Massachusetts Marijuana Law

[Kinslayer]

Also today 12-05-08 marks 75 years since alcohol was unbanned in the USA. Ending prohibition severely hurt criminal syndicates and it finally made millions free to do what they have a right to do so long as they don't harm others.

You realize that prohibition was enacted with the 18th amendment, right? And then repealed by the 21st?

That means the Prohibition Era was between 1919-1933. 14 years.

The United States had no such laws against alcohol before 1919. So no, it didn't "finally make millions free to do what they have a right to do so long as they don't harm others".

I'm going to ignore the rest of the post seeing as you're attempting to be a troll.
___________

Seeing as I'm now responding to 2-4 people with longass posts, I'm going to try and cut this down a bit so I'm not here for 2 hours working on one post.

Atomic Piggy:

I checked out that website. Now that I look at it, I can see something I wouldn't have a problem with:

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_info8.shtml

IF, and only IF these were made STRICT laws and were STRICTLY enforced, I would not have a problem with use of marijuana.

It's easier to get legal drugs (such as alcohol) than it is to get marijuana because, like you said, it's much more dangerous to get marijuana, and if you want alcohol you just need to have someone who will get it for you. They aren't very hard to find, unfortunately.

Look near the bottom of that wiki article you linked to. It states that drinking alcohol lessens the chance of getting many conditions. It also states that the risks are only significantly elevated among heavy drinkers.
__________________

Stern:

First off, look above.

Second, there is no such thing as smoking cigarettes correctly. It's bad for you, and even those around you if you're in a public setting.

What I meant was: How do you sell marijuana, then expect people to only use a vaporizer? Won't less educated people just do it "the old fashioned way"?

And yes, as long as you are not impaired and do not have an open container within reach while driving, you can drink a beer and then drive. If you're not impaired, there's no problem.

I didn't say everyone who uses marijuana is addicted. Addiction comes with regular use, however, which was my point.

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/166/13/1359

Here. A gigantic study on marijuana and lung cancer. They eventually conclude that they can't draw a conclusion because of a lack of evidence, not because there is none. Please don't try and read into that as "HA I AM RIGHT". I'm illustrating my point on the lack of evidence either way.
__________________

PvtRyan:

"You have no right to protect me from myself".

So why is attempting suicide illegal? Why can the government force you into a mental institution if you're unstable? Why can't I just be depressed and kill myself instead of being forced to seek help for my depression?

The articles: The makeup of marijuana, unless I'm mistaken, has not changed. The statistics of who uses it has. Therefore, my articles (especially the one that says "revised 2008") are technically in-date.

For statistics, look at the study I linked to above. Shows a clear lack of evidence either way. If you search the internet, you'll find much of the same results.

Proper education does not ensure correct usage. Take for example again, drunk driving. People still do it even though it's hammered into their brain since they even start thinking about their license.

Licensed points of sale might work if the prices were low. If they were controlled by the government, they wouldn't. Look at the USPS, the DMV, etc. Everyone hates them due to long lines, poor service, whatever. Organizations with no competition aren't very successful, and people may just keep doing what they've always done; get it illegally.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

You realize that prohibition was enacted with the 18th amendment, right? And then repealed by the 21st?

That means the Prohibition Era was between 1919-1933. 14 years.

The United States had no such laws against alcohol before 1919. So no, it didn't "finally make millions free to do what they have a right to do so long as they don't harm others".

I'm going to ignore the rest of the post seeing as you're attempting to be a troll.

So you're saying that for 14 years millions weren't restricted from doing what they had a right to do? They were. And organized crime took a MAJOR hit when prohibition ended. 75 years ago millions of peopel had restrictions removed that infringed on their rights. Period. Hopefully in the near future the same can be said again.


And you did not respond to any other point I made? There is no "attempting to be a troll"

How am I "harming others" by growing in my closet and occasionally vaporizing after work? You have not responded with a logical answer and just said that asking that question makes me a troll.

Answer the question above.

 

[Kinslayer]

but I had to nip it in the bud before kinslayer tried to latch onto it as a valid response to my post directly.

This is trolling.

So you're saying that for 14 years millions weren't restricted from doing what they had a right to do? They were. And organized crime took a MAJOR hit when prohibition ended. 75 years ago millions of peopel had restrictions removed that infringed on their rights. Period. Hopefully in the near future the same can be said again.


And you did not respond to any other point I made? There is no "attempting to be a troll"

How am I "harming others" by growing in my closet and occasionally vaporizing after work? You have not responded with a logical answer and just said that asking that question makes me a troll.

Answer the question above.

That's the problem: Alcohol shouldn't be a right, it should be a privilege. You abuse that privilege, you lose the ability to buy and consume alcohol. That's why prohibition didn't work; it was much too extreme in the sense both that it was sudden, as well as the fact that it was much too extreme.

In the same way, marijuana shouldn't be a right, and I really don't think it should be a privilege either (same with tobacco), but if people want to use it, then follow the rules and you won't lose the privilege.

I never said you were harming others by doing that. If you read my post, you would see I linked to a bunch of rules that would make me accept the legality of a drug.

And the fact that you're equating prohibition with marijuana use is disgusting. The black market for marijuana is nowhere near as large as the black market for prohibition was.

