Denver legalized pot.

[DjLoTi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPTcYBSygjU

I think RP could win in Denver

[Proctor]

That's all you and your radio care about, eh? Legalization of Marijuana. That's the only reason you like RP. I've heard you on your radio, drunk.

[DjLoTi]

Man dude, that was pretty insultive. You don't even know me. 53% of voters in Denver, CO voted to legalize pot. I just thought it was interesting, no need to attack me

[JosephTheLibertarian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPTcYBSygjU

I think RP could win in Denver

seriously? lol omg... I wanna move there :(

[SeanEdwards]

Interesting interview. The pothead pwned the drug warrior stooge bigtime.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I never cared for any of the other drugs.... marijuana is different. It's especially good if you have pain. I don't have pain... but I don't think that should matter ;)

I don't like calling marijuana a drug, I prefer to call it an herbal supplement lol or something along those lines

Is it a gateway drug? I was offered cocaine... I said NO.... can you pass me that lovely joint over there? LOL

[LibertyBelle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPTcYBSygjU

I think RP could win in Denver

Denver? Surprise, surprise, surprise. ;)

[DjLoTi]

Yeah it's a pretty large movement, maybe the largest in the country.

[DjLoTi]

That's all you and your radio care about, eh? Legalization of Marijuana. That's the only reason you like RP. I've heard you on your radio, drunk.

You're officially not my friend now. I'd love to school you on the issues, but I don't have the time for such ignorance.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Yeah it's a pretty large movement, maybe the largest in the country.

You're from Denver? I really have to go out there... it's actually LEGAL? Or only medical?

[DjLoTi]

Oh nah, I'm not from Denver. I actually just found out about this yesterday.

They said they voted for a safer alternative to alcohol, and voted on recreational use.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Oh nah, I'm not from Denver. I actually just found out about this yesterday.

unbelievable.. it can't be completely legal, is it? nah lol ..probably need to go through a thousand different permits. I bet the dealers are pissed if it's totally legal now

[DjLoTi]

All I know is that the law passed.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

All I know is that the law passed.

ohh... the fed will come in and stop it... them or the state will. That's how it always turns out. gawd forbid someone smokes some weed.... we can't let that happen, but we'll let them smoke cancer sticks. ;)

You don't want to know how much shit cigarettes have in them... there's even cyanide in them lol

[DjLoTi]

It's ultimately up to the police officer if he wants to make that decision.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

It's ultimately up to the police officer if he wants to make that decision.

but wouldn't state law trump city law? I'm not arguing against it, I wish it would be legal all over the world. I was watching this thing on CNN that shows the US operations against poppy farmers in Afghanistan. It's people's livelihood and they go in and destroy it... and they wonder why they're being attacked LOL my gawd

[DjLoTi]

Here's a YouTube of a peaceful protest in CO about marijuana

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BHwDxXabq8

[SeanEdwards]

but wouldn't state law trump city law? I'm not arguing against it, I wish it would be legal all over the world. I was watching this thing on CNN that shows the US operations against poppy farmers in Afghanistan. It's people's livelihood and they go in and destroy it... and they wonder why they're being attacked LOL my gawd

Stupidest policy ever. Combat weed whacking. :rolleyes:

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Stupidest policy ever. Combat weed whacking. :rolleyes:

Afghanistan would be a great nation if it were "ruled" by libertarians... it'd probably have one of the fastest growing economies in the world. I'm just so surprised that this ideology has never caught on..anywhere

It's just to things

1. you leave people alone
2. free market

that's all it comes down to.

off topic lol but anyway... great news

[DjLoTi]

I don't know about invading countries to destroy plants. But hemp/marijuana have many possible positive effects. We import over 2 million pounds of hemp a year from Canada. We should be the worldwide leading exporter.

Watch the 1946 video by the US Dept. of Agriculture to see some of it's uses.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I don't know about invading countries to destroy plants. But hemp/marijuana have many possible positive effects. We import over 2 billion pounds of hemp a year from Canada. We should be the worldwide leading exporter.

Watch the 1946 video by the US Dept. of Agriculture to see some of it's uses.

nah.. I'd get depressed if I were to lol

I do know that hemp has tons of potential... it's the social conservatives in the US.. They're standing in front of progress.

liberals as well... they vote against drugs and hemp to get the "stupidity vote" and to "take care" of people

they both suck really bad

social cons: we'll put you in prison

liberals: it's not good for you..so let's make it illegal. Do it and you get FORCED REHAB!!

libertarians: do what you want

[DjLoTi]

haha na it's actually a cool video, fun to watch, esp. if you like old films.. haha which I do. type in hemp for victory on www.spikedhumor.com

[DjLoTi]

Living on an island - peace -

[constituent]

anything the cops don't arrest you for, and you don't become the victim of a secret indictment for is legal [.]

