Cannabis prohibition has failed. It's time for a new approach.

Message boards : Politics : Cannabis prohibition has failed. It's time for a new approach.
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3

AuthorMessage
Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21804
Credit: 2,815,091
RAC: 0
United States
Message 863637 - Posted: 8 Feb 2009, 21:50:15 UTC

ID: 863637 · Report as offensive
Profile StormKing
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Nov 00
Posts: 456
Credit: 2,887,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 864765 - Posted: 12 Feb 2009, 20:05:36 UTC

FEBRUARY 12, 2009
Latin American Panel Calls U.S. Drug War a Failure
By JOSE DE CORDOBA

MEXICO CITY -- As drug violence spirals out of control in Mexico, a commission led by three former Latin American heads of state blasted the U.S.-led drug war as a failure that is pushing Latin American societies to the breaking point.

"The available evidence indicates that the war on drugs is a failed war," said former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, in a conference call with reporters from Rio de Janeiro. "We have to move from this approach to another one."

The commission, headed by Mr. Cardoso and former presidents Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico and César Gaviria of Colombia, says Latin American governments as well as the U.S. must break what they say is a policy "taboo" and re-examine U.S.-inspired antidrugs efforts. The panel recommends that governments consider measures including decriminalizing the use of marijuana.

Mexico has been besieged by drug violence amid a two-year government crackdown.
The report, by the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy, is the latest to question the U.S.'s emphasis on punitive measures to deal with illegal drug use and the criminal violence that accompanies it. A recent Brookings Institution study concluded that despite interdiction and eradication efforts, the world's governments haven't been able to significantly decrease the supply of drugs, while punitive methods haven't succeeded in lowering drug use.

John Walters, former director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said, "It's not true that we've lost or can't do anything about the drug problem," and cited security improvements in Colombia.

President Barack Obama has yet to appoint a successor to Mr. Walters. A spokesman for the Office of National Drug Control Policy said he couldn't comment on speculation over the appointment of a new director.

According to a Democratic official familiar with the process, Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske is under consideration for an administration job, most likely to head the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

The three former presidents who head the commission are political conservatives who have confronted in their home countries the violence and corruption that accompany drug trafficking.

The report warned that the U.S.-style antidrug strategy was putting the region's fragile democratic institutions at risk and corrupting "judicial systems, governments, the political system and especially the police forces."

The report comes as drug violence is engulfing Mexico, which has become the key transit point for cocaine traffic to the U.S. Decapitation of rival drug traffickers has become common as cartels try to intimidate one another.

Mr. Walters said increased violence in border areas of Mexico was partly a result of criminal organizations compensating for reduced income from the supply of drugs by turning to other activities, such as people-smuggling, and continuing to fight over turf.

U.S. law-enforcement officials -- as well as some of their counterparts in Mexico -- say the explosion in violence indicates progress in the war on drugs as organizations under pressure are clashing.

"If the drug effort were failing there would be no violence," a senior U.S. official said Wednesday. There is violence "because these guys are flailing. We're taking these guys out. The worst thing you could do is stop now."

Latin American governments have largely followed U.S. advice in trying to stop the flow of drugs from the point of origin. The policy has had little effect.

In Colombia, billions of dollars in U.S. aid have helped the military regain control from the hands of drug-financed communist guerrillas and lower crime, but the help hasn't dented the amount of drugs flowing from Colombia.

In the conference call, Mr. Gaviria said the U.S. approach to narcotics -- based on treating drug consumption as a crime -- had failed. Latin America, he said, should adapt a more European approach, based on treating drug addiction as a health problem.

—David Luhnow, Louise Radnofsky and Evan Perez contributed to this article.
Write to José de Córdoba at jose.decordoba@wsj.com

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A9

ID: 864765 · Report as offensive
Profile Krisk
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Jul 99
Posts: 9
Credit: 1,845,297
RAC: 0
United States
Message 865820 - Posted: 15 Feb 2009, 18:19:30 UTC
Last modified: 15 Feb 2009, 18:56:48 UTC

Under current law as authored by some of our more enlightened state legislatures, there is a mandatory term of 15 years (higher in Texas/less enlightenment) for possession of an ounce of MJ. So much for letting the punishment fit the crime and if the crime is being inebriated . . . well, you know the rest. For as long as this testament to irrationality stands, why not make the best use of it?

