Well played USA.

Looks like Obama has kept his word, stopping the harsh federal raids on legal state medical cannabis industries.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091019/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_medical_marijuana

when did anyone who uses cannabis win at anything apart from the cannabis cup

theyre talking about patients. not pot smoking stinky hippy f***s

^ console games...

The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.

Heh wtf.. i didn't realise state-based medical marijuana facilities were in violation of federal law to exist. Classic!

when did anyone who uses cannabis win at anything

Swimming?

Heh wtf.. i didn't realise state-based medical marijuana facilities were in violation of federal law to exist. Classic!

There are people serving hard jailtime, 10-20+ years as a result of DEA raids on a legal state cannabis industry.

It's absolutely sickening, Obama said he would stop it when he was running for president.

Took a little while but he kept his word.

Legalized Pot is sweeping South America.
They want to focus Police resources on Cocaine and etc.
I was also reading that it might be coming to Mexico.

I think at some stage in the future Pot will be Legal.

i hope not because then it wouldnt be 'cool' and i'd have to stop doing it

when did anyone who uses cannabis win at anything

+1

twinkie eating contests?

Pot has always been legal and always will be.

There is a small caveat to this where it is currently not legal, but this is a very very very small anomaly in the grand scheme of history.

Pot has always been legal and always will be. There is a small caveat to this where it is currently not legal, but this is a very very very small anomaly in the grand scheme of history.

So it isn't legal right now, or is it? If it is not legal right now, does that mean your entire first sentence made no sense? Also are you talking about history as in recorded history, or speculated eternal history before pot existed and before the world? Are we blaming the big bang as the start of the very slow movement towards the banning of pot by creating it too? Or do you mean something less stoner influenced.

last edited by skythra at 16:20:43 19/Oct/09

The Beatles won best band of all time and they were potheads

I wonder if Tiger Woods smokes dope?

I'm pretty sure he doesn't have cancer but you know what I mean.

because hes black?

no skythra, it means you're a moron if that didn't instantly make sense to you

Shut the f*** up, thermite.

when did anyone who uses cannabis win at anything

http://www.theimproper.com/Images/Art/michael phelps gold medals.jpg

/just sayin

It didnt make sense to me either

Always legal... Always... but not right now. By definition, always wound include the present, as it is, you know, all encompassing.

So it isn't legal right now, or is it? If it is not legal right now, does that mean your entire first sentence made no sense?

sad to say it actually made sense to me
all hes saying is that over the lifetime of this planet, pot has only been ilegal the last 50 years or so

it is a "hiccup" in the grand scheme of things, considering its been legal for bajillionz of years before the last 50 or so

last edited by tequila at 16:43:31 19/Oct/09

so by that reasoning so has anything in the Criminal Code (that was not inherited from the common law), as it wasn't illegal before colonisation.

such as opium/heroin?

last edited by fade at 16:42:53 19/Oct/09

I bet Micheal Phelps wasn't hitting a cone or two everyday before his daily training session though!

Having one bong one time does not make you a "user".

haha you believe he just had the one bong the one time?
it was stated that he could "pull a cone like a pro"



the point made was pretty simple, a temporary ban on something doesn't mean it will last
f***, they used to burn witches at the stake until they realised how stupid that was

when someone gets their act together enough to take on legalisation of drugs (probably not in our life time) the universe will once again return to normal
just because its been banned since before we were born, doesn't necessarily mean its a bad thing

prostitution has been banned for longer than marijuana in a lot of places but its still widely accepted and even socially acceptable this day-in-age, all while being illegal

some people can see that a law is "stupid" so they decide to just ignore it
they've put a ban on smoking a 100% harmless (to anyone but the user) plant

not even a SINGLE reported death caused by marijuana anywhere on the planet yet its illegal when alcohol can get you just as f***ed up and causes many deaths each day, yet its perfectly legal

if you think pot smokers should be punished and alcohol abusers are fine because one is legal and one isn't, you amount to nothing more than a sheep and the government loves people like you who just do as you're told

fade your implying that opium and heroin were illegal before the creation of the criminal code? smoke-able opium was indeed outlawed in the 19th century as a means of stopping minorities getting high.. however it was still a common part of most medicines well into the 20th century, heck heroin wasn't outlawed til the 1950's in Australia.

last edited by Merky007 at 16:57:25 19/Oct/09

nah they were my examples of recent criminalisations.

More heroin overdoses today than in the 50s

You can really tell who's a stoner and who isn't in this thread. LOL.

Or those who believe in drug law reform and those who don't...

so by that reasoning so has anything in the Criminal Code (that was not inherited from the common law), as it wasn't illegal before colonisation.

such as opium/heroin?

Correct. Things like murder, theft, and rape have been illegal for thousands of years, throughout recorded human history. But there are certain laws that have only come into fashion in the last 100 years, and those are the ones you should question.

Correct. Things like murder, theft, and rape have been illegal for thousands of years, throughout recorded human history. But there are certain laws that have only come into fashion in the last 100 years, and those are the ones you should question.

uhhhhh, actually, i'm going to go ahead and say some of those stupid old laws are probably worth questioning too. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say there's probably more completely idiotic laws that are older than 100 years than there are newby laws

By that token should we question child sex laws? bearing in mind what was considered adulthood in past centuries?.

some laws have changed for the better (those above) but the drug laws, especially the laws against an unrefined dried plant are BS.. I'm not saying that all drugs are good, as I personally couldn't trust the content of a pill or a powder.

but when we consider A) the massive cost to society in a "war on drugs" and B) the rampant profiteering and corruption the sale of illicit drugs bring, we gotta ask ourselves is it worth it?

Or those who believe in drug law reform and those who don't...

One and the same isn't it? I mean, people aren't really going to be interested in drug law reforms unless they're unhappy with the current drug laws, and the people who would be unhappy with the current drug laws are the people taking the drugs?

Kinda like how the general public don't really give a s*** that theres no R18+ rating for video games in Australia, but gamers give a s*** because they're the ones being impacted by it.

Civil libertarians care about both though..

we should question laws that are in place only to save people from themselves
child sex laws protect children from adults
marijuana laws protect no one from nothin' because people who want to smoke pot can get their hands on it very easily

s*** I up and moved to a completely different state when I was about 19, I didn't know many people and I sure as s*** didn't know anyone who smoked pot
it took me about 1 week to find a good connect, I didn't even run out of the stash I took with me before I found a new supplier

its *everywhere*, it's just been pushed underground because of dudley do-right types

Why bother changing the law, who's it harming? OO yer the criminals LOL ;P

uhhhhh, actually, i'm going to go ahead and say some of those stupid old laws are probably worth questioning too. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say there's probably more completely idiotic laws that are older than 100 years than there are newby laws

I think you've placed too much importance on the word 'law' and the arbitrary number of years I chose to use in that post. I'm thinking of the stuff obvious to tribal societies vs things decided by politicians playing the power game.



last edited by thermite at 17:32:43 19/Oct/09

I think drug laws proliferate the criminal culture with in Australia, if I came from another country and saw the gross flirting of the drug laws in place I might easily be led to believe that other laws were up for question..

but what if they were decriminalized or even legalized? suddenly it wouldn't be breaking the law, and seriously, are you saying that a non-violent victimless crime is likely to inspire crimes that harm others? isn't that a bit far-fetched?

hey knock yourself out, someone has to be the dregs.

No but I believe that other non-violent crimes like theft and fraud might stem from criminality originally conceived in illegal drug use

I think it could be a co-relation not causation, imitation. in my experience the only thing taking drugs has lead to is munchies.. its almost as if your applying the gateway argument to all crimes in general and that's a bit silly.

In relation to straight up dope, let me ask you this.. is it bad because its illegal? or illegal because its bad? bearing in mine there has been ZERO cases of marijuana overdose.

bearing in mine there has been ZERO cases of marijuana overdose.

I tried for awhile to be the first but it just doesn't happen.

http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Matt/This-isnt-based-on-real-life,-Mom!-I-swear!.png

either that's the most awesome or most stupid way to O.D. or commit suicide :P

The laws that drive drugs into the blackmarket create more opportunity for crime. The sorts of people who 'take on' the business of selling drugs may have already been involved in the sale of illegal weapons and involved with organised crime, and the lack of legal protection for buyers/sellers/distributors/growers is likely to create criminal solutions to their problems.

People who would otherwise not involve themselves with such people are now forced to turn to them for supply, and that creates a network of crime with more people exposed to becoming involved in other criminal activities.


last edited by thermite at 18:50:21 19/Oct/09

smoking weed is bad... vapour is the way of the future, baby!

and thank you thermite. by legalizing drugs suddenly black market operations would need to try and profiteer from other sources. Frankly that would cripple most organized crime.. After all Pablo Escobar didn't become so rich by importing candy into the US.

nose candy, yeah he did!

why is cocaine illegal? it's just cocoa leaves

This isn't why it's illegal but there is a difference between cocaine and coca leaves.

Cocaine is an extract. People have been using the leaves for centuries with no need for rehab. As cocaine it's sort of a bastardisation of coca, being the concentrated essence of the plant.

really?

yep.

i had coca tea in peru, it's pretty much just a cup of s*** tasting coffee. except it helps with altitude sickness.

i also sampled some other products made from coca leaves while in south america. they were pretty great.

to turn coca leaves into nose candy takes a fair bit of refining and processing. it involves pretty nasty chemicals like kerosene and s*** iirc.

yarly, they used to chew cocoa leaves to get high
then some smart ass decided to extract the potent bit and take heaps more of it, hence the current problems (read: awesome coke we now get)

if we extracted pure thc and put it into a needle, im sure someone somewhere would fire that s*** up into their arm - but they'd probably find themselves sobering up in the slammer after trying to eat every box of pop tarts in the isle at woolies

OH WHY THANKYOU THERMITE

wow my sarcasm was that hard to detect?

theres a loophole in the states that allows for medicinal use. medicinal can be anything you want it to be and most of the prescribing 'doctors' of weed will prescribe it for anything.

but they can't just come out one day and go BAM its now legal, it would cause a s***fight. its legalization by stealth, keeps everyone happy, just like amsterdam.

just like its now legal in WA to grow your own plants and have 10g in your possession.

maybe people have finally realised its not the big bad boogy man people with vested interests in keeping it illegal would have you believe.

In the same way cocaine is an extract of coca, hash oil is an extract of cannabis, and opium/morphine is an extract of opium poppy. Here's something interesting, if you did the same thing with tobacco from a cigarette, and ate a few drops of the extract, it would kill you.

edit; well you would probably need a s***load of cigarettes to get a few drops

last edited by thermite at 20:26:54 19/Oct/09

cainer unfortunately until today that wasn't so good of a loop hole, as medical marijuana distribution centers were stilled targeted by federal agents, thank god that's now closed. besides its not very sporting is it?

why spend years tracking an organized crime syndicate, finding their means of distrubtion and supply. etc. when you can drive round the block and knock over a dispensry :D. maybe the DEA will actually have to work for their busts now.

just like its now legal in WA to grow your own plants and have 10g in your possession.

maybe people have finally realised its not the big bad boogy man people with vested interests in keeping it illegal would have you believe.

legal or decrimimalised?

many people flood to Canberra and SA for the freedoms. Still, when you're filling out a Visa application it needs to be clear - especially if you're traveling to the hellhole USA or another country that has an aggressive zero tolerance stance

ta for the Mick Phelps reference. it's a shame that we can point to a sports-person instead of an administrative member of the media, Qgl-admin, member of parliament, popular Hollywood actor, member of the clergy, Fed IT admins, school teachers, game developers, programmers, musicians, members of parliament etc, etc.


sorry I meant "can't"

last edited by koopz at 21:14:33 19/Oct/09

I think at some stage in the future Pot will be Legal.
------------Here's to hoping ! cough! cough!

stop coughing and pass the bong!

and get in the pool you yuppy!