To recap: Using a "feel good" drug, whether it's alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, tobacco, whatever, IS NOT, or SHOULD NOT be a right. Sort of disappointing that society still has not evolved past "getting high", and instead dealing with their problems instead of whisking them away with a drug.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I conversely find it sort of disappointing that society still has not evolved past failing to consider hedonistic pleasure - if it does not directly harm others - a moral and legal right.

Note that I heartily agree with all those Erowid rules, but that #3, #4 and #5 are not really possible to enforce by law - nor, probably, desirable.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

This is trolling.



That's the problem: Alcohol shouldn't be a right, it should be a privilege. You abuse that privilege, you lose the ability to buy and consume alcohol. That's why prohibition didn't work; it was much too extreme in the sense both that it was sudden, as well as the fact that it was much too extreme.

In the same way, marijuana shouldn't be a right, and I really don't think it should be a privilege either (same with tobacco), but if people want to use it, then follow the rules and you won't lose the privilege.

I never said you were harming others by doing that. If you read my post, you would see I linked to a bunch of rules that would make me accept the legality of a drug.

And the fact that you're equating prohibition with marijuana use is disgusting. The black market for marijuana is nowhere near as large as the black market for prohibition was.

To recap: Using a "feel good" drug, whether it's alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, tobacco, whatever, IS NOT, or SHOULD NOT be a right. Sort of disappointing that society still has not evolved past "getting high", and instead dealing with their problems instead of whisking them away with a drug.

How is that trolling in the least? I addressed his point- answered it before you would post the same response he did. If I hadn't addressed the point it would be trolling- but I did. Vaporization eliminates the health issues posed by smoking.

Who are YOU to say what should be a "priveledge, not a right"

You're the same in my book as people who want to take away the second amendment, the first, etc.

Why should free speech be a right? People can cause serious things to happen if not responsible?

We are a nation based on freedom. I don't get high to deal with problems, I do it occasionally for fun. You've got no right to say I should have any legal restrictions regarding it- it in no way harms another.

Also, the only reason black market alcohol trade isn't at the same level marijuanas is because

A: As you said it had only 14 years to mature to the point it did.
B: Technology makes a huge difference nowadays. People can text a dealer and meet them easily 5 minutes later.
C: Marijuana production is easier than alcohol production (alcohol production is far more dangerous)

I guarantee you if alcohol had been illegal the same time span and same time period as marijuana, the black market for it would be even larger than marijuana.

I conversely find it sort of disappointing that society still has not evolved past failing to consider hedonistic pleasure - if it does not directly harm others - a moral and legal right.

EXACTLY. This is my point as well. You put it better than I could've


I'm not railing against all regulation. Sure, have some regulation to protect children, and to ensure drugged driving isn't an issue (most states already have drugged driving on the books anyway)

But to slap a FELONY CONVICTION that ruins your life on someone because they used or possessed fragments of a plant? Ridiculous. Felonies RUIN LIVES. Even misdemeanors do as they will get you fired. DECRIMINALIZE is the first step. If society responds well (California a good example) then years down the road you can get rid of the fines associated with it as well and regulate its production and sale to ensure a SAFE reliable product and at the same time crush the criminal element that thrives on underground marijuana trade.

And yes, it'd be easy to make it far cheaper than the streets. Tobacco production is far harder than marijuana and look at how many are in a pack for about $5. That much marijuana at good quality costs far, far, FAR more on the street. Illegal production and sale would be crushed.

6 ounces of loose tobacco with papers (Buglers pack) from a gas station costs about $17.

On the street? 6 ounces of so-so quality marijuana? At $60 an ounce that's $360. And that's for shitty weed. For good quality it's much more expensive. If production was regulated and corporations took over production you'd see a safe product for CHEAP. Most likely about the price of cigarettes.


In addition to that- a good portion of the price of tobacco is taxes. The same practice on marijuana will bring so much more DESPERATELY NEEDED money into state coffers.

 

[Kinslayer]

Who are YOU to say what should be a "priveledge, not a right"

I'm a citizen of the United States of America who is concerned about my country and feels the need to express my views wherever I please. Slightly ironic how you state this and then go on to talk about the first amendment.

You're the same in my book as people who want to take away the second amendment, the first, etc.

Why should free speech be a right? People can cause serious things to happen if not responsible?

Saying "**** Bush" or burning a flag doesn't have the same effects as getting into a car intoxicated and running over a pedestrian. Sure, people might get balls angry at you, but they won't kill you for it. Even if they do, it'll at least be for a cause, a purpose, a reason, not simply because you felt like feeling happy and then killed someone else in that moment of bliss ignorance.

These are fundamental human rights. I have the same position on the second amendment as I do with drugs; If you abuse them, you lose them.

We are a nation based on freedom. I don't get high to deal with problems, I do it occasionally for fun. You've got no right to say I should have any legal restrictions regarding it- it in no way harms another.

Absolute freedom is equal to anarchy. If you require drugs to have fun, then in my mind, there's something wrong.

Again, my right to express my views is present in the first amendment. Which you're now against. You seem to be changing your opinion every paragraph.

Also, the only reason black market alcohol trade isn't at the same level marijuanas is because

A: As you said it had only 14 years to mature to the point it did.
B: Technology makes a huge difference nowadays. People can text a dealer and meet them easily 5 minutes later.
C: Marijuana production is easier than alcohol production (alcohol production is far more dangerous)

I guarantee you if alcohol had been illegal the same time span and same time period as marijuana, the black market for it would be even larger than marijuana.

