Because like pot is really not bad

[Fitz]

+1... Weed was WAY easier to get growing up than pot or alcohol

[roo_ster]

Ah, didn't catch the economic bent there.  Still, I fail to see the point in creating a statutory standard of parenting that is based on metabolytes in urine.  There are already more kids in foster care than can be reasonably handled.  How about if their kids show signs of neglect due to lack of resources despite evidence that the parents have or have been provided with resources?  Seems a lot more reasonable to measure parenting based on, y'know, parenting.

And it has the merit of already being the system in place.  Having cocaine metabolytes in one's urine does not mean that one has spend money on cocaine.  It means one has cocaine metabolytes in one's urine.  It meets most every standard of proof in a child protection action that I can think of for demonstrating that the individual has used cocaine, but again, absent direct evidence of harm to the children, it's just too expensive to implement.

And it turns the War of Drugs into the War on Poor People Who Use Drugs.  What's the point? 

BW:


I would not take folks' kids away(0) for failing a drug test.  I would not insist they take any drug test, if they want to live independently and not take any taxpayer money via the dole or associated programs.  If someone uses pot/cocaine/whatever and manages to take care of their kids, I am not going to insist the taxpayers' take on the burden when it is reasonably being shouldered by their parents(1).

But, it is perfectly reasonable for the taxpayers, who are footing the bill, to insist on conditions(2) before coughing up $$$.  "They pay the cost to be the Boss," in the immortal words of BB King. 

If the taxpayers want those who are taking their money to be "drug free," it is their money.  If those who want the money don't like the conditions, they don't have to take it.

That is the moral argument.

The more practical argument is that when someone is taking the taxpayers' dollars, one essentially is a ward of the taxpayers.  When responsibility and authority are not linked, Bad Things result.

Then apply whatever standard the locals desire for unfit parenting and yank the kids, if that is the agreed-upon solution for unfit parents. 

If I made the rules/conditions to be met before anyone was allowed to take taxpayer $$, I'd lobby for the following:
1. No use of of any recreational drugs or alcohol.
2. No use of tobacco.
3. Other conditions to make staying on the dole unpleasant enough to prod many/most into finding a means to support themselves(3).  [These would increase over time.  I would even include curfews on both adults and children.  Kids are pretty obvious.  If one's job or child care needs do not require staying out late, staying out late and yukking it up to the wee hours is a privilege...if one is not supporting one's self.]



(0) I am of the mind that removing kids form bad parents is not likely to improve their lives much.  There was a recent study showing that foster care systems had no statistically significant positive effect on outcomes, which bolsters my contention that sometimes, there is no good answer or happy ending.

(1)  Obviously, I don't think drug use, in and of itself, ought to result in losing one's kids.

(2) Non-gov't/non-taxpayer assistance is hardly ever condition-free.  Why should the taxpayers be the only ones who don't have a say in how their hard-earned dollars are spent?

(3) Because taxpayer dollars spent that way are for the purpose of getting folks to support themselves.  Period.

[roo_ster]

TommyGunn:

Do know that your arguments can be used against firearm use & ownership.

Be careful attributing to inanimate objects the blame for actions taken by living & breathing humans.

[dm1333]

Seems that TommyGun is quite the statist.  Oh, he likes his guns and low taxes all right, but he's more than willing to use the government's gun to control YOU

Chris

I used to think the war on drugs was a waste of money and we would be better served by legalizing pot.  Then in 2003 I got transferred here to pot central.  I guess I'm a bit of a statist too, now.

Were talking about pot in this thread, really how many pot heads are breaking in to people house for pot money? I might agree with you a bit if we where talking about legalizing meth, but no not at the moment. Were talking about pot.

Plenty of people where I live break into somebody elses house to either steal money to buy pot, or to steal their pot.  Google Mendocino County and any combination of pot/drugs/cannabis/marijuana and crime.  Do the same for Lake County, Humboldt and Del Norte and you'll see that medicinal marijuana has created a huge crime problem out here.

Who's going to go buy a $20 gram pot from the thug on the corner that might rob them when you can grow the stuff yourself for damn near free ??  

Plenty.  Even though you can go to a doctor and get a prescription and grow your own there is still a thriving network of dealers here.  You underestimate the sheer laziness of people!

