I can’ decide whether you are being cnical or that you sincerely beleive and energetically support statutes that exact criminal sanction, penalize people for making a personal choice to ingest a substance into their bodies. What is a more crude intrusion into a persons’s right to decide what she ingests, or not ingests into her person? Scan through the responses here and you find a lot of ignorance, stupidity, opinion, serious contemplation, error, truth, you know the drill.
Is it your opinion that the people have right to set around their computers, or their legislative council tables and decide who should go to jail, or suffer some penal sanction for ingesting some substance? What if they be completeley ingorant of, or partially aware of, or enjoy an in depth understanding of he substance, does it make any diference?
If a person is arrested for being under the influence of and possessing with the intent to sell marijuana or methamphetimine or heroin or hashish or whatever, are you aware that the defendant does not have the right to challenge the assumption that she was harming or threatening the health and safety of anyone in the universe at the time of the event/arrest ?
What if IWLN in a momenet of silly weakness decided to smoke some grass with a person she trusts, just to see what all the shouting and screaming was about. She puffs and inhales deeply. She smokes a couple of joints and just as she says outl oud, “I am under the influence of marijuana” the door comes crashing open and she is arrested for being under the influence of a controlled substance?
If IWLN has minor children then there is a possibility that the children may be taken away from mommy and daddy, who is the trusted one smoking with her? This is a hypothetical, so try to answer as if the event occured as defined.
I can’ decide whether you are being cnical or that you sincerely beleive and energetically support statutes that exact criminal sanction, penalize people for making a personal choice to ingest a substance into their bodies. What is a more crude intrusion into a persons’s right to decide what she ingests, or not ingests into her person? Scan through the responses here and you find a lot of ignorance, stupidity, opinion, serious contemplation, error, truth, you know the drill.
Is it your opinion that the people have right to set around their computers, or their legioslative council tables and decide who should go to jail, or suffer some penal sanction for ingesting some substance? What if they be completeley ingorant of, or partially aware of, or enjoy an in depth understanding of he substance, does it make any diference?
If a person is arrested for being under the influence of and possessing with the intent to sell marijuana or methamphetimine or heroin or hashish or whatever, are you aware that the defendant does not have the right to challenge the assumption that she was harming or threatening the health and safety of anyone in the universe at the time of the event/arrest ?
What if IWLN in a momenet of silly weakness decided to smoke some grass with a person she trusts, just to see what all the shouting and screaming was about. She puffs and inhales deeply. She smokes a couple of joints and just as she says outl oud, “I am under the influence of marijuana” the door comes crashing open and she is arrested for being under the influence of a controlled substance?
If IWLN has minor children then there is a possibility that the children may be taken away from mommy and daddy, who is the trusted one smoking with her? This is a hypothetical, so try to answer as if the event occured as defined.
Did you think you had to post this three times because I’m a blonde or what? I think it should be legal. I was just pointing out that it has one downside, sheesh.
Depends, did they catch the kids smoking with me too? Okay, kidding(sort of). I did not smoke pot until my kids were old enough to bail me out of jail. Obviously I can’t be serious about this topic, so I’ll leave it to someone else.
Okay, oka ok. I got caried away with my determination to get posted. I was nterrupted and didn’t realize my submits went through. Anyway i don’t think it was fair to kick the cane out of my hand and slam me to th efloor just because i get serious once in awhile. I get the message, though and, more impiortantly, I get the an answer, which is what I was asking for in the efirst instance.
In the context of the blond who went for a stroll in the wild and came accross a beautiful lake she was taken by surprise at the wonder of it all. She spotted another blonf way over on the other side of the lake and cupped her hands and called out" How fo you get to the other side of the lake?" The other blond hollered back, “You’re already on the other side of the lake.”
In the spirit of providing some unneeded and unsolicited advice , I can reccommend the wise understanding that it is, for a general sense of maintaing a stable and enjoyable peace of mind to recognioz the inherent strength of a personal policy of accepting the obvious and the easiest perception, that you are always, “already on the other side of the lake.”
I only mention this in the case that you are really a blond.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lissa *
**I completely agree that there are way too many non-violent drug offenders in prison. If I had my way, no one would ever go to prison for using, or selling, drugs.
Would you clarify your statement for me?
Let us assume that Lissa is arrested for kicking the cane out of my hand and I crash to the pavement and break my nose. Also, it is determined that Lissa is stoned on marijuana at the time. Finally Lissa is facingh charges at her trial tghat she assaulted Mike while under the influence of marijuana.
Here is my question: Do you think that the prosecutor has to prove that the marijuana was causally connected to you kicking the cane out from under me? Or is the fact that you were "just stoned " all the prosecutor has to prove?
:cool
Hey, this is StraightDope, get elbow and kneepads.
I am. Thank you. That was a new blonde joke among the millions I have heard.:rolleyes: I am constantly aware of being waaaay on the other side of the lake, lately. I’m a good swimmer.
Well, I don’t know how the law would look at such a thing, but in my opinion, my assault on you had nothing to do with marijuana consumption. Marijuana is not like PCP: it does not cause the kind of bizarre behavior that, for example, LSD does. (Nor does PCP or LSD consumption always result in odd behavior.)
