U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-24-2015, 03:49 PM
 
20,658 posts, read 16,687,786 times
Reputation: 38838

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post


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.

`

What does this even mean, "pro dope"? No one is promoting the use of pot for anyone, and many in the legalization camp don't now and in some cases never, used pot. Pro legalization is not the same thing as "pro pot" I don't know where you got that from but it's not an accurate term to apply here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-24-2015, 04:15 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
2,569 posts, read 1,839,256 times
Reputation: 2683
As an outsider looking in, I'm sad that the Gov. has regrets about the legalization. I was hoping it would bring Colo. revenue and encourage more scientific research on the drug's possible health benefits.

Maybe some of you saw the CNN special about the children suffering from debilitating seizures. A special strain on MJ helped reduce the seizures dramatically.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2015, 04:28 PM
 
Location: Keller, TX
5,663 posts, read 5,178,084 times
Reputation: 4076
If your livelihood is based on Cannabis Eradication, I can see you being virulent in your condemnation of the changes that have happened in Colorado, Washington, California, etc.

I'm not really sure where others (whose livelihood is not based on Cannabis Eradication) get off being so spiteful about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2015, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Florida
22,389 posts, read 9,512,925 times
Reputation: 18260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfre81 View Post
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.
Not just "dope" but "hippie dopers." Hippie? That would be someone of the boomer generation between the ages of 55-75. These are the people being referred to?

75-year-old dopers are apparently of great concern to that prohibitionist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2015, 05:12 PM
 
Location: Florida
22,389 posts, read 9,512,925 times
Reputation: 18260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post
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.
Why shouldn't booze be brought into the discussion? The anti-marijuana arguments do not hold water when alcohol is in the equation, because if the anti-marijuana crowd truly means and believes what they are saying they would also have to endorse banning alcohol, or they would simply be blathering hypocrites. So ban marijuana but not whiskey, beer or wine. Why?

And when marijuana is legal in the this country, as it no doubt will be in the future, marijuana prohibition will be viewed as absurdly as alcohol prohibition is now viewed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2015, 06:01 PM
 
Location: Places you dream of
20,289 posts, read 12,151,911 times
Reputation: 8802
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukon View Post
Many problems Colorado is experiencing right now are due to federal policy. Banks, licensed professionals (CPA, attorneys, etc), etc. have to follow federal guidelines, and dealing directly with pot growers can be a legal issue. If the feds would get down off their high horse and decriminalize pot, things would be a lot easier for Colorado and any other states that legalize it.
I think the prez was for POT I know he didn't like when DC turned it down this last election and BECAUSE he say yey-- congress will say NAY! so--- backwards we go
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2015, 06:12 PM
 
Location: Avondale, Chicago
14,423 posts, read 26,264,719 times
Reputation: 9460
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinytrump View Post
I think the prez was for POT I know he didn't like when DC turned it down this last election and BECAUSE he say yey-- congress will say NAY! so--- backwards we go
Maybe I'm not reading you properly, but nearly 70 percent of DC voters chose to legalize. (We can call that a supermajority.) The one trying to block it is one Rep. Andy Harris, a Republican from Maryland and an anesthesiologist who's backed by the pharmaceutical industry. He will not engage in any meaningful debate about the subject. People blow up his Facebook page all the time over it. I'm one of them.

He said that if DC voters don't like it, they should move out. Sounds like limited government and federalism like Republicans want to say they stand for.

I say Rep. Harris should be the one who moves out of DC next election. Too bad he's in the most solidly GOP district of Maryland and it would have to be in the GOP primary to happen.

This isn't an issue, though, where one party is for and one party is against. Dianne Feinstein is a prohibitionist lackey and a Democrat. Michigan Rep. Justin Amash is a libertarian-leaning Republican (and young, he and I are about the same age) and is for reforming cannabis laws. Prohibition itself is big-government social engineering and a costly failure. More public funds go to incarceration than education. If that's not a sign that something's wrong, I don't know what is.

You'd think if the Nixon/Reagan-style drug warrior approach worked, the "war" would've been won by now. Guess what? It hasn't been.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2015, 07:30 PM
gg
 
Location: Pittsburgh
17,958 posts, read 18,284,275 times
Reputation: 11507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777 View Post
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.
There are COUNTLESS studies showing moderate alcohol consumption as being very healthy for you. I don't think pot has those favorable findings, but I think pot should be legal in every state. Heck, I think more drugs should be legal and controlled. The war on drugs never worked, but the violent crime in cities over drugs is sure a mess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2015, 07:38 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 84,021,758 times
Reputation: 18050
I think we do not know as at one time a little cocaine was in many drug store over the counter mothers little helper tonics. I personally wouldn't touch any of it. Its like any prescribed drug IMO; not to be taken unless the advantage out weights the dangers of it. I certainly wouldn't take anything so little studied and so suspected by many former social users I know personally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2015, 07:57 PM
 
Location: Avondale, Chicago
14,423 posts, read 26,264,719 times
Reputation: 9460
Quote:
Originally Posted by gg View Post
The war on drugs never worked, but the violent crime in cities over drugs is sure a mess.
Just like the violent crime over alcohol during capital-P Prohibition was sure a mess. It was the golden age of organized crime in America. It gave rise to the Mafia's power here, among other criminal networks.

It was the perfect storm, really, to use a horribly trite phrase to describe it. The Italian crime families were considered threats to Mussolini's power back home at the time, but they had the perfect environment over here to thrive. Booze was illegal, and there was plenty of demand. Many a gunfight ensued. It's not even over the drugs themselves or caused by the effects of people taking them. It's over money and territory.

Make anything illegal that people want, and they will get it because the law of capitalism says where there is a demand, there will be supply. Take Coca-Cola for example. Yes, it had cocaine in it at one point, but that's not where I'm going with this. I'm talking about what's being sold today. Coca-Cola does not actually sell the finished product in the store. They sell the flavored syrup to independent bottlers, who turn it into the fizzy stuff. Those bottlers have a territory to which they have rights. They distribute to the stores. The guy you see stocking Cokes at your neighborhood 7-Eleven? He works for the local bottler. Not Coca-Cola headquarters in Atlanta.

Now, let's say the government decided that Coca-Cola makes us fat and, for that, it is now outlawed. Of course, the demand for the stuff isn't going to go away because government waved its finger in the air and said it was to be no more. The outfits that make and distribute the stuff, who formerly had legal contracts defining what area they get to work in, no longer have that legal framework. One decides to expand its territory, moving in on its competitor(s). Before, they'd just take them to court. In this scenario, though, that's not how it's going to be dealt with. So, let's say I lead one of these clandestine Coca-Cola bottlers, and I have my competitor's lackeys on my turf, selling Coke to my customers. What am I going to do with these people threatening my business, since I can't just sic my lawyers on them anymore? I'm going to mail their heads in a box to their boss with a little sticky note saying "YOU'RE NEXT!"

I didn't kill them because I was hopped up on caffeine. I killed them because it's business. And this is how the illegal drug trade works.

Notice how none of this is going on with the dispensaries in Colorado? Me too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:40 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top