As far as taxation and social costs of legalization goes the Rand Center for Drug Policy Research (I'm sure I screwed that name up, I'm going from memory here) has some interesting things to say about what might happen if Proposition 19 passes here.

[TommyGunn]

Seems that TommyGun is quite the statist.  Oh, he likes his guns and low taxes all right, but he's more than willing to use the government's gun to control YOU

Chris

Bullpucky.  Did you really read my last post?  There are going to be laws in society, like it or not. 
If you truly believe drugs should be legalized, fine.  I think I actually stated in my last post that I was A-OKAY with it --as long as my 2nd amendment right to defend myself is more thoroughly recognized as well

TommyGunn:

Do know that your arguments can be used against firearm use & ownership.

Be careful attributing to inanimate objects the blame for actions taken by living & breathing humans.

Where am I doing this?   Certainly people can behave criminally without drugs.  But don't tell me that every meth head and crackhead out there remains a paragon of virtue.  Plenty of people have gotten themselves addicted to some nasty drug and become desparate enough to violate the law.
Recall Rush Limbaugh and his oxycontin addiction?  Here you have the #1 champion of law & order in this country and took oxy for a back problem, and wound up violating the law in order to maintain his addiction.  True, he didn't become a violent criminal, but he nevertheless acted in a manner completly inconsistant with his normal persona.
Drugs have an effect on people.
My mother dealt with an alcohol addiction during the 1980s, so I've seen it first hand. 
The law did nothing to protect her at all. 
But I don't treat that as a reason to change the law.  My mother dealt with her problem and overcame it.

What "essential liberty" is there in drinking yourself silly with alcohol?

There is none.  What is your point, again?

... You think it would be easier for kids to get drugs than it already is if it where legalized? What are you joking? Or just that ill informed? I still remember my old high school, if you couldn't score a bag of pot on Lake Ave. while you were at lunch you went BACK to school to meet up with one of the many dealers there. Funny thing was I smoked cigarettes at the time and had a MUCH bigger hassle trying to get cigarettes than I would have to get pot. Ask any high school age kid (that's not related to you, they'll probably lie) what's easier to get alcohol, tobacco, or weed. I bet $10 that they say weed. Weed dealers aren't worried about the State pulling their pot license something I think a legal licensed dispenser of Marijuana would have to worry about . 

Why is it that no one ever believes that, no matter how serious aproblem is, it can't get any worse???
I apologize that I was unable to attend your high school, where "if you couldn't score a bag of pot on Lake Ave. while you were at lunch you went BACK to school to meet up with one of the many dealers there."
I don't doubt that that was your experience.  But your experience is not everyones' experience.  It certainly wasn't mine when I was in high school ... which come to think of ... may mean that actually the problem has gotten worse.  Maybe.   Maybe it's only where you lived.  Inner city problems are not spread out evenly throughout the country, you know.  And flyover country's problems, conversely, are not evenly spread out, either.

Tommygunn, True freedom is an ugly, ugly thing.  There is no gaurantee of low crime. 
Unless I commit an offense against another, how dare you prevent me from doing what ever I want to myself?
You realize that your reasoning against drugs is exactly the same reasoning they use to control your guns?

I'm not preventing you from doing anything.  You're free to addict yourself to crack, to meth, to cannibis, to oxycontin, Captain Morgan's Rum, or to Brussel Sprouts if you want to.

"You realize that your reasoning against drugs is exactly the same reasoning they use to control your guns."

 

One more time, from my last thread, and *&^&&* this time, READ IT!

And it isn't because I am on some Great Holy Jihad of my own to keep these drugs criminalized.  I'm not. 
My faith in humanity is not such that I expect great things from humanity should we keep these drugs banned, or should we legalize them.

Now, if I can't convince you that I am not some Hitlerian statist who wants to control everything, there is simply no point in continuing.  A few people here have evinced such terrible abilities at comprehension that it truly boggles me.  How PLAINLY do I have to make myself?  Do I have to state everything twice?  Three times?  In really huge 100pt. font, or is 40 enough?  Perhaps if I tried another language, like Spanish, or German, I might achieve something I apparantly have failed at up to now.
In anycase, I won't be repeating myself again. 
Have fun and I truly wish you all the luck in the world ..........

[roo_ster]

TG:

Get a grip.  Plain text without tags is your friend.