someone has to arrest you. that's why the first step to getting our country
back is dismantling los federales. we get rid of them and guess what,
that cop goes back to being just some guy at work who doesn't give
two shits about what you do or don't smoke... in fact, he'll probably screw
w/ you b/c you're high (as long as you're not behind the wheel)...

maybe it is b/c i live in texas... but the cops really don't care about drugs
unless you're causing trouble. you get violent or something and they will
throw the book at you, but as of now... local cities and counties can't afford
to house inmates over a little stuff for the sake of a federal prohibition.

the only other people that care are the mercenary task forces who get to
steal all of your money and assets if they can get you busted...

quasi-legal, spying apparatus... if you haven't yet, look into the mercenary
intelligence forces operating at the behest of the governor in the
state of texas... talk about third world, you will not believe the
stuff that happens in America.

[Kregener]

We are a a nation of hypocrites as long as alcohol is "legal" and marijuana is "illegal"

The "War" on Drugs was a sham and designed not to stop the use of drugs, but to erode freedoms and aid in the national bankruptcy. It has worked.

[sickmint79]

this video changed my view of the war on drugs. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=864268000924014458

it is a failure and waste of money. i would love for drugs to disappear but the way to fight it is through education and choice.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I wouldn't ever do any of the "hard" drugs, but I still believe that they should be legal.

[nullvalu]

That's all you and your radio care about, eh? Legalization of Marijuana. That's the only reason you like RP. I've heard you on your radio, drunk.

That's funny, I heard DjLoti ( drunk on the radio, which is legal btw :D ) also saying that he doesn't smoke pot because it is illegal.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

ha. That's what all NORML members say.

[cjhowe]

Seriously, you guys are slipping...

Insert obligatory Mile "High" joke.

[richard1984]

WOOOO!!!!!! Way to go Denver!!!

That makes me happy. :D
I dream about the day I can start my own herb garden. What a beautiful plant.


Is it 420 yet? (yep :cool:)

[DjLoTi]

That's funny, I heard DjLoti ( drunk on the radio, which is legal btw :D ) also saying that he doesn't smoke pot because it is illegal.

lol, I mean, I'm 21. What SHOULD I be doing on a Friday night?

[TheEvilDetector]

this video changed my view of the war on drugs. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=864268000924014458

it is a failure and waste of money. i would love for drugs to disappear but the way to fight it is through education and choice.

Personally I don't use "illegal" drugs, I do believe they can be harmful to the person due to the negative lifestyle effects of addiction and also the health issues.

However, trying to be as objective as possible and after watching that video I couldn't help but think that the police are the ones who are acting as criminals.

Using so called asset forfeiture laws, the crime of theft has been legalised, which makes a mockery of the constitution in my opinion.

Just taking property from people without even needing proof is theft. It doesn't matter that its the law. It only makes it legalised theft in my opinion.

I believe if all the drugs were decriminalised, YES you would have a surge in users, but you would have a MASSIVE decrease in crime.

I think education is the most important thing in this. When you lock people up due to drugs, you definitely ruin their future in a way, no decriminalised drug ever could.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Marijuana is not addictive and tests have confirmed that it doesn't kill brain cells.

[TheEvilDetector]

Marijuana is not addictive and tests have confirmed that it doesn't kill brain cells.

I think ALL drugs have bad effects on your health, marijuana included.

However, all my points in the previous post still stand.

I will also add that I think drugs are a social, moral and educational problem and shouldn't be a criminal one.

Focussing on drugs like a criminal problem, avoids dealing with the real issues, and those are, what leads people to doing drugs.

Some options here would be lack of hope in future, boredom, peer pressure and personal curiousity.

Each one could be addressed through education and community programs.

On another point, where in the constitution does the government get the power to regulate what substances you are allowed to put into your own body?

I have no problems with states dealing with it, but the feds?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I think ALL drugs have bad effects on your health, marijuana included.

However, all my points in the previous post still stand.

What sort of "bad effects"? It's especially useful for people in pain.

[DjLoTi]

There's all kinds of drugs, from caffeine to tylonal to heroine. Somewhere in between all that is marijuana... and alcohol is probably worse then marijuana...

Plus it can be grown, good for the soil, good for the economy... ect. ect. Hemp is the argument that really drives me crazy. Legalize hemp! It's such a good crop for America, and the world. You can't even smoke it. It's ridiculous.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

There's all kinds of drugs, from caffeine to tylonal to heroine. Somewhere in between all that is marijuana... and alcohol is probably worse then marijuana...

Plus it can be grown, good for the soil, good for the economy... ect. ect. Hemp is the argument that really drives me crazy. Legalize hemp! It's such a good crop for America, and the world. You can't even smoke it. It's ridiculous.

You can blame the religious right.

[TheEvilDetector]

What sort of "bad effects"? It's especially useful for people in pain.

