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.
I would like it if you could answer one question for me: If, from a cop's perspective, if legalization would be so bad, how do you explain the existence of this group LEAP | Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, made up of police and other leaders in the criminal justice and political community from states all over the country, campaigning to legalize it.
Look at the "Who we are" page, you'll see retired state police captains, former prosecutors and other prominent people in the field of law enforcement and criminal justice. Also please click on the section "For Police", it explains to other policemen why they started the group and why they believe in this so much. Of course, my asking you to read this assumes you have an open enough mind to be willing to at least consider others' perspectives. I am pasting below their "Statement of Principles", which contradicts most of the statements you have made, supposedly from the perspective of the police. Can you explain why so many prominent leaders in your field see it so differently?
1. LEAP does not promote the use of drugs and is deeply concerned about the extent of drug abuse worldwide. LEAP is also deeply concerned with the destructive impact of violent drug gangs and cartels everywhere in the world. Neither problem is remedied by the current policy of drug prohibition. Indeed, drug abuse and gang violence flourish in a drug prohibition environment, just as they did during alcohol prohibition.
2. LEAP advocates the elimination of the policy of drug prohibition and the inauguration of a replacement policy of drug control and regulation, including regulations imposing appropriate age restrictions on drug sales and use, just as there are age restrictions on marriage, signing contracts, alcohol, tobacco, operating vehicles and heavy equipment, voting and so on.
3. LEAP believes that adult drug abuse is a health problem and not a law-enforcement matter, provided that the abuse does not harm other people or the property of others.
4. LEAP believes that adult drug use, however dangerous, is a matter of personal freedom as long as it does not impinge on the freedom or safety of others.
5. LEAP speakers come from a wide divergence of political thought and social conscience and recognize that in a post-prohibition world it will take time to strike a proper regulatory balance, blending private, public and medical models to best control and regulate “illicit drugs.” LEAP speakers are free to advocate their view of better post-prohibition stratagems without towing a LEAP “party line.”
6. LEAP recognizes that even in a post-prohibition world, still, drugs can be dangerous and potentially addictive, requiring appropriate regulation and control. Even in a free-market economy, reasonable regulation for the purposes of public health is a long-standing, accepted principle. Such regulation must not allow casual, unfettered or indiscriminate drug sales.
7. LEAP believes that government has a public health obligation to accurately ascertain the risks associated with the use of each “illicit drug” and a duty to clearly communicate that information to the public by means of labeling and warnings similar to what is done regarding food, tobacco, alcohol and medicine.
8. LEAP believes that an inordinate number of people have been misguidedly incarcerated for violation of zero-tolerant, nonviolent, consensual “drug crimes.” The end of drug prohibition will allow those persons to be promptly released, to have their record of conviction expunged, and their civil rights completely restored. However, the repeal of drug prohibition does not imply the exoneration from charges for connected offenses, such as violent crimes, gun crimes, theft, or driving under the influence of drugs. Furthermore, LEAP believes that people using alcohol or other drugs must be held accountable for any misbehavior, which harms other people or property of others, while under the influence of mind-altering substances.
9. LEAP believes that persons suffering from drug abuse afflictions and addiction, who want help, should be provided with a variety of help, including drug treatment and drug maintenance, even for uninsured addicts. LEAP believes that with an end to drug prohibition and regained control of criminal justice expenditures, a fraction of those savings would be more than sufficient to pay for expanded addiction services.
10. LEAP recognizes that different “illicit drugs” pose differing risks of harm. As such, in a post-prohibition world, LEAP recognizes that an appropriate set of regulations and control for one substance may not be a suitable or sufficient regulation and control for another substance. LEAP believes that the nation states of the world and various states within the United States must be given the regulatory latitude to try new models that wisely balance the notions of freedom over one’s own body with the need for common sense regulation of drugs to reduce death, disease, addiction and harm.
He will not answer, I've brought it up time, and time again. I think it's a part these threads regarding cannabis die out. . .it's the same pros, the same "cons". . . the "cons" get confronted with facts that they then deny/don't acknowledge, counter with 30 year old "anti" propaganda, and have convinced themselves that NO MATTER WHAT, they are right. Their "Facts" are only facts because they say so.
When dealing with a dude whose livelihood relies on keeping the war alive, it's not hard to imagine why they take the stance they do. Not to mention, they become so indoctrinated into their beliefs, that to suddenly see otherwise would crush what they stand for. . .we know that's not gonna happen.
When you think of common sense, this issue is a great dividing factor for seeing who indeed does have common sense, and those that are still brainwashed.
When everything, both positive and negative is laid out on the table, for an open and honest discussion, anyone with some common sense could tell you what things are worse and doing far more damage to society when it comes to legal cannabis v. booze, pills, meth, opiates. It's something that more and more people are coming to understand/realize, and the tides are turning. The people who stand against it are thinning as more and more states present/pass legislation to accept cannabis into the U.S.A., a part of culture that has been around for thousands of years.
Even those against it will see the $$$ signs, and that will be their deciding factor. Money talks, and all the greedy politicians that cling onto the war on drugs will eventually see, there is money to be made in legalization and want to get on the train, but my fear then, where will they make up the surplus elsewear? The for profit prison system HATES the idea that it can't get extended stay guests for marijuana arrests. . .it's dicey, but I still think the tides are turning.