For instance, Madoff is about to walk away after having committed the crime of the century, rather, all of human history. He has enough money stashed away to buy Dershowitz for his defense and not have to return him to Harvard for the deposit. So why not plant an ounce of cannabis in Madoff's apartment and inform the DEA that he's still involved in questionable trading practices. This in itself may briefly trouble the courts as they avoid setting many new precedents.

The problem with legalizing pot is not the threat it poses to the very fabric of the family; your neighborhood tavern; or the traffic of uninspected, military container freight; but rather it's the significant revenue stream for states and agencies strapped for cash. After all, the last 8 years has brought about a new interpretation of unlawful seizure as outlined by the Constitution. If you have pot or any other suspicionable substance (a line of Ajax), it's the checkered flag for seizure and sale of your assets by most any agency - without recourse or restitution. Cannibis is a cash cow, a justifier of breaking the law by its duly authorized enforcers, and an indication of how naive pot's proponents are as to the host of impediments to its legalization. As the image in post 845415 shows, your public servants have lined up against you and are extralegally helping themselves to your larder whenever your pleasures provide the excuse (smoking in public).

Cannabis prohibition has not failed - it is riotously successful in every sense and underlines that evaporating separation between the practices of organized crime and government. If that's too much to digest, what about the whistleblower's testimony that the SEC was partnering with Madoff in his plunder of US corporate and investor assets? How much time before the character of the witness is marginalized by the media through sham sex scandal or worse, a Condit-style framing? After all, it's public knowledge that Wall Street does own the media: Rupert's empire includes NewsCorp, the Dow Jones, the Wall Street Journal, and DSS; and there are more.

Perhaps Mission420 is an NPO founded in noble principles, but as with slaying any giant how much effect would David have had without identifying the precise target and being a hell of a marksman? Mission420 does not have a consolidated target, but rather a diffuse empire of established abuse.
ID: 865820 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65709
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 865848 - Posted: 15 Feb 2009, 19:47:07 UTC - in response to Message 846789.  
Last modified: 15 Feb 2009, 19:49:13 UTC



if you live in society, you obey the rules which are put together by coverment which is normally elected by people, if you don´t obey, move to remote island.


I always have a problem with that argument because not very long ago the law stated that women, blacks, indians and those who were not landowners could not vote.
If everyone who disagreed with the laws of the land went to this remote island instead of speaking against unjust laws, nothing would have changed...except the population.




we live in democratic society, so if we want, we can change any law, so that is not excuse to break them.

Only If the Federal Laws prohibiting Cannabis are repealed or at least modified and that's not going to happen anytime soon I'd think.

And state laws can be passed makin It legal, But the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution makes those laws moot and so Federal Cannabis laws still would apply.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 865848 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 865879 - Posted: 15 Feb 2009, 21:36:23 UTC - in response to Message 865820.  


Krisk makes many fine points relating to the industry that has built up around the prohibition of cannabis.
So many agencies, departments and law enforcement entities have too much at stake to risk losing their funding, both from governmental and confiscated sources.

In the end, I believe this prohibition will be stopped, but there will be years of infighting before that happens.

I won't even get into the injustice of throwing someone in prison for having a baggy of pot while allowing white collar crime, which affects millions of citizens, to go virtually unpunished.







ID: 865879 · Report as offensive
Terror Australis
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1817
Credit: 262,693,308
RAC: 44
Australia
Message 871738 - Posted: 3 Mar 2009, 15:19:53 UTC

This documentary improves upon many of the points Krisk made and explains the unholy symbiosis between the drug industry and the various drug enforcement agencies ("The Union" of the title) who both lose money if legalisation occurs.

