bought pols would leave any written trail of the real reasons they made the stuff illegal shortly after the mobs lost the monopoly on liquor ;)

[jimmyflint]

241. Bam! like a freight train.

When you track the funding it will lead to pharm and beer/alcohol dealers in my opinion.

[francolettieri]

14. Marijuana and Prostitution among consenting adults..........

Are two of society's biggest hang-ups. Get over it people!!! Law enforcement has more important things to do!! Legalize both and move on!!!

www.leap.cc

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

265. one of these things is not like the other

Smoking marijuana is a VICTIMLESS crime. Prostitution is not. I think you may be justifying a bit....

[Greyhound]

35. The ripple effect, or economic churn, would be massive.

But it would hurt a lot of very large campaign contributors.

[havocmom]

38. And there in lies the problem. Power is more important than the well being of people

Hope pot will be legal before the chronic pain does me in, but I won't hold my breath. Human nature being what it is, power always wins.

[Greyhound]

220. Every damn time in the last half century.

Where's our Teddy?

[ConsAreLiars]

3. I see the predictable RW unreccer's are still awake.

So here's a K&R,

[Are_grits_groceries]

9. They are the living dead.

They never sleep.

[Gold Metal Flake]

19. They are irrelevant. Rec 29.

[glitch]

20. Just the night shift clocking in. nt

[winyanstaz]

4. K & R,,,,America needs jobs....

and getting rid of the war on drugs would open factories in America again.

[havocmom]

6. Well, it would help the home and garden industries

and probably keep some American farmers from succumbing to ADM and land developers.

[winyanstaz]

48. you are correct in that,...

It would also help the factories that make so many things.
There is a very long list of items we could produce with hemp.

[opihimoimoi]

7. Home grown means less monies going outta the Country...by about 13 billion every year...for pot only

Ya would think......

[formercia]

10. I wonder how much the States spend incarcerating people for pot possession?

Oh, that's right, the Prison Industrial Complex depends on these non-violent prisoners to make money.

[SammyWinstonJack]

15. Cheap prison labor. Can't do away with that, now can we?

:evilgrin:

[Echo In Light]

17. It's scary how FEW people even know anything about that process at all

It's such a grotesque phenomenon of class warfare that when you explain it to someone whose unwary of the privatization of prisons = the need to create a larger pool of slave labor, they can hardly believe it...until you direct them to some research on it. In fact there's a lot of really disturbing shit like that about the US that, despite it being monu-fucking-mentally EVIL, it somehow stays just below the mainstream's radar...it's like it's obvious all out there, and available to examine (or become a victim of!) but most would rather turn a blind eye and denounce those willing to acknowledge it a "conspiracy theorist."

[havocmom]

24. Do some hotels still use prison labor for reservation/booking call centers?

When I read about THAT use of prison labor (some years back) I really got a wake up call.

A dear friend was working as an MCI operator, and MCI had the contract to handle all operator-assisted long distant calls out of Arizona prisons. In other words, she spend several years placing calls for prisoners. Her 'war stories' were amazing. Lots of family members didn't want to receive the reverse-charge calls, but lots of 'buddies' were more than happy to get them. Oh, and your calls are not always as private as you think ;)

Give the nice hotel reservation guy your name, credit card number, perhaps even your home address, when you book hotel for a time your home will likely be unattended. Only, you may have just given all that info to a criminal with friends on the outside who will use the information for criminal activity.

Besides a pal working to put those calls through, knew a woman who's son was in jail (several times) for doing some credit card fraud himself. He had worked in a call center BEFORE being convicted (for fraudulent use of credit card info) so guess what he got hired out to private corporations to do while he was IN prison? Hey, he was cheap labor, already experienced!

You are right, it is scary what most people do not know about prisons and the uses for prisoners.

[unaffiliated liberal]

29. +1 -- One of the organizations lobbying most stridently against medical marijuana in NJ is

The NJ trial lawyers association.

Pot heads are low hanging fruit. Defending them must beat chasing ambulances.

[havocmom]

22. Yep, the taxpayers pay and corporations reap the profits of slave labor

Since pot smokers are rarely violent, they make much better slaves err, prison workers. Also easier for lower paid private prison guards to tend so they don't require private/for profit prisons to spend as much for training guards.

Marijuana being illegal is a BIG money laundering scheme for hiding more corporate welfare.

[Robb]

11. Does this assume pot will be the same price as it is now?

Silly if so.

[divineorder]

12. The price will change

But there will be more revenue anyway-business taxes, property taxes. Bongs can be taxed, so can papers and pipes. The businesses that sell pot along with the cigarettes will have additional taxable revenue. We haven't even gotten to the products that can also be sold along with pot-flavorings or scents or special packaging, advertising revenue, cafes or insurance reimbursements for medicinal.

We will save billions all around too in the money not spent on law enforcement. People who are let out of jail, people who don't go at all, prisons we can close and consolidate, police time and police hassle, extra courtrooms we can close, whatever.

In short, it will be a net benefit even if the prices go down.

[Robb]

21. Probably true

But none of that is what the little chart is talking about. I'd like to know how they got at these numbers, s'all.

It seems that things become less expensive when they are legalized -- prohibition is the only real example in this country, but most of eastern Europe experienced the effects in the 1990s.

...just re-reading your post, before I post: property taxes? How will property taxes be affected?

[divineorder]

210. Dealers Now Have Little Overhead

They can't buy a storefront to sell, therefore no property taxes. Once pot is legal, they can buy a place to sell from, farmland to grow, warehouses for storage and even office space. All of which are subject to property taxes.

[dysfunctional press]

13. the price won't change all that much- it would be heavily taxed.

they already know what people are willing to pay.

[Echo In Light]

16. Hell yeah. Just look at ciggs, or damn near anything for that matter, given the mark ups

[Xithras]

33. It will plunge.

Once the big producers like RJ Reynolds and Phillip Morris get geared up, you'll be buying pot at WalMart for $30 a carton right along with your Marlboros. Ag is big business, and any legalization will immediately be followed by tens of thousands of new acres of industrial pot farms. Your kidding yourself if you think that small pot farmers are going to have any real role in the market after legalization. The tobacco companies have hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign cash to dump into politicians pockets to make sure of that.

[dysfunctional press]

54. keep dreaming.

if you think that tobacco is the model that legalized pot would follow, you're insane.
it would be more akin to liquor.
and i don't recall saying anyting one way or the other, as far as what role the small farmer will or won't play- although i do believe that more people will grow their own if allowed to do so legally- although i would imagine that part of the taxation process will be the requirement of a license to grow it- whether a home grower or a corporate farm- and the more plants you want to grow, the more it will cost(and for the corporate mega-farms that dot the landscape of your imagination- the costs would be pretty high) and i could even see them putting a limit on the number of marijuana plants any one person/farm would be allowed to grow. i doubt that the same kind of tax/license/limits would apply to industrial hemp- as it's market/uses would be entirely different.

i also think that it's just as likely to appear in boxes of brownie mix, green butter, or other food products as it is to appear in cartons of pre-rolled joints. i know for myself- if the price were to "plunge" i would probably cut back drastically on how much i smoke, and switch to eating it. whatever form it would end up being sold in- it would definitely require an i.d., and it wouldn't be sold to anyone who isn't old enough to buy liquor.

[Xithras]

225. You don't REALLY believe that, do you?

Ag interests have BILLIONS of dollars to grease the Washington cogs, and the argument of countless thousands of jobs on their side. If you think that Washington is going to legalize marijuana growing and then pass laws designed to protect small growers at the expense of big corporations, you haven't been paying attention the last few decades.

To follow YOUR example: The small farmer will certainly still exist, the same way microbreweries exist, to churn out high quality product for those who demand the highest quality, but the market would invariably end up being dominated by Bud Light, Coors, and Keystone drinkers. Americans go for "cheap" over "quality" every day, and our market caters to that demand very well.

So, yes, you'll have $30 cartons of pre-rolled joints available at WalMart, right alongside the cigarrettes, or sitting on a shelf in the grocery store alongside the Jim Beam. You'll have $20 packages of loose leaves available in a Sta-Fresh pouch a shelf down, for the pipe smokers and home bakers. You might even have a locked glass case to hold some of the more expensive quality brands. This is America, and we don't allow ANY popular item to escape exploitation.

BTW, I'd wager cash that any American legalization would also be followed by a serious push for legalization in other countries. Within a decade, American pot farmers would no doubt also be competing for marketshare with low-cost importers from Chile, Mexico, and other ag exporting nations.

Once you legalize it, marijuana becomes an ag commodity like any other, and it will be subject to the same price forces as any other commodity. Hell, they'll probably start trading Pot Futures in Chicago. Welcome to life in a capitalist nation.

[dysfunctional press]

247. completely.

there are still liability and moral issues for corporations to consider. a LOT of their customers would still be adamantly against pot use(just because laws change overnight- it doesn't mean that deeply ingrained values and opinions of the public do as well)

i can go to several smoke shops in the area to buy pipes, screens, bongs, steamrollers, etc...but walmart doesn't carry ANY of it...why not? i thought that they were all about the profit? :shrug:

not all walmarts sell liquor either. some sell only beer & wine. they need local licenses to sell any of it, and there's no reason to believe that pot would be any different.

as for the scenarios you envision- like i said before- keep dreaming.

[surrealAmerican]

39. I don't think the taxes could keep the price at current levels ...

... mostly because the stuff is too easily grown in almost every part of this country. People will not pay that much for something they could easily grow themselves. The only thing currently preventing most users from growing now is the fear of getting caught.

[dysfunctional press]

55. most people who live in urban areas don't have the ability to grow it.

a couple of plants in a window bow isn't going to yield all that much- and an indoor grow takes up a bunch of space, and makes a big stink- most people won't want the hassle.

[Toucano]

18. Nice chart. Completely agree.

Only I wish they had calculated it at 18+ rather than 12+.

I realize it is the reality, but it doesn't sit well to advocate children smoking anything.

[intaglio]

25. Nice chart but please push the other ways of using MJ

Vaporizers - Just check a famous search engine.

Food - Not just brownies or cake, experiment with your herbs, many years ago someone I know well found that resin crumbled on grilled (broiled) lamb chops was good

Non-alcoholic beverages - Hot chocolate and others, it's oil/fats extract the goodness, like cream in your coffee.

Alcoholic beverages - retsina is made by dissolving resin, traditionally pine resin (but I'm sure you can think of other things), in a refined alcohol like vodka then adding the alcoholic mixture to wine.

Not that I'd know anything about such things ....

[defendandprotect]

28. k/r

[Stumbler]

30. Great chart, but one question...

Do these figures factor in only legalized marijuana, or is legalized hemp production also included? If not, then it's that much more of a damning argument for decriminalization and legalization.

Of course, we have to look out for the needs of the for-profit prison/industrial system, as well as the profitability of BigPharma's stranglehold of the "legal drug" market.

As for industrial hemp, we're up against the Timber and Logging industry, BigPetrol, Cotton producers, Ethanol producers, BigAgriBusiness...

Another big hurdle against legalizing both products is the bloated bureaucracy that receives funding via "the war on drugs." I've read and heard that just about every department of our government receives additional funding if they "participate," no matter how little their contribution to "the war."

It's a grueling, uphill battle, but I still believe that if enough cities and states stand up for common sense, the feds will eventually have to concede the fight.