Your prose is no great shakes, it would be easy for someone to read what you wrote rather than divine what you meant.

Do know that your arguments can be used against firearm use & ownership.

Be careful attributing to inanimate objects the blame for actions taken by living & breathing humans.

Where am I doing this?   

The entirety of your argument pretty much consists of, "drugs make people do bad things."  Drugs don't jump up of the table and into an orifice.  Drugs don't make someone late to work and get them fired.  Drugs don't make the decision to steal.  Humans make those decisions.  Plenty of folks who are addicts manage to function every day without committing crimes against other persons or property.  A multitude manage to use but not get addicted to drugs & alcohol and not commit crimes.

OTOH, plenty of sober folk have committed crimes.  I wonder what correlation there is between sobriety and crime?  I'd bet the correlation is both positive and high.  Better criminalize sobriety, I guess.

Certainly people can behave criminally without drugs.  But don't tell me that every meth head and crackhead out there remains a paragon of virtue. 

I'd like you to point out where I wrote or implied this, font-boy.

Recall Rush Limbaugh and his oxycontin addiction?  Here you have the #1 champion of law & order in this country and took oxy for a back problem, and wound up violating the law in order to maintain his addiction.  True, he didn't become a violent criminal, but he nevertheless acted in a manner completly inconsistant with his normal persona.
Drugs have an effect on people.

Rush is the best example for legalization to come along in a long time.  Did they cause him to rob, steal or prostitute his body?  Did he shoot someone over territory?

Nope, despite being doped up to his gills.

My mother dealt with an alcohol addiction during the 1980s, so I've seen it first hand.
The law did nothing to protect her at all.
But I don't treat that as a reason to change the law.  My mother dealt with her problem and overcame it.

It is not the law's business to protect your mom, my mom, or anyone else's from the consequences of their decisions.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So long as a person is an adult, I really don't care what drug-related vice they decide to indulge in, so long as -

a) They don't endanger anyone else;
b) They don't neglect their legitimate responsibilites (like providing for their own kids);
c) Unemployability because of drug use/abuse does NOT make them eligible for the public dole, nor do taxpayers pay for the drugs;
d) As a taxpayer, I don't have to pay to "rehabilitate" them or treat their drug-related health issues, including overdoses.

A person's body is their own, and as far as I'm concerned they can do with it what they please . . . but they have no right to impose the consequences of their poor choices on others.

After all of the discussions of drug legalization we've done here on APS, this post sums the issue up far better than anything I think I've ever seen.

Well said, Hank.

[White Horseradish]

Why is it that no one ever believes that, no matter how serious aproblem is, it can't get any worse???

Perhaps because facts don't support this? Where has this happened? Did you read the article at the link I posted?

I apologize that I was unable to attend your high school, where "if you couldn't score a bag of pot on Lake Ave. while you were at lunch you went BACK to school to meet up with one of the many dealers there."
I don't doubt that that was your experience.  But your experience is not everyones' experience.  It certainly wasn't mine when I was in high school ... which come to think of ... may mean that actually the problem has gotten worse.  Maybe.   Maybe it's only where you lived.  Inner city problems are not spread out evenly throughout the country, you know.  And flyover country's problems, conversely, are not evenly spread out, either.

It was and is my experience as well, both during my 10 years in NYC and my 10 years in Minneapolis. With a couple of phone calls you can have just about any illegal drug 24/7. In some cases, even delivered. Try that with alcohol or tobacco.

And for your maybe I have a maybe not. Solid reasoning, ain't it?

[Seenterman]

Do the same for Lake County, Humboldt and Del Norte and you'll see that medicinal marijuana has created a huge crime problem out here.

Plenty.  Even though you can go to a doctor and get a prescription and grow your own there is still a thriving network of dealers here.  You underestimate the sheer laziness of people!

There are major problems with that analogy, compared to legalizing marijuana. First off Marijuana is still ILLEGAL as per federal law. There is still the criminal incentive to make lots of money off someone else's semi-legal product which is actually the worse of both worlds if you ask me. First off many people don't grow because marijuana is still illegal per federal law and you can wind up with a lot of jail time in Federal court for something your state says is legal. How many people are willing to risk that, or rather someone else take the risk for them? Plus healthy people can't grow their own pot, that's why there are robberies of the medical grow ops.