It's a little long, 104 min, but worth it. It probably contains nothing you didn't already know (even if you hadn't actually thought about it) but it's well put together, informative and entertaining

The Union: The Business Behind Getting High

Regards
Brodo


ID: 871738 · Report as offensive
Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21804
Credit: 2,815,091
RAC: 0
United States
Message 879635 - Posted: 27 Mar 2009, 1:49:15 UTC

ID: 879635 · Report as offensive
Tom Haley
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Jul 99
Posts: 80
Credit: 1,132,917
RAC: 0
United States
Message 880678 - Posted: 30 Mar 2009, 1:43:32 UTC

In my family:

Adult Non pot smokers - 8. Currently employed 8.
Adult pot smokers - 6. Currently unemployed 6.

Children of Non Pot smokers, drug use. None known of.

Children of Pot smokers, Cocaine - 1, Methampatmine 1, Crack Cocaine 1. Pot 4.

Adult, Non pot smokers - speeding tickets.

Adult, pot smokers, DUI's too many to track. Check Forging x 2, Assaults x 6. Child molestation 1.

Adult Non pot smokers Children (6). HS Grad - 5 GED 1.
Adult pot smoker Children 7. HS Grad - 1. GED 2 Incomplete 4.

None of the pot smokers have ever been arrested for posession of pot.

Tell me again - it doesn't hurt anybody.
Tell me again - it's harmless.
Tell me again - they must be doing it wrong.

Are you going to come give them a job. NO. Are you going to donate some money to them? NO. Are you going to straighten their kids out. NO. You aren't going to do anything except expouse your self deluded junk to others.

But then again, I might be prejudiced. I might be upset by the waste. I might be tired of them coming by to bum some money. I might be upset by a wonderful kid selling herself for drugs.

So, if you think its so great, give it to your own kids, give it to your grandkids - it will help them I am sure. I hope it brings as much happiness to your family as it did mine.















Man - a creature made at the end of the week's work when God was tired. - Mark Twain
ID: 880678 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 880683 - Posted: 30 Mar 2009, 2:09:06 UTC

Tom
I'm going to go way out on a limb and say that I think the criminal element in your family would have been that way regardless of cannabis.

I don't think smoking pot turns people into child molesters and cheque forgers.

No, I think that stuff was inside them long before they took their first toke.
ID: 880683 · Report as offensive
Tom Haley
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Jul 99
Posts: 80
Credit: 1,132,917
RAC: 0
United States
Message 880705 - Posted: 30 Mar 2009, 3:43:37 UTC - in response to Message 880683.  



My brothers plea to the judge at the sentencing for molesting a 12 year old was "I was high and would not have done it if I was straight" he got 5 years. That is an actual quote.

Should I believe him?

Do you believe him?

He says he was "really stoned" at the time.

So should he be able to get some "legalized pot"?

Do you want to sell him some?

The brother with the check forgery tell me that "he was smoking a lot of pot at the time and he was broke". He also says he wouldn't have done it if he was straight.

Want to give him some legalized pot also?

Funny that the family members that smoke pot have so many troubles, and that those that don't only have normal ones.

Lets see, previous generation grandparents, no pot smoking, no prison time, normal lives. Where does the criminal element come from? The genes you think?

Same parents, same church, same schools.

Are you offering to help any of their kids?
Would you like to hire them or their kids to work for you?
Would you like to give them some money? (they all need it) My mom and dad gave them over a $100,000 before she died.

They promise that this time they won't do it again. This time they are going to get a job and keep it. This time they are going to go to church. This time they are going to go to NARCANON. I am sure this time they are going to keep their word to you and not make pot smoking look so bad. You want me to tell them you believe them? You have faith in them?

They agree with you of course. Pot hasn't hurt them in any way. It relieves their stress. It lets them unwind. They can quit it anytime. If you say well didn't you tell the judge you was high and you wouldn't have done it straight? My brother will tell you "well that was just one time". My other brother says the same thing - must be coincidence.

Are you trying to say my brothers don't get good quality pot?

When they were married, they both married fellow pot smokers. I am sure the reason all their children abuse drugs has nothing to do with that. My niece was destined to be a crack head anyway. The nephew that does cocaine says he and his brother use to get into my brothers stash when they were 12 and 11. I am sure that has nothing to do with their problems now.