[Uncle Joe]

31. Can we put it to rest once and for all; Grits are most definitely groceries!

Kicked and recommended and thanks for the thread.:thumbsup:

[Greyhound]

36. Indeed they are. And how many people do you know that like cream of wheat but hate grits? n/t

[Uncle Joe]

78. I know, it blows my mind, they don't know what they're missing, maybe it's in the marketing? n/t

[debbierlus]

32. Just grow it, yourself.

[Myrina]

34. It will be legal and OTC once big pharma can corner the market ...

... and eliminate the 'home farmer'.

[TroubleMan]

37. Also imagine the money they'd save on arrest, prosecution, trial, and incarceration.

It would be a huge windfall if done correctly.

[Vidar]

40. Can't do that. It makes too much sense. Recommended.

[muyojoe]

41. No damn way

I hate how people act like pot is harmless. I used to
smoke a lot of it when I was young and stupid, but
then I grew up. I've watched older relatives piss
their lives away on it. Now I'm watching my oldest
son do the same. Say what you want, but it is a drug
and it ruins lives. Making it legal is easy not right.

[Le Taz Hot]

42. Really?

Perhaps you missed the SCIENCE:

http://www.scientificfactsofpot.com/studies.htm

Yes, by all means, let's keep it illegal because prohibition has worked so well in the past. :eyes: Look, Sport, if you don't want to smoke it, don't, but leave the rest of us the fuck alone.

[muyojoe]

49. Yeah Really!

Perhaps you haven't met my mother or my aunt who taught middle school and high school emotionaly conflicted and special needs children. Unfortunately they can both attest to the perfectly normal parents who have children who's brains don't function well due to their parents drug use.

I don't think you needed me to tell you to, "leave us the fuck alone." You expressed an opinion, supposedly backed up by science. (They also had science to say that smoking wasn't bad for you.) I expressed an opinion backed up by my drug use and my families experience with it. Grow up.

[Taitertots]

90. The least convincing piece of evidence yet

"they can both attest to the perfectly normal parents who have children who's brains don't function well due to their parents drug use."
Where did they get their medical doctorates? Since you seem think they are capable of coming to medical conclusions I'll assume they have medical degrees.

Why should I believe you that drugs caused the problems? Not only have you never seen them, the people you claim have seen them are incapable of reaching medical conclusions. I've seen perfectly normal people would don't use drugs give birth to special needs children. The impetus is on you to demonstrate the causation.

[muyojoe]

94. They have doctorates, both

Not medical, but in education. Specifically in special ed. I'm sorry the evidence from the front line in this is no good for you.

[Taitertots]

100. The front line would be doctors

They are the side lines. That is also not evidence, it is second party anecdotes.

They are not medical doctors so their OPINIONS of medical issues is irrelevant.

They never got to examine the parents, examine the children medically, or view their medical records. They have no idea what they are talking about.

[muyojoe]

151. I suppose

doctors are dealing with the results and witnessing the results of drug use first hand. I can guarantee, my mother and aunt do too. In fact I'm sure alot of people are on the fron line of this issue. I wish I wasn't.

[Taitertots]

156. They are not on the front line, and you surely are not

They can't medically evaluate the students or the parents. They can't review their medical history. Even if they could they wouldn't be able to do anything with the data, because they are not in the medical field. Nothing they say about this is even remotely valuable.

[muyojoe]

171. The front lines in dealing with the affects of drug use

would be everyone who is directly affected. I believe I am.

[Taitertots]

193. You still can't make medical diagnoses

just like your Mother and Aunt. Regardless what hypothetical line you are on, you, your mother, and aunt are all incapable of making any statements about medical conditions.

[muyojoe]

195. One of the first things to do

in any case, as you pointed out is to investigate and gather facts. You would probably do those were the effect is known to occur of happen. I am not making the diagnosis, just presenting my experience with facts I have experienced in the cases I have been involved in. Or telling you things I was told by educated people who's education involved dealing with these problems, and what they have told me they witnessed.

Hell I live with a pot smoking drug addict. You are trying to tell me I don't know anything about drug use or its consequences? I'm the one who has been to court with him standing in front of the judge. I'm the one who's son won't keep a job and would rather sell pot. Keep trying to tell me I don't know anything about drug use.

[dysfunctional press]

178. "normal parents who have children who's brains don't function well due to their parents drug use."

and in how many cases has it been medically proven to be a result of the parent's pot use?

or is it just conjecture?

[muyojoe]

194. well

considering the type of meetings they were having with the parents, in many of the cases the parents records were an issue also.

[dysfunctional press]

295. so- conjecture it is.

got it.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

266. it's all bullshit

Marijuana does not cause brain or genetic damage and anyone who claims otherwise is terribly ignorant.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

267. your 2nd hand anecodotal evidence is wrong

Sorry. Middle School teachers are NOT scientific experts no matter how badly they may wish themselves to be.

[Kaleva]

43. Same can be said for legal booze

Several friends I partied with when I was young have died from over drinking. Along the way, they lost their marriages and numerous jobs. A few others are still alive but I'd be surprised if any of them make it to 55.

[muyojoe]

50. If you want to make liquor illegal that is another conversation

I don't think two wrongs make a right. Drugs seem to get ahold on alot more people in a bad way than alcohol. My only early memories of both my grandfather and great grandfather had to do with their excessive alcoholism. They both lived into their eithties, in fact one of them is still alive today. No long term drug user in my or my wifes family has lived that long.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. "Drugs seem to get ahold on alot more people in a bad way than alcohol." - bullshit.

Come back to me with the statistics on how many people marijuana kills a year. How many alcohol kills. How many nicotine kills.

Sorry, chief. If your loved one has a problem with ANY substance, the best thing is some form of treatment or support; but criminalizing a relatively benign plant that 50 million otherwise Americans use at least occasionally on a recreational basis is NOT the answer.

[muyojoe]

65. Thanks I'm the chief of not tribe

That benign plant has led me to make many drives I shouldn't in a condition I shouldn't have been in. Do I need to submit myself or my life to a scientist for you? I don't think so. Comparing one bad substance to another does not really prove your point. Proving how benign it is compared to crack make it how good?

[Warren DeMontague]

69. Driving under the influence is a crime, and should be a crime.

Because you're endangering others. What consenting adults do with their own bodies in the privacy of their own homes, however, is another matter.

[muyojoe]

72. Do your really believe that?

If you've been with people who do drugs or drink or anything else and absolutely won't drive, you have met some wonders. One of the first effects of drugs is to alter you judgement. Hence they aren't thinking right. Your not advocating that we make places were they can go smoke it and stay until they are sober. You want to make it legal.

[Warren DeMontague]

81. Yet, we criminalize the act of driving under the influence. That's the crime.

People are still legally responsible for their behavior while they're under the influence. And most of the bad judgment seems to occur under the influence of alcohol.

If you honestly think pot impairs people's judgment anything close to the way alcohol tends to, I'm betting you don't have as much experience around stoners vs. drunks as you claim.

You are right about one thing- I think marijuana should be legal, regulated, available for consenting adults--- and taxed. No question.

[muyojoe]

83. Finally

Yes I used to believe I drove better stoned than drunk.

The speedometer would get fuzzy when I went over 45 while stoned. I was also riding a motorcycle and was stopping for red lights about a 1/2 mile before them and then missing the green light before I could get there. I've never done that under any other substance.

I'm not going to justify how much drugs I used to use.

Here is where we are. You have one point of view. My life has led me to another. That's ok. We are adults, and we are not insulting each other.

Sounds ok to me.

[Warren DeMontague]

85. Fair enough. You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

And I sincerely wish you luck with your family situation.

[Taitertots]

134. Possession becoming legal isn't going to cause DUI to become legal

[bevoette]

227. "Drugs seem to get ahold on alot more people in a bad way than alcohol." OMG - are you serious??

holy crap

you could not BE more wrong

[RedCappedBandit]

288. Spend five minutes in a rehab and let us know how your opinion has changed

[rd_kent]

44. Can you provide evidence for your claim?

Your anecdotal experience is hardly what most recreational users of pot experience. Sorry to hear you and your son cannot handle the responsibility, but just because you cannot deal with it does not mean that everyone else should not have the same opportunity.

Do you advocate banning and criminalizing alcohol? Why or why not?

[muyojoe]

51. Using an illegal substance is a responsibility?

Good one. I bet you sell air conditioners to eskimos. Don't try to sell that one to me. Its illegal, so what. Obviously if you want it you get it. You think it is more important than the consequences. That is your right. I choose my life, and it turned out much better this way. I'm sorry you feel that is so pathetic. My experience is not ancedotal, it is true life experience. I have more, but I didn't type it all from my blackberry. I didn't realize I needed to right a book to discredit something illegal.

[Tunkamerica]

60. actually, real life experience is anecdotal. that's the definition of anecdotal.

i doubt you'll ever right that book.

[muyojoe]

62. Try again

An anecdote is a short tale narrating an interesting or amusing biographical incident.

Were was the interesting or amusing part of my biographical story. I was attempting to present my personal evidence, not interest or amuse you.

[Occulus]

243. No, scientifically speaking, an anecdote is exactly what he said it was.

The scientific meaning of 'anecdote' or more often 'anecdotal (evidence)' is different from the layman's definition. Try again.

[RainDog]

252. it's sad that so many people argue from stupidity

but that's what you see here.

...from people who do not understand what it means to offer anecdotal evidence as the equivalent to scientific studies.

America is amazing because it has survived in spite of the idiocracy, at least so far.

[Occulus]

274. Just wait until the current generation of kids grows up.

I was probably part of the last generation to get a real education that didn't just teach to tests, but the kids in schools today are getting far less education in critical thinking than I did. I shudder to think of what sort of society we're going to be living in in twenty or thirty years.

We have to start funding education again, from K-12 with a guarantee of an additional four years of college or university if your grades are higher than X.xx GPA. It's the only way to ensure we do not as an entire nation slide into complete idiocy.

[NashVegas]

208. Really, Real Life Experience Is Empirical Evidence

Which is something that real people of science pay attention to, even if message board debaters don't.

[Le Taz Hot]

212. And I provided this jihad-against-pot poster with actual SCIENCE

which he ignored in favor of "empirical evidence." (See Post 42.) You guys just need to fess up that you know NOTHING of the subject except your own prejudices. That way you two will have at least some semblance of credibility.

[JoeyT]

71. It's possible to use one responsibly.

"My experience is not ancedotal, it is true life experience." Everyone's experience is anecdotal. That's what "anecdote" means in a logical context or debate format.
My experience with pot is true life experience, so can I state with absolute certainty that everyone that smokes pot spends the next two hours violently hurling and never smokes it again? ;)

Legality and morality are by no means synonymous. I realize authoritarians have trouble telling the difference, but they aren't. There are lots of things that are legal and aren't moral, and plenty of things that aren't immoral but are certainly illegal.

You don't need to write a book, you need to perform experiments and publish them for peer review.

Anecdotal evidence is rarely good enough for a prohibition argument. People blame all sorts of things on whatever is convenient.
I know a lot of people that are potheads that live up to the stereotype of potheads. Most were like that before the pot. The rest had some other experience in their life that kicked in the "Screw life." attitude which lead to the pot. The point I'm getting at is that well adjusted people don't generally risk prison for the sake of fun on a regular basis. The very illegality of the stuff makes it far more likely that the kind of person that smokes it on a regular basis is going to be the kind of person that has other problems in their life. Repealing the prohibition would correct this, just as it did with alcohol.

[muyojoe]

76. Amen brother!

"The point I'm getting at is that well adjusted people don't generally risk prison for the sake of fun on a regular basis. The very illegality of the stuff makes it far more likely that the kind of person that smokes it on a regular basis is going to be the kind of person that has other problems in their life."

