Simulpost. I was obviously not referring to you, Mojo.
Good thing you weren’t.
Putz. 
Ouch.
Now I know how it feels.
From what I can recall concerning the laws, discussing doing dope is not illegal. You can talk about it all you want and, so long as it doesn’t get into the realms of trading formulas for making crank or crack or things like that, I doubt if the SDMB will give a hoot, believing in the freedom of speech.
I know I don’t.
I don’t consider pot a major problem. I consider all of the other chemical dopes a problem. I don’t know anyone who OD’ed on pot. I know of some people who have OD’ed on meth, crack, coke and heroin. I don’t know of many cases where anyone went ballistic on pot. I know of many where they went ballistic on the chemicals.
Now, before anyone starts accusing me of being a doper, I’m not. Pot affects me strangely, does not give me the giggles, the munches, the euphoria or anything like that. It gives me an uncomfortable buzz that lasts bout 8 hours. I used to do it with booze to get the desired effect, but since I don’t drink anymore, I don’t do pot either.
Still, I have no problem with people doing weed – so long as it is treated with the same precautions booze requires.
What? Me worry?’
Thankfully (if true)
As amended by Wally of course.
Okay, just to sum up:
- It is not illegal to discuss the smoking of marijuana, the theft of software, or the perpetration of anything else illegal, as long the participants of said discussion are not conspiring to commit the illegal act being discussed.
Hmm. Okay, I guess I can see the point. We don’t want the straight dope to become a place where the average criminal can come and get tips on how to get more horsepower out of his panel van and the average prostitute can get some tips on obtaining demographic survey info to determine which street corner to stand on.
But I don’t think anyone here has done that so far.
AvenueB-dude: We discuss controversial topics on this board. That is what we do. Didn’t you notice?
speaking of which:
rousseau wrote:
What exactly does your colon look like?
I didn’t see any such disclaimers in the OP, and if I did, I would have thought “What an idiot,” just like when I read the above drivel.
How can you have a discussion about an incontrovertible fact? If the fact is incontrovertible, it is not open to question, so what is there to discuss?
Of course this discussion is going to turn to whether or not drugs should be illegal. That’s as should be. If we as citizens of the United States are not able to discuss the laws that we live with, how are we to change them? Talking about what is given accomplishes nothing. We know that the law is, the point is whether or not it should be.
That’s why topics like this turn into a discussion of whether or not something should be illegal.
Discussing the incontrovertible facts is not only pointless and stupid, but boring to boot.
Hey, pointless and stupid, boring to boot…
I just described everything you posted in here by accident.
Putz.
<copyright 1999 WallyM7 industries, inc.>
“Winners never quit and quitters never win, but those who never win and never quit are idiots.”
AvenueB-dude: Wake up man, pot is not bad. It’s weak and harmless, nobody has ever overdosed from it, people are chill on it. Alcohol is a much bigger problem.
There is recent research finding that some of the chemicals in marajuana may be the most powerful anti-oxidants known to man.
Cut out your whinin AvenueB wannabe.
If at first you don’t succeed you’re about average.
Lex, you use words like a surgeon uses a scalpel.
A tip of the fedora to you.
Especially coming from you Wally, that is without a doubt the coolest thing anyone has ever said to me.
Thanks!
“Winners never quit and quitters never win, but those who never win and never quit are idiots.”
Wally honey? I just like you more and more every day.
Lex, my first impression of you stands - you ROCK.
Oh, and AvenueBdude and Rousseau? You’re a couple of unrelenting, whiney-assed, childish twits. Come talk to me in 20 years, m-kay?
StoryTyler, Cyb-Killer
“Not everybody does it, but everybody should.”
And you were Smick then, too. (Go figger!) 
StoryTyler, Cyb-Killer
“Not everybody does it, but everybody should.”
Cool. And here I thought I was going to have to flame some more!
Oh well.
Thanks!
And story, I have always maintained:
You kick much ass.
“Winners never quit and quitters never win, but those who never win and never quit are idiots.”
No one else has really taken this on, so I’ll try.
The difference lies (at least to me) in the nature of the advice given. The posts in the money laundering thread purported to explain how to commit a crime. The posts in the pot smoking thread do not explain how one could go about possessing marijuana (which is about the only crime that the posts touch on), but merely discuss how people have used pot that they have possessed.
Put another way, nothing in the pot posts can be used as a roadmap to committing any crime, since the posts presuppose that you have already committed the crime of possessing a controlled substance. On the other hand, the instructions in the money laundering thread laid out a course of action that someone could follow in order to violate the law if they wanted to.
Perhaps a good analogy would be if the pot thread morphed into a discussion of increasing the yield from your pot plants, or where you can go in certain cities to find people who deal dope. In those circumstances, the posts would have the effect of advising people how to more effectively violate the law, and should then be closed. By contrast, if the money laundering thread was focused not on how to do it, but on how different bank confidentiality policies affected money laundering activities, those posts would not be counseling someone on how to break the law, but merely explaining why someone who intended to violate that law would choose one course of action over another.
Does that clear it up?
Nurlman, I think your wrong. The person wanted advice on how to use his pot BETTER. That means that its encouraging him to continue his crime of possession of marijuana. Its aiding and abbeting the criminal.
And for all you people who are babbling about how moral pot use is let me ask you this: how do you know? I have not only common sense on my side but the laws of all 50 states (not counting for medical use). What do yuo have on your side except the mindless repeating of the pot smokers mantra of how it really should be legal.
And as for the people that say its OK but harder drugs are not: WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE, DUDE! Pot LEADS to harder drugs. I will bet you $100 you cannot find too many crackheads who didnt start out using pot, for every junkie with needle tracks in his arms and for every hooker giving AIDS to customers to get more “hard” drugs I bet you will find someone who used pot FIRST.