I think at some stage in the future Pot will be Legal.

I'll settle for a decent govt-run education scheme.


I wore a condom all thru teenage and early adult years thanks to the school/uni education that helped. I'd like to hear the govt say 'say NO to skunk/highly potent weed' and recommend something else and a way to tell the difference.



last edited by koopz at 21:53:33 19/Oct/09

remember kids, spliffs before school won't zonk you out as bad as cones.

cocoa is different to coca pave ya d******* :P

oh. So I should stop trying to snort chocolate then?

yeah, you shelve that you rookie!

I just wanted to bring up the point of "Its always been illegal until now"

and I wanted to bring up a few inventions in the last 50 years we should throw away using the exact same thought train.

Skythra's list of "Unnatural order of change in humans that we should throw out because it didn't exist 50 years ago:

1955--TV REMOTE CONTROL
1955--MICROWAVE OVEN
1957--BIRTH-CONTROL PILL
1958--JET AIRLINER
1959--FLOAT GLASS
1961--CORDLESS TOOLS
1961--INDUSTRIAL ROBOT
1962--COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE
1962--LED
1964--UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES
1964--MUSIC SYNTHESIZER
1966--HIGH-YIELD RICE
1969--SMOKE DETECTOR
1969--CHARGE-COUPLED DEVICE
1970--DIGITAL MUSIC
1971--WAFFLE-SOLE RUNNING SHOES
1972--ELECTRONIC IGNITION
1973--MRI
1978--GPS
1981--SCANNING TUNNELING MICROSCOPE
1984--DNA FINGERPRINTING
1985--POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION
1987--PROZAC
1998--GENETIC SEQUENCING
2002--IEEE 802.16


Now i'm not trying to say pot is or isn't bad. I don't really care. But the arguement that because its only been around IN LAW for 50 years as illegal and therefore it shouldn't be illegal, well that makes no f***ing sense. Let alone the specific and liberal use of the word "always".

I'm using this in case your dopey mind couldn't figure it out, as an example of things that for the last 50 years have been invented to help mankind. Such as technology and knowledge has grown in 50 years, it is certain that we learn what is and isn't good for us. I'm not saying that we've discovered its bad, I don't actually know (or care), I'm just saying that using history as an ultimate to today's thinking throws out new knowledge, and that is just hippy talk right there.

Also why is everyone focused on cocaine? Is it the new pot or something.. or was pot just not quite hardcore enough?

I got on the tram yesterday heading home from work and caught a big whiff of the MARY-JANE smoke. True story.

Skythra you've compared law with technology, don't really follow your analogy..

Hahaha and I like that you listed Prozac...

yeah I think you completely missed the point skythra, in the last 50 years it was only made illegal because of POLITICAL reasons

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=marijuana%2Bdupont

skythra, those are inventions, you can't go back on them. You can go back on stupid laws that were created for the wrong reasons. There was no brilliant inventor that discovered pot should be illegal, infact the 'reasons' politicians used were lies.
Having the ability to turn scientific research into technology is not the same skill as making decisions about the law.

Arguments for or against cannabis criminslation based on the age of the laws are spurious. The law should be critiqued based on its merits, its age is a ridiculous yard stick.

But as a matter of perspective it is worth keeping in mind that prohibition and war on drugs is something typical of this point in history, not how it's always been, and given the trends, not how it will always be. A lot of people today have a certain mindset about things that are currently illegal, because they were raised with all the rumour and propaganda of our current leaders.

Arguments for or against cannabis criminslation based on the age of the laws are spurious.

except when a great deal of importance lies in how and why (+when) the laws were introduced?
If you consider that even 50,000 years ago pot was legal and it has been up until the last 50 years - you're looking at a drop in the ocean
The law was introduced for financial & political reasons right after WW-II, not because of any stigma related to smoking a plant

pretty sure there was no legal or illegal at all until only a few thousand years ago, which is pretty shakey to use as an example at best considering there really were no laws as such all the way back when humans stopped being nomads and developed communities

so your arguments about time are nothing more than stoner talk

pretty sure there was no legal or illegal at all until only a few thousand years ago,

A few thousand years is very different to ~70 years.

pretty sure we know a lot more about it now in recent times like everything else than we did before

except when a great deal of importance lies in how and why (+when) the laws were introduced?

The when is almost irrelevant.

It is law now. To have it changed, a case must be made why, with special focus on the assessed impact of the change - particularly expected benefits to society. "The law is only 70 years old" is not a strong case at all.

Drink driving legislation is about the same age, should we repeal that as well? Of course not.

It is law now. To have it changed, a case must be made why, with special focus on the assessed impact of the change - particularly expected benefits to society. "The law is only 70 years old" is not a strong case at all.

The cases have been made for decades, it's clear that cannabis should be legal.

All the old f***ers are just stubborn though.

Clearly they haven't been made well enough.

Tip: Its not true because CHUB says so.

that's a pro-tip hoggie

Clearly they haven't been made well enough.

Yes it has, over and over for half a century.

No those are VALID arguements, the original arguement was nothing about politics or why. It was quite literally "Because it was okay for 50billion years, it should be okay now and the future" which makes no sense. It doesn't take into account change within society morals values and ethics, nor does it take into account advances within medicine or technology or other things.

I'm not saying that the reasons for it being banned 50 years ago were right. But for the argument to make sense you have to explain it a little better than "its the nature of the universe to always be as it was". You'd actually have to give the argument that its politics or it's a misunderstanding socially, or its because of corrupt individuals.

Those are arguments based on logic and reasoning. Not based on some random statement about the universe and an irrelevant past.

give them a break skythra, they are stoners after all

It's quite simple.

It's non-toxic, creates no violence or crime, doesn't alter your basic judgement/personality, doesn't drastically affect your coordination, easy to grow/simple to dose and requires no government oversight.

There's no good argument for keeping it illegal, it's just a massive drain on taxpayers while making recreational smokers into criminals.

I honestly can't believe people still support prohitibition.

last edited by CHUB at 12:27:33 20/Oct/09

haha chub, maybe doesn't have those effects on you

but really, talking for everyone? my brother is a living example of just about all of those negative effects weed and other drugs have had on him. so really you're speaking out of your ass chub

oh well my man kevin is going to listen to 1 stoner that doesn't have any negative effects on society etc

of course he is

i honestly can't believe you think weed is some wonder drug that everyone can smoke and has zero negative effects on people and society

It's got negative effects on the person smoking.

On society? No.

From Wikipedia's article on Arguments for and agianst drug prohibition

Marijuana is far more powerful than it used to be. In 2000, there were six times as many emergency room mentions of marijuana use as there were in 1990, despite the fact that the number of people using marijuana is roughly the same. In 1999, a record 225,000 Americans entered substance abuse treatment primarily for marijuana dependence, second only to heroin—and not by much. [...] According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, “Studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.” Marijuana contains more than 400 chemicals, including the most harmful substances found in tobacco smoke. For example, smoking one marijuana cigarette deposits about four times more tar into the lungs than a filtered tobacco cigarette. [...] The short-term effects are also harmful. They include: memory loss, distorted perception, trouble with thinking and problem solving, loss of motor skills, decrease in muscle strength, increased heart rate, and anxiety. Marijuana impacts young people’s mental development, their ability to concentrate in school, and their motivation and initiative to reach goals. And marijuana affects people of all ages: Harvard University researchers report that the risk of a heart attack is five times higher than usual in the hour after smoking marijuana.

I can personally attest to the bolded lines. I know for a 100% fact that in my previous career I missed a state office promotion because of a marijuana hangover. The State Manager who was masively behind me for the new job came in and I was a clusterf*** of mumbles and total lack of clarity.

Is it worse than alcohol? Dunno. Its certainly not a substance that does no harm to the user though. I don't know a single person who is successful in their field (ie not a drudge worker) who smokes every day.

One day I will be a daily dope fiend again, as I have M.S. its almost inevitable. But there's no way I wnat that before I need to.

last edited by Hogfather at 12:41:54 20/Oct/09

On society? No.

Really?


i guess you don't consider sitting on your ass on the dole smoking cones all day as a negative effect on society chub, but really it is and that's exactly what he does

too lazy to go and find a job not that any c*** would employ him, will work if my dad has some painting work for him but as for actually putting any other effort in that's too much hassle.

we've been raided by cops twice now because of his addiction and the f***head stoners he hangs around with

he's also spent a couple of months up at the psych ward at chermside, which involved ambos and cops to get him there. which was also at tax payer expense

he is a complete and utter deads*** to us and society, all of this stemmed from smoking weed.

Yeh, cannabis users will claim that the only cost is to themselves.

Legislators need to consider the cost to society. There is no doubt that pot smokers very often become unproductive and difficult to employ. Pursuing illegal smoking costs money, but so does the overhead of a non-productive drug subculture.

Decriminalisation would result in more smokers. The question is whether the cost on society of this increase is offset by the reduction in prosecutions.

he is a complete and utter deads*** to us and society, all of this stemmed from smoking weed.

I guarantee you this isn't true. 100% in your imagination.

There is a saying; drugs cause madness and hysteria - in those people that aren't taking them.

Legislators need to consider the cost to society.

The cost is only there if you want it to be. Plus society exists to serve us. People don't exist just to keep society running. Perhaps society needs to change. If it means people will work less overall - maybe that's the way it's meant to be.

We do live in a drug culture now whether you like it or not - we are actively encouraged to eat sugar and caffeine and pharmaceuticals - things that some a****** has deemed will help productivity. That's just as objectionable from many of the viewpoints raised in this thread.




last edited by thermite at 13:15:49 20/Oct/09

you cant talk s*** about pot if you do other illegal drugs, pot being the most tame out there
any damage done by pot is done 1000x worse by almost anything else like mdma/cocoa/pseudoephedrine etc

It is law now. To have it changed, a case must be made why

There was never a case made as to why it should be illegal
innocent until proven guilty right?

It's no worse than alcohol except no one could profit from banning alcohol
If tomorrow someone somewhere figured out that by making alcohol illegal, they could make 11ty trillion dollars, they'd be taking steps to ban it

Dupont wanted pot banned because it was going to destroy their revenue
that isn't a good enough reason to ban a natural substance imo

I guarantee you this isn't true. 100% in your imagination.

so fill me

you cant talk s*** about pot if you do other illegal drugs, pot being the most tame out there

oh come on

the reason i stopped smoking weed was because it made me feel like a deads***

last edited by paveway at 13:20:54 20/Oct/09

Even if pot is harmful, there is no need to make stuff that's harmful illegal. There is plenty of stuff out there you can hurt yourself with. I don't think that should even be a factor. All kinds of illegal drugs would be much safer if they were legal and sold in pharmacies. It's quite obvious people are going to do it anyway - it seems like we were evolved exactly for drugs to work.

so fill me

There is nothing more to say. You have given some second hand anecdotal evidence, which is something that is known to usually be false. Also Correlation != Causation. It is very likely that someone who was a deads*** already would choose to smoke marijuana to pass their time. Perhaps he is also addicted to other drugs that he is hiding from you. If researchers looked into his case they might find a more practical problem.





last edited by thermite at 13:27:00 20/Oct/09

Heh, thermite is pro-legalisation.

