Jump to content


Photo

Our Stupid Drug Policy


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 heckofajobbrownie

heckofajobbrownie

    Member since Sept 28, 2005

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 June 2012 - 04:58 PM

Enjoy this.


  • 0

#2 ballpeen

ballpeen

    Member since Mar 5, 2007

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,996 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:3rd rock from the sun

Posted 21 June 2012 - 06:58 PM

Ok, I'll play.



A idiot responding to a idiot.



I'll respond for her.



Sure they are more addictive. Are you so ignorant you don't know that?? What's your point?? You don't know the answer?? Do you smoke marijuana?? Answer the question please.
  • 0

#3 heckofajobbrownie

heckofajobbrownie

    Member since Sept 28, 2005

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 June 2012 - 07:12 PM

I thought his point was obvious: why are you treating all drugs the same when all drugs are clearly not the same?
  • 0

#4 MLD Woody

MLD Woody

    Legends Club

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,830 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Strongsville,OH/ Ann Arbor, MI

Posted 21 June 2012 - 08:24 PM

lol, this is our govt? da fuk




Why should pot be illegal?
  • 0

#5 ballpeen

ballpeen

    Member since Mar 5, 2007

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,996 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:3rd rock from the sun

Posted 21 June 2012 - 08:38 PM

I thought his point was obvious: why are you treating all drugs the same when all drugs are clearly not the same?




Law enforcement may not, but courts are. A ounce of pot is way different than a ounce of cocaine. Both are illegal, but with way different penalties.
  • 0

#6 heckofajobbrownie

heckofajobbrownie

    Member since Sept 28, 2005

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 June 2012 - 10:14 PM

Yes, of course. But he was trying to get her, as a representative of the DEA, to differentiate between the drugs and their effects. For some reason she wouldn't do this.
  • 0

#7 ballpeen

ballpeen

    Member since Mar 5, 2007

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,996 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:3rd rock from the sun

Posted 22 June 2012 - 05:11 AM

And she shouldn't. One can distill moonshine and then cut it with some water to various proofs. 170 proof shine has a much stronger impact on the body then does shine cut to a proof similar to any bottled liquor you can buy in the store. It's why some is called white lightening, and some is called mountain dew. A big difference in the two. The only common element is they are both illegal.



But for the record, I do agree we have stupid drug policy. I'd be in favor of legal marijuana sales. Controlled of course, much the way liquor is controlled. You can't grow your own and can't sell it without license. Oh, it's also taxed at a high rate. People are accustomed to paying for the stuff. I don't even know what a ounce costs these days. The last time I bought some it was $10-15 a ounce, but this was maybe 1970 if not earlier. That's about the time I quit smoking it...and never did smoke it much to begin with.

Use the revenue to help fund the DEA and rehab programs. Hammer hard on all the other stuff, but if we made this one move, I think the flow of illegal drugs would drop big time as it is my belief that pot is the cash crop for the big cartels. All the other stuff is extra. Hit the cartels in the pocket. To make up for lost revenue, they will push harder on things like cocaine, and in doing so will make mistakes...then we nab them.
  • 1

#8 Westside Steve

Westside Steve

    Member since Sept 15, 2003

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,217 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norton Ohio

Posted 22 June 2012 - 06:15 AM


Peen is right, especially about the idiot on idiot part.
Remember there is a huge amount of profit to be made in selling pot defending it and prosecuting the sellers. Lots of people on both sides will be upset if they have to give up that easy money.
Taxi weed won't be the panacea that it's proponents think.
It is possible to make good beer or whiskey at home but it's a pretty unwieldy process to do it on a big level. It is however easy to grow as much pot as you want and as good as anything you buy on the street.
Plus there will have to be an easy test for pot in your system. Is there a breathalyzer that works for weed?
If not will police need to drag every suspects to the hospital for a blood test?


But I will offer this anecdotally, a bigger percentage of weed smokers that I personally know tend to hit it more often during the day than beer drinkers.
On the other hand the beer drinkers I know seem to get drunk more often.
Then again sometimes it's hard to tell if someone is buzzed or just stupid.