I really do not want to get into an argument over this.

Realise that I am for drug decriminalisation because I think it's more of a social, moral and educational issue rather than criminal.

If you must know, smoking marijuana has an effect on your lungs, on your heart and on your brain.

It affects the lungs because of smoke inhalation.

It affects the heart because of blood pressure and heart rate changes.

It affects the brain because of changes to learning, memory, problem solving, perception amongst others.

Of course all other drugs have influences in these areas also.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html

You do not need to flame me for being anti marijuana because I am not.

I think people should have the right to put whatever they want into their body.

After all they own their own bodies.

Personally I believe people should be restricted from using drugs until they have been educated about the negative effects of such, since drugs can ruin people's lives.

In other words, if the drugs are going to be decriminalised, we need informed choices.

Maybe with all the money saved, schools could have drug education for kids.

Also, it would be good if all drugs purchased for recreational mind-altering reasons were restricted
so that minors could not purchase them and also as a compromise (on free speech) advertising for these severely
restricted using state legislation (since the fed cannot restrict speech except of course one openly calling for criminal
activity or something similar).

That sort of arrangement in my mind would be constitutional.

PS. I think it should be made mandatory by state law, to include with each drug sale, an information booklet that
details all the negative effects drugs have point by point and give the purchaser the opportunity to ask questions of the
chemist. Make the drug go into standard doses.

PPS.Make it all regulated and taxed and documented like medicines and make it a medical issue on top of social,
moral and educational.

Overall, I think chances of a doctor helping a drug user out are higher than a cell mate.

PPPS. About half the people in US have at least tried marijuana it seems.
This goes to show the criminal enforcement is not having any effect, other than
putting dollars into wholesale liberty restriction industry.

Excerpt from the same site linked earlier:

"In 2004, 14.6 million Americans age 12 and older used marijuana at least once in the month prior to being surveyed. About 6,000 people a day in 2004 used marijuana for the first time—2.1 million Americans. Of these, 63.8 percent were under age 181. In the last half of 2003, marijuana was the third most commonly abused drug mentioned in drug-related hospital emergency department (ED) visits in the continental United States, at 12.6 percent, following cocaine (20 percent) and alcohol (48.7 percent)2."



Percentage of 8th-Graders Who Have Used Marijuana:
Monitoring the Future Study, 2005
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
L.time 16.7% 19.9% 23.1% 22.6% 22.2% 22.0%
Annual 13.0 15.8 18.3 17.7 16.9 16.5
30-day 7.8 9.1 11.3 10.2 9.7 9.7
Daily 0.7 0.8 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.4

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
L.time 20.3% 20.4% 19.2% 17.5% 16.3% 16.5%
Annual 15.6 15.4 14.6 12.8 11.8 12.2
30-day 9.1 9.2 8.3 7.5 6.4 6.6
Daily 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.0


Percentage of 10th-Graders Who Have Used Marijuana:
Monitoring the Future Study, 2005
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
L.time 30.4% 34.1% 39.8% 42.3% 39.6% 40.9%
Annual 25.2 28.7 33.6 34.8 31.1 32.1
30-day 15.8 17.2 20.4 20.5 18.7 19.4
Daily 2.2 2.8 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.8

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
L.time 40.3% 40.1% 38.7% 36.4% 35.1% 34.1%
Annual 32.2 32.7 30.3 28.2 27.5 26.6
30-day 19.7 19.8 17.8 17.0 15.9 15.2
Daily 3.8 4.5 3.9 3.6 3.2 3.1


Percentage of 12th-Graders Who Have Used Marijuana
Monitoring the Future Study, 2005
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
L.time 38.2% 41.7% 44.9% 49.6% 49.1% 49.7%
Annual 30.7 34.7 35.8 38.5 37.5 37.8
30-day 19.0 21.2 21.9 23.7 22.8 23.1
Daily 3.6 4.6 4.9 5.8 5.6 6.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
L.time 48.8% 49.0% 47.8% 46.1% 45.7% 44.8%
Annual 36.5 37.0 36.2 34.9 34.3 33.6
30-day 21.6 22.4 21.5 21.2 19.9 19.8
Daily 6.0 5.8 6.0 6.0 5.6 5.0

* "L. time" refers to use at least once during a respondent’s lifetime. "Annual" refers to use at least once during the year preceding an individual's response to the survey. "30-day" refers to use at least once during the 30 days preceding an individual’s response to the survey.

If you think about it, half the kids in school have committed a crime.

Chances are most of them they will try marijuana again once.

Logic would dictate that they should all be locked up according to criminal laws.

Personally I don' t think its a good idea to lock up half the kids in america.

Well then, is it a good idea to lock up a quarter of the kids?

One eighth?

One tenth?

How many people is it ok to lock up for drugs?

Clearly the criminal approach is wrong.

With so many kids trying this drug in school, it is inevitable they are going to try it again out of school.