So who needs it?

No one who is thinking correctly will risk their job and life for something this unnecessary. You won't break my heart if you make it legal, but I don't see the need to.

Please don't call me authoritarian. I don't like people who are. I am just not in favor of this change. If it changes against my will, I won't think the world is coming to and end or work tirelessy to change it back.

[rd_kent]

217. BUt you do not express WHY you are against it.

Why is pot illegal? DO you really know the history? Why is booze legal, a substance THOUSANDS of time MORE dangerous that pot will ever be?

Here is a FACT for you.....How many people have DIED as a result of a pot overdose in the entire world? ZERO. Yep, you read that right, ZERO.
How many die from overdosing on booze? Hundreds, daily.

See the point I am getting at here? Before making accusations and taking stances on a subject, you should know what you are talking about and in this case, you DO NOT know what you are talking about.

Educate yourself and then get back to me.

[JNelson6563]

46. Not everyone lets it run/ruin their lives

I know people who are very successful people who have happy, balanced lives that smoke pot in moderation. Just as I know people who are also successful and happy in life who drink in moderation.

I also know people who cannot drink because they can't do it in moderation. It runs/ruins their lives. Should we outlaw alcohol?

Oh wait....

Julie

[muyojoe]

52. And your argument is?

So you don't care about the ones who's live it would ruin, as long as its ok for you. You can make that argument, but it says more about you. Everyone one I have worked with who was an occasional or other wise drug user was let go for various reasons.

Are you talking about jobs were peoples lives are on the line? Are you sure their coworkers and customers feel the same way?

[RainDog]

56. Yes. Personal Freedom/Responsibility is EXACTLY the answer

it is the same reasoning behind giving up prohibition of alcohol.

some people who drink have a problem with alcohol. some don't. it is not right to make a substance illegal that has medicinal benefits, as well as benefits from hemp for the many ways it can replace America's reliance upon petrol-based products, provide the best source of EFAs, save forests, provide a new crop for farmers.

as you note, your family has a history of problems with addiction. maybe it wouldn't matter what was legal or illegal. maybe it's a matter of the way someone's dopamine receptors respond -- this is different for different people.

in addition, pot prohibition discriminates against African-Americans via the legal system. or anyone who is not "connected." tell me when was the last time a politician's kid went to jail for pot. but jail time for pot can mean someone doesn't get to vote.

rather than blame the substance, the user has to address his or her problems with addiction and how to rationally deal with the problems that creates, if it does.

Carl Sagan, a brilliant scientist, smoked pot. He extolled its virtues to help him think about astronomy. For every person that you know from your life that makes you respond like a prohibitionist, I can give an example of someone whose life was positively impacted by his or her experience with cannabis.

So the issue comes down to a rational look at the science, at the medical studies, at the industrial studies, at the HISTORY OF THE WORLD that includes hemp and marijuana production and measure that against the impact of illegal cannabis. In addition, our national values have long included the belief that individuals have the right to make their own decisions about their body, their work, their religious beliefs and their forms of entertainment. Prohibition is not in line with those values.

[muyojoe]

61. Killing Carl Sagan's brain cells made him a better scientist?

Well at least your response is well thought out and articulated.

I actually lived in Kentucky for awhile. I saw the votes go against hemp, and I regretted it. Hemp used for the purposes you list are not any good for smoking. I have nothing against it, and would welcome it. If you want farmers to grow more and better beneficial crops, ban raising animals for feed. It certainly wouldn't hurt anyone, and farmers would be very busy.

Of course I don't deny this.

Illegal drug enforcement affects any poor populace, because they use the illegality of it to make quick money. I'm not african american, but I have had many as friends. They have never expressed any feeling that the illegal drugs were unfair to them. They do express a unfair harshness and targeting by law enforcement. But this is true in all aspects of their lives. Your solutin won't solve that.

Refer back to your third paragraph.

I've read books by him and watched him many times. I wish you hadn't lowered my opinion of him this way. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't list pot as a defining thing in his life the way you insinuate. He also didn't have a job where peoples lives were in his hands, just their hopes and dreams.

I still don't see how smoking pot would make anyones life better.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. "I'm pretty sure he wouldn't list pot as a defining thing in his life"

http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/sagan.htm

In the essay, Sagan said marijuana inspired some of his intellectual work.

"I can remember one occasion, taking a shower with my wife while high, in which I had an idea on the origins and invalidities of racism in terms of gaussian distribution curves,'' wrote the former Cornell University professor. "I wrote the curves in soap on the shower wall, and went to write the idea down.

Sagan also wrote that pot enhanced his experience of food, particularly potatoes, music and sex.

Grinspoon, Sagan's closest friend for 30 years, said Sagan's marijuana use is evidence against the notion that marijuana makes people less ambitious.

"He was certainly highly motivated to work, to contribute,'' said Grinspoon, a psychiatry professor at Harvard University.

http://boingboing.net/2009/10/07/carl-sagan-spaced-ou.html

There is a myth about such highs: the user has an illusion of great insight, but it does not survive scrutiny in the morning. I am convinced that this is an error, and that the devastating insights achieved when high are real insights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

[muyojoe]

79. You go tell the astronaut

fireman, police officer, military personnel, etc... that the person working by their side, covering their back, afixing the tiles to the space shuttle, is a drug user. I think they would have some four letter words for you and them.

I've done drugs. Your not tricking the trickster. I've been there when I've looked back at what I've been doing for days and new I wasn't right in the head because of my use. Pot is not out of you system in 24hours or even seven days. Maybe it is ok for Carl, or actors, but I don't feel the need to change laws for them.

Duh, the muchies made the food taste better. I used to marvel at saying "double beef burrito supreme with extra sour cream" when I was high. It doesn't justify making it legal. I swear I had existential experiences whil listening to Floyd high. Doesn't mean it should be legal.

[Warren DeMontague]

84. A lot of those astronauts, fireman, police officers and military personell smoke it, too.

Simply put, there is nothing about marijuana- a drug that millions of people use safely, occasionally, and recreationally just like millions use alcohol recreationally- that justifies $14 Billion in yearly 'drug war' expenditures, that justifies this massive prison-industrial apparatus to keep it illegal; a war that is being LOST, by the way.

Nothing.

And like gay marriage, eventually it WILL be legal. Just as many people in East Germany must have thought that wall would never come down, nevertheless the cracks were building underneath it and eventually the tide of history was too strong to hold back, anymore. Pot will be legal-- and the sky won't fall.

[muyojoe]

97. Love to overlook

the millions who don't. Ok, but all of those people would be fired if caught. They aren't thinking clearly if they are risking everything they have and have worked for, just to recreationaly do drugs.

You want to win this argument? Have a bunch of non users promote how good it is. Everyone who does somethin they shouldn't, for whatever reason, thinks everyone else is doing it. When I smoked I thought the same.

[Warren DeMontague]

103. a bunch of non-users? Well, you've got one here.

I haven't smoked it in years. Haven't drank, either. In fact, the strongest drug I do these days is caffeine. Last time I smoked pot, Bill Clinton was in the White House.

I'm not "promoting" it, but I certainly had enough experience with drugs- both legal and illegal- to know which were more dangerous. Of all of them, I would categorize pot as the most benign. Not great, not for everyone, not for me anymore-- but certainly NO reason why it should be against the law.

[muyojoe]

110. One down

All you need is enough votes, users or not. Unfortunately you don't have them.

If it means so little, why do you care enough to write so much? The people who go to jail because of it made an informed decision. The people who get hooked, the same. The basic tax premise of the thread, would probably fall apart with the price drop from legalization. It is not like we can look to some shining beacon of legality and say, "Why can't we be like them?" Amsterdam is a nice place, but drug use isn't making it better. I certainly can't think of another.

[Warren DeMontague]

167. It doesn't "mean little'. I'm not going to get an abortion, but I'm pro-choice.

I'm sick of my tax dollars going to idiocy like the drug war. I think we need to get government out of the bedrooms and bloodstreams of citizens. I think it's fundamentally offensive to any notions of human freedom to tell consenting adults they can't do something like smoke pot in the privacy of their own home.

Not to mention the fact that states like California are running massive deficits, when pot could be a revenue source much as the wine industry is. Like I said, I don't drink, either, but I'd be an idiot not to recognize that wine grapes are a cash crop.

It's funny you mention Amsterdam. The Dutch have lower rates of pot use than we do. Legal pot certainly isn't making it WORSE.

[muyojoe]

174. Fine

there are other ways to fix deficits. Like not spending more than you have.

Nice blurb about freedom, it rings true. I don't want to go to your house and make that decision. That is an enforcement decision. Legalization would make it available to all, I'm not for that.

Ha, ha. Dutch drug users. You'll have to explain to me how they are funny. Do you think more people do it because it is illegal? If drinking was illegal, I would drink much less or not at all. I cannot speak for others, but I know what I would do.

[Warren DeMontague]

176. Again, the experience of alcohol prohibition is relevant

it certainly didn't stop drinking in this country. All it did was create a host of criminal enterprises. Much like the drug war has.

[muyojoe]

236. Doesn't answer what is wrong with people.

Why they used to stupidly drink alcohol that was made improperly so it could possibly cause blindness. so when we make pot legal, it will shut down criminal organizations? I doubt it, but you are welcome to think so.

It doesn't matter. The wit and charm of the arguments presented hasn't won me over. Don't worry I wasn't trying to win anybody over, all the respondents are probably sparkers. I'm not. end of story. Have a nice day.

[RainDog]

258. so, how is Al Capone doing with his criminal gang?

when alcohol prohibition ended, the crimes related to creating, transporting and selling alcohol ended. those trucks were allowed to freely use the highways, clubs were allowed to legally operate, brewer and distillers were allowed to legally create a product.

so, it's stupid to think that legalization would not have an impact on criminal organizations related to pot. none of those criminal organizations that currently exist bother to deal with production of alcohol.

but don't let facts get in the way of your stubbornness. so far, obviously, it hasn't.

[muyojoe]

277. I won't

When the 1933 repeal of prohibition made buying liquor legal once again, gangs that were still intact resorted to different sources of illegal gain, among them gambling, narcotics trafficking and labor racketeering.

from: http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1596.html

[RainDog]

282. thank you for illustrating my point

LOL. couldn't have done it better myself if I were trying to satirize the mindset.

[verdalaven]

216. I am a non-user

My husband got me high once on my 30th birthday, because he wanted to see me "high". I am now 46, so in 46 years I used that drug once. (for the record, my husband is not a regular user, either-just as a teen, not as an adult)

So this is an opinion of a non-user.

You are arguing from a point of fear, without using facts, just your fear that people will fall down a big drug hole if it is legalized. Fear doesn't accomplish anything and it certainly doesn't help ANYONE think more clearly. And might I point out that the current prohibition on pot has not prevented your son from using. How would legalizing it change that fact?

Legalize it, regulate it and tax the crap out of it. And if you are really worried about your son, get him into rehab.

PS - You do realize that not all families are full of addicts, right? It took me a while to realize that truth after leaving my childhood home. Alcoholism is a major problem in my family so I made the choice not to drink. Other people don't have that problem, so why should I inflict my choice on them?

[RadiationTherapy]

209. It also doesn't mean you should be arrested and sent to jail.

It also doesn't mean you should have you rights taken away. It also doesn't mean you should lose opportunities at jobs because of the arrests.

Any person, your son specifically, who doesn't contribute to the household is a loser and a leech. Whether they smoke pot or not is a separate issue.