Wait, what?

In my post I said the black market for alcohol was bigger in Prohibition than marijuana is today. There was much more crime centered over it. Marijuana pales in comparison. As far as I know (maybe I'm wrong, I dunno) there are no underground marijuana bars, nor are the marijuana black market sales on the same level as the alcohol sales during prohibition were.

In relation to this: It's much harder to take something away that people already have, than it is to keep something taken away that the people have never had. It's the same with marijuana; if it turns out to be a huge mistake, it's going to be very difficult to take it away.
_______________________

I conversely find it sort of disappointing that society still has not evolved past failing to consider hedonistic pleasure - if it does not directly harm others - a moral and legal right.

Note that I heartily agree with all those Erowid rules, but that #3, #4 and #5 are not really possible to enforce by law - nor, probably, desirable.

A difference of opinion; I accept that. I have different fundamental standards for society than you do. I will admit that part of my argument against marijuana evolves from my own views on society, so I see where you're coming from with that.

About the rules, I kinda equated 3, 4, and 5 to be a simple ban on using it in any kind of public place, whether it be a bar, a restaurant, a club, in the street, et cetera.
__________________________

Just out of curiosity (and I will in no way use this against any of you), how many of you use marijuana?

 

[Sulkdodds]

I believe about half the people who have argued in favour of legalisation use it, and half of them do not and have few plans to.

Possibly we see society differently but I would note that "absolute freedom" is not necessarily "equal to anarchy". In some sense, absolute freedom is a state where each individual has the maximum possible liberty with the minimum possibility of anyone else's liberties conflicting with theirs; anything else would be a state in which liberty was limited for some people and not for others. Whether this should truly be called "absolute" freedom (perhaps 'maximum') would be better, there are some that believe it would only be achieved in a system with no government, but I personally believe that, at least in our current age, initially and practicallly, it requires one. And I do believe there is such a thing as 'society' (and wouldn't endorse an entire life of hedonism).

In the UK we do have a smoking ban in indoor public places such as bars and clubs; I'm not sure I agree with it, but it works. Enforcing an outdoor smoking ban, though, would be really impractical and probably unnnecessary (thus unethical). In the open air it is very easy to avoid people and it is not very easy to breathe in large amounts of second-hand smoke.

EDIT: There is a factual as well as an opinion difference here. You seem to believe that there is a bigger risk of marijuana causing harm to others than I believe the facts suggest. But hey!

PS: A better comparison might be to place the Prohibition next to the modern black market for all drugs. Many people have them. Many people use them. No government is ever going to get rid of them. No government will ever get rid of murder either, but there is rather a better case for prosecuting that, and it is in any case less common, and much harder to get away with.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I'm a citizen of the United States of America who is concerned about my country and feels the need to express my views wherever I please. Slightly ironic how you state this and then go on to talk about the first amendment.

I'm not saying you can't voice your opinion on it. But when groups that hold your opinions start forcing through legislation that makes me a criminal for doing something in my own home that hurts no one? That's ****ed up.

Saying "**** Bush" or burning a flag doesn't have the same effects as getting into a car intoxicated and running over a pedestrian. Sure, people might get balls angry at you, but they won't kill you for it. Even if they do, it'll at least be for a cause, a purpose, a reason, not simply because you felt like feeling happy and then killed someone else in that moment of bliss ignorance.

And that's why drunk and drugged driving is illegal. That doesn't mean alcohol and marijuana should be illegal themselves. You automatically equate my use with me driving illegally intoxicated which is wrong.

These are fundamental human rights. I have the same position on the second amendment as I do with drugs; If you abuse them, you lose them.

Then you should support amending the law to be in line with your views. At first you were railing against decriminilization. Why should I be arrested and charged with a felony for having a plant in my closet? I shouldn't be. If I drive drugged? Yeah I shouldn't be allowed to use or possess anymore much like alcoholics are forced to attend AA. Equalize penalties and law.

Absolute freedom is equal to anarchy. If you require drugs to have fun, then in my mind, there's something wrong.

I didn't call for "absolute freedom" aka anarchy. I call for a common sense approach to personal freedom. I don't "require" drugs to have fun, and my use is occassional. It is fun, but there are more fun things out there to do for recreation. But to restrict me from it? That's what i have an issue with. It's my right to do and to use. The government has no right to interfere in my home or personal life when it is not harming or affecting others.

Again, my right to express my views is present in the first amendment. Which you're now against. You seem to be changing your opinion every paragraph.

No, it's not changing, I'm talking about legislation here- not your right to speak on it.

Wait, what?

In my post I said the black market for alcohol was bigger in Prohibition than marijuana is today. There was much more crime centered over it. Marijuana pales in comparison. As far as I know (maybe I'm wrong, I dunno) there are no underground marijuana bars, nor are the marijuana black market sales on the same level as the alcohol sales during prohibition were.

I misread your post and thought you said the black market for alcohol is NOT as big.

The marijuana black market is much larger than the black market for alcohol was. You've got to be kidding me if you believe it's that small today. You really don't know what's going on in your own neighborhood, state, and country if you think that is in anyway true.

In relation to this: It's much harder to take something away that people already have, than it is to keep something taken away that the people have never had. It's the same with marijuana; if it turns out to be a huge mistake, it's going to be very difficult to take it away.