I think that wraps up my need to contribute further.

I am for a restricted government. They give us more freedom, we give them less tax money. Some laws and services are necessary, but drugs are none of the government's business.

God I wish s***kunts like teq and chub didn't make pot smokers look retarded :(

Your brother just sounds lazy paveway.

Time at a psych hospital? wtf? How old is your bro, everyone in our group has been smoking daily for 10-15 years and noone has gone crazy yet.

The cops raiding is because of the law... I agree with you though cop raids f***ing suck, I've been raided plenty times and it still scares the s*** out of me, especially when they choose to battering ram down the door by surprise instead of just knocking like a normal human being.

oh come on

the reason i stopped smoking weed was because it made me feel like a deads***

it made *you* feel like a dead s***, it doesn't make everyone feel the same way


your brother was going to end up the way he did no matter what, if weed didn't f*** him up something else would have - he obviously has a chemical imbalance
weed can be a catalyst for people going off the rails but so can alcohol and other drugs

I smoke weed and I've never been locked up, same goes for millions of other people around the world

God I wish s***kunts like teq and chub didn't make pot smokers look retarded :(

uh?

http://dingo.net.au/media/slugman/FPOT_SLUGMAN.jpg

if someone has a terminal illness, and they are getting the supply through a regulated means i say go for it, i mean they are f***ed anyways.

but as for having a chuff like going down the pub, stoners are second class citizens.

I could just throw a blanket statement out there that anyone who drinks alcohol is a second class citizen?

They're more likely to end up on the dole, more likely to kill someone in a crash
more likely to die themselves, more likely to cost the country money in health care?

alcohol is WAY worse than pot yet its legal, no one can explain that


go watch reefer madness for f*** sake

Just because alchohol is worse isn't really a good excuse for saying that we should have both problems.

its not supposed to be an excuse, its a reply to the argument that pot was a terrible drug
its never killed anyone, ever

Take on pot:

its never killed anyone, ever

Take on alcohol:

more likely to kill someone in a crash

From earlier:

distorted perception, trouble with thinking and problem solving, loss of motor skills

I already posted crap in the last one of these threads that constantly ends up the same-f***ing-way every single time so I'm not going to bother with this one but as a side note - while I don't entirely disagree with what you're getting at teq, you may want to look at how you're justifying yourself on both sides of the fence - ie direct causes and indirect causes

B+

yeah pretty sure if he didn't start smoking weed 24/7 he wouldn't be where he's at today.

look at colin, i knew colin since grade 2 and he was a smart kid really should have gone on to finish uni at a minimum then he meets ashley and starts smoking cones. how many times has he tried to do uni? 0 motivation

too easy to go home and f*** everything, lets get high

That's a silly statement (teq's pot has never killed anyone line).

Cannabis abuse has destroyed many lives. Its assertions like the above that is why people don't take the dope lobby seriously, you have a skewed opinion of the drug and refuse to openly acknowledge its dangers.

last edited by Hogfather at 16:55:12 20/Oct/09

Really the only argument for it coming in would be as a direct replacement for alcohol. But I'm pretty sure there has been a lot more research into alcohol than there has been in pot. I'm not all for keeping the evil i know rather then the evil I don't, I'd rather keep the point that more research should be done and alcohol should probably be reduced on a social scale. Not a lawful one mind you.

Drug laws treat the symptoms of society and not the causes of drug use, I think that's the unfortunate truth about them, they are now a bandaid over a society in which a large number prefers to numb itself to reality than actively contribute to it.

Hogfather, what are you talking about? Whose life has pot destroyed? The only way it can destroy a life if by making someone less popular in the anti-drug crowd - some people may view that as destroying their life. Like someone that has lost his job after a blood test. It wasn't marijuana's fault - it was a****** society's fault.
Alcohol and Tobacco do kill people - cannabis does not destroy lives or kill anybody.

Zero. Not a single one. EVER.

You are the one who is making false assertions.

meh whatever you look like complete clowns following this 'not killed anyone, not destroyed anyones life' argument

hey guys it's the wonder drug

hey guys god created the earth in 7 days, the bible tells me so

last edited by paveway at 17:14:05 20/Oct/09

Umm you look like a clown paveway because this is quite well known. If even a single person in history has ever died from marijuana it should be easy for you to prove yourself correct.

Hogfather, what are you talking about? Whose life has pot destroyed? The only way it can destroy a life if by making someone less popular in the anti-drug crowd - some people may view that as destroying their life. Like someone that has lost his job after a blood test. It wasn't marijuana's fault - it was a****** society's fault.
Alcohol and Tobacco do kill people - cannabis does not destroy lives or kill anybody.

Zero. Not a single one. EVER.

You are the one who is making false assertions.

man even my casual knowledge of cannabis knows there's a f***ton of speculation about the negative effects of it on health

- smoking is bad
- "Cannabis use moderately increases the risk of psychotic symptoms in young people but has a much stronger effect in those with evidence of predisposition for psychosis."
- links with schizophrenia

They are just cherry plucked off wikipedia; a half-assed glance indicates the jury is still out, but you're making declarative claims that I feel you have no authority making, unless you can indicate that you've done half of this research yourself or something

excessive pot smoking can lead to reggae music :(

i-man serve selassie i continually. no matter what the weak heart say. and i know that i & i is like a tree, plant by the river of water, and not even the dog that piss against the wall of babylon shall escape this judgment. for i & i know that all of the youth shall witness the day that babylon shall fall!

Umm you look like a clown paveway because this is quite well known. If even a single person in history has ever died from marijuana it should be easy for you to prove yourself correct.

has anyone died directly from smoking a cigarette?! or drinking a beer?! probably not eh

Alcohol and tobacco related deaths are well documented trog - why don't you have a quick google comparing what you'll find 'alcohol death' 'tobacco death' 'marijuana death'

I will concede that smoking generally is bad, and it may affect people with psychosis/schizo differently than healthy people.

last edited by thermite at 17:31:22 20/Oct/09

where have i ever said it directly kills people thermite?

please quote me

ya f***in clown

last edited by paveway at 17:27:18 20/Oct/09

You implied it with this:

meh whatever you look like complete clowns following this 'not killed anyone, not destroyed anyones life' argument

What did you mean?

paveway, as much as it pains me to say it, is right.

thermite is a total retard and CHUB just defies all explanation anyway.

Instead of just stroking paveway's cock, why don't you explain what you mean frakture?

Nah, I'm not engaging in a debate with an obvious moron.

You are dismissed thermite.

You don't need to be like that. But since you are - I have something to tell you. I'm right. You're wrong.

This isn't my opinion.

This isn't anybody's opinion.

This is fact.

I hate to be a f***wit and just come out and say that - but IT IS THE TRUTH.

You are living a lie - you are a victim of misinformation. I can't blame you for that, I have to feel sorry for you.

You are probably making other mistakes in life similar to the one you are making in this thread.

But I can blame you for continuing to be stubborn when faced with the TRUTH SCREAMING AT YOUR FACE.

i stopped smoking pot because it made me unhappy, all i could think about when i was stoned was bad stuff, got mega paranoid and introverted from it;

wasnt like that when i started, but thats where i ended up, so i stopped;

i stopped smoking pot because it made me unhappy, all i could think about when i was stoned was bad stuff, got mega paranoid and introverted from it;

wasnt like that when i started, but thats where i ended up, so i stopped;

No, you are mistaken, please read thermite's posts

has anyone died directly from smoking a cigarette?! or drinking a beer?!

ever had your stomache pumped?
neither have I, because I drink in moderation - and even when I don't, I just pass out
but there are plenty of people out there who have died as a direct result of too much alcohol

ie, their night starts out getting drunk with a mate, 12 hours later they're dead from an overdose of alcohol
same s*** with other harder drugs

absolute worst case with weed is you wake up with a dry mouth and you're hungry like a mother f***er, the "unsafe" level of pot has (so far) never been reached

people die all the time from popping too many pills though, but hey - they're ok because they dont make you feel like a deads***?

colins a special case, he never had any motivation long before he got onto the bong
I have smoked longer and harder than colin ever did, I seem to do alright

just because it has a negative effect on a few doesn't mean the whole should have it taken away from them

aboriginals in NT have alcohol taken away from them but the white fellas are allowed to drink?

absolute worst case with weed is you wake up with a dry mouth and you're hungry like a mother f***er, the "unsafe" level of pot has (so far) never been reached

I am pretty sure you can say the same thing about cigarettes though

man even my casual knowledge of cannabis knows there's a f***ton of speculation about the negative effects of it on health

- smoking is bad
- "Cannabis use moderately increases the risk of psychotic symptoms in young people but has a much stronger effect in those with evidence of predisposition for psychosis."
- links with schizophrenia

They are just cherry plucked off wikipedia; a half-assed glance indicates the jury is still out, but you're making declarative claims that I feel you have no authority making, unless you can indicate that you've done half of this research yourself or something

just for some perspective there's also quite a bit of speculation about positive effects THC, CBN, CBD and other cannabinoids can play in human health and medical treatments:

Cannabis smokers face lower risk of head and neck cancer: http://www.examiner.com/x-8543-SF-Health-News-Examiner~y2009m8d11-Cannabis-smokers-face-LOWER-risk-of-head-and-neck-cancer

Smoking marijuana does not increase risk of lung cancer: http://www.alternet.org/story/142271/

or if you prefer the actual study (i really dislike alternet.org): “Marijuana Use and the Risk of Lung and Upper Aerodigestive Tract Cancers: Results of a Population-Based Case-Control Study” by Mia Hashibe1, Hal Morgenstern, Yan Cui, Donald P. Tashkin, Zuo-Feng Zhang, Wendy Cozen, Thomas M. Mack and Sander Greenland

Marijuana-Schizophrenia link is very questionable: http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/Schizophrenia-link-cannabis-denied/article-1288926-detail/article.html

Cannabinoids show potential for prostate cancer treatment: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/65/5/1635.pdf

Cannabinoids show potential for breast cancer treatment (or so someone explained this paper to me, it's a bit too science-y for me :D): http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/141/1/118

Cannabinoids may shrink cancerous tumors: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512158,00.html




and that's from 5 mins googling, trog. just thought a little perspective was in order :-).

last edited by taggs at 18:44:13 20/Oct/09

I bet people have died from smoking a few cones and going for a drive then smashing their car, weed didn't do it though.

Ciggies don't kill you, it's the cancer. So ciggies are OK right?

and that's from 5 mins googling, trog. just thought a little perspective was in order :-).

Yeh, I read those too; my point wasn't that the studies say that its totally dangerous, just that I think its retarded to say that it's totally safe

agreed!

but banning something because it may be unsafe is a fairly spurious reason wouldn't you agree? if we banned everything that might be unsafe, as well as the stuff we know isn't safe, that would make life pretty goddamn boring.



anyway, neither side is going to convince the other so why don't we all chill out maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.