[RedCappedBandit]

293. Exactly!

The poster you're replying to assumes we don't care who the drugs hurt, as long as we're okay..

We aren't the ones advocating that drug users be thrown in jail and forgotten, though.

Drug legalization brings troubled addicts out of the shadows, and would enable an increased ability to get the help they need, if they want it.

[Flaneur]

222. I think you are just displaying your prejudices.

Tell the cop, the astronaut, the soldier that the person working by his side is an alcohol user. Alcohol is a drug. Do you think that because someone drinks alcohol, they are unable to perform a skilled job?

You also seem to assume that someone who uses a drug you don't like--marijuana--is using it all the time, is high on the job, etc. Why do you assume that recreational pot smokers are unable to go to work straight? Do you assume that recreational alcohol users are unable to go to work sober? What's the difference.

You've had bad experiences with marijuana. Fine. Don't use it. If you have family members you think are fucking up because of drug use, don't enable them.

But how do you justify criminalizing someone else's drug use? And what about alcohol? It is demonstrably more harmful to users and bystanders than marijuana. Would you criminalize it, too?

[Flaneur]

223. I think you are just displaying your prejudices.

Tell the cop, the astronaut, the soldier that the person working by his side is an alcohol user. Alcohol is a drug. Do you think that because someone drinks alcohol, they are unable to perform a skilled job?

You also seem to assume that someone who uses a drug you don't like--marijuana--is using it all the time, is high on the job, etc. Why do you assume that recreational pot smokers are unable to go to work straight? Do you assume that recreational alcohol users are unable to go to work sober? What's the difference.

You've had bad experiences with marijuana. Fine. Don't use it. If you have family members you think are fucking up because of drug use, don't enable them.

But how do you justify criminalizing someone else's drug use? And what about alcohol? It is demonstrably more harmful to users and bystanders than marijuana. Would you criminalize it, too?

[dysfunctional press]

75. pot doesn't kill brain cells.

alcohol does.

[boppers]

136. "Pot doesn't kill brain cells. alcohol does"?

Uhm, you might want to qualify that better. For example:

"Alcohol kills many more brain cells than pot"
or
"Pot kills about as many other brain cells as many other things, with pot users only suffering slightly lower ability in memory and learning over time".

You might want to back it up with a URL, as well, to a non-advocacy group, such as:
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20030701/heavy-marijuana-use-doesnt-damage-brain

[dysfunctional press]

158. pot doesn't kill brain cells.

http://www.lycaeum.org/paranoia/marijuana/facts/mj-health-mythology.html#myth12

Myth: Pot kills brain cells
Government experts now admit that pot doesn't kill brain cells.

[boppers]

170. From your provided link:

"Even though there is no evidence that pot causes permanent brain damage, users should be aware that persistent deficits in short-term memory have been noted in chronic, heavy marijuana smokers after 6 to 12 weeks of abstinence."

Your link also references the hilariously bad Heath experiments, where monkeys were suffocated with pot smoke, creating brain damage.... as suffocation (from anything) generally does.

Air kills brain cells, as does time, and pot, and water, and sunlight... or, to be more specific, pot doesn't prevent brain cells from being killed.

[dysfunctional press]

175. pot doesn't kill brain cells.

except perhaps in the perceptions of the overly anal.(which is a polite word for it, actually)

[boppers]

186. Hi. I'm a Wikipedia editor, and I also work in software engineering/QA.

My birthday cake at work last year actually had the following inscription:
"Happy Birthday! You Whiney, Pedantic, Bitch"

My co-workers called in to have the word "Pedantic" spell checked while they were at the bakery (it was wrong, "pedentic" before correction).

They missed "Whiney", but I accepted it as an alternate spelling.

Soooo.... anal, uhm, yes. Hi, pleased to meet you.

:evilgrin:

[dysfunctional press]

294. "Wikipedia editor..."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Heddi]

91. Carl Sagan worked for NASA, directly with Astronauts, so he *did* have people's lives in his hand

so to speak:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_sagan

Sagan was a scientist connected with the American space program since its inception. From the 1950s onward, he worked as an adviser to NASA. One of his many duties during his tenure at the space agency included briefing the Apollo astronauts before their flights to the Moon. Sagan contributed to many of the robotic spacecraft missions that explored the solar system during his lifetime, arranging experiments on many of the expeditions
..snip..
As a visiting scientist to NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, he contributed to the first Mariner missions to Venus, working on the design and management of the project. Mariner 2 confirmed his conclusions on the surface conditions of Venus in 1962.

[muyojoe]

99. Dude

he was not putting the tiles on the shuttle or hooking up the oxygen tanks. I've worked with alot of really intelligent people who were drug free who I wouldn't let do that, much less a drun user.

[boppers]

202. Sagan didn't have to make split-second decisions.

Those decisions didn't kill people, or buy them time.

[RainDog]

187. I don't have to smoke pot to see how wrong your argument is

but that goes against your prejudice.

it's too bad that your opinion of Sagan is lowered because he smoked pot.

to me, that indicates that you are close-minded about this topic. reason and logic play no part in your thinking. because some people you know have a problem, you selfishly want to punish everyone else.

that's sort of how I picture republicans view the world... they don't care about others' rights if they don't like something.

[muyojoe]

197. I'm not beating you with my prejudice

they way you just did me with yours.

Why do you care about my opinion of Carl? Does that really matter?

If close minded you mean, having an opinion and not being presented with a good reason to change it, then YES.

It is not your right to do anything you want. It is your right to do anything the law allows. It is also your right to vote for politicians who will alter the law to your favor. Calling me a repub is the second worst insult I've had from this string of posts.

[RainDog]

215. it is useless to talk to you about this. you need to go to Al-Anon

because your reactions are classic examples of how "your thinking becomes distorted by trying to force solutions" with others with addictions. you seem to think that if pot is illegal it will somehow magically make the people in your life non-users, yet you see this is not true already.

By close-minded I mean that you ignore the preponderance of evidence that shows cannabis has medicinal value, that prohibition only serves to create crime and heartbreak, that addictions are not cured by punishing everyone else, that hemp has value yet is illegal because it is tied to irrational fears of cannabis, that the government has lied to you about cannabis for decades, that people stand to make a lot of money by infringing upon others' rights, that your personal experience cannot stand in for empirical evidence, that there are people who use cannabis and hold jobs and have productive lives, that drug use stats indicate that legalization LOWERS the amount of drug use, that keeping cannabis away from minors would be facilitated by treating cannabis like alcohol, and that we might as well collect tax revenues and stop wasting money on a failed drug policy that unnecessarily destroys lives.

I'm sorry that you have to deal with these personal problems. I really do suggest that you go to Al-Anon to get support from others who have been or are in a similar circumstance. Best of luck to you.

[muyojoe]

235. You never said you wanted to make it legal

just for medicinal use. i never denied it had medicinal uses, and in another response i actually advocated for those who need it for cancer, etc...

No one here has shown a preponderance of evidence of how it will benefit me, or why I should care about whether it becomes legal. The tax revenue I don't care about. The wasted money on enforcement is minimal compared to the wasteful spending on other ridiculous things, wars, etc... the fact is you are way down the list on importance. The only reason most of you care is you have to break the law to get it, but you've already made that choice. What does it say about you that you risk incarceration for so little? You want to support it, ok. But everyone who has responded, that I recall, seems to be using now. From what high ground are you arguing?

Are you really comfortable calling me close minded over this trivial matter? I would think abortion rights, immigration, 1st amendment rights, etc... would be much more important. I'm liberal, but if you guys want to hassle someone for not supporting your pot stance. Wow!

I'd go to Al-anon, but I'm not the drug addict. I have had to take him for court ordered ones, but it hasn't helped.

Have a good day.

[RainDog]

244. Al-Anon is for family members of addicts

you might find it very useful.

imprisoning people with MS or those who suffer from migraines or a host of other issues who use cannabis to relieve their symptoms is not trivial to most people who have a basic sense of decency. that's just one example, and if that's not enough for you, yes, that's your problem. and the nation's problem.

you know, I hate motorcycles. they kill people. destroy lives. but I would never try to make them illegal because I don't like them. that's what you are missing in this entire moment. I respect your right to personal freedom.

you don't respect those same rights for others.

this happens to be a thread about this issue, not any of the other ones you mention. there are plenty of problems in this nation but all of them are not addressed in this thread. for you to pretend that anyone who posts in this thread in support of legalization is someone who uses cannabis or someone who doesn't care about other issues is simply an example of someone who is arguing from an extremely weak position.

the legal status of cannabis is going to change because the majority of Americans think prohibition is stupid. that doesn't mean the majority of Americans use cannabis. that means other Americans can look at the issue and respond rationally. they're right and you're wrong.

[muyojoe]

278. It is truly disturbing

how upset you are by my opinion. I'm not trying to make pot illegal, it is. I don't support your position, but I have clearly stated that I don't care what you do in your own home. You live in America, and you have the freedom to make choices. You've chosen to do something illegal, that is your decision.

I don't care if you hate motorcycles. If they were illegal, I wouldn't ride one and call other people stupid.

[Flaneur]

262. You should support legalization on humanitarian grounds.

Even if you do not approve of marijuana use, how do you justify arresting and imprisoning people for what they put in their own bodies? Or would you like to arrest and imprison everyone whose choices you don't agree with?

Clearly, marijuana prohibition is not working. It's use is as widespread as ever. It seems for most users, the most harmful or dangerous thing about it is that you can get arrested for it.

I don't know how someone can call himself a "liberal" and support arresting 800,000 people a year for pot.

[muyojoe]

279. I can call myself a liberal

and a law abiding citizen all I want. I don't consider any law breaking for selfish reasons any of my concern. If you want to make it legal for people who can clinically prove they need it, I certainly wouldn't deny them their needed care. My concern isn't with people who decide to break the law, that is their choice.

[JNelson6563]

211. Some people can use moderation, some can't.

Should we outlaw all things that people can't control themselves with? Why should many have to break the law to use marijuana (less harmful and less addictive than alcohol) because some people you know have issues w/self-control when it comes to pot?

I've known people in all walks of life who smoke pot with moderation. ALL kinds of jobs, including some big muckety-mucks who are wildly successful because they are brilliant and have some self control when it comes to pot.

I indulge occasionally. Don't buy the stuff because I have other financial priorities. If offered will indulge, have no problem going without--pretty much like most of the people I know who also indulge.

Pot needs to be legalized, regulated and taxed, not illegal. What a waste of our resources the criminalization of pot is! And frankly, you seem like you might benefit from a little pot yourself. You seem mighty angry and uptight.

Julie

[rd_kent]

218. You keep using YOUR personal experience as the basis of your position

when YOUR personal experience IS NOT WHAT MOST PEOPLE EXPERIENCE. WHY is that so hard to grasp?

[Fading Captain]

47. It ain;t the pot

If your son is deciding to piss his life away, it ain't because of the pot.

[muyojoe]

53. Thanks for your insight

Your diagnosis is astounding. Really, I thought the last five years of hell with him had nothing to do with him!

Yes he has a medical condition that makes him more prone to drug and alcohol use. The same one I have. This drug does satisfy the needs of people who want to escape in a particular way that no other can. I can say that from experience.

All of you can go on and on about the ones it doesn't hurt, but it is the ones that does that matter. If you are doing it and you don't need to (cancer, etc...), then you are choosing to accept the consequences over the risks.

[dysfunctional press]

77. just because pot is legal- it doesn't mean that people HAVE to use it.

you choose not to use it- but if you wanted to, you could have access to it.

whether or not it's legal- it won't change whether or not your son has access to it.