People are sorta kinda allowed to grow their own pot as long as they stay off the Fed's radar, but its still illegal for the average healthy person to grow marijuana or smoke (which is 90% of marijuana's customer base) so instead of going through the trouble and legal risks of growing the pot themselves they let the semi-legal growers grow the plants until they're almost mature then steal them to harvest the pot then toss the plants. They get the product without any of the work, and without any of the risks of maintaining their own plants, for which the legal penalty is pretty steep compared with getting caught with just marijuana. That whole contradiction is making the the situation much worse than is was, and could be alleviated if people were allowed to grow their own marijuana.

Its also a simple supply and demand  problem. People will steal pot because its valuable, legalize it, allow people to grown their own and suddenly the markets flooded with product and cost goes down. In prohibition days the mafia murdered plenty of people because it was profitable to do so because of alcohols illegality, obviously that still happens sometimes when a wino murders a liquor store clerk to get his fix of booze but it happens so infrequently its almost a statistical anomaly. If marijuana was legalized tomorrow, sure some idiot may murder or steal to get pot, but I bet it would be statistically similar to liquor store robberies and we would cut down on a lot of the organized cartel murders that are happening in Mexico and increasingly spilling across the border. I'm not saying we'll wipe out the cartels by legalizing pot, (we didn't obliterate the mafia either when we legalized alcohol but we dealt them a serious blow) but it would help by cutting off a major source of their revenue stream.

[Seenterman]

I apologize that I was unable to attend your high school, where "if you couldn't score a bag of pot on Lake Ave. while you were at lunch you went BACK to school to meet up with one of the many dealers there."
I don't doubt that that was your experience.  But your experience is not everyones' experience.  It certainly wasn't mine when I was in high school ... which come to think of ... may mean that actually the problem has gotten worse.  Maybe.   Maybe it's only where you lived.  Inner city problems are not spread out evenly throughout the country, you know.  And flyover country's problems, conversely, are not evenly spread out, either.

Well I apologize that you where sheltered for so long. There have been plenty of studies done showing that it is easier for school age kids to obtain marijuana than alcohol.

. . . in a recent paper published in the International Journal of Drug Policy. Their cross-national comparison of drinking and cannabis use among 10th-graders indicates that although strict alcohol laws may prevent kids from drinking, strict marijuana laws don’t do much at all to curb use.

http://www.miller-mccune.com/legal-affairs/can-drug-policy-prevent-reefer-madness-8424/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VJX-4VW91F8-2-1&_cdi=6106&_user=10&_orig=browse&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2010&_sk=999789998&view=c&wchp=dGLbVzW-zSkWb&_valck=1&md5=9e80ab0965672e7dc20605cdb9d36223&ie=/sdarticle.pdf


http://stash.norml.org/south-dakota-teens-say-marijuana-easier-to-get-than-alcohol

http://blog.norml.org/2009/08/28/study-says-its-easier-for-teens-to-buy-marijuana-than-beer/

So maybe it wasn't your experience, but it was mine, Horseradish's, and James Fitzer's along with countless other teens as backed up by scientific studies! Obviously it isn't only a big city problem since I would guess you consider South Dakota part of "flyover country". It may not be everyone experience but I think its big enough of a problem to reexamine our position on prohibition.

So we've been at prohibition for how long? Since 1937, so . . . 73 YEARS. Why isn't the problem wiped out by now? Is it because where not fighting with a winning strategy?  How about we try it a different way since obviously prohibition hasn't worked for 73 years there seems to  be no end in sight.

[TommyGunn]

TG:

Get a grip.  Plain text without tags is your friend.

Your prose is no great shakes, it would be easy for someone to read what you wrote rather than divine what you meant.

Where am I doing this?   

The entirety of your argument pretty much consists of, "drugs make people do bad things."  Drugs don't jump up of the table and into an orifice.  Drugs don't make someone late to work and get them fired.  Drugs don't make the decision to steal.  Humans make those decisions.  Plenty of folks who are addicts manage to function every day without committing crimes against other persons or property.  A multitude manage to use but not get addicted to drugs & alcohol and not commit crimes.

OTOH, plenty of sober folk have committed crimes.  I wonder what correlation there is between sobriety and crime?  I'd bet the correlation is both positive and high.  Better criminalize sobriety, I guess.
I'd like you to point out where I wrote or implied this, font-boy.