Its feels like what is going on is predatory.

[DjLoTi]

It's not the religious, it's the corporations. Hemp was cheap, easy, and profitable. It would have put the nylon and polyester industry out of business, and they were a very powerful group (The DuPonts). They made it illegal as to not compete with lower prices. It's a monopoly, and they used "Reefer Madness" to make it reality.

[m4ff3w]

So I guess all the pot heads in Denver are singing "Rocky Mountain High"?

And shouldn't the thread title be "Denver decriminalized pot"?

[sickmint79]

Personally I don't use "illegal" drugs, I do believe they can be harmful to the person due to the negative lifestyle effects of addiction and also the health issues.

However, trying to be as objective as possible and after watching that video I couldn't help but think that the police are the ones who are acting as criminals.

Using so called asset forfeiture laws, the crime of theft has been legalised, which makes a mockery of the constitution in my opinion.

Just taking property from people without even needing proof is theft. It doesn't matter that its the law. It only makes it legalised theft in my opinion.

I believe if all the drugs were decriminalised, YES you would have a surge in users, but you would have a MASSIVE decrease in crime.

I think education is the most important thing in this. When you lock people up due to drugs, you definitely ruin their future in a way, no decriminalised drug ever could.

eh, i think initial use/trying may budget a little but i don't really think there would be some huge surge. i barely drink, and i don't think i'd have a huge problem finding a way to get my hands on some nasty stuff by midnight. i don't think availability is all that large of a problem to overcome now.

[G-khan]

Man dude, that was pretty insultive. You don't even know me. 53% of voters in Denver, CO voted to legalize pot. I just thought it was interesting, no need to attack me


I think he is with the wrong campaign - even if you are a drunk alcoholic so what. What you do to yourself is your business not his. Some people just want to look like they are the pure ones and are better than others..

Pay him no mind as his mind has not grasped what liberty means..

[DjLoTi]

Haha ya but I'm not an alcoholic. I'm just having fun on the weekends. I just turned 21 so shoot me if I can make myself a drink on a Friday night. It was frustrating enough when I was 20 and couldn't even chill one bit***

[TheEvilDetector]

eh, i think initial use/trying may budget a little but i don't really think there would be some huge surge. i barely drink, and i don't think i'd have a huge problem finding a way to get my hands on some nasty stuff by midnight. i don't think availability is all that large of a problem to overcome now.

Good point.

Taking drug dealers out of the equation would make everyone safer.

I think the only point in defense of criminal drug use, is the fear that if it was legal, usage would go up significantly, thus impacting the economy due to people choosing to use drugs and not being effective in their work or making choices to avoid work altogether on certain days. For example someone high on heroin is hardly able to work.

Opinions?

PS. I think a society with drug decriminalisation would be a society with job application drug questionnaires and job drug testing, thus putting pressure on people not to do drugs if they wanted to make a living. In other words, people would have more freedom over their lifestyles but at the same time more responsibility. The question would be whether they could handle this.

[DjLoTi]

If someone wants marijuana, they can get marijuana. In LA, they have stores that sell marijuana. In Denver, it's legal to posses up to an ounce of pot.

So why can't we start growing hemp? It'll save our ground, boost our economy, help our farmers...

You can't even smoke it. You *CAN NOT* get high off hemp. Someone tell me a good reason why hemp should be illegal.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

If someone wants marijuana, they can get marijuana. In LA, they have stores that sell marijuana. In Denver, it's legal to posses up to an ounce of pot.

So why can't we start growing hemp? It'll save our ground, boost our economy, help our farmers...

You can't even smoke it. You *CAN NOT* get high off hemp. Someone tell me a good reason why hemp should be illegal.

no mail order, eh? lol

[BuddyRey]

If someone wants marijuana, they can get marijuana. In LA, they have stores that sell marijuana. In Denver, it's legal to posses up to an ounce of pot.

So why can't we start growing hemp? It'll save our ground, boost our economy, help our farmers...

You can't even smoke it. You *CAN NOT* get high off hemp. Someone tell me a good reason why hemp should be illegal.

I'll go ya one better and tell you exactly WHY it's illegal! Because it could single-handedly put every oil and gas lobby out of business overnight.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/downs2.htm

[TheEvilDetector]

I'll go ya one better and tell you exactly WHY it's illegal! Because it could single-handedly put every oil and gas lobby out of business overnight.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/downs2.htm

You saying you can make plastics and car fuel from it?

Edit: Never mind, I read the link hehe

Btw, in case anyone missed it (it was posted earlier in thread) this is a very informative video about war on drugs (or more accurately war on poor people with drug involvement).
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=864268000924014458

[G-khan]

Good point.

Taking drug dealers out of the equation would make everyone safer.