Marijuana was not always illegal. Our forefathers grew it for personal use and for industrial uses.

Just out of curiosity (and I will in no way use this against any of you), how many of you use marijuana?

A lot do. I do. A question for you- have you ever used it yourself? And no I'm not going to say "WELL IF YOU DIDNT YOU CANT SAY@!!!!" -

 

[Direwolf]

The marijuana black market is much larger than the black market for alcohol was. You've got to be kidding me if you believe it's that small today. You really don't know what's going on in your own neighborhood, state, and country if you think that is in anyway true.

Strictly speaking as someone who has spent a good chunk of my life hanging out with people who smoke marijuana, although not a user myself, I have to point out how correct this is. The scale of the marijuana trade is amazing, and it's not very difficult to obtain it anywhere in the entire country.

It's correct that there is not some shadowy network of marijuana speak-easys as in the days of prohibition, nor is the profit-margin on marijuana anywhere close to more serious drugs like heroin. But don't think for a second that this is because the trade is smaller. It is more a function of weight and social convention. Bars were a necessity in the past simply due to the fact that it is difficult to haul that much liquid around, and bringing it to a central location was the best system. Later they became a social institution where people would go to drink and socialize. Speak-easys sprang up to fill both of those gaps.

Marijuana has neither of these features, and is easy to distribute and carry in large amounts. Instead it is simply passed on a gigantic network of middle-men, who sell in smaller and smaller amounts until it reaches the dealers making sales to individuals.

 

[Kinslayer]

I believe about half the people who have argued in favour of legalisation use it, and half of them do not and have few plans to.

Possibly we see society differently but I would note that "absolute freedom" is not necessarily "equal to anarchy". In some sense, absolute freedom is a state where each individual has the maximum possible liberty with the minimum possibility of anyone else's liberties conflicting with theirs; anything else would be a state in which liberty was limited for some people and not for others. Whether this should truly be called "absolute" freedom (perhaps 'maximum') would be better, there are some that believe it would only be achieved in a system with no government, but I personally believe that, at least in our current age, initially and practicallly, it requires one. And I do believe there is such a thing as 'society' (and wouldn't endorse an entire life of hedonism).

In the UK we do have a smoking ban in indoor public places such as bars and clubs; I'm not sure I agree with it, but it works. Enforcing an outdoor smoking ban, though, would be really impractical and probably unnnecessary (thus unethical). In the open air it is very easy to avoid people and it is not very easy to breathe in large amounts of second-hand smoke.

EDIT: There is a factual as well as an opinion difference here. You seem to believe that there is a bigger risk of marijuana causing harm to others than I believe the facts suggest. But hey!

I read something in a book once (can't remember what it was called); that "more freedom" turns out to lessen other freedoms we don't usually look at.

Whenever a group of people are "given freedoms" (whether it's women, immigrants, blacks, whatever), certain expectations are thrust upon them. In the case of women: Education. The same expectations in the workplace. The expectation to become informed and vote. Some call it racism or sexism, and it may be in some cases, but what I've found is that it's usually an excuse to cover up their own shortcomings, and society is suffering because of it. When you're given more freedoms, your life is going to be tougher; some want the best of both worlds, which doesn't happen.

With marijuana, this would equate to adding the responsibility of following all the rules with the given freedom of using it.

I'm not sure whether I completely agree with this viewpoint, but it does bring up an interesting thing to look at.

I also know I'm biased against marijuana, and will probably look at the facts a bit differently than someone who wasn't quite as against it - same with those who argue for it, they have their biases as well. I've also been misled in the past (from parents, teachers, whatever) on the effects of it, which I've been trying to get rid of in favor of the stuff that's actually true.

PS: A better comparison might be to place the Prohibition next to the modern black market for all drugs. Many people have them. Many people use them. No government is ever going to get rid of them.

I understand it's impossible to get rid of drugs (at our point in technology anyhow), but making something legal sends a message; that it's OK to do drugs. I don't support this message in the least, as it may lead to us having this discussion over heroin or cocaine in later years.
__________________________

I'm not saying you can't voice your opinion on it. But when groups that hold your opinions start forcing through legislation that makes me a criminal for doing something in my own home that hurts no one? That's ****ed up.

I really don't have a problem with people doing it provided they're doing it in private.

And that's why drunk and drugged driving is illegal. That doesn't mean alcohol and marijuana should be illegal themselves. You automatically equate my use with me driving illegally intoxicated which is wrong.

It was an analogy. Again, I have no problem with it (in terms of laws, not morals) if used in private.

Then you should support amending the law to be in line with your views. At first you were railing against decriminilization. Why should I be arrested and charged with a felony for having a plant in my closet? I shouldn't be. If I drive drugged? Yeah I shouldn't be allowed to use or possess anymore much like alcoholics are forced to attend AA. Equalize penalties and law.

I've altered my views since the beginning of the thread. Like others, I've been misled to think that marijuana is much more dangerous than it actually is. What you've said is correct, though I believe you still shouldn't be able to grow it yourself and sell it for a profit.

I didn't call for "absolute freedom" aka anarchy. I call for a common sense approach to personal freedom. I don't "require" drugs to have fun, and my use is occassional. It is fun, but there are more fun things out there to do for recreation. But to restrict me from it? That's what i have an issue with. It's my right to do and to use. The government has no right to interfere in my home or personal life when it is not harming or affecting others.