[muyojoe]

86. So why make it legal

I don't get it. The world is so messed up, I have no idea why any of you care about this so much. We can't hardly keep them from tapping our phones without people being fired so we know about it. But the lot of you think weed will make everything alright.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

96. So people won't go to jail for it and so the government won't waste $$$ on it.

Not to mention all the medical benefits associated with it.

You act as if having it be illegal prevents people from obtaining it when that is clearly not the case.

[dysfunctional press]

101. not to mention the potential tax revenue that's lost by keeping it illegal.

liquor, tobacco, and gambling all bring a LOT of tax money to the public coffers.

[muyojoe]

125. To do what?

yeah it does, but we have all of these road deaths by drunk drivers, etc... Does it help that they paid for the roads? It should probably be more specific. If you want to start a lottery to support schools, I'm all for it. Smoking pot for schools, I can't.

[muyojoe]

102. I act like

it is an easy decision for an intelligent mature person to make. My job, home, reputation, or getting caught using or buying drugs. And yes, incarceration can cost all of those. You keep using the poor decisions from those who risk too much, or those who risk nothing, like Carl.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

105. Do you think people should go to jail for using pot?

[muyojoe]

117. Not if it doesn't harm others

which is basically my philosophy in life. I'm not saying I want stronger enforcement either. I just don't see any real advantage in changing the law. I don't really buy the tax revenue angle.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

126. Define harming others.

How does somebody smoking pot in his own home harm somebody?

[muyojoe]

135. No one said it does

You aren't trying to make it legal only to smoke it in your home are you? Is it legal to only drink in your home?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

146. I'm for treating it exactly like alcohol.

You can smoke it at home or in designated areas, like pot cafes. And you can buy it from designated establishments or grow your own.

[muyojoe]

152. No one talks about using it publicly

they all go on about using it in their homes. It is a drug. So is alcohol. You want it to be legal, go ahead and get the votes. You won't have mine, but this is America and that is ok.

[Sinti]

181. It would reduce overall criminality

and some associated violence, as well. It takes the black market money and puts it into the regulated market. Rather than young men standing on the corner with firearms, it would be sold in liquor stores, or head shops and such - these could be run by the same young men, but without the need for guns and violence. And we're not talking about all drugs, just the plant - technically it's just a plant.

[muyojoe]

182. You could legalize all drugs

and do that. I don't see a major difference.

[Sinti]

190. Portugal did n/t

[muyojoe]

198. Good for them

I'm glad I don't live in Portugal. Don't worry, if you manage to get the law changed here, I won't move.

[dysfunctional press]

107. there are lots of things that people can do to lose their job, home, or reputation...

but they do them anyway.

most people choose not to live in fear.

[muyojoe]

114. Making a rational decision

in your own best interest, is fear? I don't know, now your taling about things that hold our society together.

People do things against their best interest, because they have a problem. I'm not saying making it harder or easier for them will make a difference. But it does for me.

[dysfunctional press]

119. fear is the motivator in the situation you described...

fear of losing job, reputation, home, etc...

not everyone lets fear rule their lives.

you seem to.

[muyojoe]

129. No I made a rational decision

I just put 50K miles on my motorcycle. I do other risky things also. I don't do drugs, because I know a guy at my last plant who was hurt. When he went to the hospital, the company had him tested. He popped, lost his job, and was not compensated for his disability.

He risked and lost his families security. I owe mine more than that.

[dysfunctional press]

137. you made a rational decision- based in fear.

btw- i know more people who have been hurt on motorcycles than by pot. it sounds like you're still risking your family's security.

some guys never learn, i guess...

[muyojoe]

140. Known consequences

are not fear. Do make a decision to jump out of a plane without a parachute because you are afraid of what will happen? There is not reason to fear it, which is an emotion. You know what will happen. I don't have to fear what pot use will do to me, I've seen what it does to others.

[dysfunctional press]

147. huh?

"Do make a decision to jump out of a plane without a parachute because you are afraid of what will happen?"

i'm sorry- i don't speak gibberish.

[muyojoe]

154. Sorry, I'm way past my typing skill limit

Do you make the decision to not jump out of a plane without a parachute, because you are afraid?

The point being, it doesn't cause fear. You don't have to contemplate what is obvious. I know it is illegal and against my companies policy, so I don't concern myself with it.

[dysfunctional press]

163. of course.

"Do you make the decision to not jump out of a plane without a parachute, because you are afraid?"

yes- afraid of dying.

[muyojoe]

166. No

I don't think about it. I wouldn't do it. I can look it up, but I'm pretty sure fear is an emotion that has to be felt. I ride my motorcycle, because I like the fear of looking at the large tires on vehicles beside me. I also enjoy taking curves with as much legal and safe speed as possible. I have not rush or fear of jumping out of a plane with not parachute, because it is not a real option. Just like pot is for me.

[dysfunctional press]

172. you asked for me, not yourself.

i wouldn't jump out of a plane, with or without a parachute, out of fear of death.

i had less fear riding my motorcycle AFTER i was involved in an accident where a guy went thru a stop-sign and hit me broadside. i flew over his car, landed on my head, and ended up with a broken collar-bone and shoulder blade(and some nasty road rash)- it might have been worse, but like always, i was wearing a helmet. when i started riding again after the accident, i never wore a helmet again, until i had to give up the bike due to a medical condition.

[muyojoe]

177. I just had a friend die in Texas

from riding without one. My individual situation does not prove what is true for all, nor does yours. I always wear a full face helmet. I saw a guys head popped like a zit with his brains across three lanes when I was 15. My experiences are very different from yours. It is also the law to wear a helmet here.

[dysfunctional press]

98. because people deserve to have the choice.

why should the entire country be beholden to the character flaws of a few?

besides- if it were legal and regulated- it would be more difficult for minors to obtain it. how many people do you see on the street corners selling booze and cigarettes to kids?

"But the lot of you think weed will make everything alright."
i don't know ANYBODY who thinks that. most everyone i know who uses it sees it as a pleasant way to unwind at the end of the day. some see it as a way to better enjoy larger parts of their day...but none of them thinks that it will make 'everything alright'.

people who think that they need something to make 'everything alright' will find something for that purpose- whether it's pot, booze, meth, or something else.

[muyojoe]

104. Because unwinding

is not important enough. That is the whole point.

[dysfunctional press]

109. actually- it is. ask a doctor. stress kills.

my dr. knows i use pot recreationally- and he has absolutely no problem with it.

[muyojoe]

120. Is this really the solution.

Your stress is caused by something. You may be medicating yourself, but you haven't fixed the problem.

[dysfunctional press]

127. so people should quit their jobs, rather than sparking a jay at home at night?

that's some pretty ignorant advice you dispense.

[muyojoe]

132. why wouldn't they just not spark?

[dysfunctional press]

139. are you really that thick?

stress. relief. un. winding.

(it seems like your short-term memory might still be affected) :rofl: :rofl:

[muyojoe]

143. Ignoring the source of the stress

I am not groosly overweight, but I'm not small either. Dude this isn't personal, unless you make it so for yourself.

[dysfunctional press]

150. job-related stress.

is it really that hard for you to follow along?

[muyojoe]

157. No

Your the one who can't figure out that if you job is that stressful for you, you should find a new one. You can't be doing what makes you happy.

[dysfunctional press]

160. i'm retired- i'm blissfully happy.

but there are plenty of people who love their jobs, despite the day-today stresses they might incur. especially since those stresses can be easily alleviated with a little bit of pot at the end of the day.

[muyojoe]

162. My job is extremely stressful

, but I like it. I actually miss it when it is boring.

[dysfunctional press]

165. i don't miss work AT ALL.

my main goal in life has always been to get to a point where i didn't have to HAVE a boss or BE a boss.

i got there when i was 36. i'm 48 now.

[muyojoe]

168. who are you?

I mean that rhetorically. You complained about daily stress and said your doctor was ok with you unwinding with some pot, yet you are blissfully retired. Am I confusing you with someone else?

[dysfunctional press]

173. you misinterpreted something along the way.

i didn't complain about my daily stress, nor did i say that i was the one unwinding with pot.

my dr. knows i USE pot- and he has no problem with it.

[muyojoe]

179. I thought I had got something wrong

sorry for the confusion.

So the decision for you is legalization, since you are not risking the same things I am now. Legalization wouldn't help my work situation.

[Stryst]

88. rational discussion

Yes, habitual pot use makes you lazy, kind of stupid, and if you've got an addictive personality then it can become the one and only thing in your life.

But then, so can alcohol, TV, and religion. With all due respect to the poster above, referencing his personal issues... I sympathize, I really do. My brother and father have both been bouncing out of rehab and prison since I can remember. Drugs screwed up their life. But I have to wonder if they would have just found something else to screw their lives up with. They had a personal laps of judgment, and instead of learning from the consequences they kept doing the same stupid stuff.

If we're going to have a real discussion about marijuana legalization, we have to be rational. Once we start throwing anecdotes and personal bias around, we're just wasting breath. So we on the pro side have to be able to make rational arguments in our favor. I myself am pro legalization. I'm a college educated combat veteran, so I'd like to think that I know what I'm doing with my life. And I think that if I get home from a day at my crappy underpaid job, and want to put on some South Park and smoke a bowl... its my call. I could drink a couple of beers, and get about the same level of intoxication, but alcohol has side effects I'm not comfortable with. I made my choice, and I think everyone should be able to make their own.

So what are the arguments we need to look at? Addiction, danger of use, and accessibility seem to top most pro prohibitionists lists.

So, lets talk about addiction first. And it's a valid question. Is marijuana addictive?

Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Dr. Neal L. Benowitz of the University of California at San Francisco attempted to define the most addictive drugs by ranking six psychoactive substances on the five criteria they found most applicable to addiction:

1. Withdrawal - The severity of withdrawal symptoms produced by stopping the use of the drug.
2. Reinforcement - The drug's tendency to induce users to take it over and over again.
3. Tolerance - The user's need to have ever-increasing doses of the drug to get the same effect.
4. Dependence - The difficulty in quitting, or staying off the drug, usually measured by the number of users who eventually become dependent.
5. Intoxication - The degree of intoxication produced by the drug in typical use.

Based on the level of dependence, the most common measure for determining the addictiveness of a drug, the substances ranked as follows, from most to least addictive:

1. Nicotine
2. Heroin
3. Cocaine
4. Alcohol
5. Caffeine
6. Marijuana

According to this, yeah... marijuana can be addictive. (remember, not everyone who uses a substance, not even habitually, becomes fully addicted.)

But look at where marijuana is on that list... number six. Behind Nicotine, Alcohol, and caffeine. And our dominant culture here in America has absorbed and accepted both nicotine and caffeine addiction. Alcohol addiction is stigmatized, but those three substances are going NOWHERE. You can walk down to the corner store and pick up a six pack of beer, a pack of smokes, and an energy drink. All at the same time. And no one cares, because you're an adult and made your own choice. Yes, there's risk. But it's a very low risk, and highly manageable. As a rational adult, I understand and accept that risk.

So how dangerous is marijuana use? Unfortunately, its hard to say. Studies examining tar levels of marijuana versus tobacco are hard to pull definite conclusions from. Long term studies of marijuana usage can be conflicting because one study might show an increase in heart rate and decrease in lung volume, but at the same time indicate that the natural antibiotic properties of marijuana actually help prevent respiratory infection.

But we can look at overdose risks. The best way to do this is by looking at the LD50 of a drug. The way an LD50 is determined is that you have a population, say of 100 rats. And you keep feeding them this substance until 50% of them die. You can then take the weight of the animal and extrapolate out a lethal dose for a mammal of a larger body mass, like a human.