I think the only point in defense of criminal drug use, is the fear that if it was legal, usage would go up significantly, thus impacting the economy due to people choosing to use drugs and not being effective in their work or making choices to avoid work altogether on certain days. For example someone high on heroin is hardly able to work.

Opinions?

I used to be a drug counselor before I retired and I can tell you that heroin is not one of the major drugs that impairs peoples work. Alcohol is much worse and before the 1914 Harrison Act you could buy heroin and anything else in your local drug store. Heroin is in the opiate family of drugs and if you have ever been treated for pain you have most likely had some of the effects that it produces.

In the early 1900's heroin was used to treat alcoholics. They would much rather have people on heroin than alcohol as it impaired them far les.. It was the temperance movement that started all the prohibition.

With prohibition came the gangs and back then it was Al Capone smuggling alcohol in from Canada. Right now the backbone and glue of the gangs is prohibition of all the drugs. We had very few problem prior to 1914 when you could go in a buy your drugs at the local drug store..

The problem with all the opiates is they are addicting and you can get hooked on them.

Alcohol is also addicting and can cause death from withdrawal - no one has ever died to my knowledge from any type of opiate addiction including heroin. I think because of the media and all the hype people are very scared and have bad info about heroin..

By the way I am not a drug user but I do want the right to do what I want with my body and life as I think it is no business of yours!

I suggest that everyone read up on our drug history as I think most have been brainwashed by MSM on the subject...

As far as taking the drug dealers out of the equation I agree it would make things safer. Make the drugs legal and the gangs and dealers will be gone.

[TheEvilDetector]

I used to be a drug counselor before I retired and I can tell you that heroin is not one of the major drugs that impairs peoples work. Alcohol is much worse and before the 1914 Harrison Act you could buy heroin and anything else in your local drug store. Heroin is in the opiate family of drugs and if you have ever been treated for pain you have most likely had some of the effects that it produces.

In the early 1900's heroin was used to treat alcoholics. They would much rather have people on heroin than alcohol as it impaired them far les.. It was the temperance movement that started all the prohibition.

With prohibition came the gangs and back then it was Al Capone smuggling alcohol in from Canada. Right now the backbone and glue of the gangs is prohibition of all the drugs. We had very few problem prior to 1914 when you could go in a buy your drugs at the local drug store..

The problem with all the opiates is they are addicting and you can get hooked on them.

Alcohol is also addicting and can cause death from withdrawal - no one has ever died to my knowledge from any type of opiate addiction including heroin. I think because of the media and all the hype people are very scared and have bad info about heroin..

By the way I am not a drug user but I do want the right to do what I want with my body and life as I think it is no business of yours!

I suggest that everyone read up on our drug history as I think most have been brainwashed by MSM on the subject...

As far as taking the drug dealers out of the equation I agree it would make things safer. Make the drugs legal and the gangs and dealers will be gone.

I think you have many interesting points, but I do think that you are wrong about people not dying from heroin addiction. People do die directly from heroin addiction, due to an overdose for example. The same way someone can die from alcohol poisoning.

Having thought about the War on Drugs, I have also come to the conclusion, that overall the achievement of this war is nothing more than the growth of the prison industrial complex and the removal from the streets of those people who are the most likely to be disagreeable with the government (for good reasons) because they live in the most poor neighbourhoods.

I also find it startling that 1/4 black young males are involved with CJS and that this will rise to 1/3 and 1/2 according to the woman in the video. This would have a devastating affect on the black communities. I am not a racist, I realise that whites are also involved, but I think the demographics in this stupid war are unfair on blacks.

This to me is a huge government mismanagement issue. The money is being totally mismanaged and instead of building these communities up, they neglect them and then tear them down. Political establishment is rotten indeed and no longer a servant of the public as they are supposed to be, more like a fearful master.

[angelatc]

Haha ya but I'm not an alcoholic. I'm just having fun on the weekends. I just turned 21 so shoot me if I can make myself a drink on a Friday night. It was frustrating enough when I was 20 and couldn't even chill one bit***

Yes, I was hell on wheels in my 20's, but these days ...I can't really remember when the last time I had a drink actually was.

The child-rearing guru of the '60's said that drugs and alcohol were usually just a phase, and most adults outgrow the habit by the time they're 30. (Most does not mean all.) I think that's about right.

[constituent]

For example someone high on heroin is hardly able to work.

Opinions?



that's not true at all. granted someone twaked bug-eyed might work faster... heroin has become the substance of myth. in regulated doses/purity that shit
is easier on the body than warm milk. if you want to look at it from a "effect on the body" standpoint marijuana

yes, i said marijuana.

is very much worse for you. ::smoker's caugh... hrmm hrmm::

also, post-modern man needs the experience of some certain drugs (i feel like)
if we are ever to meet our full potential...

myself, i am of the opinnion that "survival of the fitest" in the coming century
will be all about one's ability to rationalize some very abstract shit... the
most fit for survival will be the ones capable of grasping the chaos/order
floating around them.

