Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dnvrsoul, you didn't indicate who you were trying to educate, but I hope you are not trying to educate me. I am 58 years old and have 44 years of direct experience with the plant. And I ACTUALLY live here too.
After some of the nonsense you listed, I am glad to hear you still have an open mind about the subject. That is actually quite rare in my experience.
When it comes to being "killed in accidents" because of being stoned, I suggest you go to the cops themselves to get the true story. In the interview I saw, with an actual law enforcement officer, the officer said "I can't tell any difference" when asked about traffic related incidents since legalization. When the information comes from someone out in the real world like that I give it a lot more consideration than I do when it comes from some sort of "study". Of course, there is no comparison with alcohol in this category. But the real comparison should be this: The number of people harmed and/or killed because of prohibition is absolutely staggering compared to any accidents caused by cannabis users.
The homeless population has nothing to do with pot "being bad"! They are here because finally there is a place in the world that has come to its senses. Many are quite accomplished and adept, so they came here thinking "Getting a job won't be a problem, I am a hard worker". But they didn't count on tens of thousands of others thinking the same thing. So yes there's a problem, but it is temporary because there will be more and more places coming to their senses as time goes on. There will be no need to flock specifically to Denver anymore.
Please keep in mind that for every one of those "stoners" you see hanging out around pot shops, there are at least 1000 responsible cannabis users that are in the closet that you don't know about. They are your neighbors, your coworkers, and yes, the driver in the car next to you. Unfortunately though, the stereotype has been cast. But it is draconian to put these millions of responsible users in prison because of this stereotype, and the brainwashing that has taken place over the last 80 years on prohibition. Most prohibitionists just do not like the type of people the stereotype represents, so they want to keep it illegal simply because of that. But when you think about, you realize those people are waging a war against the culture, not against a supposedly evil weed. This makes it is a culture war, a war on people, not a war on drugs.
Anyway, thanks for the chance to post this. I don't waste my time trying to set things straight with prohibitionists, since there is no amount of direct evidence or logic that will sway them. But you, with your still open mind, is like a breath of fresh air and I don't mind taking the time trying to educate.
Well since I ACTUALLY live here..maybe I can educate you.
I'm a conservative and have never smoked pot. At first I was pissed that it passed, but I have done the let's look and see approach.
First off, please don't give the weed isn't bad..it is. People have been in killed in accidents because of being stoned. A lot? Not sure, this doesn't get publicized so until it does we won't know.
Our homeless population is through the roof! I read an article (could be Denver Post) that our homeless population has gone up 153%-it's bad, not as bad as San Fran or Tampa, but it's noticeable.
Also, it's kind of disgusting driving past pot shops and seeing all the stoners hanging out outside ( Broadway and Colfax), it gives Denver a sleazy feel...and honestly, it's an eye sore.
However, it really hasn't changed my life much and I'm thankful, so I still have a wait and see attitude.
I'm sure you sipped some wine or had a beer after you found out it was passed
How many people die from drunk drivers, alcohol poisoning, prescription drugs, drugs misused in hospitals, plastic surgeries, dude I could go on & on...
I like how the leading voice against the "freight train" of legalization is headed by Kevin Sabet and Patrick Kennedy (ex-Oxycontin junkie) and the whole thing is founded by the pharmaceutical companies that made the stuff ol' Pat was hooked on.
Drug dealers could care less. It's the law enforcement/prison industrial complex that fears legalized drugs the most. There are huge profits being made by locking up people on simple possession charges. Make pot completely legal in the USA and it would empty out 1/2 the prisons, and we wouldn't need endless numbers of cops and lawyers.
Huge incentive indeed to keep it illegal and the Democrats just like the GOP are sellouts.
I am curious how you know this piece of information?
Have you talked with drug dealers to know this.
Not just one or two, but alot to get the whole view on drug dealers.
I think if marijuana were made legal federally, a lot of problems would be solved. Or we could ban alcohol because of all the damage it causes.
I knew one of the first pro dope comments couldn't resist dragging booze into it. Regardless of how bad something else is, try focusing on the ills of dope to determine whether it is good, bad or indifferent, regardless of other maladies in the world.
As to the OP's question, if dope could be sufficiently regulated to where only the truly medically needy could get it (i.e. cancer, glaucoma), not the hippie dopers for absurd reasons (i.e. anxiety, insomnia) then I would support it.
However if CA is any example, you give an inch and dopers take a mile.
Regardless of how bad something else is, try focusing on the ills of dope to determine whether it is good, bad or indifferent, regardless of other maladies in the world.
What a great idea! It is something you really need to do yourself if you wish to discuss the subject intelligently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1
As to the OP's question, if dope could be sufficiently regulated to where only the truly medically needy could get it (i.e. cancer, glaucoma), not the hippie dopers for absurd reasons (i.e. anxiety, insomnia) then I would support it.
Wow. How absurd. I have not seen a more two-faced post in a long long time. You have no desire to learn anything about the plant, prohibition, or the "ills of dope". Yours is plain and simple a culture war against "hippie dopers".
I knew one of the first pro dope comments couldn't resist dragging booze into it.
Cuts both ways. People who oppose legalization and regulation are fine with furthering the unproductive drug war which has also eroded civil liberties long before the DHS existed, going to the "more driving fatalities" argument. We have drunk drivers already. Of course, we don't really have a very good handle on how many of the supposed cannabis-related accidents also involve alcohol, or pharmaceuticals, or cell phones, or not enough sleep. Lots of factors. Testing after the fact and finding THC metabolites does not impairment make.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're capable of an intellectually honest conversation about it. Using terms like "dope" are usually dead giveaways of people who can't.
I don't know if anyone else heard of saw Gov. Hickenlooper's comments about how legalizing Pot was a bad idea. It is difficult to be the first to do anything; however, I strongly encourage you to read the article and add any others you may have read.
Most everyone wants MJ to be legal by prescription for those with the medical need. Given the conflicting agency, state and federal laws, maybe pharmaceutical companies are where it should be grown to be dispensed at a pharmacy like other controlled substances. We've all heard stories about the street corner shops in CA and what most lack.
What do you think after reading Gov. Hickenlooper's comments?
MSR
Wow, that article presents just the first half of his thought, making it look like he said something he didn't. How dishonest of them!
He did say that if he had a magic wand on election day, he would've reversed it. But, he added a BUT, he said now he wouldn't, that it's been a good thing for Colorado.
I can't find the full clip, but I did find this segment from the same interview:
Watch at 12:00. Around 12:20 he uses the exact words referenced by the OP's link, and you can see he was taken completely out of context.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