So if is so good why don't you give it to your kids and grandkids, why not give some to your nieces and nephews while you are at it. How about passing some on to your neigbors kids. Then they will all be mellow. They will all be less stressed. They will all turn out fine. Pot is good for them.

And if they later turn to harder drugs, it wasn't the pot that did it. And if they can't hold a job, it wasn't the pot, and if they commit a crime and say I was "high" certainly it wouldn't be from the pot, they must have been criminals anyway.

They must have been born "bad".








































Man - a creature made at the end of the week's work when God was tired. - Mark Twain
ID: 880705 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 880724 - Posted: 30 Mar 2009, 7:11:11 UTC
Last modified: 30 Mar 2009, 7:14:56 UTC

Tom
I'm really sorry all these bad things have happened in your family.
I really mean that, whether you believe it or not.

When your brothers claimed they were really high when committing crimes, they were attempting to deflect the blame from themselves to an outside source.
Sometimes that works in court toward receiving a lesser penalty.

I'm not a user, as I stated in an earlier post, so there's no need to be angry with me over my beliefs.
I would no sooner offer weed to a child than I would offer a shot of wiskey.

Children are to be protected from adult vices at all times.
You might as well tell me to offer up my daughter to having sex with all the teenage boys in town. It ain't gonna happen.

My point is that cannabis prohibition, just as the alcohol prohibition, doesn't work.
We are now witnessing the same gangland shoot-outs in the streets of our cities that took place during the alcohol prohibition.
The vice will not go away by passing laws which only serve to create profits worth killing over.

Decriminalize cannabis, legalize prostitution and remove over 90% of the cash flow from the gangs.
Once these two activities are regulated it'll be no different than the situation we have with alcohol now.
Some people will abuse their use of the substance and will face the penalties while the vast majority will not abuse their use.
Not everyone who takes a drink is a lush, just as not everyone who takes a toke is a child molester.
ID: 880724 · Report as offensive
Tom Haley
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Jul 99
Posts: 80
Credit: 1,132,917
RAC: 0
United States
Message 881091 - Posted: 1 Apr 2009, 1:22:38 UTC
Last modified: 1 Apr 2009, 1:35:39 UTC

Whether you believe it or not pot is a gateway drug.
Legalizing a gateway drug "that doesn't hurt anyone" will make the other drugs more attractive. If you would like I will personally introduce you to those that say that now.

Now you can say that being under the influence of a drug isn't any more likely to cause you to do something unlawful - but I believe if you ask any Doctor or Policeman he will tell you that alcohol and pot both release inhibitions and dull your reasoning capactity. Not a good combination.

Do you belive that pot smokers would make for better drivers, Doctors, lawyers, druggists, sky divers, hunters? Would you want them to operate heavy machinery?
Because we already have terrible problems with alcohol users that do these things which are somewhat easier to detect because they may smell of it.

You may or not figure out the nurse at the hospital preparing your meds is high or not. Or the Bus driver that is wearing sunglasses. Or the hunter with the visine in his eyes.

Why do you believe that someone under the influence of pot maintains his good judgement? Believe me they don't. The truly stoned are truly irrational. And believe me there are plenty of pot smokers ready to add a little something extra to give it an extra kick. You may have been also told that pot smokers are nonviolent when high. Some are some aren't just like alchohol drinkers.

Now as you say, you don't know any of this stuff because you don't use it yourself and you are not around it. Well I can tell you. I can show you. I have to live with it. I have to hear my family name on the police scanner. I have to see my family name in the newspapers.

You may well intentioned, but you are seriously misinformed.
If you proposed this in an effort to relieve suffering, you have no idea of the unintended consequences that would be unleashed.

And Robert would it be any better if a person high on pot killed a family member in a car accident than someone drinking alcohol? Could you stand to read that statistic in the paper - deaths caused by driving while impaired pot smokers and know that you had added to it? Could you stand to know that someones daughter tried the "legal" pot you help create and went on to crack? What if it was one of your family members? Could you live with yourself?

Now, you contend that the efforts put forth in the existing laws "don't work".
People still use pot illegally. People also molest children, they also rob banks, kill each other, etc. etc. People see these laws as not tough enough or too tough. Unworkable, a waste of time, Why do we lock up "nonviolent" white collar criminals? Why do lock up nonviolent shoplifters?