[constituent]

...

[angelatc]

If someone wants marijuana, they can get marijuana. In LA, they have stores that sell marijuana. In Denver, it's legal to posses up to an ounce of pot.

So why can't we start growing hemp? It'll save our ground, boost our economy, help our farmers...

You can't even smoke it. You *CAN NOT* get high off hemp. Someone tell me a good reason why hemp should be illegal.

I've even heard that the cross pollination weakens the strength of the real pot crops.

[G-khan]

I think you have many interesting points, but I do think that you are wrong about people not dying from heroin addiction. People do die directly from heroin addiction, due to an overdose for example. The same way someone can die from alcohol poisoning.

Having thought about the War on Drugs, I have also come to the conclusion, that overall the achievement of this war is nothing more than the growth of the prison industrial complex and the removal from the streets of those people who are the most likely to be disagreeable with the government (for good reasons) because they live in the most poor neighbourhoods.

I also find it startling that 1/4 black young males are involved with CJS and that this will rise to 1/3 and 1/2 according to the woman in the video. This would have a devastating affect on the black communities. I am not a racist, I realise that whites are also involved, but I think the demographics in this stupid war are unfair on blacks.

This to me is a huge government mismanagement issue. The money is being totally mismanaged and instead of building these communities up, they neglect them and then tear them down. Political establishment is rotten indeed and no longer a servant of the public as they are supposed to be, more like a fearful master.


Yes I did not think about overdoses and it is true that they happen a lot more than from alcohol. I was talking about withdrawal from heroin. One of the reasons they die from overdoses is because they never know if what the have is pure or is your normal 2 to 5% and when they get some say 25% and they use the same amount as they did with the 5% they overdose. If it were legal I think that the overdose rate would be reduced?

[G-khan]

...

I agree heroin seems to cause no body damage at all - the main thing is it is addictive. Alcohol and pot both cause physical damage to organs and opiates do not cause any that I can find?

[TheEvilDetector]

that's not true at all. granted someone twaked bug-eyed might work faster... heroin has become the substance of myth. in regulated doses/purity that shit
is easier on the body than warm milk. if you want to look at it from a "effect on the body" standpoint marijuana

yes, i said marijuana.

is very much worse for you. ::smoker's caugh... hrmm hrmm::

also, post-modern man needs the experience of some certain drugs (i feel like)
if we are ever to meet our full potential...

myself, i am of the opinnion that "survival of the fitest" in the coming century
will be all about one's ability to rationalize some very abstract shit... the
most fit for survival will be the ones capable of grasping the chaos/order
floating around them.

Interesting point of view. I guess when I spoke about heroin and inability to work, the image I had in mind was those people who are very high on heroin and are just lying there motionless. I suppose in milder doses someone could carry out their duties with some effectiveness.

In regards to survival of the fittest, I think people who are able to think critically have a very strong advantage over others due to the massive brainwashing efforts in constant operation around us trying to make us good little unquestioning consumers or good little unquestioning workers etc.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

If you want to get high and then operate a vehicle, it should be your choice. :p It may get dangerous out there... but, hey, maybe it'd cut down on pollution and obesity when people start to walk more? lol that's how a true free market works.

[TheEvilDetector]

Yes I did not think about overdoses and it is true that they happen a lot more than from alcohol. I was talking about withdrawal from heroin. One of the reasons they die from overdoses is because they never know if what the have is pure or is your normal 2 to 5% and when they get some say 25% and they use the same amount as they did with the 5% they overdose. If it were legal I think that the overdose rate would be reduced?

I would 100% agree with that.
If the heroin was dispensed from a licensed chemist, overdoses would be drastically reduced due to standard doses.
Not to mention any health effects from impurities.

[TheEvilDetector]

If you want to get high and then operate a vehicle, it should be your choice. :p It may be dangerous out there... but, hey, maybe it'd cut down on pollution and obesity when people start to walk more? lol

I guess you were joking.
Drugs and driving, riding don't mix and for good reasons.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I guess you were joking.
Drugs and driving, riding don't mix and for good reasons.

Well... personal responsibility.

[G-khan]

Yes I don't care what another person does to his mind or body as I believe it is his to do with as he wishes.. But driving a vehicle or doing something that endangers others because of his drug impairment should be against the law.

[TheEvilDetector]

Well... personal responsibility.

One of the goals of a libertarian inclined society is respect for other people's rights for only in there can we find respect for ours. Rights such as the right to life, liberty, property.

Unfortunately, this means that certain activities do need restrictions.

Here are a few examples:

Shooting automatic machine gun into the crowd just for fun.
This gesture is a direct threat to other people's right to life even though you may believe you have a right to use your weapon however you see fit.