What is WRONG with you??? Do you really want to keep encouraging people to THROW AWAY THERE LIVES??? Don’t you even CARE?
Ingestion of cannabis is a crime too.
In answer to yosemitebabe’s question, I think it has something to do with the harshness of the crime. If someone posted a thread explaining how you could push your gas pedal all the way to the floor and illegally exceed the speed limit, I don’t think anyone would have a problem with it.
If you have money to launder, then chances are you have been involved in a VERY illegal activity such as large-scale felony drug dealing. If you ask how to roll a joint, you are most likely the perpetrator of a misdemeanor (or even the recipient of something akin to a parking ticket with a big fine in some states).
Perhaps it also has something to do with the attitude of the board, since most people here favor marijuana legalization. Few, if any, are going to stand up for legal money laundering!
Having said all that, though, I do not believe the money laundering thread should have been closed. Merely talking about something is not a crime. But in the end, it’s all up to the moderators. Maybe it made them a little antsy, while the drug threads didn’t. It’s their call.
For those of you saying I must be young, I am 20. That means I am old enough to vote, I am also old enough to read the laws of the state and know what they mean and why we have them. And if I want to know what drugs can do to society I just look out my window.
Hate to break it to you AvenueB, but 20 is young. And your attitude makes it clear that, emotionally, you are even younger.
When you look out your window, it is mostly the effects of drug laws you are seeing, not drugs themselves. As Coldfire pointed out, if you were to look out your window in a country with a more rational drug policy, you wouldn’t see half the problems you do now.
And what sort of sources are you using for your allegations that smoking pot leads to hard drugs? The last info I saw on the subject pretty much refutes the idea of pot as a “gateway” drug, which was pretty much the biggest objection that anybody could come up with to it in the first place.
I know many people who use pot, and who are happy, healthy, productive citizens. I’m sure there are also people out there who use it abusively, and who are worse off for it, just like any other substance can be abused(like food, computers, etc.)
And, as many others have pointed out, it’s not a crime to discuss using pot.
Please reread my post on the first page of this thread, AvenueB. When you separate the two cricuits (i.e. by fully legalizing soft drugs), it becomes apparent that:
a) marihuana users do not automatically become hard drugs users (mostly because mariuana is NOT physically addictive);
b) the trade and private use of marihuana can take place in a completely decriminalized manner. In such a case, the hard drugs circuit is where the crooks are.
I’m not saying that not a single pot user will become a hard drugs user. However, in a pot legalized society, this can only happen because of a CHOICE of said pot user (e.g. he’s the adventurous type, he wants to expand his horizons, or whatever silly reason someone can come up with), whereas in a society where pot remains illegal, soft drugs users can be tempted into trying “something harder” a lot more easily because of the overlapping circuits, and hence, the overlapping range of products one dealer can and will deliver.
The experiment as described above was conducted in a lab situation containing 16 million people, pot smokers and non-pot smokers. It was conducted over a period of 30 years. The results are apparent every day.
And it works.
Untill you experience a similar situation firsthand, there is no way you will be able to make judgements like “pot use leads to hard drug use” and “see what it does to a society”. Embrace the bare facts: soft drugs DON’T kill people any more than caffeine or alcohol do. Hard drugs DO.
What is so difficult about that?
Coldfire
Voted Poster Most Likely To Post Drunk
"You know how complex women are"
- Neil Peart, Rush (1993)
And if I want to know what drug LAWS can do to society, I just look out my window. You know what I see? I see smart kids getting turned down for college grants because they chose to smoke pot. I also see violent, drunken assholes get those grants, then get drunk every night and eventually drop out.
I see someone get busted with a small amount of pot while not even NEAR his vehicle and then have his drivers license suspended. Now he can’t even get himself to work, but he’s much better off because we’re protecting him from the evils of drugs!
Know what else I see? I see a mom working 16 hours a day to feed her kids. See, daddy’s in jail. He didn’t like beer like most of the other daddies. He liked to smoke a little pot on the weekends instead and didn’t want to deal with the criminal element encountered when purchasing from a dealer. So he grew a couple of plants in his closet, someone ratted him out, and now he’s doing a stretch in the state pen.
I see a lot of things you don’t see, AveBdude. Maybe you need to open your eyes.
`What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don’t like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don’t expect freedom to survive very long.’
– Thomas Sowell
No, it’s not. Sharing experiences with each other is not aiding and abetting.
I have yet to see you have common sense. But you do have Jesse Helms on your side, and when has he ever been wrong?
If having the law on your side made you right, arguing would be much easier:
“Marijuana should be legal.”
“But the law says it’s illegal.”
“Well I can’t argue with that.”
There are numerous studies that have been done that provide evidence in favor of decriminalization. Go over to Great Debates and find any debate on the matter. There will be numerous cites for you to see. There’s also the experience of Prohibition.
Do you even have the vaguest possible idea of what it takes to establish a causal relationship? I’ll bet you $100 that you can’t find many crackheads who didn’t drink alcohol first. I’ll bet you $1,000,000 that you you can’t find any mass murderers who didn’t breathe air first.
What you need to do to prove your case is show that among people who do pot a large portion of them end up doing harder drugs, that this would not happen if they didn’t do pot, that harder drugs are harmful to them, AND that legalization would make the problem worse. Until you attempt to put together an argument along those lines, you probably shouldn’t venture out of the Pit.
What is wrong with you? You see people throwing away their lives and you think the solution is to throw them in jail. If you think this approach is working or is likely to work at any point in the future, it’s only because of your eyeball-to-prostate viewpoint.