Personally, and this happens every year when we rehearse for the reunion concert, I hate it when guys bring beer or dope to practice.
They play worse and have a harder time remembering so it's a bigger pain in the ass for those of us who arent high. Even a couple beers or a few hits slows down your ability.

WSS

  • 0

#9 heckofajobbrownie

heckofajobbrownie

    Member since Sept 28, 2005

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 June 2012 - 10:41 AM

Of course a DEA agent should be able to differentiate between the addictive properties of certain drugs. Are you two kidding? As if we didn't know that marijuana was illegal, and so was heroin.

Here's how that should go:

"Is crack worse for someone's health than marijuana?"

"Yes."

"Is heroin worse for someone's health than marijuana?"

"Of course."

...Why she feels the need to maintain some line that "all drugs are bad" instead of admitting the obvious is the reason why everyone is laughing at this video.
  • 0

#10 Chicopee John

Chicopee John

    Member since Sept 12, 2003

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,904 posts

Posted 22 June 2012 - 10:55 AM

I thought his point was obvious: why are you treating all drugs the same when all drugs are clearly not the same?



My 2-cents:

ANYBODY who believes smoking a joint is worse than 'having a few cold ones' after work is, IMHO, completely off base and 'ignorant' about this issue. I also believe laws against Marijuana are more about politics than about medical purposes.

FWIW, I do realize that other drugs fall into a 'more serious' category than Marijuana. However, and at the risk of hearing 1001 retorts, I believe we should make them all legal. Legalize, Regulate and Tax.

Either that or make all alcohol illegal. Oh year, I forgot. We tried that. It didn't work.

Neither do laws about restricting the use of 'recreational' drugs.

As a compromise, I'd keep other drugs illegal but make Marijuana use completely legal.

The State of Ct just passed a bill legalizing the use of Medical Marijuana. I understand the one-step-at-a-time approach but I was very much against the bill because I believe it was a chicken-ship bill. But - of course - politicians live on chicken-ship.
  • 1

#11 heckofajobbrownie

heckofajobbrownie

    Member since Sept 28, 2005

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,652 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 June 2012 - 11:29 AM

I think the road to a sane drug policy admits exactly what this woman won't - that different drugs do vastly different things, and have vastly different social costs. I'm not a pot head. I'm a drinker. But if everyone who went into a bar smoked pot instead of drank there'd be fewer social costs. It's clearly a more benign drug than alcohol. You can't OD on it. It's almost never addictive. It doesn't make people violent. It makes you laugh and zoned out and it makes you hungry. It doesn't make you belligerent.

Steve brings up a good point - there's lots of money invested in keeping it illegal, and keeping the drug war going. There are entire communities that depend on prisons being filled with drug offenders. But these are not good reasons to maintain a policy that has spent untold billions, ruined millions of lives, encourages horrific violence, decimates our inner cities, and yet has produced almost no real decrease in drug use.

You should get a ticket for public marijuana use, written up just like a traffic ticket. That's it. The only reason you should see the inside of a police station or courtroom is if you drive while high, endanger someone else, or sell it to a minor. Everything else about it should be legal and taxed.
  • 1

#12 ballpeen

ballpeen

    Member since Mar 5, 2007

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,996 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:3rd rock from the sun

Posted 24 June 2012 - 04:43 AM

As Steve pointed out, there would have to be a easy, reliable test for the police to administer unless you are willing to just let the cops decide if you are too high or not.

As of now a blood or urine test is the only way, and it takes hours to days to get the results. If it wasn't for this, I think pot very possibly would already be legal.

There is just no way for law enforcement to know on the spot if you are slightly high or over some limit high. Unless there is a way to test and determine if a person is over some set limit of measure, it won't become legal.
  • 1

#13 djdawg2010

djdawg2010

    Pro Rookie

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 906 posts

Posted 31 July 2012 - 10:33 AM

I think the road to a sane drug policy admits exactly what this woman won't - that different drugs do vastly different things, and have vastly different social costs. I'm not a pot head. I'm a drinker. But if everyone who went into a bar smoked pot instead of drank there'd be fewer social costs. It's clearly a more benign drug than alcohol. You can't OD on it. It's almost never addictive. It doesn't make people violent. It makes you laugh and zoned out and it makes you hungry. It doesn't make you belligerent.