Rush is the best example for legalization to come along in a long time.  Did they cause him to rob, steal or prostitute his body?  Did he shoot someone over territory?

Nope, despite being doped up to his gills.


It is not the law's business to protect your mom, my mom, or anyone else's from the consequences of their decisions.

There's a lot of people on this forum who lack precise prose buddy .... which is why we seem to be talking past each other.

Rush is the best example for legalization to come along in a long time.  Did they cause him to rob, steal or prostitute his body?

    Do you think Rush just typically "doctor shops" for a drug to feed an addiction?  He became addicted to a drug, then found he needed to feed the addiction.  He took a series of bad decisions that I don't believe he would have taken if he hadn't been addicted.  Is this  ****-ing clear

The entirety of your argument pretty much consists of, "drugs make people do bad things."

No, the argument is that people under the influence of mood and/or mind altering drugs take really bad decisions that lead to self-destructive behaviour in a lot of cases.  The Limbaugh example fits this precisely.

I'd like you to point out where I wrote or implied this, font-boy.

I didn't say you'd said it, I was making a gratuitous statement on my own.  This is one area where you have completly misread what I've said.  Perhaps you would do better if you weren't so  obsessed with what fonts I use when I am trying to make a point for the ump-teenth time that completly flies over the head of most people here.

Well I apologize that you where sheltered for so long. There have been plenty of studies done showing that it is easier for school age kids to obtain marijuana than alcohol.
 
So maybe it wasn't your experience, but it was mine, Horseradish's, and James Fitzer's along with countless other teens as backed up by scientific studies! Obviously it isn't only a big city problem since I would guess you consider South Dakota part of "flyover country". It may not be everyone experience but I think its big enough of a problem to reexamine our position on prohibition.

So we've been at prohibition for how long? Since 1937, so . . . 73 YEARS. Why isn't the problem wiped out by now? Is it because where not fighting with a winning strategy?  How about we try it a different way since obviously prohibition hasn't worked for 73 years there seems to  be no end in sight.

If you don't think I'm aware that it is very easy for kids to get marijuana, you're wrong.  I'm sure it's very easy for many to obtain it.  I think I am beginning to understand why there seems to be such a communication problem  on this site ... especially so in this particular thread, in fact.   

[MicroBalrog]

  Face Palm!  Do you think Rush just typically "doctor shops" for a drug to feed an addiction?  He became addicted to a drug, then found he needed to feed the addiction.  He took a series of bad decisions that I don't believe he would have taken if he hadn't been addicted.  Is this  ****-ing clearHuh?

What "bad decisions" are those [apart from doing something that is illegal, because obiously I'm arguing that the law is wrong]?

It is not your place - nor the place of the state - to dictate a 'healthy' lifestyle to me or anybody else.

Rush paid for his drugs with his own money, which he earned. He didn't stop coming to work, caring for his family, or being an active citizen. In fact, by any kind of standard Rush Limbaugh is a model American.  I may disagree with his political views, but he is politically active, helps run charities, is a successful businessman and a well-employed person. Drugs and their influence did not make him 'asocial' - not that I think it's somehow your moral dutiy to be 'social'.

[dm1333]

One thing I do know is that if Proposition 19 passes in California we'll start getting answers to some of the theories for and against pot that are being posted here.  We'll know if you can raise enough money through taxes to pay for whatever social costs are involved, and we'll be able to compare the social costs of legal pot vs. the price of incarcerating people.

Seenterman,

I wrote a long response to some of your comments but the computer ate it all.  This will be a lot shorter.  Since 2003 I have spent about 5.5 years living in Mendocino County, CA.  Medical MJ is legal here and plenty of people who are healthy have 215 cards and grow their own dope.  I know that because people have told me that they are in fact healthy and they grow dope.  Getting a 215 card is as simple as seeing a doctor and telling them that you have chronic pain! (sorry for that)  I googled one of the local doctors once and saw that he had given out over eight thousand cards in the last few years.  Considering that he is one of several doctors who prescribe pot and there are only about ten thousand people living here it seems like either there are a lot of sick people here or healthy people are in fact asking for and getting 215 cards.