. Like someone that has lost his job after a blood test. It wasn't marijuana's fault - it was a****** society's fault.
Alcohol and Tobacco do kill people - cannabis does not destroy lives or kill anybody.

a****** society's fault? Or maybe it was the dude that smoked a spliff before his blood test. Impaired thinking doesn't exactly lend itself to certain jobs, usually the ones that do blood tests.
Don't kid yourself into thinking that smoking pot makes you a super mind and doesn't compromise your judgment.

Alcohol doesn't kill you, the liver failure does. It wasn't alcoholic though, no no. It was the person drinking it, right?

So you are saying that smoking weed has never been directly involved in a chain of events that lead to a death, a death that could have been avoided by not smoking greenery? I bet it has.

and that's from 5 mins googling, trog. just thought a little perspective was in order :-).

I'm not sure that anyone was arguing that there havn't been finding on both sides of the fence.

But the real problem here is when it is widespread and every deads*** treats it in binges, what kind of effects are we going to see?

And everyone is so concerned by the health ramifications, but really it affects a lot of different people differently and we will never know how differenly it is until it goes okay on a mass scale. To be fair, clean pot may actually not be so bad, but I'm not one to make that claim.

What I'm worried about is more the effect that it would have on society, replace pot instead of beer in pubs. We go out have a splif after work. I know probably a bunch of you already do it. But how does that affect motivation? If we were to give 100 people and study their work habits. And then again get them replacing their habitual drinking with habitual pot smoking and study the differences in their lifestyle and see what would happen. Do they work as hard? Do they keep good relationships with those around them? Do they improve their life or do they start breaking it down?

I know beer has affected me at work, i've turned up hungover and miserable from a bad weekend. I know beer has affected me after work and in relationships with women and my family. If i were to directly replace these with pot, how would these things change?

last edited by skythra at 18:58:35 20/Oct/09

the world would end

bah same old s***

lots of fallacious arguments from personal experience - ie. 'i knew this c*** who smoked pot 24/7 and turned out to be a total drop kick'. what are you actually trying to say? everyone that smokes pot will do so without any moderation and will destroy their life? its like presenting some old alco dude who's wrecked his liver as an example of what happens to every person that drinks beer.

the thing both sides need to remember is that there will always be d*******s out there that will take it upon themselves to screw their life up. sure, some of them will do it with the assistance of weed. some alcohol. you're breezing passed the fact that the majority of citizens do in fact look out for their own self interest and moderate their behaviour accordingly. presenting the worst case scenario and ignoring those who enjoy pot in moderation does little to give credence to your argument.

as for the health pro/cons - yes, if you smoke 30 cones a day you should expect to experience long term health complications (lung damage etc). however, based on toxicity and addictiveness pot is absolutely benign when compared with other drugs such as caffeine, paracetemol and alcohol.

debating the safety of smoking pot is an excercise in pissing in the wind. if someone wants to smoke it, they will do so regardless of its legal status. this is a fact that both sides need to recognise, as we've seen prohibition has simply moved the supply to the black market. whenever there is demand there will be supply.

the debate should instead focus on the externalities borne by society as a result of prohibition and vice versa. off the top of my head :

prohibition

- underground criminal enterprises raking in a tax free income of hundreds of millions of dollars - enterprises that exist on violence and intimidation (dealers won't call the cops if they get knocked over by another rival seller, instead they'll get their boys together to go wreak havoc).
- a huge financial burden on tax payers to support the police force's (absolutely futile) attempts to curtail marijuana sales and consumption. on top of this you have costs associated with the legal system, incarceration etc.
- pot dealers that don't require ID and will happily sell to minors.

legalisation

- an increase in the availability of the drug that may lead to higher rates of use.
- a massive increase in tax revenue to offset the direct costs (health etc.) of higher usage.
- a new cottage industry for farmers working fields in arid or otherwise imperfect conditions.
- the elimination of the black market.


etc etc

at the end of the day, its easy to argue why someone should not smoke pot in support of an argument for prohibition. this is a bit stupid though, people are going to smoke pot regardless of its legal status. based on this, my opinion is that we should look for the solution that provides a safe source of marijuana for users in a way that provides a suitable amount of tax revenue for government. instead of the legalisation of commercial growing and sales, the government could instead issues licences to users so they could grow for personal use.

lots of words here so im not sure if this will make much sense. just my 2 cents..

debating the safety of smoking pot is an excercise in pissing in the wind. if someone wants to smoke it, they will do so regardless of its legal status. this is a fact that both sides need to recognise, as we've seen prohibition has simply moved the supply to the black market. whenever there is demand there will be supply.

I'd just like to point out that this is not necessarily true (or atr least not 100%).

I'm fairly comfortable asserting that prohibition reduces consumption to some degree. Certainly more people would try pot if was legal. Many people simply don't have any real contact with cannabis.

I certainly don't anymore. I would have to go to a pretty big effort to score or do something stupid like ask around at a pub.

very sensible post and bonus points for using the word externality (econ jargon makes me hard).

this noob can stick around.

meh whatever you look like complete clowns following this 'not killed anyone, not destroyed anyones life' argument


What did you mean?

so you're going to state on qgl today that no one has ever died indirectly from weed use, one way or another thermite

I'd just like to point out that this is not necessarily true (or atr least not 100%).

I'm fairly comfortable asserting that prohibition reduces consumption to some degree. Certainly more people would try pot if was legal. Many people simply don't have any real contact with cannabis.

I certainly don't anymore. I would have to go to a pretty big effort to score or do something stupid like ask around at a pub.

Cmon now, you don't really believe that do you?

Anyone that wants to smoke, currently smokes.

The legality isn't stopping anyone from smoking at all, it's widely avaliable to anyone and everyone (including children), 24/7.

Every single person on this board knows somebody that smokes (and can get obtain) cannabis.

So what exactly are the laws doing? Nothing bar making cops chase cannabis users/dealers/growers around, arresting them, fining them (nobody goes to jail for cannabis anymore), then the cycle repeats, nobody stops smoking. Meanwhile, a s***load of taxpayer money is spent on prohibition and the cannabis usage rate/avaliability stays exactly the same.

Surely the justice system has some sort of goal? The way they're handling it at the moment, smoking cannabis doesn't really get you into much trouble. I've never been placed in handcuffs, never taken to a police station, never even had a conviction recorded.

So I dunno, looks like it's here to stay forever, except we'll let the blackmarket sell it to children (hey, derros sold it to me when I was 15).

/shrug

last edited by CHUB at 22:42:54 20/Oct/09

wow i really dont have time fro these hardcore threads anymore :(

when did anyone who uses cannabis win at anything

No. twisties packets consumed at 3am

You are wrong CHUB, your experiences probably coloured because of the world you live in where dope is everywhere.

I can only speak from my own experience. I stopped smoking dope in Sydney and moved to Cairns years ago, nobody I know smokes and in order to score I would need to travel to NSW or do the stupid pub thing.

I've been at parties where someone broke out a spliff and people who otherwise don't smoke have had a toke. These people do not smoke dope in any regular capacity, do not pursue it, and yet when it was made available to them in a social context they smoked it.

100% if dope was more available consumption would rise, if only because it would be impossible for supply to become dry. But seriously, not everyone who would smoke or try dope does while its illegal - some people actually obey the law! Your assertions contrary are just the rantings of a stoner trying to justify legalisation.

last edited by Hogfather at 09:33:20 21/Oct/09

also thermites big defense of this issue might shine some light on some of the absolute nonsensical bulls*** he comes out with on here sometimes

debating the safety of smoking pot is an excercise in pissing in the wind. if someone wants to smoke it, they will do so regardless of its legal status. this is a fact that both sides need to recognise, as we've seen prohibition has simply moved the supply to the black market. whenever there is demand there will be supply.

I'm fairly comfortable asserting that prohibition reduces consumption to some degree. Certainly more people would try pot if was legal. Many people simply don't have any real contact with cannabis.

I think this is not a wise assertion.

If alcohol was illegal less people would use (or use it less often) it as the cost to get it would increase. There are at least a few people who refuse to use cannabis on the basis that it is illegal. Same theory applies.

^haha i hate those people!!

So can the people stoners who think that prohibiton doesn't reduce consmption explain why pot is so expensive - up to half the price of gold by weight?!

Its a naturally-occuring weed, quite easily grown. There is no reason for it to be so exxy, other than supply constraint. Supply constraint == reduced consumption.

If your brain worked properly and you weren't trying to prove that pot was a wonder drug with no downside (seriously, get f***ed!) you'd realise this was clear and obvious.

i'm hi-5'ing you in my mind hoggie


hi5

if making it legal would increase usage then how come only 6.1% of dutch citizens smoke weed compared to over double that in australia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_cannabis_use_by_country

Because its a different country with an altogether different culture?

Because the Netherlands has a very strict unemployment benefits scheme and you can't get away with sitting on your arse all day pulling bongs?

Because it is discussing only a population percentage which is nowhere near the whole story of consumption?

Or are you (very stupidly) trying to make a case that consumption would somehow drop if pot were legal?

last edited by Hogfather at 11:53:07 21/Oct/09

I like to think that if alcohol was illegal it would be consumed even more, just like in the simpsons :)

(Beer barron episode was fantastic)

Beer Baron episode was epic but prohibiting alcohol would massively reduce consumption. See Northern Australia "Dry Communities".

How could cartoons lie to me :(

If your brain worked properly

such an ironical ad hominem attack coming from the guy with MS. i hope you enjoy your impending cognitive (and physical LOL) impairment.

throughout this thread you have relied upon gross generalisations (logical fallacy : appeal to common sense) in support of your argument. a selection of these are as follows :

There is no doubt that pot smokers very often become unproductive and difficult to employ.

this is a prime example of a blanket generalisation without integrity. there is no doubt according to who? how often is very often? it's a completely baseless comment without credence outside your own mind. you've essentially painted the vast majority of cannabis users with the cliched stereotype of the lazy couch hogging stoner.

Cannabis abuse has destroyed many lives.

how many? what qualifies as a 'destroyed life'? please clarify this for me, in the context of these people's lives you contend that cannabis abuse is the sole and only factor that has led to their unfortunate demise? another baseless and uncited comment from the prince of bulls***.

There is no reason for it to be so exxy, other than supply constraint

i kept reading your latest post with a cockeyed look on my face. i am in complete disbelief that you cannot fathom a single reason outside of supply constraints that determine the price of marijuana. profit? transport? grow costs? middleman fees? etc etc.

i'll give you the benefit of the doubt though. in summation, your argument reads along these lines : marijuana has disastrous and life-ending consequences for every person that uses the substance, ending prohibition would increase use, more users = more consequences = more cost to society, therefore we should maintain prohibition.

you argument focuses solely on the negative repercussions that would be brought about under legalisation (ie. more usage) whilst conveniently glossing over the vast number of positives it would bring. these include :

- an end to an unwinnable, futile and hugely expensive 'war on drugs'.
- access to a clean and sterile supply of marijuana that is federally regulated. users could pick the strain/potency to better moderate their usage.
- suppliers that maintained a strict 18+ policy similiar to those in bottle shops and pubs.
- the complete elimination of black market profiteers.
- tax revenue to mitigate the cost to society (health issues) resulting from cannabis consumption.
- the creation of a new, multi-million dollar cultivation industry.

etc etc

It is law now. To have it changed, a case must be made why, with special focus on the assessed impact of the change - particularly expected benefits to society.

how have i done?

ps.

