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.
What nonsense did I list? Umm no I'm pretty sure people who are homeless actually came here for the pot....duh.
You need to re-read what I wrote.
You said pot was bad. I said the excess homeless population is not there because of pot being bad.
They are there because of prohibition. If it were legal everywhere, there would not be such a big homeless problem.
As more states legalize the homeless population problem will ease.
So your nonsense was:
(A) Accidents. Answer: I think I covered that in my first reply to you.
(B) Pot causing the homeless problem. Answer: It isn't pot causing that problem, it is prohibition.
(C) Seeing "stoners" hanging out around pot shops.
Answer: Those "stoners" are only the visible surface. Below that surface are millions (literally) of responsible (private) cannabis users who constantly have their life and livelihood at risk as long as prohibition continues. Do you really want to continue to see those types of users going to jail, losing their jobs, and losing their kids to the state, just so you don't have to see stoners hanging out?
BTW, in my opinion, your house value, if it changes at all due to legalization, is more likely to increase rather than decrease.
Your example would work equally as well for a teachable moment if it were legally regulated cannabis instead of alcohol. It is only your extreme bias against it that prevents you from seeing that.
I am only going to respond, not because of an absurd challenge (as if I don't there is not legit reason/s).
What's absurd about it? That it's over your head? You wrote a response that pretty much ignored the question and substituted your own, but I'll respond as if it didn't.
Quote:
For starters, I am a firm believer that if the state condones behavior, it not only gives tacit approval, but encourages it.
Interesting. I'm of the understanding that you believe that, but I'd like to make clear that it goes against every
Keep in mind that you can be a "firm believer" in something and that doesn't make it true. When I was a kid, I was a firm believer in the monster under my bed. I knew it was going to eat me.
Let's begin with the little social experiment the Dutch started way back in 1976. Since Gov. Hickenlooper wants to stress that "we don't know" the "unintended consequences" of ending cannabis prohibition in his state, we'll take a look at a place that has allowed possession and sales for nearly four decades. I think that's enough time to get some data.
"So shouldn't there be more 15-16 year-olds smoking pot, per capita, in the Netherlands than in the US?
MacCoun: That's what everyone thought, but a number of papers over the past five years have focused on this new survey data that doesn't seem to support that. There are a couple things to say about this:
The Dutch are pretty strict about not letting minors go in these coffee shops. In fact, dozens of coffee shops got shut down for letting minors in. Now, the majority of owners are really concerned about it, because they know they can get shut down.
The Dutch have reduced the street market. Since adults can go into coffee shops, there are fewer street dealers, and since there are fewer street dealers, that reduces the opportunities for teenagers to go buy from someone on the street."
There are plenty more resources out there on the matter. In fact, I'll be helpful and Google it for you.
Quote:
So even though prohibition might seem like a losing battle, it maintains the moral/legal high ground. I could go into detail, but I suspect you will not even begin to understand my point.
I'm asking you one last time, don't patronize me. I have been and will continue to run circles around you intellectually. If I wanted to, I could sit here and belittle you in a thousand ways that would have you looking up words in a dictionary to try to figure out what I'm saying. But, I'm not doing that, because it's anathema to a rational conversation. Which, you're struggling to hold.
So, we'll go back to trying to hold that rational conversation. The "moral/legal high ground" of what, exactly?
First, we'll explore the morality end of it.
The United States currently incarcerates more of its people, per capita, than any other nation. Five out of 100 people in the world are Americans. 25 out of 100 prisoners in the world are Americans. And, somehow, we have the audacity to lecture other nations on human rights as the "leader of the free world?"
Since you're in the minority, both on here and in the electorate as shown both in surveys and every statewide election on the matter since 2012, I could be like a lot of people who rationalize as you do and say "if you don't like it, leave." Saudi Arabia and a number of other Islamic nations govern based on "morality." Go there. Pot's illegal there too. Put on a hijab if you're female. It's "morality." It is not the way of free nations to legislate morality.
You seem to somewhat accept limited medical use of cannabis, so you at least seem to understand the immorality of keeping people away from people who need it to function. At least that's a start. It's a sign that you might eventually just get used to the new reality.
Quote:
Another way it is kept it away from people, are jobs/occupations that prohibit it. I suspect it will not be too far down the road where a pothead sues their employer for prohibiting them from pot usage on their own time. Another words, many occupations that drug test prevent people who would otherwise use pot from doing so.
First of all, do you mean "in other words?" I normally don't do this, but I was under the assumption that you were smarter than me, since I couldn't understand you. Yes, I can understand you. Not agreeing with you doesn't equal not understanding you.
Most employers, particularly where there is no safety-sensitive position, mainly drug test because they get a discount on insurance for doing it, which apparently makes a greater impact on their bottom line than the cost of conducting testing (which is not insignificant). One thing about most drug testing is it primarily targets pot use in practice, over harder drugs with metabolites that clear out of one's system much faster. So, let's say that I smoke crack all night tonight. I can still pass an employment drug test on Friday. If I used pot (note, it doesn't have to be smoked) last Sunday, it will likely still show up on that test on Friday.