If you do it alone, then I don't care (again, lawfully) if you're doing it or not. I will have a moral problem of anyone using it regardless of how dangerous or not dangerous it is simply because of the purpose.

The marijuana black market is much larger than the black market for alcohol was. You've got to be kidding me if you believe it's that small today. You really don't know what's going on in your own neighborhood, state, and country if you think that is in anyway true.

Direwolf sums up my confusion on this:

Strictly speaking as someone who has spent a good chunk of my life hanging out with people who smoke marijuana, although not a user myself, I have to point out how correct this is. The scale of the marijuana trade is amazing, and it's not very difficult to obtain it anywhere in the entire country.

It's correct that there is not some shadowy network of marijuana speak-easys as in the days of prohibition, nor is the profit-margin on marijuana anywhere close to more serious drugs like heroin. But don't think for a second that this is because the trade is smaller. It is more a function of weight and social convention. Bars were a necessity in the past simply due to the fact that it is difficult to haul that much liquid around, and bringing it to a central location was the best system. Later they became a social institution where people would go to drink and socialize. Speak-easys sprang up to fill both of those gaps.

Marijuana has neither of these features, and is easy to distribute and carry in large amounts. Instead it is simply passed on a gigantic network of middle-men, who sell in smaller and smaller amounts until it reaches the dealers making sales to individuals.

Marijuana was not always illegal. Our forefathers grew it for personal use and for industrial uses.

Which was a very long time ago; nothing that anyone in our generation or the previous generation(s) remember.

A lot do. I do. A question for you- have you ever used it yourself? And no I'm not going to say "WELL IF YOU DIDNT YOU CANT SAY@!!!!" -

No, I have not, due to my moral standards. I am not planning on ever doing it either, whether it becomes legal or not.

 

[marksiwel]

I see this whole thing going one of three ways

1. We legalize Pot, but Tax the living **** out of it. Like $20 Tax a Pack. Same Laws apply of that and drinking, cant Smoke and Drive ect. Also you can only smoke at home or a friends house. No smoking outside or in Bars.

2. Like Transfats, Guns, Violent Games, and Tobbaco, it's deemed a Public ill and made even more illegal. People will be Pee Tested (or hair) at random and often, the Obama admin will make Amerika a socialist Eutopian where everyone is happy and healthy...or else

3. Nothing really changes.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

No, I have not, due to my moral standards. I am not planning on ever doing it either, whether it becomes legal or not.

Well I'm glad to see you came around as far as law goes. When it really comes down to it on the ballot would you really vote in favor of de-criminalization? I hope so.

Also I'm not bashing you for this but it's just out of curiousity- I respect your decision not to ever use but.. what about it is related to morality?


Do you drink or will you in the future, and if so doesn't that present a clear double standard? As having done both quite a bit in my past and just on occasion now I can tell you the effects of alcohol are much more dramatic and IMO stronger.

I understand it's a personal choice perhaps for health or other reasons but I really don't see how it's a moral one at all.

Also if it's for health how do you feel about vaporizing? That eliminates the health factor almost entirely.

I'm not really trying to persuade you or bash you I just really want to understand where you're coming from.

 

[marksiwel]

I understand it's a personal choice perhaps for health or other reasons but I really don't see how it's a moral one at all.

Morman's dont drink or smoke because it's immoral. Your bodies a temple and all that

I dont think it's immoral. I just like to get drunk and act like a fool. I also dont want to smoke pot and act like a fool.
I'm foolish enough without help

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Morman's dont drink or smoke because it's immoral. Your bodies a temple and all that

I dont think it's immoral. I just like to get drunk and act like a fool. I also dont want to smoke pot and act like a fool.
I'm foolish enough without help

Ah, I didn't know he was LDS. That explains the morality statement.

Well kinslayer I'm glad you moved away from the standpoint of supporting prosecution. I just really hope you'd support decriminilization on the ballot rather than just voting to keep whats on the books.

Felony convictions ruin lives. You can't get hired- you lose your civil rights, etc. There's no reason possession or use should be a felony or misdemeanor in the least. It shouldn't even be a civil penalty but damn I'll take THAT over it being a criminal penalty.

 

[Kinslayer]

Well I'm glad to see you came around as far as law goes. When it really comes down to it on the ballot would you really vote in favor of de-criminalization? I hope so.

I'm still divided on this. On one end, I see where you're coming from, and with the proper restrictions it will do no harm.

On the other hand, I see it leading to more drugs (those that are truly dangerous) getting unbanned.

Also I'm not bashing you for this but it's just out of curiousity- I respect your decision not to ever use but.. what about it is related to morality?

I don't like drugs in general; unless it's for a medical condition or disease (eg. not the common cold), I won't take them. I don't like how they make you feel, whether it's sleepy, cramps, or dulling of the senses. It just feels WRONG to me, whether it's medicine or even simple things like large amounts of caffeine (meaning not soda, but coffee).

On the subject of morality, I think that using a drug to make you feel good is counter-productive. It removes the incentive to do something that you enjoy, and while you probably are doing it with some friends, you aren't really doing it socially either (from what I've heard of people who do it anyways). You're just sitting around; nothing happens, nothing gets done. It's the easy way out, instead of doing something you like which may require work, but you find it interesting or fun or whatever, you're at least DOING something, whether it's developing social relationships, engaging the mind, furthering your knowledge, or helping the community. I place TV into this same category; most people just stare at it and vegetate, accomplishing nothing. Even videogames engage your brain, multiplayer games develop social relationships.