To my knowledge the feds have never conducted a raid in town on a smaller grow and there are plenty of small grows here.  If it had happened while I was living here I would have heard about it.  The town is just too small to keep something like that quiet.  If you or anybody else are ever passing through the area and want a tour just let me know.  I had a local do the same for me and now that I know what to look for I see dope everywhere in town.  The only smaller grow I can even remember being busted around here was in Albion and it was actually a decent sized indoor grow.

The drug culture is also very pervasive here.  Because of the medical MJ laws you see people lighting up in cars or street corners on a regular basis.  The cops don't even try to stop it because the chances of that person having a 215 card are pretty darn high.  Based on my observations of that drug culture, I'll pass on legal pot.    Based on those same observations I do think that the social costs of legal pot are going to be way higher than people expect and that taxation isn't going to cover those costs.  

If California makes it legal we should all agree to come back here in 5 years and revive this thread.

[TommyGunn]

What "bad decisions" are those [apart from doing something that is illegal, because obiously I'm arguing that the law is wrong]?

It is not your place - nor the place of the state - to dictate a 'healthy' lifestyle to me or anybody else.

Rush paid for his drugs with his own money, which he earned. He didn't stop coming to work, caring for his family, or being an active citizen. In fact, by any kind of standard Rush Limbaugh is a model American.  I may disagree with his political views, but he is politically active, helps run charities, is a successful businessman and a well-employed person. Drugs and their influence did not make him 'asocial' - not that I think it's somehow your moral dutiy to be 'social'.

I am not "DICTATING" anyone's lifestyle.  Are you really trying to tell me it's "healthy" to be addicted to oxycontin?
It is OK to get addicted to alcohol too .... until you start driving around stoned and kill people. 
Pretty soon people have to interact with society on one level or another.  I would like to think that most of the people with whom I'm interacting at 60 miles per hour aren't alcohol addled asshats.   


...

You know what?

Forget it.  Just forget this.  I don't even care any more. Not really. As often as I've tried to explain myself no one seems to be getting it.  I'm through.

[roo_ster]

I am not "DICTATING" anyone's lifestyle.  Are you really trying to tell me it's "healthy" to be addicted to oxycontin?
It is OK to get addicted to alcohol too .... until you start driving around stoned and kill people.  
Pretty soon people have to interact with society on one level or another.  I would like to think that most of the people with whom I'm interacting at 60 miles per hour aren't alcohol addled asshats.  

If you advocate using gov't force against folks, which one assumes you do by supporting current drug laws, you are dictating.  

Be sure it is for a reason that is truly significant and constitutional.

In Rush's case, he harmed no one else in his use of narcotics.  

...

You know what?

Forget it.  Just forget this.  I don't even care any more. Not really. As often as I've tried to explain myself no one seems to be getting it.  I'm through.

Oh, I am sure your arguments are not so complex that no one else on the board understands them.  

I suspect though, that you have convinced fewer folks than you would have liked.

[mtnbkr]

[roo_ster]

The drug culture is also very pervasive here.  Because of the medical MJ laws you see people lighting up in cars or street corners on a regular basis.  The cops don't even try to stop it because the chances of that person having a 215 card are pretty darn high.  Based on my observations of that drug culture, I'll pass on legal pot.    Based on those same observations I do think that the social costs of legal pot are going to be way higher than people expect and that taxation isn't going to cover those costs.  

Some good points.

I am especially in agreement with your disgust for and disdain of the drug culture.  Just because I may think their consumption of MJ ought to be legal doesn't mean I can't condemn the way they do it or other noxious aspects of their culture.

I also expect that there may be an uptick in MJ use...at the expense of alcohol.  I doubt very much it will increase the combined pool of addled drug & alcohol users.  The deltas WRT social costs will be in that small margin of substance abuse shifters.  Will it be a net positive or negative?  I am not sure.  There are several alcoholic sub-cultures, some nastier than others.

[MicroBalrog]

One of the more amazing things I've seen in Amsterdam was a 'coffee shop' as they call it there, located next door to a bicycle police station. In the morning, there would be a young man sitting at the door, smoking (what I assume was) marijuana, smiling cheerfully as the bicycle cops mounted up and passed by him.

[280plus]

The drug culture is also very pervasive here.  Because of the medical MJ laws you see people lighting up in cars or street corners on a regular basis.  The cops don't even try to stop it

Sounds like California circa 1975 to me. 