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.
Cause that hasn't been tried before or anything....
Not a pot smoker, never have been, never wanna be. But that's MY choice. But I will NOT presume to impose MY will on others. I know quite a few friends and family members that are pot smokers, and it's their decision. Whatever floats your goat man.
I DO think however that it is outrageous that our Government decides to ban a PLANT. As an avid gardener, I think that's crazy, lol.
ok but, how many of those previous-years deaths were due to the illegal channels that produced and distributed the weed?
If a gov't agency now has control,then they can test and control the substance before it hits the market. Ensuring a better purity and little to no contamination.
If the drug cartels are no longer in charge of any of it, they cannot bring their deadly criminal ways into the mix.
If joe blow can now grow it in the open, then he will no longer feel the need to hide his crops and so he will not burn down a remote forest, etc etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmeofficer
The sky isnt falling.. well maybe it is... if you smoked some of the 30 plus percent thc bud laced with chemicals
Yum.. the 400 plus chemicals in smoked marijuana PLUS all the nice ones added.. from rotodane to molasses
But MARIJUANA associated deaths (including crimes committed by MJ folks... and as importantly injuries) are there...
Lovely Freddy Smoke. still on the run..that burned down a forest killing some poor man and burning out entire neighborhoods
We regularly get hash oil labs that burn down apartment buildings driving joe citizens out into the street
This was an interesting site.. even if wrong ( and I believe it is) I loved the terminology... have fun potheads Marijuana Related Deaths | MMYV
Tokerlosous... Ganja Gas.. that was some funny cheeit!!!!
Bottom line
Anything that alters the consciousness and stupefies the body can be dangerous.... as we get larger segments of the population showing up with tokers cough and thc addiction issues.. we will get a clearer picture..
I know this.. you smoke adulterated weed one time that has bad chemicals in it... you can destroy your lungs forever... now that sounds like a fun drug to recreate on.. add in heart disease and other risks... no thanks
Apaprently, you have never known a teenager who was killed by a driver who was high. I pray that you never do.
well, that would be tragic, but you must admit that the statistical numbers of car wrecks involving marijuana are extremely low in comparison to say, alcohol related ones.
Right.
i don't know for sure but--
I think the Colorado government people who oppose the legalization have a problem partly because THEY ARE LOSING THE REVENUE OF ARRESTING AND FINING people for possession of mj. maybe????
they can apparently no longer CONFISCATE and sell the real estate, cars, diamond rings, etc of these marijuana users, possessors and sellers. I think that Government had their own kind of DRUG DEPENDENCY, that is, they were dependent on the drugs that were illegal, so they could get the funding, get the apparatus, get the confiscated stuff, get the fines, tickets, or whatever else they profited from. Whatever else paid their way .
the War on drugs is half over for Colorado. Now they need to retool their social warfare mechanisms/ revenue producing schemes, and that is quite an adjustment.
I hope they get over it soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Town FFX
He will not answer, I've brought it up time, and time again. I think it's a part these threads regarding cannabis die out. . .it's the same pros, the same "cons". . . the "cons" get confronted with facts that they then deny/don't acknowledge, counter with 30 year old "anti" propaganda, and have convinced themselves that NO MATTER WHAT, they are right. Their "Facts" are only facts because they say so.
When dealing with a dude whose livelihood relies on keeping the war alive, it's not hard to imagine why they take the stance they do. Not to mention, they become so indoctrinated into their beliefs, that to suddenly see otherwise would crush what they stand for. . .we know that's not gonna happen.
When you think of common sense, this issue is a great dividing factor for seeing who indeed does have common sense, and those that are still brainwashed.
When everything, both positive and negative is laid out on the table, for an open and honest discussion, anyone with some common sense could tell you what things are worse and doing far more damage to society when it comes to legal cannabis v. booze, pills, meth, opiates. It's something that more and more people are coming to understand/realize, and the tides are turning. The people who stand against it are thinning as more and more states present/pass legislation to accept cannabis into the U.S.A., a part of culture that has been around for thousands of years.
Even those against it will see the $$$ signs, and that will be their deciding factor. Money talks, and all the greedy politicians that cling onto the war on drugs will eventually see, there is money to be made in legalization and want to get on the train, but my fear then, where will they make up the surplus elsewear? The for profit prison system HATES the idea that it can't get extended stay guests for marijuana arrests. . .it's dicey, but I still think the tides are turning.
Apaprently, you have never known a teenager who was killed by a driver who was high. I pray that you never do.
That has nothing to do with it....legalization is not going to make it legal to drive high anymore than legal alcohol makes drinking under the influence legal.
well, that would be tragic, but you must admit that the statistical numbers of car wrecks involving marijuana are extremely low in comparison to say, alcohol related ones.
Would be tragic? It WAS tragic.
Comparing MJ-related MV deaths to alcohol-related MV deaths comes across as extremely callous to those who have lost someone to an impaired driver, regardless of what substance caused the impairment.
Apaprently, you have never known a teenager who was killed by a driver who was high. I pray that you never do.
Not to minimize what happened but there are probably more teens killed by sober drives than 'high" drivers. Hardly every hear of anyone being convicted of "high-driving". In fact I hear of more people hitting someone while stuffing their face, putting on make up, texting and of course drinking .
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.
