Marijuana and Gay Rights. So much BULLSHIT!

I personally can’t see the children of the 90’s, the majority of whom have at least tried pot and many of whom make a habit of it, keeping pot prohibition on the books in 30 years. Enough of today’s gray-haired lawmakers came of age during a time when smoking pot was an edgy, rebellious action (the 50s and 60s) as to keep weed illegal, but in thirty or forty years the ruling elite will have become intermingled with enough former pot-smokers as to change things for the better. And when I am sixty years old, and my generation (the people in their late teens right now) become the gray-haired senators and politicians, I see the marijuana prohibition ending.

I’d like to think you’re right. The problem, as I see it, is that by the time they’re gray haired senators and politicians, they aren’t going to care about legalizing marijuana. And there’s always going to be a puritan fringe convinced that weed is THE DEVIL and who are going to work to keep it on the other side of the law, making overturning these laws more effort than it’s worth.

However, I see this issue as distinct from the ill-considered War on Drugs, which simply cannot continue for much longer. It’s too much money spent with too little return on an issue that is of too little import. I fully expect to see the day where there’s simply not enough funding to crack down on the pot farms and street-corner dimebag peddlars, maybe even to the extent that marijuana laws are so rarely enforced as to be effectively non-exsistant. But I don’t think we’re ever going to see the day where you can buy a packet of spliffs from the local supermarket.

Of course, and as always, I’d love nothing more than to be proved wrong.

I don’t remember who, but someone else on the boards was saying that the main reason marijuana has had such a hard time getting legalized is not so much the “55 year old white guy…” but that they (the they who study these things) haven’t come up with a reliable test to determine how “intoxicated” one can get with pot.

In other words there’s no Pot alcohol content test yet. Without that, it’s kind of difficult to legalize it until it’s use while operating machinery and autos can be controlled.

It was once legal in my state, so I don’t see that it’s an impossible undertaking to have it legalized again. But I can see that people would want some assurance as far as making sure, as with alcohol, that people don’t drive stoned and so on.

Really, I believe that a large majority of the people who don’t want to repeal pot laws know nothing about it.

I wish they would legalize it again. It’s been since it was legal before since I smoked any, but imho, it’s not any more dangerous a drug than a marguerita or two every so often.

Whenever they have a vote on it, I always vote yes. A few years ago, it lost by a pretty thin margin, so there’s hope yet.

It’s true. And for some reason you don’t see most of those idiots fighting for alcohol and tobacco cigarettes to be made illegal, even though those recreational drugs have done much more harm to society than pot ever will.

As a Gay dude who has been with his lover for 24 years, it is heartening to hear that people are starting to understand the concept of equal rights. Thank you all.

Regarding marijuana…it was on the ballot in Nevada a few years ago. I voted for it then. It may be on the ballot again, and I will vote for it again.

That said, I last smoked a joint in 1987 and let me tell ya, it was a hell of a lot more potent that the stuff I remembered from college! Maybe it is like drinking…I am sure somebody who hasn’t had a beer in 20 years will be a little more loopy after two, than somebody who drinks regularly.

I think the marijuana laws are ridiculous for a lot of reasons. Legalization would at least give some control and stop sending people to prison for something that is hardly equal to crimes committed by other “felons”. In all my pot smoking years at school and afterwards, I never recall a bunch of stoners getting in a brawl…at most, there was hefty disagreement about who had to go out and get the Twinkies and Ding Dongs.

NOt just marijuana.

Almost all drugs are priced at high levels despite having very little intrinsic value precisely because they are illegal. This means that the vast majority of crime connected with drugs is due solely to the fact that drugs are illegal.

Coca, opium, and marijuana are cheap crops, and require little in the way of expensive processing to be sold. In a free market, they would cost about the same as cigarettes (which in turn are artifically extremely high because of excise and sin taxes). Because of the enormous difference in production costs and sale price, there is enormous motivation to be in the business of selling drugs. Because of this, it is almost impossible to interdict them entirely. I would say there are very few people who would be interested in doing drugs who are prevented from doing so by the fact that they are illegal.

What our anti-drug laws do is to make drugs an enormously profitable business, and to create a huge amount of crime, some of it the violation of the anti-drug laws themselves, and other of it simply people committing acts they would otherwise not commit in order to get money to buy drugs. While I feel morally certain that most people who are against the legalization of drugs do not feel that way because they want to increase profits for the producers and increase inner-city crime, this is the effect their support for these laws creates. And you can bet every cent that there are anti-drug lobbyists whose salaries are ultimately paid by the people profiting from their illegality.

Legalize ALL recreational drugs that do not intrinsically induce violence (i.e. probably not Angel Dust). Hell, let the government distribute them, very low cost, but in sordid and uncomfortable environments (think Motor Vehicles). THe profit motive goes away, any glamor that is associated with drugs goes away, and you are left with people who would be doing them anyway doing them without robbing others to support their habit.

IMO, we don’t need to know how toxic it is. If you’re high WHILE operating a vehicle on public roads, or doing so while working for a company, you should get the same treatment as alcohol penaltys. I’m certainly not advocating getting high and driving. Grab a bag of dorritos and make a date with your xbox in the basement.

Well, again, I don’t remember who it was that posted this info originally, but my intent wasn’t to advocate driving while stoned, but to explain some of the hold up in getting pot legalized.

From what I understand, part of the problem in not being able to determine pot alcohol content is that “they” dont’ know how long it’s in a person’s system and how long it will affect them.

So while we can SAY "oh, just go play XBox and eat doritos, what those who are concerned about it are saying is “well, how long after getting high is a person impaired.”.

Since we don’t know that, theoretically, “they” can say 'well, a person could stay too high to safely operate autos or whatever, for much longer than with alcohol".

I am not agreeing with this assessment, just sharing it’s existance. I can understand the concern behind this idea. It would be like not knowing how many drinks a person can “safely” have before driving. Well, now we pretty much know what constitutes too high a BAC and “they” want a similar test for pot before agreeing to it being made legal for recreational use. That’s not too terribly unreasonable imho.

You’d think someone would have done the research on that by now. I mean I couldn’t imagine a lack of volunteers for such a study. :smiley:

I wasn’t arguing with you CanvasShoes. I totally understand what you were saying. I was just saying, for them, a simple test that would show that you’re high on the spot would be enough. I don’t know how they can do this, but there must be a way. It sure can be hard so say how long the effects actually last, it’s different for everyone. But I can personally say that with a small amount, no one should be driving for atleast 6-8hrs. Maybe more. I don’t buy into the “it makes you more aware” while driving. BS I say. If you do it, don’t drive, or pay the consequences. This is the attitude they should take. Why waste time. Figure out a simple test to find whether you’re bombed or not. But I do understand it would be hard to pinpoint that “mark” on a test.

Sorry, didn’t mean for it to sound as if I were arguing “back”. Just wanted to make sure that it was understood that I’d gotten my information secondhand and awhile ago, and didn’t Reaaaally know what I was talking about entirely :smiley:

I totally agree that whether there is a test or not for Pot Blood count, that people should use their common sense and NOT use machinery or drive while stoned. But it would still be nice to have an official test, imho, that would be a big step toward getting pot finally legalized for good.