And if you think you can keep legal pot out of the hands of children any better than you can keep prescription drugs and alcohol out of the hands of those under 21 - take a minute and google "drunk teen" or "teen prescription drug abuse"
Man - a creature made at the end of the week's work when God was tired. - Mark Twain
ID: 881091 · Report as offensive
Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21804
Credit: 2,815,091
RAC: 0
United States
Message 881104 - Posted: 1 Apr 2009, 2:05:39 UTC - in response to Message 881091.  

Whether you believe it or not pot is a gateway drug.

Legitimate question: Is smoking cigarettes a gateway to smoking pot?
me@rescam.org
ID: 881104 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 881204 - Posted: 1 Apr 2009, 6:11:48 UTC - in response to Message 881091.  

Whether you believe it or not pot is a gateway drug.
Legalizing a gateway drug "that doesn't hurt anyone" will make the other drugs more attractive. If you would like I will personally introduce you to those that say that now.

Now you can say that being under the influence of a drug isn't any more likely to cause you to do something unlawful - but I believe if you ask any Doctor or Policeman he will tell you that alcohol and pot both release inhibitions and dull your reasoning capactity. Not a good combination.

Do you belive that pot smokers would make for better drivers, Doctors, lawyers, druggists, sky divers, hunters? Would you want them to operate heavy machinery?
Because we already have terrible problems with alcohol users that do these things which are somewhat easier to detect because they may smell of it.

You may or not figure out the nurse at the hospital preparing your meds is high or not. Or the Bus driver that is wearing sunglasses. Or the hunter with the visine in his eyes.

Why do you believe that someone under the influence of pot maintains his good judgement? Believe me they don't. The truly stoned are truly irrational. And believe me there are plenty of pot smokers ready to add a little something extra to give it an extra kick. You may have been also told that pot smokers are nonviolent when high. Some are some aren't just like alchohol drinkers.

Now as you say, you don't know any of this stuff because you don't use it yourself and you are not around it. Well I can tell you. I can show you. I have to live with it. I have to hear my family name on the police scanner. I have to see my family name in the newspapers.

You may well intentioned, but you are seriously misinformed.
If you proposed this in an effort to relieve suffering, you have no idea of the unintended consequences that would be unleashed.

And Robert would it be any better if a person high on pot killed a family member in a car accident than someone drinking alcohol? Could you stand to read that statistic in the paper - deaths caused by driving while impaired pot smokers and know that you had added to it? Could you stand to know that someones daughter tried the "legal" pot you help create and went on to crack? What if it was one of your family members? Could you live with yourself?

Now, you contend that the efforts put forth in the existing laws "don't work".
People still use pot illegally. People also molest children, they also rob banks, kill each other, etc. etc. People see these laws as not tough enough or too tough. Unworkable, a waste of time, Why do we lock up "nonviolent" white collar criminals? Why do lock up nonviolent shoplifters?

And if you think you can keep legal pot out of the hands of children any better than you can keep prescription drugs and alcohol out of the hands of those under 21 - take a minute and google "drunk teen" or "teen prescription drug abuse"


Tom
My taking the stand that cannabis should be decriminalized does not imply that I want everyone to be stoned all the time, nor does it imply that I believe that someone who is high retains his good judgement, as you stated in your post.

No, I do not want airline pilots to be stoned.
No, I do not want my medical practitioners to be stoned
No, I don't want my family killed by a stoned driver.

Having said these things doesn't mean any of it won't happen tomorrow even though cannabis is illegal right now.

Prohibition doesn't work. It's a fact we need to come to terms with if we're going to try to minimize some of our social problems.

The fear you are expressing seems to be that once there is no imprisonment for those in possession of pot the whole country will be going on some kind of free for all stoner binge.

As for keeping "legal" pot out of the hands of minors, prohibition doesn't seem to have stopped them from getting their hands on "illegal" pot.






ID: 881204 · Report as offensive
Profile Greg Hogan
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Mar 04
Posts: 28
Credit: 9,235,626
RAC: 0
New Zealand
Message 881239 - Posted: 1 Apr 2009, 9:22:55 UTC - in response to Message 845415.  