Throwing tv, couch, books onto the crowded street below just for fun.
This gesture is a direct threat to other people's right to life even though you may believe you have a right to dispose of your property however you see fit.

Driving while barely coherent from drugs just for fun.
This gesture is a direct threat to other people's right to life even though you may believe you have a right to transport yourself at any time and place you choose.

You see where I am going with this?

Whenever an activity is an obvious danger to other people, there is justification for making it criminal.

Personal responsibility is simply the duty of every citizen to make the right choices and it can't be used as an excuse to get out from criminal consequences.

"Your honour, I made a personally responsible choice to drive my vehicle before I hit that pedestrian,
so you can't be sending me to jail, because only irresponsible drivers out there go to jail."

[angelatc]

Heh. I'm totally against laws that punish people because somebody might get hurt.

[TheEvilDetector]

Heh. I'm totally against laws that punish people because somebody might get hurt.

In other words, if someone is totally high driving their car but not hurting anyone, they should be able to continue on driving?

If we go down this road we will end up with complex debates.

It seems to me you take the view that someone has to physically get hurt before criminal charges are brought.

Am I correct in assuming that firing an automatic machine gun into the crowd is fine by you as long as the shooter does not hurt anyone?

If yes, the one point with this logic that comes to my mind, is the loss of liberty that people experience when they are forced to be more cautious than usual.

Such as when someone is firing machine guns into the crowd in a park or when you know people are driving cars under the influence.

People may decide not to go into a park where there are people who are firing guns, people may decide not to drive where there are people who are driving while seeing double.

I think where one can demonstrate a clear link between loss of liberty and potentiality of criminal acts you have a strong case for needing a law to prevent that loss of liberty.

When in doubt you have to weigh the utility of each side.

What is more useful to society? Men being able to shoot guns in parks in the middle of crowds of people OR crowds of people being able to walk around without fear of being shot accidentally or purposefully.

This is why this kind of discussion is complex.

If you really want to get into this there are several ethical theories that could be discussed, such as:
1. Subjective Relativism
2. Cultural Relativism
3. Divine Command Theory
4. Kantianism
5. Act Utilitarianism
6. Rule Utilitarianism
7. Social Contract Theory

[DjLoTi]

I don't agree with driving under the influence. I do think, however, that there is no reason that hemp should not be legalized, as no one has been able to argue that point (and if you can, bring it on! ;) )

[constituent]

I don't agree with driving under the influence. I do think, however, that there is no reason that hemp should not be legalized, as no one has been able to argue that point (and if you can, bring it on! ;) )

rich hippies.







kidding.

[G-khan]

IMO no one has a right to threaten your life or liberty for that matter. It is a threat to other peoples lives to have someone drive while impaired by drugs..

Simple for me - it should be against the law to drive while impaired as you are threatening others right to life.

[angelatc]

In other words, if someone is totally high driving their car but not hurting anyone, they should be able to continue on driving?


Pretty much, especially since the alternative seems to be unreasonable search and seizure laws.

I believe the Supreme Court said that DUI roadblocks were unconstitutional, but they were going to uphold it anyway.

I don't think people should be penalized because something bad might happen.

Yeah, I'm the minority.

[angelatc]

IMO no one has a right to threaten your life or liberty for that matter. It is a threat to other peoples lives to have someone drive while impaired by drugs..

Simple for me - it should be against the law to drive while impaired as you are threatening others right to life.


Simply driving has the same effect though.

Sorry, but I think the ladies of MADD are a much bigger danger to freedom than impaired drivers.

[Roxi]

heres the USA today story on this....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-03-pot_x.htm

[TheEvilDetector]

Pretty much, especially since the alternative seems to be unreasonable search and seizure laws.

I believe the Supreme Court said that DUI roadblocks were unconstitutional, but they were going to uphold it anyway.

I don't think people should be penalized because something bad might happen.

Yeah, I'm the minority.

Fair enough.

PS. The whole war on drug issue seems to me a bit like a dog eating its own tail.

PPS. Actually, it just hit me like a ton of bricks how fucked up the whole thing is.

This isn't a war on drugs, its a war on people, particularly black people.

Because if it was a war on drugs, they would go after the drugs NOT the people
i.e. they would simply remove the drugs out of the community, making the drug selling business pointless.

In a war conducted this way there would be:
(by the way I think the following is unconstitutional but still better than the current situation)
No need to prove anyone is guilty of anything for the purposes of getting a conviction
No need to build up a case by lengthy police investigations
No need to worry about lawyers, courts etc
No need to steal people's property through legalised theft (other than drug).

Simply speaking if cops observe someone dealing/using drugs, they go to this person, do a chem test and confiscate all their shit,
give him a few suggestions about an alternative job and/or drug treatment program, leave some pamphlets/vouchers with the person
(government should help organise a few menial jobs out there for cases such as this, effecting a quick transfer out of drug industry into
paid community work and provide free federal drug treatment vouchers) then let him go (let him know they will come back and take more drugs)
and continue this process everyday including everyone up above the dealer or user.