[dm1333]

Sounds like California circa 1975 to me. 

Actually, northern California circa 2010.  There are 4 people who work for me who are from southern California - all of them have publicly disowned this part of the state.   

The one group I am especially disgusted by are the ones who believe that taxing MJ will end all of the states fiscal woes.  There are quite a few people here who have no idea how deep in the red this state is and who think higher taxes are the answer.  It also amazes me that Jerry Brown is probably going to get elected governor but that is a whole different subject.

[Seenterman]

If you don't think I'm aware that it is very easy for kids to get marijuana, you're wrong.  I'm sure it's very easy for many to obtain it.  I think I am beginning to understand why there seems to be such a communication problem  on this site ... especially so in this particular thread, in fact.   

I know you said your done but I'm hoping you come back to answer one more question. Do you think there's any correlation between children's relative ease in obtaining marijuana in contrast with the difficulty in obtaining alcohol in regards to the law?

I googled one of the local doctors once and saw that he had given out over eight thousand cards in the last few years.  Considering that he is one of several doctors who prescribe pot and there are only about ten thousand people living here it seems like either there are a lot of sick people here or healthy people are in fact asking for and getting 215 cards.

Well honestly since I think its stupid to even make people jump through these hurdles just to smoke a plant, if I had things my way you wouldn't need an excuse from a doctor. I don't want to be naive as some people will always be gaming the system but how do you know those people don't have a legitimate need for marijuana? Yours definition of legitimate may be wildly different from someone else. Say someone wants medical marijuana because they get headaches. Is that a legitimate need? How severe are the headaches? What about someone who has back problems but doesn't want to risk getting addicted to pills? How do you judge the amount of pain someone's feeling?

What about someone who's depressed and say pot makes them happier and more pleasant. Obviously antidepressants such as Zoloft are legal but is that a legitimate use for marijuana?  How can you say defiantly either way? What about a recovering anorexic who smokes pot to increase their appetite? Are these "legitimate" uses?  Just because someone is healthy doesn't mean they do not have a valid reason for medical marijuana.

The drug culture is also very pervasive here.  Because of the medical MJ laws you see people lighting up in cars or street corners on a regular basis.  The cops don't even try to stop it because the chances of that person having a 215 card are pretty darn high

No one said the transition from illegal pot to legal pot would be glass smooth but I think these are valid concerns. First off I would not support anyone lighting up in their car, or while operating heavy machinery. I'd treat marijuana the same as alcohol, and it is; its a mind altering substance. No driving while smoking or you get popped for a DWI. Smoking on the street I could see that as being a legal gray area that needs to be straitened out. You can smoke cigarettes on the street obviously but you can't openly drink on the street. I'd be inclined to ban pot smoking out in public but I consider that a small quality of life crime constant with litter and people blasting stereos, give people tickets for it. Its not a reason to outlaw the stereos.     

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

No, the argument is that people under the influence of mood and/or mind altering drugs take really bad decisions that lead to self-destructive behaviour in a lot of cases.  The Limbaugh example fits this precisely.

It's not just self-destructive behavior in a lot of cases.  It harms plenty of others, too.  If it was only self-destruction, then I could probably live with it.

[MicroBalrog]

It's not just self-destructive behavior in a lot of cases.  It harms plenty of others, too.  If it was only self-destruction, then I could probably live with it.

What 'others' did Limbaugh harm?

[280plus]

The one group I am especially disgusted by are the ones who believe that taxing MJ will end all of the states fiscal woes.

I won't say it'll solve anybody's fiscal woes but I would think that if we were to stop spending so much time and $ on enforcement and make a little $ off of it instead it couldn't hurt. beside, way too many otherwise decent people end up in the prison system over this. Next thing you know you've turned a bunch of otherwise harmless potheads into hardened criminals. It just don't make no sense.

[dm1333]

Let me make my point a little clearer.  Some people here think that legalizing MJ is going to put California back into the black and it will solve the states economic problems.  The real problem here is too much spending and driving businesses away into states like Oregon or Nevada.

I went back and googled the doctor that I made reference to, I don't want to post his name here but what I was able to find today says he has given out 2000 cards.  I'm convinced he is on record saying he has given out over 8000 cards but I can't open up all of the sites here at work.