I don't know a single person who is successful in their field (ie not a drudge worker) who smokes every day.

well now you know an investment bank credit analyst. plenty of my friends (CPAs and other assorted professionals) also toke up. i wouldn't invoke this as an argument though - i wouldn't want to dirty my case with such a blatant logical fallacy.

Gumbiddy has most eloquently summarised to position for and now I'd like to see an equal post against

toking up every day before during and after work gumdiddy?

you argument focuses solely on the negative repercussions that would be brought about under legalisation (ie. more usage) whilst conveniently glossing over the vast number of positives it would bring. these include :

Your argument appears to gloss over the fact that legalised drugs like alcohol and tobacco are responsible for so much more death and destruction (which is the argument that most pro-cannabis people make when complaining that cannabis is illegal, and has been raised by a few people in this thread). Obviously correlation!=causation but it seems likely to me that if pot was legal, there'd be more widespread usage of it, and thus more widespread negative health effects - but again the only way to confirm that is to do it and see what happens

I'm all for legalisation of cannabis, btw, I think its utterly utterly hypocritical to allow some drugs and not others

toking up every day before during and after work gumdiddy?

i would never get stoned before or during work, plus i drive to and from my office (i don't drive stoned - i see it as a massive ethical violation, putting other drivers at risk etc.)

yeah heaps of 'succesful' people smoke the weeds.......
really ignorant to think otherwise.
you gotta remember it has a diferent affect on everyone.
its not all dummb american tv/movies trippy pot smoking scenes and stoner talk.

gumbiddy is a stoner.

Your argument appears to gloss over the fact that legalised drugs like alcohol and tobacco are responsible for so much more death and destruction

this was intentional. the basis for cannabis legalisation should stand on its own merits and not on its worth in comparison to other (legal) drugs.

there'd be more widespread usage of it, and thus more widespread negative health effects

i can understand this and make mention of it in one of my earlier posts. it certainly doesn't help that the 'negative health effects', other than lung damage from inhaling the smoke, are somewhat vague, misunderstood and ill-defined (see: marijuana and schizophrenia etc).

I think its utterly utterly hypocritical to allow some drugs and not others

I'm not sure this is exactly hypocritical, its just we already have so many variables in the mix, adding another one isn't going to make life anything but more complicated.

I'm not so for or against it, because at the end of the day I would use it about as often as i do now (2 times in 23 years). It doesn't really affect me. But it does bring up some social questions.

Would we just add it as another okay substance?
What do we know about those who do abuse it? We know what happens to smokers and alcoholics pretty well.
What will happen in total numbers of abusers of all substances? Will they increase or stay the same?
What will happen to public places where people can drink, smoke and get high? How will that affect safety?
How will legalising pot change the workings of the underground market? Without the ability to make money selling it, they'll have to try and establish (perhaps) worse substances?

such an ironical ad hominem attack coming from the guy with MS. i hope you enjoy your impending cognitive (and physical LOL) impairment.

Its because I recognise the value of brain cells that I am against the use recreational drugs and think that people who use them are f***ing idiots. My brain damage is not my fault, the stupid c*** on the luonge with no life has nobody to blame but himself.

While not making me cry into my bottled water, your cheap shot has been noted and I will proceed accordingly.

this is a prime example of a blanket generalisation without integrity. there is no doubt according to who? how often is very often? it's a completely baseless comment without credence outside your own mind. you've essentially painted the vast majority of cannabis users with the cliched stereotype of the lazy couch hogging stoner.

And yet almost everyone knows a cough-hugging stoner. Is it an unfair stereotype if it is true?

For clinical information on detrimental psychological effects of cannabis use please see this article from the Karger International Journal of Experimental Clinical Research in Biological Psychiatry, Parmacopsychiatry, Biological Pshchology/Pharmacopsychology and Paramacoeletroencephalography. (Please excuse typos in the last as I have MS LOL HAHHA SO FUNNY)

In particular I draw your attention to the conclusion:

Conclusions: Our results suggest that regular cannabis use affects certain aspects of motivation and that both tobacco smoking and cannabis use lead to similar motivational changes. However, the use of cannabis seems to affect motivation in a stronger way than does tobacco smoking alone.

Given that the internet is f***ing chockas with said articles I will refrain from posting additional source material. I'd love to see ONE of the d*******s in this thread post sources to their blanket, unsupported 'pot has never hurt anyone' arguments.

how many? what qualifies as a 'destroyed life'? please clarify this for me, in the context of these people's lives you contend that cannabis abuse is the sole and only factor that has led to their unfortunate demise? another baseless and uncited comment from the prince of bulls***.

For someone who opened with a diatribe on argument fallacy you're a bit of an ad hominem c***rag aren't you? Does the pot make you so angsty?

For information and massive referencing on detrimental effects of pot use please see this (very) easily-found wikipedia article. d*******.

i kept reading your latest post with a cockeyed look on my face. i am in complete disbelief that you cannot fathom a single reason outside of supply constraints that determine the price of marijuana. profit? transport? grow costs? middleman fees? etc etc.

So I can grow tomatoes and sell them for 400 dollars per ounce because of supply, distribution, transport costs? You complete f***ing moron. Of course its supply-constrained.

i'll give you the benefit of the doubt though. in summation, your argument reads along these lines : marijuana has disastrous and life-ending consequences for every person that uses the substance, ending prohibition would increase use, more users = more consequences = more cost to society, therefore we should maintain prohibition.

Don't summarise my argument for me. Back up your own own pissweak one with sources if you're going to demand them from other people.

last edited by Hogfather at 12:55:39 21/Oct/09

I'm not sure this is exactly hypocritical, its just we already have so many variables in the mix, adding another one isn't going to make life anything but more complicated.

Maybe we have so many variables in the mix, adding another one won't make any difference :)

My thought process is:

1) people are going to do it anyway
2) people should be able to do whatever they want to their own bodies, if it doesn't affect or impact anyone else
3) its possible that prohibition creates more crime than would otherwise exist if it was legal and regulated (like cigarettes and tobacco)
4) if its legalised and everything goes to s*** and zombies take over, we can always just re-criminalise it (after we take care of the zombie situation)

Naughty trog, no references.

1) people are going to do it anyway

How many? Is it more? Less?

2) people should be able to do whatever they want to their own bodies, if it doesn't affect or impact anyone else

Cannabis has been shown clinically (see above) and anecdotally (see your local drugf***ed neighbour) to reduce motivation and productivity. I'm happy for drug f***s to ruin their own lives if I don;t have to pay for their lifestyle via social security.

3) its possible that prohibition creates more crime than would otherwise exist if it was legal and regulated (like cigarettes and tobacco)

This has not been quantified.

4) if its legalised and everything goes to s*** and zombies take over, we can always just re-criminalise it (after we take care of the zombie situation)

If everything goes to s*** the cost could take a generation to unwind. Its not a simple case of putting the law back together again if an extra hundred thousand or so people are sitting on the couch laughing over stupid jokes.

building on point 4 of trogs surely we also need to give legalisation a shot because criminilisation has failed so miserably

^ someone once farted in my ear 'if they legalise it, it would be too hard to tax, which is the hold back perhaps.'
then went on about some idea involving government vending machines being the only place you could legally buy it, and introducing harsher penalties for all other weed, whether it be producing, selling or consumption.
that way they could tax and revenue at the same time.

just legalising hemp would be the best bet imho.
but it would kill too many already established industries.
and they couldnt do that.

building on point 4 of trogs surely we also need to give legalisation a shot because criminilisation has failed so miserably

How can we make that assertion? With what metric do you measure the failure?

Re: taxation. The make a lot of tax off beer, although its pretty easy to make your own and avoid the tax.

last edited by Hogfather at 13:05:47 21/Oct/09

has failed so miserably

Has it really? Those who want to do it, do it, those who don't want to do it don't. Everyone has said it so far that everyone who wants to already can.

Depends on what kind of grounds you're saying "failed" do you mean failed to remove it completely and therefore they should just allow it to be there? Or failed as in it fails some kind of social task of protecting society?

^ is it illegal to make your own beer and avoid the tax but?

Naughty trog, no references.

Well its my thoughts/opinion; I can't give references!

I'm happy for drug f***s to ruin their own lives if I don;t have to pay for their lifestyle via social security.

Agreed, same goes for their medical expenses. I feel the same way about smokers/binge drinking as well.

As a libertarian, I generally support that each to their own (see trog). If it's not hurting anyone else specifically or society, like second hand smoke, I don't see why the government has any right to say what you do or not. (see note about about taxpayer dollars going to help/support people who inflict damage on themselves).

If they want to smoke/drink/eat/injects themselves to death I'm not going to say no. As long as I don't have to help them later.

That being said I think stoners have a propensity to be unproductive and unreliable. I wouldn't hire one.

Gumbiddy: you must be new here. I'm angry a lot.

You are definetly a bit of a c*** though! Yer mum must be so proud - did you know she still keeps your photo in her bedroom? So sweet.

I note that you failed to respond to my post though. Oh well, I didn't really expect much, like most of the dope fiends in this thread you can accuse others of not backing up their assertions but are unable to support your own properly.

last edited by Hogfather at 13:22:16 21/Oct/09

gumbiddy, plz don't be an a****** just for the sake of it

is it illegal to make your own beer and avoid the tax but

Home brew is entirely legal.

I note that you failed to respond to my post though. Oh well, I didn't really expect much, like most of the dope fiends in this thread you can accuse others of not backing up their assertions but are unable to support your own properly.

sorry i have spent the last hour trying to remember my surname and town of birth - now i think i know why i have these problems. your post compelled me into silence and forced a complete 180 on my position. now i feel that no punishment is harsh enough for evil (and i do mean evil) dope pushers and smokers. i hereby renounce all that i said.

good day to you

What a cop out! Oh well...

Thanks for having my back trog, but I've come to terms with one day probably being a gimp. Its probably a good thing my wife doesn't read QGL much, she'd be upset.

It was a nice excuse to get away with some e-rage :p

Anyway, I fully expected someone to use it for cheap points on here someday, and for quite a while I was surprised that it didn't happen, and still hasn't happened by a regular. This place is pretty brutal but there is a code of sorts :)

Much respeck QGL!

Anyway, I fully expected someone to use it for cheap points on here someday, and for quite a while I was surprised that it didn't happen

I don't think any regular on here would.

I have one question for you Hogfather.

If it were legal everyone has the choice to smoke or not, right?

Why should I not be granted this choice? It's my decision.

Just like sex, alcohol, driving a car. Education is what is needed, strong education, so EVERYONE can make their OWN informed educated decision.

If it were legal everyone has the choice to smoke or not, right?

Yes.

Why should I not be granted this choice? It's my decision.

There is a body of law that exists primarily to protect the individual from themselves. Drugs are not out on their own here, and this is a seperate argument to the specific case for cannabis really.

Notwithstanding the above, your decision whether to smoke or not is not just about you. As we've covered, there is at least a good likelihood that there will be a macro economic and social cost to the community for your indulgence.

Just like sex, alcohol, driving a car. Education is what is needed, strong education, so EVERYONE can make their OWN informed educated decision.

Sex doesn't harm either party. Usually. Not the way I do it anyway.