So, using that list above, how does marijuana compare to other substances?

Well, caffeine has an LD50 150 to 200 milligrams per kilogram of body mass, roughly 80 to 100 cups of coffee for an average adult
Nicotine has an LD50 of 40–60 mg (0.5-1.0 mg/kg) for adult humans. Hard to cross by smoking alone... but be careful if you're wearing a patch and light up.
Alcohol has an LD50 of about 330 grams for an average sized adult male.

So whats the LD50 of marijuana? No one really knows. Several studies have been done trying to pin down an LD50 for THC, but at the point where the dogs or monkeys are taking in THC equivalent to a 154 lb man smoking three pounds of mid grade weed (in one 15 minute sitting), they started suffocating on the smoke.

That only leaves accessibility. If marijuana is legalized, will it be more accessible to children? Maybe, but I know that I get carded every time I walk in the liquor store, but a black market connection isn't going to be doing any sort of screening, other than financial. If you can afford their product, you can have it. Sure, it'd be easy for someone to buy marijuana and supply it to someone underage. But that already happens with alcohol and cigarettes. And drugs are accessible to our kids.

Anyone with a credit card can legally order salvia, kratom, blue lotus, or yoppo. And even though the final product is illegal, anyone who has taken a high school chemistry class can legally buy the ingredients online and then extract LSA, DMT, or cook meth. With a college chem class and about $800 of lab glass, you can cook up a batch of MDMA in your basement tomorrow. We are always going to have accessibility issues. Hardline prohibition doesnt seem to be stopping adolescent usage.

These are things we really have to talk about.

[muyojoe]

92. Two things surprise me

You are combat veteran? I don't want to be insulting, but I knew a fair number of users while I was in. I never really trusted them with the critical stuff. Not from the git go, but they earned my lack of distrust.

I completely understand how pot is not very physically addicting. The reason I used and its allure for me was its escapism. That was the addicting part. No one ever studies that. I've often wondered why.

[dysfunctional press]

113. when you quit- what kind of withdrawal symptoms did you have...?

did you have to go into rehab?

most people who quit pot have far fewer problems doig so than people who quit(or try to) cigarettes, alcohol, or caffeine.

[muyojoe]

121. Exactly

How can you measure my desire to escape reality? They talk and study pot in regards to the same addiction other drugs have, but it is different. If you smoke a cigarette, you don't get stupid like a five year old for an hour. So how are they similar?

[dysfunctional press]

131. if i smoke a joint, i don't get stupid like a five-year old for an hour, either...

some of us can handle our highs.

[muyojoe]

133. I've been baked

I know what that is, and I know what it takes to keep getting that way.

[dysfunctional press]

141. and if you don't want to- then don't.

:shrug:

[muyojoe]

144. Exactly

[dysfunctional press]

155. and allow other people to make the same choice.

[Taitertots]

191. I've quit cigarettes and weed

Well maybe not "quit", but stopped using.

Cigarette were the hardest thing to quit I could have imagined. I'd have dreams of smoking cigs for months after.
One day I stopped smoking weed and didn't smoke again for a year.

[dysfunctional press]

111. habitual pot use CAN make you lazy, kind of stupid, etc...

it's not a certainty at ALL.

[Taitertots]

130. The group is self selecting

People who are lazy and kind of stupid are going to be lazy and stupid when they smoke.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

271. so can habitual cheescake eating

what's yer point? :)

[Le Taz Hot]

213. Well, from your posts, methinks the "hell" he is suffering from

doesn't come from the pot . . .

[Warren DeMontague]

57. My great-grandfather died of cirrhosis.

Still, prohibition was a dumb fucking idea.

[muyojoe]

63. I don't remember saying it was smart

My wifes grandmother died of emphysyma. I'm not trying to advocate making cigarettes illegal.

You are trying to state cases why the status quo should be changed. I don't agree. So what, this is just a board to post your opinions.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. We spend something like $14 Billion a year keeping pot illegal. Not including costs of incarceration

The status quo is a fucking joke, and most law enforcement people have way better things to do than go after pot smokers. That $14 Billion could fund a lot of treatment on demand for people with actual problems.

Most recreational pot users- like most recreational alcohol users- don't have a problem with it.

[muyojoe]

66. I'm not advocating enforcement

You are the one advocating legality. My son alone has been arrested over five times for this, and I wish they would go ahead and punish him. He might actually get his shit straight, if it ever cost him anything. Law enforcement doesn't act like they want anything more than his money.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. I'm sorry you're having difficulties. But my in my experiences with addicts, THEY are the ones

who need to want to get better. That's the number one driver of change.

[muyojoe]

70. All the ones I have ever known

Never change until they hit rock bottom.

[Taitertots]

74. How can you hit rock bottom on pot?

Do you run out of Cheeto's? End up with the remote on the other side of the room and don't want to get up?

[muyojoe]

82. I said drug users

but ok, I'll bite.

Try not having a job and your dealer wants his money and will kill (insert gun sound and bullet here) you for it.

I actually knew a guy who got his brain blew out over a dime bag in Mobile, Alabama. Sounds like someone in that fight was at rock bottom.

[Taitertots]

148. What drug dealer gives you money?

I'm having a hard time understanding the stretched hypothetical where somehow a drug dealer gave you his money.

Why don't you provide a link to a news article about the guy you know? Otherwise your uncorroborated, third hand, anecdote is useless.


Even if all your anecdotes are taken at face value, the only those problems are solely caused by prohibition.

[muyojoe]

161. Why

would a drug dealer give you money? I will have to read my post over. Drug dealers always want their money, because that is what they exchange for drugs. Making anything legal does not take the danger out of it. The only benefit from legal pot that I could care about, is not having to see a scummy drug dealer. There are other ways of avoiding that though.

[Taitertots]

189. That makes less sense

You give a drug dealer money in exchange for drugs. Why are they going to kill you if you don't buy pot? How do you end up with their money in the first place?


"Making anything legal does not take the danger out of it"
Except:Alcohol
Abortions
Immigration
etc

The only danger you can find is solely caused by prohibition. You are causing a problem and acting as if continuing along the same path will help.

[muyojoe]

199. You must not be on good terms with your dealer

I have had several instances in the past were I owed one. I just always paid. I know people who drug there feet doing this and regretted it.

Alcohol isn't dangerous anymore. That is news to me. I should tell the people who keep putting up those signs about their child who died of alcohol poisoning from hazing that they can quit.

I don't equivocate abortions with drugs or drinking, so I won't even touch that one.

[Taitertots]

205. The only problems it can cause are caused solely by prohibition

Can you come up with one problem not directly caused by the policy you advocate?


Alcohol causes problems, prohibition caused more problems than it solved and when it ended society was safer.
Abortion prohibition causes problems, legal abortions ended those problems and made society safer.
Undocumented immigration causes problems, offering them a legal path solves those problems and makes society safer.

[muyojoe]

234. we are way out on a tangent here

, so who cares. the ridiculous conversations I had on this subject have made sure I'm not changing my mind now. Thanks and have a good day.

[Taitertots]

237. So you can't come up with a problem from Marijuana not directly caused by prohibition? n/t

What is tangential about it? If we are going to keep something illegal we probably should show that we are not causing more problems then we expect to fix.

[muyojoe]

280. Sorry,

you don't think this conversation about dealers and all this crap is tangential to whether pot should be legalized for tax revenue. I do. I said have a good day.

[Taitertots]

73. Maybe you need to be a better parent instead of...

Trying to get the government to do it for you.

All the rest of us are not having a problem. Many of us are working or going to university while casually smoking.

[muyojoe]

87. Wow

It is quite insulting that you went there. However it is not surprising. Since you are this low, I'm not going to say anything else to you. You do't deserve it.

[Taitertots]

95. I'm not surprised you can't handle it

It is insulting not because I said it, but because you did it. Blame X,Y,Z but your child is the one fucking his life up. When you stop blaming everyone/everything else you will get to the problem.

[muyojoe]

106. What?

Did you not read your own Subject? You said I was a bad parent. I don't believe I insulted you in any way in this exchange.

[Taitertots]

123. I'm sorry you feel insulted

You want to talk about the problems your children have. Don't get insulted when the obvious comes out. If you are willing to blame them on marijuana, I'm willing to offer the counter that it is bad parenting causing the problems they are having.

[muyojoe]

149. How many children do you have?

How is it obvious that if you have one child with a problem, that you are a crappy parent. I've found it is usually quite the opposite in life. I've seen some of the nicest parents with the worst children. It probably is my fault for not being a worse parent. However, the son I am referring to is currently 20 years old. I'm pretty sure the rotten choices he is making are his own.

[Taitertots]

192. Even if I had children they couldn't be old enough by now

"I've seen some of the nicest parents with the worst children."
Key word Nicest. They may be nice, but they are not good parents if they have the worst children. Being nice and being a good parent are two absolutely different things. You should have worried more about being a good parent than about being nice.

They are his choices to make now, but don't dilute yourself into thinking the vast majority of his life under your parenting is an ignorable point.

[muyojoe]

200. No

My problem with him is he never takes responsibility for his actions, just like most drug addicts.

You know what I meant about the parents. Don't worry I won't "DILUTE" myself.

[Taitertots]

203. Just like his parents

Your problem with him is that he doesn't take responsibility for his actions. Is this a trait which only surfaced after he left (assuming he doesn't live at home)? Or is it safe to say that your parenting has a direct causal relation to those traits.

Just accept YOUR responsibility for your parenting on his life. He didn't pop out a pothead who doesn't take responsibility for his actions. When you had problems it was the drugs, never your character flaws. When he has drug problems it is the marijuana, not his flaws exacerbated by your parenting.

[muyojoe]

233. No again,

He was actually a pretty good kid, until he turned about 16. He got into drugs, and started blaming everything that bad happened to him on everyone else. Surprisingly he never blames me or his mother. But it is always the cops, etc... fault.

You can make me the bad guy. I don't care what you think, I don't know you. You can go ahead and draw conclusions from our limited exchange, while I have to live this problem every moment of the last four years. Think whatever you want, we don't need to talk about this anymore.

[Taitertots]

238. What did you do when he was 16 to stop this?

What did you do the 16 years leading up to that point?

[muyojoe]

239. In case your forgot to read all of my last post to you

You can make me the bad guy. I don't care what you think, I don't know you. You can go ahead and draw conclusions from our limited exchange, while I have to live this problem every moment of the last four years. Think whatever you want, we don't need to talk about this anymore.

Have a nice day.

[Taitertots]

242. You refuse to accept responsibility for raising your child

Why would you expect from your children what you are unwilling or unable to do yourself?

If you don't care enough to discuss this then good day to you sir.

[muyojoe]

276. I'm glad

I expected you to hurl one more insult going out the door, and you don't dissapoint. Well now you have more time to bring sunshine to other people.

[Taitertots]

284. Who are you trying to convince me or yourself? n/t

[dysfunctional press]

124. you went there first.

you admitted that your son is pissing his life away due to pot.

which to a rational person actually sounds a lot like an excuse for piss-poor parenting.

there are plenty of successful professionals who use pot recreationally. but then, their parents probably raised them right.
and a lot of their parents probably used it too. and were likely just as successful.

[muyojoe]

138. He's not my only son or child

He's just the only one with a drug problem. I didn't insult pot users, I'm just being insulted by them.

[dysfunctional press]

142. well- you're the crappy parent, not me.

:shrug:

[muyojoe]

145. More insults

it really increases your charm.