What I feel this description doesn't cover is things like meditation, reading, et cetera. I'm not sure how to accurately describe what I feel about it; it's difficult for me to put it into words.

And I understand your curiosity - I do the same type of thing to people who practice religion. I don't understand it. My parents are atheists, as am I (You might actually say my family has a personal vendetta against the church). So no, I'm not a Mormon, but I do have similar views on the body that they have.

Do you drink or will you in the future, and if so doesn't that present a clear double standard? As having done both quite a bit in my past and just on occasion now I can tell you the effects of alcohol are much more dramatic and IMO stronger.

I understand it's a personal choice perhaps for health or other reasons but I really don't see how it's a moral one at all.

I've actually thought about this quite a bit. I am not planning on drinking in the future. This will most likely be a thorny topic with my parents and relatives, seeing as my father was born from French parents, but I don't think that putting known poisons (alcohol) into your body is a very smart thing to do. Maybe I'll go for non-alcoholic wine seeing as it's pretty much a staple of formal dinners in my family, I don't know. As well as the reasons above, I don't like how it makes you feel.

Also if it's for health how do you feel about vaporizing? That eliminates the health factor almost entirely.

I'm not really trying to persuade you or bash you I just really want to understand where you're coming from.

It's not really the health factor. Check the second quote for what my reasons are; they don't even really make sense to me, but I know where my lines are when I come to them.

Felony convictions ruin lives. You can't get hired- you lose your civil rights, etc. There's no reason possession or use should be a felony or misdemeanor in the least. It shouldn't even be a civil penalty but damn I'll take THAT over it being a criminal penalty.

This I agree with; possession or use of drugs, unless in relation to the illegal trafficking involving violence, should NOT be a felony offense. That's just overkill, taking it way too far.
______

I guess what this all comes around to is a quote by Gandhi I just remembered:

"You must become the change you want to see in the world".

I'd say that sums up my views pretty well.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I'm still divided on this. On one end, I see where you're coming from, and with the proper restrictions it will do no harm.

On the other hand, I see it leading to more drugs (those that are truly dangerous) getting unbanned.



I don't like drugs in general; unless it's for a medical condition or disease (eg. not the common cold), I won't take them. I don't like how they make you feel, whether it's sleepy, cramps, or dulling of the senses. It just feels WRONG to me, whether it's medicine or even simple things like large amounts of caffeine (meaning not soda, but coffee).

On the subject of morality, I think that using a drug to make you feel good is counter-productive. It removes the incentive to do something that you enjoy, and while you probably are doing it with some friends, you aren't really doing it socially either (from what I've heard of people who do it anyways). You're just sitting around; nothing happens, nothing gets done. It's the easy way out, instead of doing something you like which may require work, but you find it interesting or fun or whatever, you're at least DOING something, whether it's developing social relationships, engaging the mind, furthering your knowledge, or helping the community. I place TV into this same category; most people just stare at it and vegetate, accomplishing nothing. Even videogames engage your brain, multiplayer games develop social relationships.

What I feel this description doesn't cover is things like meditation, reading, et cetera. I'm not sure how to accurately describe what I feel about it; it's difficult for me to put it into words.



I've actually thought about this quite a bit. I am not planning on drinking in the future. This will most likely be a thorny topic with my parents and relatives, seeing as my father was born from French parents, but I don't think that putting known poisons (alcohol) into your body is a very smart thing to do. Maybe I'll go for non-alcoholic wine seeing as it's pretty much a staple of formal dinners in my family, I don't know. As well as the reasons above, I don't like how it makes you feel.



It's not really the health factor. Check the second quote for what my reasons are; they don't even really make sense to me, but I know where my lines are when I come to them.
______

I guess what this all comes around to is a quote by Gandhi I just remembered:

"You must become the change you want to see in the world".

I'd say that sums up my views pretty well.

That's cool and it's all good. I myself don't fit into the sit around and do nothing stereotype (I find a lot of things funner while high, some less fun- depending on if I smoked a sativa or indica strain)

But a lot do, and they get into that. I'm just glad you don't support criminilization of it anymore. There's no reason anyone should become a felon for its possession or use.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I think we should all celebrate with a weed party (you too kinslayer >: O ).

 

[lefty]

the **** is a morman?

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

my father was born from French parents

father was born from French parents

was born from French parents

born from French parents

from French parents

from French

French

French

French

Oh god.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

the **** is a morman?

*mormon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon

 

[Sulkdodds]

Isn't Lefty a mormon?

Wait, no, I'm thinking of Que-Ever.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I read something in a book once (can't remember what it was called); that "more freedom" turns out to lessen other freedoms we don't usually look at.

Probably Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, or anyway some reference or rephrasing of it. He wrote that a state of total license would only lead to the loss of freedom, since nothing would stop the strong from exercising their total freedom to take over and restrict others' freedsom. Hobbes concluded that a gigantic powerful state with an absolute ruler at its head (the titular 'leviathan') would be necessary to ensure freedom for all. I would say that indicates a deep lack of confidence in humanity, but I can't say I blame him; in any case my thinking on governments is similar if far less extreme. That said, I would be an anarchist if I genuinely believed it would work (and, one day, with certain technologies, it might).

