Is it time to de-criminalize Pot posession?

benny · May 12, 2009

Gee, I wonder why we call it "dope" then? Either way, at last check it was still "criminalized"...better try harder.

Resting on a law is a bad idea.

BubberMiley · May 12, 2009

Gee, I wonder why we call it "dope" then? Either way, at last check it was still "criminalized"...better try harder.

Because you don't know better. It's also not a narcotic, but it's classified that way under the law.

Either way, at last check, you were still relying on the argument of "it's illegal so it should remain illegal, even though I have nothing when asked why it should remain so."...better try harder.

BubberMiley · May 12, 2009

If a lot of allergic people would die rapidly after their very first ingestion of peanuts, there is no doubt in my mind that it should be forbidden until we can discover before consumption which people have this allergy.

They should get a criminal record for Snickers possession?

There is a lot of doubt in my mind that you really believe that.

Edited May 12, 2009 by BubberMiley

bush_cheney2004 · May 12, 2009

Because you don't know better. It's also not a narcotic, but it's classified that way under the law.
Either way, at last check, you were still relying on the argument of "it's illegal so it should remain illegal, even though I have nothing when asked why it should remain so."...better try harder.

But that is the entire point....we know cannabis is not a narcotic but it still remains on the Schedule.

Tough bounce for dopers...not me.

Edited May 12, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

benny · May 12, 2009

They should get a criminal record for Snickers possession?

With or without a law, the profit margin for Snickers would be negative anyway.

GostHacked · May 12, 2009

With or without a law, the profit margin for Snickers would be negative anyway.

After reading your posts, I could use a 'benny' or two.

benny · May 13, 2009

After reading your posts, I could use a 'benny' or two.

Ghost can steal.

GostHacked · May 13, 2009

Ghost can steal.

I guess I don't smoke enough, you are no longer making sense.

benny · May 13, 2009

I guess I don't smoke enough, you are no longer making sense.

Smoke more then.

cybercoma · May 13, 2009

I guess I don't smoke enough, you are no longer making sense.

Did benny ever make sense? It's like he's right out of the story Everything is Illuminated by Jonathan Safron Foer. If you don't know what I mean, I suggest checking it out:

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Everyt...lluminated%2527

Oleg Bach · May 13, 2009

I wish the pot heads would just smoke their pot and shut up..maybe go back into the closet - and take that whole boring gay thing along with them... :lol: Stoned eyes and waiters with eye make up are really beging to irk me....what is it - are we living in a damned circus tent?

bush_cheney2004 · May 13, 2009

I wish the pot heads would just smoke their pot and shut up..maybe go back into the closet....

Fortunately, most of them do just that. Smoke their geef and keep a low profile.

But it just takes a handful of whiners to keep the bitching and moaning going.

benny · May 14, 2009

Stoned eyes and waiters with eye make up are really beging to irk me....what is it - are we living in a damned circus tent?

Stoned eyes are really the non-violent resistance to the greedy eyes of advertisers.

BubberMiley · May 14, 2009

But it just takes a handful of whiners to keep the bitching and moaning going.

If you didn't want to hear about the decriminalization debate, you wouldn't spend all your time in this thread as you do.

It's not like you have a coherent debate to offer or anything. Just whining about supposed whining.

But that's okay. It's not like your opinion matters for anything. You can't even explain why you have it. :lol:

Edited May 14, 2009 by BubberMiley

BubberMiley · May 14, 2009

I wish the pot heads would just smoke their pot and shut up..maybe go back into the closet - and take that whole boring gay thing along with them... Stoned eyes and waiters with eye make up are really beging to irk me....what is it - are we living in a damned circus tent?

Or you could just mind your own business and not worry about what someone's eyes look like.

But I think it has less to do with the fact you dislike the look in their eyes and more to do with the fact your wife would rather smoke pot and spend time in her own head than have to spend it talking to you.

Judging from your posts, I don't blame her.

benny · May 14, 2009

The game around here seems to be: the poster with the most time to waste is the winner.

tango · May 14, 2009

Is the U.S. high on legalizing pot?

Posted By MINDELLE JACOBS

Posted 2 days ago

Canada has been terrified of liberalizing our drug laws for fear of angering Uncle Sam. But ironically, the United States is now closer to legalizing pot than we are.

While the federal Conservatives in the Great White North are poised to bring in mandatory jail time for producing and selling illicit drugs, the sweet smell of drug reform is wafting across America.

Wouldn't that be a weird buzz? Canada as the uptight, anti-pot zealot and America as the laid-back, rational progressive.

In some states, the simple possession of marijuana has been effectively decriminalized (although more than 800,000 Americans were still arrested for pot possession last year). And in Alaska, possession of a small amount of weed in your own home is legal.