Steve brings up a good point - there's lots of money invested in keeping it illegal, and keeping the drug war going. There are entire communities that depend on prisons being filled with drug offenders. But these are not good reasons to maintain a policy that has spent untold billions, ruined millions of lives, encourages horrific violence, decimates our inner cities, and yet has produced almost no real decrease in drug use.

You should get a ticket for public marijuana use, written up just like a traffic ticket. That's it. The only reason you should see the inside of a police station or courtroom is if you drive while high, endanger someone else, or sell it to a minor. Everything else about it should be legal and taxed.



Kudos to both of you for seeing through the bullshit propaganda spewed about marijuana. It truly is about money, and special interest groups who fear losing a lot of money by ending it's prohibition! I like the bar reference that heckofabrownie brought up. I worked for many years as a DJ in local establishments, and alcohol is the biggest cause of fights, and drama. I truly hope people wake up and get their heads out of their asses and see through the bullshit, and move to end prohibition, and the silly war on weed!
  • 0

#14 MLD Woody

MLD Woody

    Legends Club

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,830 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Strongsville,OH/ Ann Arbor, MI

Posted 31 July 2012 - 11:47 AM

Make it legal
Tax it
????
Profit
  • 0

#15 MLD Woody

MLD Woody

    Legends Club

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,830 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Strongsville,OH/ Ann Arbor, MI

Posted 31 July 2012 - 01:25 PM

I don't
  • 0

#16 MLD Woody

MLD Woody

    Legends Club

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,830 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Strongsville,OH/ Ann Arbor, MI

Posted 31 July 2012 - 03:07 PM

We aren't profiting though, we are losing a ton of money by enforcing it.
  • 0

#17 nunboy

nunboy

    College All American

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPip
  • 320 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Parma
  • Interests:Browns, firearms,books,cars,cars,cars,cars.

Posted 31 July 2012 - 03:17 PM

that is wise young man, may I suggest that we leave this product to stay illegal so that we may profit from these diseased stricken fools.

We spend millions each year to fight a war on drugs that is putting the money from the sales of drugs directly into the hands of criminals rather than collecting taxes from good honest stores like a cigar shop or a wine and liquor shop. we are losing money on two fronts, and losing lives while bankrolling underground organizations that we have to go to war with. we already did this once in US history with the prohibition of alcohol and it turned out the exact same way.
  • 0

#18 DieHardBrownsFan

DieHardBrownsFan

    Member since Sept 18, 2006

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,521 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Royalton, Ohio
  • Interests:Browns

Posted 31 July 2012 - 03:23 PM

Make pot legal. Make the same rules as pertain to alcohol, 21 or older, sold only in state sanctioned stores, and closely regulated and TAXed the shit out of. Might as well make some money off of it and put the crooks out of business. As for other drugs, heroin, meth, etc, HELL NO, never legal.
  • 0

#19 nunboy

nunboy

    College All American

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPip
  • 320 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Parma
  • Interests:Browns, firearms,books,cars,cars,cars,cars.

Posted 31 July 2012 - 03:28 PM

Make pot legal. Make the same rules as pertain to alcohol, 21 or older, sold only in state sanctioned stores, and closely regulated and TAXed the shit out of. Might as well make some money off of it and put the crooks out of business. As for other drugs, heroin, meth, etc, HELL NO, never legal.

this will catch me some flak, but why not? they are already using the drugs and making the drugs illegal has had no effect on use. why not get more taxes and use some of that cash to treat the users. at least with a legit official system in place you can track who is using what and target treatment rather than finding the problem after it is too late.
  • 0

#20 calfoxwc

calfoxwc

    Member since Sept 14, 2003

  • REGISTERED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,604 posts

Posted 31 July 2012 - 07:13 PM

Ballpeen has an excellent point. If somebody has an auto accident, they can test them

and prove they were DWI.

With a good bit of pot smoking, and an accident - or ticketable ? offense,
how can you know to immediately get them off the street?

The difference between the two analogies, to me, is this:

Somebody can drink and drink, and it doesn't waft over to a person next to them. Like, somebody on a bus.
Pot smoke goes all over.

What's a person to do, hold their breath? Wear a gas mask? That is just something I've kept thinking is the legal/illegal difference.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users