Whenever a group of people are "given freedoms" (whether it's women, immigrants, blacks, whatever), certain expectations are thrust upon them. In the case of women: Education. The same expectations in the workplace. The expectation to become informed and vote. Some call it racism or sexism, and it may be in some cases, but what I've found is that it's usually an excuse to cover up their own shortcomings, and society is suffering because of it. When you're given more freedoms, your life is going to be tougher; some want the best of both worlds, which doesn't happen.

It's difficult to know how to respond to this - do you really believe it, and if so can you be blamed? It is in any case ridiculous. This is kind of medieval thinking, what Charles I said when charged with treason against his own country: 'government isn't for the people, they shouldn't have to trouble their ickle heads about it'. The right to vote, the right to education and the right to work cannot be conceived of as restrictions (nobody forces you to vote; opportunity is not the same as obligation) and even if they can, the freedom they give (political, social, and economic) is by far in excess of the freedom they restrict. I find it difficult to believe anyone would lament the fact that - although women can live independently, make their own money, control their own destiny (at least as much as anyone can, which is not much admittedly), choose or choose not to enter a career, and, hell, sleep around as should be anyone's right - they now have to fill in tax return forms occasionally, and no longer are they forced to rely primarily for their livelihoods on men who own all their property and won't be prosecuted for beating or raping them.

That said it is true enough that sometimes freedom makes your life harder. As it damn well should.

I've also been misled in the past (from parents, teachers, whatever) on the effects of it, which I've been trying to get rid of in favor of the stuff that's actually true.

As far as I can tell, most of it is not.

 

[lefty]

Isn't Lefty a mormon?

Wait, no, I'm thinking of Que-Ever.

hyuck

naw man, I quit. I'm on the mormon nicotine patch.

 

[noQ]

HL2.net should have it's own country and I would love to live there, because I agree on about everything the majority here stand for.
Sorry for the resurrection, but I also am very disappointed with the laws and bla bla.

 

[thefiznut]

Read most of the thread, interesting debate. I currently live in Virginia, which has some of the harshest anti-cannabis laws in the nation.

I was pulled over illegally by a police officer who crept behind my vehicle in the dead of night with absolutely no lights on, headlights included. He then followed my vehicle despite having no evidence nor reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (as required by Virginia law to make the stop and seizure). I wasn't informed of why I was pulled over at any point. I allowed them to search my vehicle not knowing I had two pipes I had left beneath my seat. Because the pipes contained resin, I was charged with possession of marijuana and written a court summons.

I obtained a lawyer and disputed the charge in court by motion of suppression of evidence. It was an attempt to bring forth evidence that the stop was not made according to protocol, and without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The officers lied on three accounts in court to incriminate me:

1. The second officer to arrive on the scene some 15 minutes later after I was stopped impersonated the first, presenting evidence of criminal activity as if he were the officer who pulled me over to begin with. He told the judge I was obstructing a public roadway and was "clearly traveling well over 35 MPH as I pulled away from him".

2. The district attorney, with the officers, printed a Google maps aerial photo of the street I was parked at, and used it to suggest to the judge that the street would have been completely empty at night, and I had no reason to be there. I happen to work some 150 feet away from where I was parked, in an empty cul de sac watching the cars go by to relax after work.


End result?

- Community service
- 1 year of probation and assigned probationary officer
- 1 year restricted license (I can only go to work and home)
- Several hundred dollars in court fees
- Enrollment in the VASAP program, 10 weeks of anti-drug classes with scheduled and random drug tests.
- 400+ dollars in VASAP fees.
- And lastly, a misdemeanor with no possibility to expunge. I now have a drug charge on my record for the rest of my life in Virginia, and can no longer apply for many schools, jobs, etc without being denied.
- Oh, and it's only a matter of time before I am fired from my job, losing everything i've worked towards in the company. They do regular yearly record screenings.


All thanks to ignorant people like Kinslayer. Thanks, man. I so deserved this for enjoying a toke every once in a while, right?

 

[No Limit]

in an empty cul de sac watching the cars go by to relax after work.

Just watching the cars go by? Come on buddy, you don't gotta lie to us.

But that sucks man, sorry to hear that. Really shitty thing to have on your record.

 

[thefiznut]

Just watching the cars go by? Come on buddy, you don't gotta lie to us.

But that sucks man, sorry to hear that. Really shitty thing to have on your record.

Not lying at all actually. The cul de sac overlooks a nearby interstate. I got off work, drove down the street. Wasn't smoking any weed either.

 

[No Limit]

Not lying at all actually. The cul de sac overlooks a nearby interstate. I got off work, drove down the street. Wasn't smoking any weed either.

Anyone that I have known that ever sat around in a cul de sac with 2 weed pipes in their car wasn't there just to watch cars go by (it looks like you might have been charged with a DUI since you got a restricted license now?). But maybe that's just the area I live in .

 

[Franklin Law Lib]

Mass. Law Takes Effect on Jan 2, 2009

Despite the Dec. 4 date cited in the initiative language, note that the law doesn't take effect until 30 days from the date it was presented to the Governor's Council]. So, possession of 1 oz. or less doesn't become a civil penalty until Jan. 2.

 

[thefiznut]

Anyone that I have known that ever sat around in a cul de sac with 2 weed pipes in their car wasn't there just to watch cars go by (it looks like you might have been charged with a DUI since you got a restricted license now?). But maybe that's just the area I live in .