It would make getting drugs off the streets alot easier, because unlike before where you have to build a whole case before going
for the bust, this time just a single observation of drug exchange taking place is enough to go in and take them, wherever and
whenever it might happen. Also if the lower dealer reveals someone higher up (for a cash payment for example), that's enough to go
in and remove all drugs from the higher ups. The lower dealer if he fears for his life, can be given a new identity and relocated.

If people do something foolish when cops are confiscating then they can be incarcerated for something that is worth incarcerating people over.

I think since putting one dealer in jail invites another to take his place, keeping the dealer where he is (he will protect his turf even though
he is losing drugs to cop confiscations) but constantly confiscating his stuff is more effective, also it allows the cops to slowly build up the
overall network of drug flow over time and thus being able to simultaneously confiscate at all points in the food chain as much as they
want rather than dealing with new networks springing up taking the place of old destroyed networks and having to rediscover all the links.

This whole conviction based system is also insanely stupid. Rather than imprisoning 100 individuals with one ounce each, which takes
ALOT of time and money and hurts ALOT of people, it would make more sense to imprison none and simply focus on getting 100 ounces
off the street. The funding should be based NOT on the number of convictions but on the weight seized. Weight focus for funding rather
than conviction number focus, also forces the cops to go high in the food chain and confiscate from the big boys and at the same
time establish intelligence about main import links as I was mentioning earlier.

There does not seem to be any intelligence in the war on drugs. and the tragedy is that this is actually a war against the
people to enrich the prison industrial complex and does nothing to address the fundamental causes of people using drugs.

Grossly immoral and is a direct result of an economy that is losing its productive jobs overseas, that has devalued its own currency,
destroyed the middle class and that is feeding on its own citizens like a god damn parasite. It is sickening.

The only winners here are the people right at the top, not the citizens.

[Roxi]

in the usa today article the mayor is quoted to have said he would oppose a measure to liscense and regulate it because he believes marijuana is a gateway drug. I believe the reason marijuana came to be considered the gateway drug is not because marijuana itself induces you to try different drugs but because your having to buy it from the people willing to risk the legal problems of selling it to you and in some cases those are people who are also willing to risk the legal problems of harder drugs, you also hang out in places with large groups of people who do pot and other drugs. So by endorsing the measure he would actually be lessening the risk of people trying the harder drugs..

someone more adept at writing letters or blogs should play on this and notify him of this

[Bloody Holly]

I like it when people have a good time on the radio. What's the big deal proctor?

[torchbearer]

I think you have many interesting points, but I do think that you are wrong about people not dying from heroin addiction. People do die directly from heroin addiction, due to an overdose for example. The same way someone can die from alcohol poisoning.

You can die from drinking to much water too. I always limit myself to no more than 8 x 12oz glasses of water a day... and I never drink and drive.

[nexalacer]

*shrug* I've driven a few times after smoking pot. I'm MORE safe than when I'm not high. When I'm sober, speed doesn't scare me. When I'm high, speed freaks me out. Therefore, I drive more slowly and much more carefully after smoking weed.

Of course, my reflexes are much slower, but I usually drive slow enough to not have that become a problem. Also, I probably piss a lot of people off at how slow I go... it's not crawling, but it's usually a few miles an hour BELOW the speed limit... in California, that's damn near a capital offense to some people.

At the same time, if I smoke a lot of weed, I usually am far too lazy to WANT to drive... it's only after light doses where I'm not as impaired that I've done it. Not that I'm endorsing it for everyone, but to make it illegal to drive while stoned would be a severe violation of my freedom. And I don't see myself as a threat while high anymore than I am while sober. Cars are dangerous by their nature.

[DjLoTi]

I don't care about marijuana ... but SOMEONE answer me on HEMP! What is the deal with hemp? That's what pisses me off more then anything! Pure ignorance!

[nexalacer]

I don't care about marijuana ... but SOMEONE answer me on HEMP! What is the deal with hemp? That's what pisses me off more then anything! Pure ignorance!

Dude, it's been answered. The problem is the industries that would be effected by massive hemp growing are hard lobbyists against its legalization.

Hemp makes better paper: Paper industry lobbies.
Hemp can be used like many plastics: Plastic/petroleum industries lobby.
Hemp can make better bio-fuels: Corn growers will start lobbying!

Gravel had one great catch phrase while I was still listening to him... "follow the money."

[dseisner]

That douchebag got schooled! And he didn't even bring up the constitution...

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I don't care about marijuana ... but SOMEONE answer me on HEMP! What is the deal with hemp? That's what pisses me off more then anything! Pure ignorance!

Run for office or lobby for it ;) it's like saying "what's the big deal about prostitution" and leaving it there.