The argument regarding alcohol and cigarettes is good but not really conclusive. Whether you agree with it or not, Australia's social agenda seems to about reducing the impact of cigarettes and alcohol, encouraging reduction in consumption generally. Given this, is it appropriate to encourage (or cease to discourage) other drug consumption?

Driving a car is regulated and anyway is not really related to taking drugs.

To be honest, I'd be happy with licensing cannabis use on the proviso that you become ineligible for the dole.

I also think that it is manifestly immoral to be stoned out of your tree if you are caring for children - same with being off ya chops on booze.

Hogfather do you agree that your argument about a reduced productivity rests on the position that society is improved by higher levels of productivity and participation of its participants in the labour force?

I would argue that this is a baseless position and infact the well-being of a society is not be measured by its productivity and the members of that particular society's participation in the workforce.

Could reduced participation in the workface as a result of cannabis use by symptomatic of an alienation from the workforce that "some" cannabis users feel?

Social security aside, produtivity can suck a dick, I don't buy that arguement in the slightest.

We have no obligation to work or serve society.

nah it's because they are motivationless c***s that would rather sit at home playing cs and smoking cones all day

fyi

how the f*** is it societies fault that stoners don't fit in a work place? most places require you to be on the ball ie. being productive not tripping out and eating twisties at your desk

i'm not saying everyone that smokes weed is like that, Obviously they aren't. but there is plenty of people that fall off the road into that pointless existence.

We have no obligation to work or serve society.

then society should have no obligation to make your drug legal

last edited by paveway at 15:28:18 21/Oct/09

then society should have no obligation to make your drug legal

What the f***?

You really got to think about what you're typing.

To be honest, I'd be happy with licensing cannabis use on the proviso that you become ineligible for the dole.

As a fact, average wage of an australian 57,000. Thats $11100 in taxes. Probably another 25% of their wage goes into goods and services making a further $1150 gst. So per week an average australian gives $235ish a week in taxes through earnings and spendings.

That means if someone drops out of working, whether or not they are on the dole still means they could be costing other taxpayers $235 per week. (i think)

Edit:

We have no obligation to work or serve society.

I hate people with that mentality. If you don't think you need to serve society, get the f*** out it.

last edited by skythra at 15:34:21 21/Oct/09

We have no obligation to work or serve society.

Then society has no obligation to provide welfare, public healthcare and education, either.

Then society has no obligation to provide welfare, public healthcare and education, either.

Seems entirely fair.

So... do we get the choice?

I hate people with that mentality. If you don't think you need to serve society, get the f*** out it.

All in good time.

Serve society, what a load of bollocks.

last edited by CHUB at 15:39:03 21/Oct/09

Social security aside, produtivity can suck a dick, I don't buy that arguement in the slightest.

We have no obligation to work or serve society.

If you want to jump off the grid and smoke cones all day then go for it.

Why should I pay for it though?

the argument of people who smoke being lazy is just plain stupid
it's only a guess but I'd say the majority of stoners contribute just as much as the rest of the non stoners

plenty of lawyers/teachers/doctors/tradesmen etc do it
everyone, and I mean everyone who I know that smokes it, has some form of employment

So... do we get the choice?

Yes, go leave our society and go do that then. Seriously. Go grow your own food, s*** out in the wild and sleep under a tree.

the argument of people who smoke being lazy is just plain stupid

its as bad as the argument that people who smoke aren't lazy. They're all based on some random opinion from different people with different contacts. None of which is meaningful evidence. Neither has context or quantity. You may as well stop trying to stand up or shoot it down from that angle.

last edited by skythra at 15:40:46 21/Oct/09

To be honest, I'd be happy with licensing cannabis use on the proviso that you become ineligible for the dole.

Good idea. Maybe this is the incentive people need to not let the drug rule their lives, that and education like we have about the dangers of alcohol and tobacco.

I know people who fall into the stoner category and then many people like myself who indulge maybe once a or twice on the weekend which doesn't affect anyone or my professional job.

Unfortunately the people who fall into the stoner/jobless/lazy category have it too easy...

There is a body of law that exists primarily to protect the individual from themselves. Drugs are not out on their own here, and this is a seperate argument to the specific case for cannabis really.

Notwithstanding the above, your decision whether to smoke or not is not just about you. As we've covered, there is at least a good likelihood that there will be a macro economic and social cost to the community for your indulgence.

My opinion still stands that the decision based on my education is better in my hands then the Governments hands (not on everything but on this particular matter).

I completely understand the need for the

There is a body of law that exists primarily to protect the individual from themselves.

Though from my side of the fence it is very frustrating that I can not indulge or have access to something that I know will not harm me and has not harmed me in the past.

Maybe there needs to be some screening process/license before someone can obtain LEGAL marijuana. I just don't agree with completely out lawing it.

last edited by dynamite at 15:50:58 21/Oct/09

last edited by dynamite at 18:53:32 21/Oct/09

the argument of people who smoke being lazy is just plain stupid
it's only a guess but I'd say the majority of stoners contribute just as much as the rest of the non stoners

Its your opinion, not a fact.

It is a scientific, clinical observation that cannabis use appears to cause a lack of motivation. This supports the idea that being a stoner can in many cases lead to being a classic lounge maggot.

plenty of lawyers/teachers/doctors/tradesmen etc do it
everyone, and I mean everyone who I know that smokes it, has some form of employment

This is anecdotal evidence - the worst kind.

Do you have anything to back up the assertion that cannabis use on average causes no loss in productivity, motivation or ambition?

If you want to jump off the grid and smoke cones all day then go for it.

Why should I pay for it though?

You don't, I said I don't agree with people bludging off social security.

Even if you do move off grid, you're still subject to the law, the police will still charge/prosecute you... so no, you don't have a choice.

Even if you do move off grid, you're still subject to the law, the police will still charge/prosecute you... so no, you don't have a choice.

Where is the petition I can sign to say that cannabis should be licensed under these conditions? I'd support that.

But that isn't what smokers are advocating, just the relaxation of laws which I don't support in isolation.

Thats a pretty low act having a go at someone beucase he has MS.

I dont think we need to legalise marijuana, we dont need to waste resources going after pot smokers though.

Dont know if it could be done, but why not just make it legal to have a few plants? Keep selling it illegal, mass production illegal, smoking it in public places illegal, make smoking it on private property just a small fine, no criminal conviction.

This way you could still go after people selling it for profit, but you arent wasting time going after occasional home users.

People who wanted to have a few plants at home could then keep them, and if they chose to smoke in there own homes, the worse they would get would be a small fine (like $50).

The market for the suppliers would go down to pretty much nothing as people would just be growing it at home.

Some of the hardest working people Ive ever met smoked pot.
You work your 8 hours then the rest of your time is your own.
Legalize it
Tax it
Let Police get on with the harder stuff. (literally too)
(i actually think all drugs should be legalized)

It is a scientific, clinical observation that cannabis use appears to cause a lack of motivation.

Citation needed.

you know what happens when I have too much to drink? I go to bed

Do you have anything to back up the assertion that cannabis use on average causes no loss in productivity, motivation or ambition?

I earn more money than you do.

Life isnt a game of Monopoly.

Life isnt a game of Monopoly.

Maybe to you, but you're the dog. In the macro sense its really quite representable. You should be looking at the big picture, because it directly relates to a standard of living lower down.

Actually i find it quite surprising that so many people are happy to never assist in society but still find it quite okay to use everything that society has built and made.

And yet then have the cheek to try and say that society needs to change to suit them.

I do not believe that the statement that all people are required to be productive members of society for us to provide social services is true.

We as a society see the value in supporting those who do not provide for themselves to a subsistance level, doing so reduces societal unrest and personally I believe produces a society I am happier to be part of and proud to be part of. Casting out the fringes of society with no support services is not how I would like to be treated nor how I would like to treat people.

Citation needed

Citation provided a couple pages ago; do try to keep up old boy!

For clinical information on detrimental psychological effects of cannabis use please see this article from the Karger International Journal of Experimental Clinical Research in Biological Psychiatry, Parmacopsychiatry, Biological Pshchology/Pharmacopsychology and Paramacoeletroencephalography.
In particular I draw your attention to the conclusion:

Conclusions: Our results suggest that regular cannabis use affects certain aspects of motivation and that both tobacco smoking and cannabis use lead to similar motivational changes. However, the use of cannabis seems to affect motivation in a stronger way than does tobacco smoking alone.

...

I earn more money than you do.

Doubtful and irrelevant. Ego much teq? Seriously mate, that was a f***ing lame call.

Also:

I do not believe that the statement that all people are required to be productive members of society for us to provide social services is true.

We as a society see the value in supporting those who do not provide for themselves to a subsistance level, doing so reduces societal unrest and personally I believe produces a society I am happier to be part of and proud to be part of. Casting out the fringes of society with no support services is not how I would like to be treated nor how I would like to treat people.

I agree. I don't think that persons who are wilfully unemployed should have their legalised dope paid for by my taxes though. f*** that.



last edited by Hogfather at 16:24:49 21/Oct/09

The unemployment benefit should not be above what is necessary to provide what we as a society deem is a bare minimum standard of living rules should also encourage people to work.

But heres the truth we need to be understanding why these people don't want to work? It's way to simple to say they're lazy f***s who want smoke bongs all day, I just don't believe that's true a lot of people who live that way are ultimately depressed about the state of their lives. More time and energy should be spent on understanding this than combatting a symptom of that particular lifestyle (ie fighting drug use).

Where's the responsibility for the individual choice imitation?

They choose that particular lifestyle - why should society spend time and energy (and taxpayer money) understanding why?

A good deal of Germans choose to fight for the Nazis and yet I don't feel that each of them should have been punished, the function of a good society is to its people their actions are often shaped by those of others.

Doubtful and irrelevant.

doubtful or not, its true for the majority of Australia.
average wage being $57k, anyone who earns over 57k and smokes can't be lumped in a group anywhere near the "lazy stoners"

Do you have anything to back up the assertion that cannabis use on average causes no loss in productivity, motivation or ambition?

This is why it was quoted, my reply to "anything to backup the assertion" was
the fact that stoners aren't all lazy good for nothing dole bludgers, some of us actually make money and live normal lives

The harder you work the more money you can get to buy more things.
What if you just Desire less and work less and spend more time with family ?

you should smoke pot!

This is why it was quoted, my reply to "anything to backup the assertion" was the fact that stoners aren't all lazy good for nothing dole bludgers, some of us actually make money and live normal lives

Did I (mistakenly) say somewhere that all dope fiends are lazy no goods? Are you talking to someone else?

It is a scientific, clinical observation that cannabis use appears to cause a lack of motivation.

that's a full stop right there, just at the end of your sentence.

For those opposed to legalisation, what evidence would be sufficient to sway your opinion?

try and break it down all you want into tiny little arguments

overall fact still remains

Paveway is the overall fact that you would not be changed for your opinion regardless?

It is a scientific, clinical observation that cannabis use appears to cause a lack of motivation.

that's a full stop right there, just at the end of your sentence.

I'm gathering you don't make all that money comprehending simple statements..

Or is it drugf***ed paranoia that led you to turn the statement into a blanket assertion that applies to everyone without exception? I've never claimed that all dope users are no good couchers. Its obviously untrue.