[dysfunctional press]

153. if you find truth insulting...

that's your problem.

but you've as much as admitted to the deficiencies of your parenting of your son.(oh- that's right, you're blaming the pot :rofl: :rofl:)

[muyojoe]

164. I completely missed that

I didn't give very many details at all. Mostly because the details weren't important to the argument. But if you stand by your slight, so be it.

[Taitertots]

80. Ruins Lives LOL

If this is ruined, I'd love to see what it would have been like without pot. I'm closing in on getting a BA, and already have a Associates. I almost failed high school, started smoking pot, worked my way through an associates, and now I'm at a four year university with a full time job.

Everyone I know that smokes has a college education and a full time job.

[muyojoe]

89. Your insults don't win arguments

[fascisthunter]

270. where was the insult in the post you replied to?

not only are you making shit up about a substance you know nothing about, but you are a lying about what posters say to you. There was no insult in that post, but your take on marijuana is an insult to the intelligence of most people who know what marijuana does.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

93. Yeah, it's killed so many people.

Oh, wait, it hasn't.

[muyojoe]

112. I know what I did when I used it,

so why pretend its harmless? If anything would have went different, I can't count the number of times I risked my life and others.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

115. One, clearly it didn't kill you, which was my point.

And two, you "risking your life" (doing what?) is your own experience, not everyone else's. Not everybody reacts to it the same way, but there is clear scientific evidence that it is not considered harmful.

[muyojoe]

122. Lots of ways

driving impaired, racing my car, driving through bad neighborhoods for fun, jumping from bridges, etc....

[Starbucks Anarchist]

128. Then you had that kind of personality to start with.

It really has little to do with pot. And you could have done those same things with alcohol, which has a much more negative effect on people than pot, and which is currently legal.

[The Midway Rebel]

159. That sounds like testosterone not THC!

[muyojoe]

169. My wife

still complains about the testosterone, but the thc is gone. Granted the recklessness probably fed on each other, which is my point.

[The Midway Rebel]

184. Yeah, pot makes me horny too!

You should smoke some pot and make love to your wife. I heartily endorse it. Much safer and greener than riding a mototrcycle.

[muyojoe]

185. Actually,

it used to take the steal out of my wood when I was only 20. But I was an excessive user. Just another reason why it wasn't for me.

[Ganja Ninja]

290. Sounds like it wasn't the pot that was the problem. n/t

[dysfunctional press]

116. some people can do dangerous things with all sorts of legal items...

should we therefore ban them all?

[muyojoe]

183. No

there is already a line here, and it doesn't bother me.

[Taitertots]

118. It is not excessively harmful

You are excessively reckless. I'd rather just have the police lock people like you up. That way the people who can handle it (most all of us) will be free from prohibitionist domination.

With you people if it isn't pot causing your trouble it is the alcohol or the drugs. Accept that your problems and your children's problems are your own, not the drugs.

[muyojoe]

180. I'm not that way anymore

and I'm not a drug user anymore. Hence the association for me. You would trade one group of convicts for another? Doesn't sound very good. Not to me, you want to lock me up.

[Taitertots]

204. Sounds like you just want a convenient excuse for your

Reckless and dangerous behavior.

Take some responsibility for your actions.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

269. the issue is you, not cannabis

Cannabis changes NOTHING in personality. It does not create laziness,criminality, neurosis or retardation. Whatever you did was already a part of you and you used cannabis as an excuse to let it out. Stop blaming plants for your behavior.

[Ganja Ninja]

291. Exactly,

Idiots on pot are still idiots. It doesn't cure stupidity.

[fascisthunter]

268. ruins lives? Marijuana?!?!?! Let us be the Judge of That

just because somebody can't handle a substance, doesn't mean all others do as well.

[RedCappedBandit]

289. I watch a lot of adults piss their lives away on a lot of things

That's their choice as adults.

Why should one person's standard of living apply to another person? If somebody would rather get high occasionally, that is their choice.


Even if pot was as harmful as you seem to think it is (it isn't, your irresponsibility just made it so), its legal status is clearly doing nothing to alleviate the issue.

[JNelson6563]

45. Awesome.

[Warren DeMontague]

59. K&R.

:kick:

[Chulanowa]

108. Something has to be regulated before it can be taxed

That which is regulated quickly becomes big business-ified

Monopoly + regulation + Tax = higher prices. Higher prices = fewer smokers.

Unlike tobacco, marijuana is not addictive, and it does have a significant social stigma attached to it. It also has the usual health risks from inhaling high-tar smoke. Depending on quality (and we can assume regulated weed is low-quality weed) the buzz may only be good for a couple of minutes.

I don't see marijuana becoming a big economic boomer. on the other hand legalizing it would result in fewer tax dollars spent - in theory. In reality those dollars will probably just be pointed towards higher-profile drugs and their users.

[davidpdx]

188. Just a footnote you should put in your OP if it's not too late

This only obviously gives figures for the top 10 states. They don't give the breakdown of the other states, but instead lump them all together, so based on those figures it's impossible to figure out exactly what your state would get unless you are in one of those top 10 states.

[Presidentcokedupfratboy]

196. Just look at California

That's a lot of income, maybe enough to save state workers from furlough days.

[struggle4progress]

201. Marijuana: America's #1 Cash Crop

eom

[cleveramerican]

206. I get the point, but I'm not with you.

pot isn't good for you
it's bad for you.
the more you smoke,the worse it gets.
by extension its also not good for the states or the nation

I have spent years smoking and I have spent years not smoking.

not smoking is better for your overall well-being.

[Le Taz Hot]

214. Please suppy the scientific evidence.

We'll wait. **crickets** :eyes:

[cleveramerican]

219. science is not the be-all and end all

of all public policy questions.

at least for me.

I wonder about your experience with not smoking it.
Its sounds rather limited.

[Le Taz Hot]

221. OK, so, you're saying that we shouldn't rely on science

in the matter and, apparently, the complete failure of prohibition should also not be a consideration. Prey tell, what SHOULD be taken into consideration?

In regards to your question: "I wonder about your experience with not smoking it." "Its sounds rather limited." Well, I've got a nice little buzz going now and was able to catch both grammatical errors in your second sentence. :smoke:

[cleveramerican]

228. I know by experience.

I have done my own research, one joint at a time.
Everything known by science was once thought to be wrong by science.
Science evolves and changes its mind frequently.
Prohibition of murder and bank robbery have also failed, should we give up a legalize those vices too?
This would free up quite a bit of law enforcement also.
Millions of Americans,myself included, have first hand knowledge of pots potential dangers science cannot erase.
You seem to discount my own and other posters FIRST HAND knowledge as meaningless.
I am not willing to do that.
We all know scientific studies, like polls, can be pushed to show whatever the sponsors of the study want it to show.
Don't smoke it for... say... two years, and I can guarantee your views will evolve.


I surrender to the grammar police.

[cleveramerican]

232. what no response?

please "suppy" one......"crickets"

[Le Taz Hot]

255. Well, excuse me, but I DO have a life.

:eyes: Besides the above poster pretty much covered what my response would have been. Actually, he/she probably said it better.

[Taitertots]

240. That is the new standard of failure

You start by claiming the scientific method is useless because people were wrong in the past. Duh, that is why science is valuable, because it changes to NEW evidence. Only someone mentally deficient would think that is a bad thing.

Laws against murder DO work. By enacting and enforcing them the crime rates go down, and society is better off. Laws against marijuana DON'T work. By enacting them we cause problems far greater than we were trying to fix, and everyone is worse off as a result.

You claim people are disregarding your anecdotes as meaningless while disregarding their experience as meaningless.

[RainDog]

245. this person and others here making these stupid anti-science comments are why America is fucked up

and they don't even realize it.

[cleveramerican]

263. I never said it was meaningless, just not enough to ever win this argument

I said science is but one aspect to be considered when creating public policy.
Science is never settled like this Op would have you believe.
It is ALWAYS in flux which is why very little public policy is based solely on science



This OP because its not easy to stop we should just surrender to it.
I respectfully think this notion is absurd.


And you know good and well any scientific study can be presented to support the conclusion desired by the quoter.

[Taitertots]

264. The gold standard

The OP is that because trying to stop it causes more problems than it could ever hope to solve, we should legalize it.

What is really absurd is your disdain for the scientific method. You can't support any conclusion with a scientific study. Unless you include results now known to be false.

It is only in flux due to new information being collected. This is a good thing.

[cleveramerican]

273. I respectfully disagree

disdain is too strong a term.

strong skepticism is also a scientific cornerstone.

this is also a good thing.

[Taitertots]

283. You are entitled to your opinion

Strong skepticism means using scientific rigor and sound logic to calculate your conclusions. The skeptic seeks more analysis, larger studies, testing assumptions, and diligence.

Why should we end prohibition?

It costs a bunch, hurts people more than the drug, has no foreseeable hope of working, and even if it did work there would be an insignificant gain. You don't need any science at all to see why marijuana should be legalized.

Marijuana prohibition is just doing something arbitrary, futile, expensive, and self defeating because rich people lied to your grandparents.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

287. Are you a scientist?

What parameters did you establish in your experiments? What variables were introduced?

Wait, you mean you're making shit up only because of your own personal experience and biases which, by definition, cannot be considered science?

[NashVegas]

229. Science Would Probably Determine We Need to Exterminate 3/4 of the World Population

To preserve resources for future generations.

You down with that, too?

[RainDog]

230. this is the sort of idiotic argument you get from someone like Randall Terry on abortion

to support a position that cannot be supported by rational discussion of POLICY ISSUES. which is what prohibition comes down to.

of course there are people who have problems with pot. or alcohol. My ex was an alcoholic. I went for years, even tho I didn't have a problem with alcohol, during which I never took a drink or kept alcohol in my house because it made it easier for him.

I was NEVER so arrogant as to think that my personal experience should be allowed to stand in for EVERYONE'S experience. because I know that wasn't and isn't everyone's experience with alcohol.

My ex was no deadbeat, btw. He has a PhD and has trained thousands of students to take careers in cutting edge tech. Just to put some perspective on who may constitute those who have problems with addiction. I smoked when I was younger. stopped a long time ago. I have always supported legalization of mj, whether it was part of my life or not, because I view the situation in the same light as alcohol. someone shouldn't be put in prison if they have an addiction to alcohol and someone shouldn't be put in prison because they have an addiction to mj or whatever else. They should be treated for the addiction.

Here's the thing, tho. Some people DO need medication. Some people are bipolar, etc. before they ever smell pot or take a drink. Sometimes those people medicate themselves. Self-help groups and psychiatric meds are the way that most people deal with addiction issues in this nation now because depression may be comorbid with addiction, etc. In addition to changes in habits.

Those medicines are okay because the government says they're okay, even tho the side-effects may be much, much worse than any from cannabis. But that's okay because they are not prohibited. You accept the risk that those medications are known to have because there is a benefit to many, even if a few may have a problem with that medication.

There's really no difference between the issue of societally-sanctioned medication and cannabis for people with cancer. Or other health issues. The prohibition against cannabis is based upon the problem THAT it is prohibited.

[NashVegas]

257. When Rationalism Morphs Into Rationalization

Is when a person wants a particular outcome, and goes looking for arguments to rationalize getting their way. Too often, someone with an agenda cites "it's SCIENCE!" as a way of bulldozing opposition just as much as any moralist.

There's no doubt in my mind that if advocates of legalized, recreational marijuana usage eventually get their way, those smokers will rationalize enough bullshit to allow Monsanto and Eli Lily patents and ownage of the crop. Yet another public resource will be taken by corporate capitalists just as land and water have. Just so immature brats could light up without risking a fine.