So, what you seem to say that it's not the law that prevents people from using cannabis. It's the practice of employers testing for it. Is this correct?
We'll not even go into what employers have to gain from testing for use on employees' own time. As it is, some of them test for nicotine, which is legal and has been upheld in court.
Quote:
I must know at least 25 people or more that do not smoke pot because they know they will lose their well paying jobs if they are randomly drug tested and caught.
So, you associate with large numbers of people who would be "potheads" if they got away with it? What does that say about the company you keep, since you find it morally repugnant?
Quote:
I will also point out that no parent, no matter how hard they try can keep kids from drinking or doing dope if they choose to do so. However if it is legal, even morally centered kids might be willing to try something if the state says it is legal at a certain age.
Well, when they reach that age, they're no longer "kids" and they're making their own choices. As it is, kids can make a choice to buy illegal drugs and they probably don't have to leave their school campus to do so. No matter how "good" you think your kids' schools are.
Quote:
Case and point, I will use alcohol as my example. In my state, probably most, you cannot legally drink unless you are 21.
In my day it was 18, but now the law prohibits it until 21. My son knows he cannot drink legally, so he doesn't because he knows the consequences if he does. Anyway, we go over to Ireland where the legal drinking age is much lower. As we sit in an Irish bar in Dublin, he orders a soda, and I ask him if he wants to finally have a beer with his Dad. He jumps at the chance, so we have a Guinness & Harp (Half & Half) together for the first time. Later in the day he asks me why I allowed him to have a drink, and I explained it was legal in Ireland.
You have just forfeited all credibility, assuming you had any to begin with. You not only gave your son a beer, but you suggested it yourself? With your set of morals, you'll probably try cannabis when it becomes legal in your state. Note that I say "when."
Quote:
Needless to say a few months later we were back in the states, and he wanted to have another beer with me during a dinner, and I refused. I explained that it was illegal, and we should always try to obey the law of the land. He said he understood why, and said he was going to wait until he could legally. However, he wants to head back to Ireland before he turns 21 again.
The moral of this story is that if you are consistent and set the right example, kids are much easier to raise, and have their moral compass in proper working order.
As a parent, it makes life much easier to get good kids to follow your rules if the law is on your side.
Hopefully the time I took did not fall on deaf ears.
`
No, I heard it. The crux of your argument is "it's wrong because it's illegal, and it's illegal because it's immoral, and it's immoral because it's wrong." It's a circular justification.
So, it's just a simple matter of changing the law.
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
I think the governor is just complaining about being first difficulties. He's right in that it should be regulated like alcohol, and they're having difficulty right now because it's so new those regulations aren't in place. It's the wild west for legalized marijuana for them, it takes time.
A governor who opposes what the people want should not be a governor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl
"Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat whoopposed the 2012 decision by voters to make pot legal"
Wow, that's huge news! A politician who was against something from the very beginning is still against it after it passes! That's crazy! Next you'll be telling me John Boehner is still against the Affordable Care Act!
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,159,764 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodestar
......I'm still trying to find a historical example of a culture which has used marijuana legally for centuries that has produced a healthy, thriving nonviolent society. Any examples?.....
For one thing, I'm pretty sure there hasn't been a society that was non-violent for hundreds of years. For another, pot was legal everywhere before about the 1930s.
It's like when someone grows up being FORBIDDEN from even thinking about sex, told that it's the devil, abstinence-only sex ed, and grounded for a month for wearing a revealing top.
Then once they're finally off to college.....what do they do? They go NUTS.
Finally liberated, they end up going absolutely wild, sleeping around with everyone, engaging in risky behaviors, not thinking of sex in the context of what it means and entails for them, but only in the context of doing things because they can. That, and they were never taught to responsibly manage their sex life.
But by snatching that freedom away, it only takes one back to square one -- if not a few steps behind that. Because if a freedom is seen as a fleeting thing that could be snatched away again at any moment, people are really going to go hog wild when they get even a taste of freedom, because they figure that they'd better enjoy it while they can.
If the freedom remains, eventually the novelty is worn off, and they start to think more critically about the 'vice' and how to incorporate it into their life in a responsible and sane way.
Colorado is currently going through that transition with pot. People are still going bonkers about the newfound freedom. Eventually it will die down, and it will seamlessly integrate with society.
The difference in marijuana's case is that the person secretly was having sex all along, and knew that it wasn't evil. So once the parents change their ways the kid goes "meh", and keeps on living their life.
Some people who have never tried it because of it's illegality might buy some to see what it's all about, but I don't think we'd see a massive increase in usage just because the ridiculous law finally changed.
The history of the plant being illegal only goes back to the early 20th century. So, perhaps the proper term should be "re-legalization."
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.
