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.
When I said relatively benign, I meant relative to other drugs including LEGAL drugs! E.g. Alcohol is relatively malign. Tell me you're for criminalizing alcohol or go home and revel in your hypocrisy.
That eating thing is one that did a real sad deal to one kid I knew. He was an outstanding runner who never ran as fast as he could because he didn't have to to win. Anyway he went to college on a track scholarship which the coach pulled at Christmas break, the still called it that back then in 1970. He told me that he saw the boy two times that semester, the day he came in to get his scholarship and the day he pulled it. The kid told me how hard he had been running and never went to practice one time. He told me about a kid who made peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and sprinkled marijuana on them and ate them. Turned out he was the kid. Yep, doing drugs for him kept him from knowing how fast he was and at 25 he was crying around to me how that had screwed up his life.
If a drug keeps one from doing what he could do like that it is wrong for that person.
BTW, that coach once had a boy who he knew smoked at least 1 pack of cigarettes every day and drank at least one quart of wine nearly every day. However, that was before scholarships so the fact that he busted his butt in practice and won at least one conference championship every year of the four made the coach not get on him. As he said, the kid was great, not as good as he could have been but better than most others. Dean never took to marijuana though, just alcohol and tobacco.
So now poor behavior is linked to drug use in one case. Thats like finding one idiot Republican, and saying that all Republicans are idiots because the one is.
Its a leap of logic that simply doesn't hold true. The results are in, over 50% of Americans have used marijuana before, around 33% use it regularly today. Most of which have no problem functioning. People have been given less than 100% since the beginning of time. if you job is going to pay you full pay for 50% work, why work harder with no advancement chance?
But can you site me the study that shows that a 51% majority, or even a 20% minority of marijuana users don't try and work as hard as others.
There aren't any, as a matter of fact, most studies done show that most marijuana users have no less of a work ethic than any others.
Sad story really, but it doesn't prove the majority of people to do anything. I can show you jocks that screw up their ride because of girls, should we ban co-ed colleges also?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
While I do not necessarily want to see marijuana illegal, I do acknowledge the constitutional authority Congress has to prohibit the drug with regard to any international or interstate commerce.
This is one case where the Commerce Clause really does apply. The exact same argument could be made with regard to foreign liquor. Even though one is legal and the other is not.
While I may not like the cost, the federal government does have the constitutional authority to wage a "war on drugs" if it crosses state or international borders. Where Congress' authority ceases is with any product that is wholly grown, processed, sold, and used within a given state. In such cases, it is entirely up to the state to decide how to deal with the situation, the feds have no say.
I also believe the government has a moral obligation to protect its citizens from harm, whether we want that protection or not. However, there are plenty of other products Congress has not prohibited from being imported that are as harmful, or even more harmful, than marijuana (alcohol and cigars, for example). Therefore, that would shoot down any moral argument government might make in regard to marijuana.
Congress does not have to prohibit marijuana. After all, it was not illegal at the federal level until 1956. It was a controlled substance between 1937 and 1955, and you could only be cited for not possessing the appropriate tax stamp of you were busted by the feds with marijuana. Congress could repeal the 1956 law, and still continue with its "war on drugs" in regard to international or interstate drug trafficking.
The actual amount of drugs being confiscated at the borders is of little consequence, it is a matter of principle. But it is only principle when applied to everything, not just marijuana. So if government is going to ban marijuana from being imported into the US in order to keep us safe, then by that same principle government would be required to ban imported alcohol and tobacco. Otherwise they have no principle.
I never said we shouldn't regulate interstate commerce. What should be done is to outlaw foreign marijuana, but legalize local. I understand the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce, never said they didn't.
You're also ignoring the problem. Even if all mexican drugs were stopped, we'd still get around 75% of the same marijuana would still be there, because its locally grown. Not to mention the fact that its virtually harmless.
So how does my growing one or two plants on private property, with no interstate commerce, no roads, no sale, no nothing have to do with federal law?
What radically different results would that be? I ask that because if most who don't believe what you do, like me, have never tried either of them.
Try this, ask 100 heroin addicts if they ever drank water or used a toilet prior to trying heroin. When all 100 addicts reply that they both drank water and used toilets, would you infer that potable water and indoor plumbing are both gateways to heroin addiction?
A president can't say he or she supports it and have any shred of hoping to be re-elected. The same with Christianity. You can't say you're a nonbeliever either. This is true for either party.
Bingo! We will never know what the politicians really think. In the US, unless a person is willing to state that they love Jesus and hate drugs, they will never be able to get elected.
This two hour program, while very good and informative, is unwilling to REALLY examine the reason that marijuana is illegal. And if you guessed the reason is 'money', you're right! I don't know all the details and never cared enough to research it in depth, but I've heard that DuPont had friends in high places in the White House in 1927.
Capitalism at its finest - If you can't beat it, criminalize it. In addition to DuPont, Hearst was on the hemp demonization bandwagon because it was a threat to his million acre timber empire (since hemp produces 4x as much pulp as trees per given area).
The late Jack Herrer's book, The Emperor Wears no Clothes gives a great overview of the history, uses and persecution of hemp (cannabis). It's an eye opening account of how American style capitalism (survival of the most vicious) really works. You can read it online.
I never said we shouldn't regulate interstate commerce. What should be done is to outlaw foreign marijuana, but legalize local. I understand the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce, never said they didn't.
Then there is no dispute, Congress has the constitutional authority to wage a "war on drugs", at least in regards to international and interstate commerce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
You're also ignoring the problem. Even if all mexican drugs were stopped, we'd still get around 75% of the same marijuana would still be there, because its locally grown. Not to mention the fact that its virtually harmless.
I am not ignoring the problem. You are ignoring that interstate commerce is still within the constitutional authority of Congress. Even if there were no foreign drugs coming into the country, Congress still has the authority to regulate commerce between states. California's largest single cash crop has been marijuana for decades, and it is shipped all over the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
So how does my growing one or two plants on private property, with no interstate commerce, no roads, no sale, no nothing have to do with federal law?
In Alaska it has been legal to grow, process, sell, and use marijuana for "personal use" since 1974. The federal government has not busted anyone in Alaska for using or growing marijuana in the past 35 years, if it was for "personal use." Commercial growers, on the other hand, do get busted by the feds and/or the state.
The situation you describe has less to do with the feds, and more to do with your state authorities. The feds are not going to waste their time with individuals who are only growing enough for themselves. They want the commercial growers and dealers.
“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.”
"Not only have 42% of Americans admitted to trying pot, but pot smokers have gone on to become some of the most successful people in our society."
His Majestic Excellency God-on-Earth Doctor Carl Sagan was successful?
This is a man who literally stood on top of Jimmy Carter's desk in the Oval Office and screamed that we were going into an Ice Age and glaciers would be rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue by the year 2000 if Carter didn't do something about it.
Carter didn't do squat and I don't see an glaciers knocking down Washington's Monument.
You call that successful? The guy was a loser.
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.