..prohibition has failed. It's time for a new approach.


I agree.
Prohibition is more about the moving of 'a stock' from a state of 'general availability' to the uncontrolled, unregulated and underground black market.

One has to ask the question "Who wants it prohibited and why ?"

Not the users thats for sure - status quo or more widely available would be their choices.
Maybe the non-user population, but they are not 'stake-holders' so anything they want is mere opinion, belief or the classic sticky-beak do-gooder I-know-whats-best interventionist mentality. It doesn't really matter to them either way.
The people whom benefit the most are the suppliers, growers/chemists, marketers. The end of the money chain guys.
Prohibition only benefits the criminals who have a vested interest in keeping the 'Stock' in their domain - their underground. Where they can make the most money.

When its illegal you cannot manage it, you cannot educate people, you cannot minimize the harm because the powers that be have taken the Ostrich approach and pretended there is no problem that cannot be solved by telling people "You are not allowed to.." or you will be locked up.
Writing a blanket law that basically says "Drugs are bad - dont do drugs"
simply because some people cannot be responsible enough or lack self-control is akin to writing a law that prohibits car driving because it might result in an accident. Second thoughts.. that might be a good idea. Not!

Im not advocating carte-blanch unregulated use, that is an extreme Im not comfortable with but as a sentient being I reserve the right to do whatever I like.

Side-swipe..
Here in good ol' West Auckland New Zealand its pretty much an offense to not use the Herb as God intended (all that bears seed I give to you).
Distilling alcohol is a legal right here, its legal, anyone can brew beer, wine or make whiskey.
Our problem here is the scourge Meth-Amphetamine, which is prohibited and makes the gangs rich enough to pay-off lawyers, police and politicians to keep it that way.
There are people who are not dysfunctional unemployed stoners, that quite like their recreational drugs be it Wine, Beer, Pot, Heroine or chocolate.


ID: 881239 · Report as offensive
Tom Haley
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Jul 99
Posts: 80
Credit: 1,132,917
RAC: 0
United States
Message 881264 - Posted: 1 Apr 2009, 11:45:50 UTC

I am unsure what your argument is -

Some use it and it doesn't hurt them?
How many have to be hurt before its a bad idea?
100? 1000? 10,000? or really you don't care as long as "some" can do it without getting hurt.

It's only bad if you are personnally affected?

Cyanide is made from peach and apricot pits - totally natural. God gave us Hemlock too, are you advocating we all drink some of that?

You drop in they need to be educated. I see plenty of anti drug commercials, our schools here have antidrug education and while that happens Hollywood throws in a couple of "Cheech and Chong" movies showing how "cool" it is to be stoned. Throw in a few rap songs for the kids. It's all free speech don't you know?

Since a few fines and some jail time isn't keeping it under control maybe we should try something else - what would you recommend?

Double the fine?
Double the jail time?
Summary executions?

I have asked both my brothers who gave them their first pot - they wouldn't say.

I would be more than happy to beat that person to death with a large blunt object.

And if you pass a law saying the local store clerk can sell it, I am not so sure I wouldn't consider burning the store down with the owner inside.

But then maybe I am a bit sensitive, who am I to keep people from having "fun".

On the other hand, who are you that doesn't mind a few hundred thousand more stoners turned loose on the highways? On the job, in the schools? On the welfare rolls?

As I said before, give it to your kids, your grandkids, the neighbors kids, I hope it brings the same joy to you that is has to me. Because if you make it cheaper and more available there are going to be more exposed to it, not less.

But don't tell me it's victimless.
Don't tell me it's harmless.
Don't tell me people using it would have made the same decisions they would have made if they weren't stoned.

Just keep spouting the drug pusher line - it's cool, it will make you mellow, it's nobody elses business what you do, it doesn't hurt anybody.

And wouldn't you be proud to say you gave an alcoholic his first drink?



Man - a creature made at the end of the week's work when God was tired. - Mark Twain
ID: 881264 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3

Message boards : Politics : Cannabis prohibition has failed. It's time for a new approach.


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.