[RainDog]

259. sad.

this is your argument?

again, rational debate is necessary. peer reviewed work and controlled studies are not your enemy. they are the reason why you live in comfort and with access to the world beyond anyone's imagining in the past.

your argument is not rational.

[NashVegas]

275. What Bullshit

Most MJ advocates on this board have no comprehension, whatsoever, of how achieving their desire without focusing specific legislation threatens to spill over into the greater agriculture sector patent fights. You are like infantile children with no thought to the consequences, as long as you get your way that's all that matters. THAT's rationalization, not rational.

[RainDog]

281. yes, bullshit

if you think that people who have spent decades fighting for legalization, who have spent decades working with other advocates, who have taken on legal issues in spite of illegality are unaware of big Ag and issues of patents - you are deluding yourself.

in any case, to argue that big business is bad therefore illegal business is better, with no way to know if something contains insecticides, without a way to contain harm to ground water from illegal growers that are expendable to cartels - that's bullshit.

[old mark]

207. This has 2 things against it: It offends some people's "morality", and

it makes too much sense, always a hard sell in the USA.

mark

[ddeclue]

224. When drugs become legalized they become much cheaper. I dont buy these numbers.

Probably have to divide by 10.

[Ganja Ninja]

250. More like multiply by 10.

Unfortunately pot if it ever does become legal it will likely be tightly controlled and taxed to the hilt. The government will put as much tax on it as the market can bare. They won't let the average person grow their own. That will be reserved for the corporations that can shell out big campaign dollars.

$778 million nation wide for all the pot grown and consumed in America? That only sounds like a 3 or 4 month supply to me.

[mdmc]

226. --

[krabigirl]

231. People will catch a clue as states bass bills to legalize it, one by one.

Otherwise, not much will change for quite a while.

[slackmaster]

246. I doubt very much the accuracy of this prediction

Marijuana is so easy to grow, there would be a huge black market.

[Romulox]

248. Marijuana grows similar to how tomatoes grow. And yet supermarkets are full of high priced tomatoes

It's hard to reconcile your theory with these facts. :shrug:

[slackmaster]

249. There are a few differences

One person can eat a pound of tomatoes in a single meal. Grow a pound of sinsemilla, and even a heavy user can smoke for a year.

Or so I have been told.

[RainDog]

251. people can also make their own beer or wine but few do

when cannabis is legalized, I imagine it will be like beer. there will be boutique outfits like micro brewers and big PBR concerns.

if people want to grow their own, they will also pay a premium price for seeds for hybrid strains that have been cultivated over the last twenty years. all cannabis is not the same, in other words.

in any case, whatever the price may be, it makes sense to not send people to prison for growing it.

the drug cartels and prohibitionists have common cause, I suppose, in a desire to want to keep pot illegal in order to create a false criminal class that makes money for them.

[Romulox]

253. I'm not following. It takes more effort to "grow a pound of sinsemilla"

than it does to produce a pound of tomatoes, so the comparison isn't immediately obvious. Moreover, given the nature of just what "sinsemilla" ("without seeds") is, producing it outdoors becomes challenging, to say the least.

So, while it is trivial to produce enough tomatoes (or marijuana) for personal use, it is no more simple to set up a commercial marijuana operation than it is to set up a commercial tomato endeavor. Nor is there any reason to believe more people would choose to cultivate pot when cheap and abundant commercially prepared products are available than people already choose to grow their own tomatoes.

I think the prohibition driven prices throw you off. In a free market, the price of commercially produced pot would be low, (absent taxes-cum-penalties) that a few enthusiasts would grow it, but most would purchase it at the store.

[slackmaster]

254. It's apples and oranges for sure

My point is that predictions of tax revenue usually fail to account for predictable unintended consequences.

[Romulox]

256. I don't think these numbers account for the savings from not imprisoning people for personal choices

Can you imagine the savings to society when we choose not to arrest and imprison an otherwise bright kid (who is statistically likely to be brown, incidentally) for using what science tells us is a harmless drug.

And worse yet, we have a government led in succession by three men who have all admitted to drug use (the last one having admitted in his own cowardly way to the use of cocaine, which all science says is much more dangerous than pot!) all of whom approve of locking people up for the use of a substance that they have all admitted to using.

"My point is that predictions of tax revenue usually fail to account for predictable unintended consequences."

Unintended consequences can be either positive or negative. Perhaps the kid we didn't lock up for simple drug possession goes to school instead, gets a good job, and becomes a net contributor to society, rather than a net drain in the prison system? :hi:

[RainDog]

260. they also do not account for hemp production

the breadbasket of America would definitely benefit from hemp as a cash crop, our industries would benefit, the end of prohibition would spur a growth industry in hemp products that can compete with petrol-based products.

if peak oil is here, hemp production will become as patriotic as it was in WWII.

the micro-growers will not grow outdoors and cross-pollination of industrial hemp with medicinal or recreational marijuana will make production costs higher than simply growing in someone's backyard.

just as people could grow their own tobacco, but most do not choose to do so.

[WillyT]

261. Kick !!!

Wish I could still recommend!

:kick:

[fascisthunter]

272. to those who think pot is so terrible

please come up with better arguments.... Holy crap, the extent to which a couple posters have gone to try to convince people it's dangerous, is embarrassingly similar to 1950's "Leave it to Beaver" show. Your arguments are based on stereotypes, second-hand info and outdated fear mongering used in, "Reefer Madness".

Those who have a problem with it, need to deal with it themselves, and just say "no". Leave the rest alone to make that adult decision ourselves.

[muyojoe]

285. I don't think so

You can polish this turd all you want, but if this is what you call victory, you should be tasting the turdiness. I only listed my personal experiences with the bad side of it. In return I was called alot of names and insulted, which I did not return. A few people made a reasoned response, but it was far from the majority. I believe the person who made the thread was trying to win over opinion and votes. Insulting people and calling them names is not a way to win someone over to your cause. Nothing said here changed the facts of my experiences. They should have tried to stick to pointing out that their experiences were not the same, but they didn't. When trying to win a argument, I never call someone names, you only drive them away.

Well I gave all of you the matches. You burnt down the building. Now plant your victory flag in the ashes. I don't think alot of people on the side lines who don't have a horse in the race are going to come to your aid from this performance.

[tekisui]

286. Are you taking your well-developed arguments and going home?

Most people without a horse in this race are not taking a stand against it. You seem to have your mind made up. You kept your weak argument against legalization going, how do you think posters are going to respond?

[muyojoe]

292. Angrily and with venom

obviously.

I was actually about to rephrase my response, but since you have already responded, I won't. I thought it was too sharp in tone, which is probably why it illicted a response from you. You don't have to have the last word in an argument to win, but you can't look bad or you won't win.

None of the arguments changed what has and is actually happening. That is probably my fault for letting the subject stray.

[RainDog]

296. here's why

Say what you want, but it is a drug and it ruins lives. Making it legal is easy not right. <--- in fact, making cannabis legal has not been easy. making it illegal, on the other hand, was easily done without any discussion of the topic in the house. look it up if you don't know this.

normal parents who have children who's brains don't function well due to their parents drug use. <--- you are conflating any sort of drug with the use of cannabis and making the unearned assumption that any parent who uses cannabis has a problem functioning as a parent.

Drugs seem to get ahold on alot more people in a bad way than alcohol. <--- you make a general statement that, as noted by studies included here, ignores that cannabis is less of an addictive substance than either alcohol or tobacco.

...then you talk about how you exercised poor judgment and drove under the influence, again conflating cannabis with drugs and, seemingly, alcohol. and you assume that you and your friends' experiences are the only ones possible if someone uses cannabis when this, again, is not supported by reality.

...then you argue that BECAUSE something is illegal, it is impossible to exercise any judgment in the use of that thing. if cannabis were magically made legal tomorrow, then people would, I assume, magically be able to exercise judgment. Your argument is that BECAUSE something is illegal, anyone who does something illegal is exercising poor judgment. This argument is simply invalid because there are many cases in which people have violated a law and exercised good judgment...and, if you are so law abiding, I hope you don't live in a state with blue laws that make it illegal to have sex with your wife in certain ways because, god knows, the law is always rational.

or, as JoeyT put it: Legality and morality are by no means synonymous. I realize authoritarians have trouble telling the difference, but they aren't. There are lots of things that are legal and aren't moral, and plenty of things that aren't immoral but are certainly illegal.

so that you came to: No one who is thinking correctly will risk their job and life for something this unnecessary. You won't break my heart if you make it legal, but I don't see the need to.

in which you assume that cannabis users all have problems... and that no one else does? (and later you assume that anyone who supports an end to prohibition is a stoner - and this, too, was shown not to be true.) your personal experience is that anyone who smokes pot gets fired from their jobs, that they are not good soldiers... when this, too, is obviously not the case because of many people who have been cannabis users who have also had successful lives and careers. you don't hear about those people on the news because... they're not making news... they're just living their lives.

then you said- Illegal drug enforcement affects any poor populace, because they use the illegality of it to make quick money. I'm not african american, but I have had many as friends. They have never expressed any feeling that the illegal drugs were unfair to them. They do express a unfair harshness and targeting by law enforcement. But this is true in all aspects of their lives. Your solutin won't solve that.

-- the solution was the end of prohibition, which would mean the end to law enforcement arresting them for cannabis possession. your argument is that, because they are targeted in so many ways, why remove one of those. well, with if enough people had that idea, we'd still have slavery going. things that allow personal freedom in this nation are a big part of what this nation is about. it's our aspirational view of ourselves as lovers and protectors of freedom. prohibition, again, is against this supposedly deeper held value in the U.S.

you assume that anyone who uses cannabis uses it to excess. you assume that anyone who uses cannabis loses the capacity to think critically. you assume that anyone who uses cannabis would do so on the job and behind the wheel. none of these assumptions can be or are correct for everyone yet, because you did them, you say that everyone will be just like you are.

(there's a word for that and for an inability to view the world from someone else's pov, btw.)

after hearing from various people that - you ignore the preponderance of evidence that shows cannabis has medicinal value, that prohibition only serves to create crime and heartbreak, that addictions are not cured by punishing everyone else, that hemp has value yet is illegal because it is tied to irrational fears of cannabis, that the government has lied to you about cannabis for decades, that people stand to make a lot of money by infringing upon others' rights, that your personal experience cannot stand in for empirical evidence, that there are people who use cannabis and hold jobs and have productive lives, that drug use stats indicate that legalization LOWERS the amount of drug use, that keeping cannabis away from minors would be facilitated by treating cannabis like alcohol, and that we might as well collect tax revenues and stop wasting money on a failed drug policy that unnecessarily destroys lives.

you answer that you don't care about any of that. none of that is a reason to make you want to stop prohibition. the problem isn't with the arguments. the problem is with you, that you refuse to accept anything but your own atomized experience and have the hubris and the inability to sympathize with others, apparently, to such a degree that if someone told you cannabis could cure cancer you wouldn't care if it was legal because you acted stupid when you were stoned back in the day.

THAT'S what has led people to find you annoying beyond words and to sometimes speak to you as tho you couldn't possibly be this... stubborn.

so, I have a question or two to ask you.

do you accept that evolution is a scientific fact... that the use of the word "theory" in evolution is saying it's as close to fact as science gets, right up there with the theory of gravity?

or do you think that creationism and/or intelligent design are worthwhile as ways to look at the history of humankind?

[ourbluenation]

297. California, knows how to party. n/t