But the main problem in this case is not drug consumption, but assault. Regardless of my state of intoxication, I caused you physical injury, and thus should be punished for it. If I had my druthers, drug intoxication would have nothing to do with the punishment. In my opinion, it is not an excuse, nor is it an aggravating circumstance.
And here we have another point- alcohol intoxication makes people belligerant and violent. MJ intoxication makes people mellow and peaceful. It would be extrmely unlikely that somebody stoned on mj would commit the kind of random assault that Mheman described, unless that person was very prone to violence anyway.
So, in light of the fact that the drug that is implicated as a cause, or at least a contributing factor, in a high percentage of violent crime is legal, why should a drug that reduces peoples’ propensity toward violence be illegal?
I can’t speak for PCP, but after a few LSD experiences, users are in much better control over their trip. Last time I tripped on acid, I was surprised at the amount of control I could command.
Back when I was a regular smoker, I sometimes bought quarter pounds for personal use. It was a LOT cheaper that way (I could get a QP for $140 or less, while I had to pay $80 for an ounce), and it kept me from having to carry drugs in my car very often.
My answer is No, there isn’t a GOOD reason why marijuana is illegal, (and I’ve always enjoyed sex more when smoking it, and never had any complaints about being inferior to when I was not).
I CAN think of one reason NOT mentioned yet why it won’t be legalized, though. It can’t be taxed. Yeah, there are plenty of smokers who would just run down to the nearest ganja outlet to buy their heavily taxed herb. But many more (including myself if it were legal) would just buy a grow system and grow their own. Total control of the end product, and pretty much free after an initial cash investment. Since most systems that I’ve heard being used now produce a rather large yield, everyone wouldn’t even need their own system. One guy could potentially provide enough weed for a small group of friends.
Somebody already quoted Bill Hicks as saying he’d make it mandatory, I’ll add another Hicks quote.
“Marijuana, bad drug. Alcohol and tobacco good drugs, coincidently TAXED drugs, oooh how does this f******g work?”
The question I want to ask here is how important is the process of getting high relative to the state of being high? Currently, people roll joints, gather around and pass the J. This is of course, social bonding. Would people be turned off if concentrated THC extract was distributed like LSD is, mostly on paper? Or is there an intangible appeal to passing the joint?
That’s a generalization, not a fact. I’m not saying it’s wrong, but not all people who are drunk get violent, and not all people who are high get mellow. Some get agitated, cranky, and paranoid. And occasionally violent. It’s true as a generalization, but I wouldn’t overstate it as a selling point.
That’s probably just as true of violent drunks: they’re people prone to that sort of behavior. It’s worse for alcoholics, I think, because their bodies are reacting adversely to the booze. Alcohol doesn’t normally inspire calm, peaceful people to violence. You can’t always blame the drug.
One more reason mj won’t get legalised just yet: The “War on Drugs” is the one battle in which the powers that be can consistantly rely upon scoring victories, thus impressing certain sections of society with their vigilence and competence.
I haven’t heard this one for years and thought it had disappeared. Both discussions of logic and statistics use this as a fine example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. You know, the fact that 50 heroin addicts all used marijuana doesn’t mean anything if 9,950 marijuana users didn’t become heroin users.
I’m sure it’s been done before, too. I doubt it’s ever been done by a candidate that has an actual chance to win.
One reason is the social aspect. Another is regulating dosage. Pot is not consistent in potency, and it’s easy to regulate how high one gets when the delivery is by inhaling the smoke, because the effect is very quick that way.
The only other methods for delivery I’m aware of are orally (pot brownies anyone?) and with a vaporizer (supposedly they work well and are less damaging to the lungs than smoking).
There are also prescription drugs that use THC, I believe, but I seem to remember reading that the effects are quite different from marijuana.
Can we please dispuse with the absurdity, stated repeatedly in this thread, that alcohol and tobacco companies are a prime mover against - or are even opposed to - pot legalization?
First, this presumes that marijuana is a product that would compete with either tobacco or alcohol, and thereby cause these companies to lose customers. Bah, particularly as to tobacco. Speaking anecdotally, I’ve seen no reduction in tobacco use by pot smokers. Applying common sense, considering that (a) nicotine is addictive, and (b) nicotine doesn’t impair job function and thus can be used during working hours, while pot cannot, tobacco isn’t at risk from pot.
Concerning alcohol, while facially it may appear to be a competing product, my anecdotal experience is that most post users also consume alcohol while toking up.
Second, let’s pretend that pot would significantly cut into alcohol and tobacco sales. So what? Who do you think will be the primary sellers of pot once it is legalized?
Alcohol and tobacco companies. They have the resources, they have the economies of scale, and they have the experience selling recreational drugs.
Your run-of-the-mill pot dealers will be out of business if pot is made legal. Legal pot will cost as much as tea (ignoring taxes), and profit margins will be low. Only companies with economies of scale will make it profitable.
And both tobacco and alcohol companies will love having a new product to sell. Tobacco sales are in long-term decline, and alcohol sales are, at best, mature. Pot, OTOH, would be a growth product for a long time to come, simply because there is no current legal market.
If they thought they could get away with it, both Miller and Philip Morris would be giving huge donations to NORML.