I leave those sort of indefensible, stupid statements to CHUB et al.

last edited by Hogfather at 17:05:57 21/Oct/09

Hogfather can you answer some of the questions I've raised, you seem strongly opposed to legalisation and for my own understanding, so I can better be informed in this debate for the future your responses would be appreciated.

@hogfather; why isn't alcohol banned if it also has the same potential to make people into lazy good-fer-nuthin-no-good-nicks?

you can dismiss that question as completely irrelivant, but my point is to make you think about some of the reasons behind the legislation against pot

no imit wasn't refering to you, you got in before my post

A friend with Weed is a friend indeed.

most things in moderation is a-okay by me.

you're not doing us any favors faceman

@hogfather; why isn't alcohol banned if it also has the same potential to make people into lazy good-fer-nuthin-no-good-nicks?

you can dismiss that question as completely irrelivant, but my point is to make you think about some of the reasons behind the legislation against pot

Its not irrelevant - I've said previously that its relevant but not compelling in itself.

I'm not sure I agree with the wowsing Nanny-state we're moving to, but in general society is on a push away from substance abuse and being encouraged to lead healthier lives. Smoking will be absolished or discouraged to the point of irrelevance in 20 years. Alcohol will soon be banned from sports advertising.

We regularly are advised in various awareness campaigns to cut back on s*** food, lose weight, stop smoking, drink less and be careful with caffeine. In this climate relaxing restrictions on prohibited substances seems contrary to the general vibe?

You obviously have an opinion why alcohol is legal and pot isn't. I gather this isn't because of public health or the benefit of society. I really f***en hope its a not a FaceMan-esque conspiracy. But please do elucidate :)

imitation: I'm sorry mate this thread is massive and I'll respond but could you give me a quick list as to which questions I haven't made my opinion clear about?

last edited by Hogfather at 18:35:40 21/Oct/09

What is your occupation faceman, you never answer that question.

You don't really know much about interacting in society in a responsible manner. I already know CHUB is a deadbeat so none of his answers surprise me.

Same old rants reading over this-

Trog - is it possible in current forum code to get a poll going on? Personally I'd be curious to see how many people lurking/not posting have an opinion - also curious about the amount in the 'for' group that would be willing to settle for decriminalisation or are dead-set on legalisation

tl;dr put up a poll with for legalisation / for decriminalisation / against legalisation / against decriminalisation / don't give a damn - if it is possible

as I side note as a 100% non-smoker I'd be happy to see general decriminalisation with a tough financial fine on consumption in public for example (keep it to yourself if you want to get baked imo) and criminal offences to be remaining for possession in a car or driving under the influence (similar to that of alcohol, given both can readily endanger lives when mixed with a motor vehicle)

Decriminalization would be good but you are still leaving room for the Criminal Groups to operate.

This from the Abortion thread but its worthwhile posting here.

"The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime" is a controversial paper by John Donohue of Yale University and Steven Levitt of University of Chicago that argues that the legalization of abortion in the 1970s contributed significantly to reductions in crime rates experienced in the 1990s"

A similar reduction in crime rates is possible by legalizing Pot
Its unlikely to increase it.

last edited by FaceMan at 19:28:58 21/Oct/09

last edited by FaceMan at 19:29:52 21/Oct/09

My occupation is Classified.
Im currently working undercover gathering information on a certain community.

they have that for work for the dole now?

You idiot faceman - that paper argues the lower socioeconomic people who had abortions in the 1970's would have bred criminals.

not if they legalized pot.

You obviously have an opinion why alcohol is legal and pot isn't. I gather this isn't because of public health or the benefit of society. I really f***en hope its a not a FaceMan-esque conspiracy. But please do elucidate :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States

References

1. ^ Richard J. Bonnie & Charles H. Whitebread, II: PASSAGE OF THE UNIFORM NARCOTIC DRUG ACT
2. ^ a b c d e f g "Marijuana Timeline". Public Broadcasting Service. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron.html. Retrieved 2007-04-23.
3. ^ a b "Hemp Info". altahemp.com. http://altahemp.com/hempinfo.html. Retrieved 2008-06-12.
4. ^ "GROWING PAINS. - Free Online Library". www.thefreelibrary.com. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/GROWING+PAINS-a055909767. Retrieved 2008-07-02.
5. ^ "American Hemp History". www.nnytimes.com. http://www.nnytimes.com/american_hemp_history.htm. Retrieved 2008-06-12.
6. ^ STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM C. WOODWARD
7. ^ Richard J. Bonnie* & Charles H. Whitebread, II*
8. ^ The Origins of California's 1913 Cannabis Law
9. ^ W.W. WILLOUGHBY: OPIUM AS AN INTERNATIONAL PROBLEM, BALTIMORE, THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS, 1925
10. ^ ANSLINGER H. J.,TOMPKINS W F THE TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC
11. ^ Keel, Robert. "Drug Law Timeline, Significant Events in the History of our Drug Laws". Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/drug_law_timeline.htm. Retrieved 2007-04-24.
12. ^ The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937,Transcripts of Congressional Hearings
13. ^ ANSLINGER H. J.,TOMPKINS W F THE TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC, ch 6, 1953
14. ^ Records of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
15. ^ ROOSEVELT ASKS NARCOTIC WAR AID, 1935
16. ^ Jay Sinha, Law and Government Division: THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEADING INTERNATIONAL DRUG CONTROL CONVENTIONS
17. ^ "Full Text of the Marihuana Tax Act as passed in 1937". Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/mjtaxact.htm. Retrieved 2007-05-15.
18. ^ "Statement of Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Counsel, American Medical Association". http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/hemp/taxact/woodward.htm. Retrieved 2006-03-25.
19. ^ Timothy Leary v. US, Supreme Court of the United States, 1969
20. ^ Pub. L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236 (Oct. 27, 1973).
21. ^ The Marihuana Tax Act
22. ^ The Marihuana Tax Act, Reports
23. ^ "Additional Statement of H.J. Anslinger, Commissioner of Narcotics". http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/hemp/taxact/t10a.htm. Retrieved 2006-03-25.
24. ^ "The Emperor Wears No Clothes, Chapter 4". http://www.jackherer.com/chapter04.html. Retrieved 2006-10-21.
25. ^ Dewey and Merrill, U.S.D.A. Bulletin No. 404, Washington, D.C., October 14, 1916. Page 25
26. ^ "The Emperor Wears No Clothes". www.jackherer.com/. http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html. Retrieved 2007-04-02.
27. ^ MARIHUANA FARM FOUND IN MARYLAND, New York Times 1936
28. ^ REPORT OF SURVEY COMMERCIALIZED HEMP (1934-35 CROP)
29. ^ Letter from Elizabeth Bass - November 5, 1936
30. ^ "History of the DEA: 1970 - 1975". www.deamuseum.org. http://www.deamuseum.org/dea_history_book/1970_1975.htm. Retrieved 2007-04-30.
31. ^ Supreme Court / Marijuana / Busing / Speedy Trial NBC News broadcast from the Vanderbilt Television News Archive
32. ^ "An Overview of the United States Sentencing Commission". United States Department of State. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/politics/judbranc/ovrweb03.pdf. Retrieved 2007-04-30.
33. ^ "1985 - 1990". Drug Enforcement Administration. http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/history/1985-1990.html. Retrieved 2007-04-30.
34. ^ Koch, Wendy (2005-06-07). "Court's pot ruling won't apply to patients in federal program". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-07-pot-program_x.htm. Retrieved 2007-05-02.
35. ^ Klausner, Manuel (January 26, 2006). "Opinion:Let them have their pot". Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-klausner26jan26,0,7295338.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail%5Draided. Retrieved 2007-05-12.
36. ^ "http://www.millionmarijuanamarch.com/mmm1_047.htm". www.millionmarijuanamarch.com/mmm1_047.htm. http://www.millionmarijuanamarch.com/mmm1_047.htm.
37. ^ Volz, Matt (2006-07-11). "Judge rules against Alaska marijuana law". The Seattle Times. Frank A. Blethen. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003118645_webpot10.html. Retrieved 2008-05-22.
38. ^ a b c d "State by State Laws". http://norml.org. Retrieved 2008-05-07.
39. ^ Stein, Joel (2008-05-09). "This bud's for you, and you, and you too: How I got my hands on some marijuana -- the legal (and easy) way". Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-stein9-2008may09,0,1913406.column.
40. ^ ABC News - Voters Weigh on on Key Ballot Issues Retrieved on November 5, 2008
41. ^ "State by State Laws: New Mexico". http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3391#New%20Mexico. Retrieved 2008-10-11.
42. ^ McVeigh, Frank J. Brief History of Social Problems: a critical thinking approach, 2004. Page 62.
43. ^ "North Carolina State Legislature". (NC § 90‑94) / (NC § 90‑95 subs 4). http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_90.html.
44. ^ Harrison, Ann (2001-06-05). "Capitol Hill's cannabis catch-up? Medical marijuana ruling puts spotlight on pending legislation". San Francisco Bay Guardian. http://web.archive.org/web/20050503135942/www.sfbg.com/News/35/36/legis.html. Retrieved 2007-04-24.
45. ^ Drug courts

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Killerdrug.jpg

I have no idea what point you are trying to make by providing that wikipedia link and copy-pasted list of references teq.

Are you stoned?

I already know CHUB is a deadbeat so none of his answers surprise me.

Hey, I still work and study at university.

You can call me a knob, but I'm far from lazy.

Never taken 1 cent of unemployment in my life.

each to his own hey........

Trog - is it possible in current forum code to get a poll going on? Personally I'd be curious to see how many people lurking/not posting have an opinion - also curious about the amount in the 'for' group that would be willing to settle for decriminalisation or are dead-set on legalisation

The forum code for polls is broken atm :( I'll see if I can resurrect it.

Also The Big Picture today is on the war on drugs. Pretty creepy pics; word of warning - don't click on the objectionable content ones if you don't have a strong stomach, they're especially hardcore today.

triplej said something like 100,000 deaths a year are caused by Afghani opium alone
thats pretty f***ed up

Also The Big Picture today is on the war on drugs. Pretty creepy pics; word of warning - don't click on the objectionable content ones if you don't have a strong stomach, they're especially hardcore today.

Big Picture never disappoints.

Maybe I'm so desensitised, but they weren't bad.

f*** being police, government or part of the justic system in Mexico.

f*** being police, government or part of the justic system in Mexico.

Just f*** being Mexican.

those pics remind me of Breaking Bad. but don't forget, drugs are totally ok, they don't harm society (it affects the individual only) and really in order to improve the world we need more drugs not less drugs.

f***ing dunce stoners.

Decriminalization would be good but you are still leaving room for the Criminal Groups to operate.

First of all, you shouldn't try to solve more than one problem at a time with a single change in law. If you are trying to remove crime by legalising pot then you're doing it wrong. Do you really think those who are trading pot as their underground easy money will suddenly get real jobs?

No.

My occupation is Classified.

Your occupation is whackjob.

Decriminalization would be good but you are still leaving room for the Criminal Groups to operate.

First of all, you shouldn't try to solve more than one problem at a time with a single change in law. If you are trying to remove crime by legalising pot then you're doing it wrong. Do you really think those who are trading pot as their underground easy money will suddenly get real jobs?