Thirteen states allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes. And a California legislator has introduced a bill to legalize the adult use of pot. He proposes a $50-an-ounce tax which would bring in an estimated $1.3 billion for the state, which has a staggering multibillion-dollar deficit.

Last week, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger acknowledged that it's time to debate whether to legalize and tax marijuana.

Meanwhile, in Canada, the Conservatives' proposed amendments include a mandatory six-month jail sentence for growing even one pot plant for the purpose of trafficking.

And our medical pot regulations are so complex -- thanks to the constant tug of war between the government and the courts over how the scheme should be run -- that no one really has a clue how it's supposed to work.

It's enough to make you want to head to the rec room to partake in the consciousness-altering substance of your choice.

A number of factors have converged to prompt the U.S. to seriously consider drug reform, says Bruce Mirken, of the U.S. Marijuana Policy Project, which advocates the legalization and regulation of pot. Mainstream figures in politics and the media are talking about it, polls support legalized pot and there's an increasing realization that Americans' taste for drugs is fuelling the ultra-violent drug cartels in Mexico.

More than half of Americans surveyed in a recent poll commissioned by the conservative O'Leary Report, for instance, support legal pot. "This is an issue where, all along, the public has been two or three steps ahead of the politicians," says Mirken. "The public will basically drag the politicians kicking and screaming into the 21st century."

more ...

... once Harper and Giorno and the rest of the paleo-cons are gone, of course. That shouldn't be long now!

Legalize, regulate and tax it ... millions to be made! I'm sure even the hardliners would kick into their customary greed mode if they saw the bottom line!

benny · May 14, 2009

Legalize, regulate and tax it ... millions to be made! I'm sure even the hardliners would kick into their customary greed mode if they saw the bottom line!

Millions to be made by corrupting regulators.

bush_cheney2004 · May 15, 2009

If you didn't want to hear about the decriminalization debate, you wouldn't spend all your time in this thread as you do.
It's not like you have a coherent debate to offer or anything. Just whining about supposed whining.

But that's okay. It's not like your opinion matters for anything. You can't even explain why you have it.

I don't have to explain the obvious.....when anybody asks who are the assholes driving the demand side of the drug trade and resulting cost to society, you are part of the answer. But that's OK...you're just a doper.

Edited May 15, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

BubberMiley · May 15, 2009

I don't have to explain the obvious.....when anybody asks who are the assholes driving the demand side of the drug trade and resulting cost to society, you are part of the answer.

What cost to society? The cost of imprisoning people? Your position of criminalization is what results in the "costs" to society, not mine. But I understand why you don't care about that. You can't take blood from a stone (just from us stoners).

Edited May 15, 2009 by BubberMiley

bush_cheney2004 · May 15, 2009

What cost to society? The cost of imprisoning people? Your position of criminalization is what results in the "costs" to society, not mine. But I understand why you don't care about that. You can't take blood from a stone (just from us stoners).

Hmmmm...let's see...the dopers want laws to apply to everyone else but them. They're "special" and righteous at the same time. So now we know where the dope comes from and where it goes.

BubberMiley · May 15, 2009

-

Edited May 15, 2009 by BubberMiley

BubberMiley · May 15, 2009

Hmmmm...let's see...the dopers want laws to apply to everyone else but them.

Now you're just not making any sense. Maybe you've been reading too many posts by Benny. What are you talking about?

bush_cheney2004 · May 15, 2009

Now you're just not making any sense. Maybe you've been reading too many posts by Benny. What are you talking about?

OK...let me put it in terms that dopers understand. Let's just say for the sake of discussion that my favorite way to relax was with PCP (Phencyclidine). Me and an army of PCP dopers are oppressed by unfair drug laws and prosecutions..and so it goes. We are above the law because of self annointed righteousness, regardless of any impact on society.

I've been dealing with potheads since junior high school.....disrupting the education (and safety) of others just so they can grow up to be fine non-law abiding Dopers.

Sir Bandelot · May 15, 2009

White House Czar Calls for End to 'War on Drugs'

Wall Street Journal

May 14

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration's new drug czar says he wants to banish the idea that the U.S. is fighting "a war on drugs," a move that would underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use.

Gil Kerlikowske, the new White House drug czar, signaled Wednesday his openness to rethinking the government's approach to fighting drug use.

Mr. Kerlikowske's comments are a signal that the Obama administration is set to follow a more moderate -- and likely more controversial -- stance on the nation's drug problems. Prior administrations talked about pushing treatment and reducing demand while continuing to focus primarily on a tough criminal-justice approach.

The Obama administration is likely to deal with drugs as a matter of public health rather than criminal justice alone, with treatment's role growing relative to incarceration, Mr. Kerlikowske said.

...

Change you can believe in