No.

what will they do though? if you can buy legalised cannabis cigarettes for half the price of the underground market then their ability to generate revenue will instantly vanish. You seem to be assuming they'll instantly resume criminal activities in some other way, but if they're just in it for the money they'll have to find another way to make it. Reducing the number of illegal methods to make money seems like a good idea to me!

I believe the large majority of cannabis "dealers" wouldn't move onto selling harder drugs, some would, but the majority wouldn't.

they would just drop it off their normal menu

You seem to be assuming they'll instantly resume criminal activities in some other way, but if they're just in it for the money they'll have to find another way to make it.

and with no formal skills or qualifications, their only means of making an income is through illegal activity. this would result in simply supplanting one type of illegal activity with another. drug dealers are not otherwise good people, they are the scum of society with no moral compass. what make you think that by legalising drugs you would all of a sudden cure their craving for power, violence, intimidation and lawlessness that goes with the drug trade.

they will not just buy a coffee franchise or a pet hydro bath.

^

f***ing rofl.

lol, what? Since when are cannabis dealers violent?

They're just long term stoners that buy biggers bags and sell it on.

I don't think cannabis is a very lucrative industry, I would be VERY surprised if any of the local dealers are earning more like $30-50k a year from selling at an estimate.

It aint no meth.

infi's been watching scarface a little too much.

let's keep it in the real world shall we?

the real world where all the dealers suddenly get jobs. shyeah.

did you see the picture set trog posted? you think that's make up?

the real world where all the dealers suddenly get jobs. shyeah.

Every cannabis dealer I've known has had a 9-5 job.

last edited by CHUB at 12:37:34 22/Oct/09

yeah, because international meth, herion and cocaine syndicates based out of latin america and afghanistan are totally comparable to domestic marijuana dealers and users.

You're buying off petty, end of line quasi-dealers CHUB and 100% have nfi what you are talking about.

Most of the pot you are buying is really coming from very bad people. Some will be locally-grown hydro / backyard or bush buds. Most street pot is grown on remote farms by men with guns - there are parts of remote FNQ that you are advised not to drive too close to or f***ing fly over.

Sooooooooooooooooooooooo, where are the reports about these paramilitary cannabis farms in Australia? Why aren't the police doing anything?

that's exactly why most dealers don't just sell weed

all of the marijuana dealers someone who is not me has ever known have sold marijuana exclusively. and someone who is not me has known a few over the years.

You've never seen reports on the telly of massive, record-breaking busts?

Here's one from last year, a half-billion bust on a 1700-ha property near Inglewood

At least 34,000 mature marijuana plants, eight tonnes of dried cannabis, and guns were found in the raid.

"There's more leftover cannabis lying on the ground than you'd find in a big seizure, and about 6.5km of (water) piping," Detective Acting Inspector Kerry Johnson said.

last edited by Hogfather at 12:49:00 22/Oct/09

Not really Hogfather, I can't recall anything from recent memory.

I can't recall any murders or other violent activity reported from cannabis growers either.

If you got some reports or stories that are similar to Mexico where the organized crimed groups are murdering people, I'm all ears.

It doesn't surprise me that you don't remember things you f***ing derro.

You seem to be assuming they'll instantly resume criminal activities in some other way, but if they're just in it for the money they'll have to find another way to make it.

and with no formal skills or qualifications, their only means of making an income is through illegal activity. this would result in simply supplanting one type of illegal activity with another. drug dealers are not otherwise good people, they are the scum of society with no moral compass. what make you think that by legalising drugs you would all of a sudden cure their craving for power, violence, intimidation and lawlessness that goes with the drug trade.

they will not just buy a coffee franchise or a pet hydro bath.

I don't think the majority of low end drug dealers who pimp pot to their stoner buddies are going to go out and start robbing banks

Hah, so you got no evidence of these ruthless cannabis farms in Australia where people walk around with guns causing violence?

When all else fails, time to resort to name calling.

Haha you have no idea CHUB, I have work to do and don't have time to waste on your bulls***. If I get time after work tonight I'll go do some research for you OK you lazy f***?

Meanwhile you haven't responded to ANY of the calls to back up your retarded statements, all the while calling for 'evidence' form others. What the f***?

Yeah f***ing rofl, you are almost as deluded and cracked as FaceMan infi. You are a f***ing loon.

edit: most dealers I have encountered have a day job and just bolster up their income a bit by selling a bit of s*** on the side. infi is like a living 'duck and cover' video. He is a joke.

last edited by fpot at 12:59:09 22/Oct/09

Chill out Hogfather, have a smoke.

Reducing the number of illegal methods to make money seems like a good idea to me!

They're just going to google the easiest scheme to cook up another kind of drug at home, or their supplier will give them something else to peddle on the street. Just because your brand of water isn't available, are you going not drink?

Illegal activities exist in a rough proportion to the population. This no matter what they have to trade will not change. There are a lot of substitutes. be it other (more dangerous) drugs, or trafficking or otherwise.

You've got two options here:

1) Decriminilazation. Even with stringent laws about maximum amounts and so forth is still likely to encourage even more people to take the risk to start dealing for much more money and a lot less work. Its a risk to profit ratio that most of us leave to the stockmarket but applies in other places too.

2) Legalisation. Profits gone..The risk is nothing but so is the profits. These people are in this situation: They were earning anywhere above $100's an hour, enough t o only work a few hours a week. Now with their criminal records they can get a low paying $16.00 an hour wage (minimum federal is actually less) or even just sit on the dole. As all the pot growing farms and hydro's at home are less useful, these people switch to other schemes and figure out (probably through the internet) how to grow/cook something else? The opportunity comes to trade these drugs instead. Do you think other drugs won't grow? If the profits are to be made then supply will increase. Its only natural.

Total cost of other drugs will start to come down as the supply increases so it becomes more common to see in public as both its more available and costs less.

But you know, maybe drugs don't follow economics. Maybe they'll defy these. Even though economics is really just a study of natural decision making..

(edit: really should have thought out more clearly and made sentences made sense)

last edited by skythra at 13:06:07 22/Oct/09

ok so there is no violence in the Australian drug trade. is that your assertion?

skythra your assumption that marijuana dealers will automatically turn to other illegal activites has no basis in economics whatsover, and has led you to faulty conclusions.

do you have a degree in economics? because it sounds like you have nfi what you're talking about.

No it isn't.

Is that all drug dealers fall under the 'drug dealers are not otherwise good people, they are the scum of society with no moral compass. what make you think that by legalising drugs you would all of a sudden cure their craving for power, violence, intimidation and lawlessness that goes with the drug trade' category your assertion?

^ imo, it would take a pretty f***ed up person in the head to type that.

last edited by fpot at 13:10:15 22/Oct/09

The low level dealers may not use violence but the higher up the ladder they get, they're not getting there through business acumen.

You stoners make it sound like Pineapple Express hahaha

and how much practical knowledge/experience of the drug trade do you have, infi?

edit: nah f*** it, don't answer. i've got better things to do then waste my time up in hurrrrrrr

Is that all drug dealers fall under the 'drug dealers are not otherwise good people, they are the scum of society with no moral compass.

Think you're putting words in peoples mouths. :P

what make you think that by legalising drugs you would all of a sudden cure their craving for power, violence, intimidation and lawlessness that goes with the drug trade' category your assertion?

Even if 1/2 of them clear up their act and don't trade or be in the game anymore, or even more than that, there are still going to be a heap more who can't afford to leave it. Those people are going to be replacing what everyone keeps claiming as a 'safe drug' and instead replacing it with something a whole lot less safe.

I'm sure everyone here has at least known someone who has overdosed on something other than pot, for me it was my brother.

You sound like you've been raised by an army of grandmas and watched too many gangsta drug movies.

Drug dealers aren't out there to hurt people. They aren't out there to cause trouble. All they are out there for is to make money. An essential part of doing this is a) steady supply of drugs b) steady supply of customers and c) don't get caught.

So explain how a low level dealer would use violence to climb the ladder infi? Wouldn't they do it buy selling more drugs?

skythra your assumption that marijuana dealers will automatically turn to other illegal activites has no basis in economics whatsover, and has led you to faulty conclusions. do you have a degree in economics? because it sounds like you have nfi what you're talking about.

Rebute it then.
Come on. I havn't finished the degree, but i'll let you know when i have :)

only a wuss would call someone out and not be specific and actually then add something to correct it.

Unless you had no basis or understanding yourself?

last edited by skythra at 13:17:56 22/Oct/09

i am sorry if drug dealers are completely misunderstood by the media and public perception. the awesome service they are delivering to society has been demonsied! what a tough break. they should do some rebranding to make themselves more family oriented....

No not misunderstood by media and public perception, misunderstood by you infi. Nice attempt to try and blame your ignorance on something else though, you'll make an excellent politician one day.

I don't misunderstand them. I know dealers are jizzballs, feeding off the weakness and addiction of vulnerable people (oh I better not leave out all the cool stoners who love to relax with a spliff every now and then but have it totally under control).

You think mums and dads all over Australia have a warm feeling towards dealers and drug users. You think they are quite open to the prospect of their children scoring while down at schoolies?

What the f*** are YOU smoking?

edit: the other thing is I don't even give a s*** these days if people want to smoke or shoot up or whatever. keep them in some housing project somewhere far away from me though. i don't want them near my businesses or near my niece or nephew. just keep them away and they can get high to their heart's content. all the public health problems they face well that's part of the waste in taxes the government already takes from me. i have private health insurance so i will never be in the same hospital as them.

but if not for the dealers they would never have been in this predicament and that's what upsets me.

last edited by infi at 13:30:35 22/Oct/09

I don't really give a f*** about what mums and dads around australia think... haha why do you?

By saying that dealers only sell drugs for the 'drug dealers are not otherwise good people, they are the scum of society with no moral compass. what make you think that by legalising drugs you would all of a sudden cure their craving for 'power, violence, intimidation and lawlessness that goes with the drug trade' CLEARLY demonstrates you misunderstand why dealers do what they do, how they do it, and how they continue to do it and 'rise up the ladder' so to speak.

Care to revise your bulls*** statement, sir?

oh god, one last post i can't resist:

Think you're putting words in peoples mouths. :P

skythra, you can stop posting now because you've outed yourself as a moron. noone is putting words in anyone else's mouth why don't you read back through the thread... infi posted those exact words you dumbass.

Even if 1/2 of them clear up their act and don't trade or be in the game anymore, or even more than that, there are still going to be a heap more who can't afford to leave it. Those people are going to be replacing what everyone keeps claiming as a 'safe drug' and instead replacing it with something a whole lot less safe.

another baseless assumption.

Come on. I havn't finished the degree, but i'll let you know when i have :)

well i have. so shut the f*** up.

go read some economic analysis of crime because research in that area has given conclusions that are completely at odds with what you are saying. essentially drug dealers are utility maximising agents just like any other economic agent. if the costs of crime are increased, or the benefits reduced, then they look at other alternatives. your assumption that they automatically turn to other criminal activities is utterly baseless and laughable. show me some evidence that this actually occurs, the burden of proof is on the person making the outlandish claim - not the other way round.

there has been an absolute f***ton of research in this area from the university of chicago alone, let alone other academic institutions.

google papers by: Becker, Posner, Landes, etc.

actually if you really are an economics student just go onto econlit and search for "economics of crime". and then get a clue.

now i'm out of this thread, cya suckers!

last edited by taggs at 13:30:44 22/Oct/09