Nope, no DUI. In Virginia possession charges are handled with the Virginia 251 program, of which penalties include license restrictions. Only reason I didn't get my license taken entirely is because I work full-time to live and need to keep my job. So much for that I guess.

The only things on the street are where I work (restaurant), a small hotel, and a small business up the street near the cul de sac. It was a brutal day of work, and I just needed to relax so I did what i used to do at the cul de sac up the street from where I grew up - just watch the cars go by.

 

[Kadayi]

I'm still marvelling at the numbnuts who tried to compare Crack Cocaine usage to smoking Weed. Seriously, that's ****ing hilarious. :rolling:

 

[thefiznut]

I'm still marvelling at the numbnuts who tried to compare Crack Cocaine usage to smoking Weed. Seriously, that's ****ing hilarious. :rolling:

Yeah, that was almost too much. How could anyone even try to compare the habitual addiction of cannabis to crack's brutal withdrawals? Anyone who has ever experienced the presence of a crackhead probably knows what's up. I know I sure do. :hmph:

 

[Absinthe]

Anybody who has ever found themselves "addicted" to pot just needs to have their dealer leave town for a few days and they'll get over it.

 

[No Limit]

Anybody who has ever found themselves "addicted" to pot just needs to have their dealer leave town for a few days and they'll get over it.

Until the dealer comes back in town. What I love is the people that smoke pot on a regular basis telling everyone how easy it is just to get over it .

 

[Absinthe]

Hey, if you like getting stoned, you're gonna buy when it's available. But getting cut off from it doesn't cause a disruption in your life like say withdrawing from your amphetamines or heroin does. It's remarkably easy to live without.

If it is causing a disruption, then that person probably has an issue larger than his substance use.

 

[No Limit]

Hey, if you like getting stoned, you're gonna buy when it's available.

That's like saying if you like getting drunk you're gonna buy alcohol when it's available. It's not a matter of preference, it's a matter of addiction.

But getting cut off from it doesn't cause a disruption in your life like say withdrawing from your amphetamines or heroin does. It's remarkably easy to live without.

If it is causing a disruption, then that person probably has an issue larger than his substance use.

Well obviously the addiction isn't like certain other drugs. But I don't think I'd buy in to your statement that it's remarkably easy to live without the first few days you are with out it. Like any other addiction you don't just drop it and act as if everything is exactly the same. In fact many people that do end up quiting are right back to it in a matter of few months.

And finally I like how every negative effect of pot gets blamed on the person, it's never the actual drug that is the problem. I have nothing against smoking pot, I just wish people would stop lying to themselves about it.

 

[Jandor]

And finally I like how every negative effect of pot gets blamed on the person, it's never the actual drug that is the problem. I have nothing against smoking pot, I just wish people would stop lying to themselves about it.

I've always had a bad short term memory... honest .

 

[Absinthe]

That's like saying if you like getting drunk you're gonna buy alcohol when it's available. It's not a matter of preference, it's a matter of addiction.

Lots of people buy alcohol to get drunk, often and verily. That is not the same as addiction.

I've seen and known alcoholics who will endanger themselves or others just to drive to a bar and get smashed, or raided their liquor cabinet for strong shit in a dry spell. Going cold turkey from marijuana may be a pain in the ass at first, but you just as soon forget about it if you're going about your day and doing things.

Well obviously the addiction isn't like certain other drugs. But I don't think I'd buy in to your statement that it's remarkably easy to live without the first few days you are with out it. Like any other addiction you don't just drop it and act as if everything is exactly the same. In fact many people that do end up quiting are right back to it in a matter of few months.

I see that more as a matter of convenience than anything. It's fun, it's cheap, and it doesn't give you a hangover. When it comes to people who end up smoking again, I attribute that more to people liking pot than trying fill some physiological void much like people who drop and restart smoking cigarettes. They're different kinds of pressures at play.

There may indeed be some habitual users who have horrendous times coping without marijuana. But there's nothing inherent in the drug that causes it.

And finally I like how every negative effect of pot gets blamed on the person, it's never the actual drug that is the problem. I have nothing against smoking pot, I just wish people would stop lying to themselves about it.

There is such a thing as smoking unhealthy amounts of marijuana. But breaking an addiction to it is a sheer matter of willpower, unlike so many other drugs that can result in physical dependency. It's a matter of how you want to live your life, not because your skin starts itching for it. I'd advise some people to stop smoking if necessary, but I can't get fat off chocolate cake and blame it for tasting so good.

I can, but it's rather beside the issue.

 

[No Limit]

Lots of people buy alcohol to get drunk, often and verily. That is not the same as addiction.

I've seen and known alcoholics who will endanger themselves or others just to drive to a bar and get smashed, or raided their liquor cabinet for strong shit in a dry spell. Going cold turkey from marijuana may be a pain in the ass at first, but you just as soon forget about it if you're going about your day and doing things.

I've seen a lot of people get stoned and drive too, not sure what that has to do with anything. Sure, you are probably more capable of driving stoned than you are drunk but you are still driving under the influance.

I am not comparing alcohol addition to marijuana addiction. The point I am making is that if you are buying marijuana on a regular basis because you like to smoke marijuana don't kid yourself, you are addicted. Obviously if you are smoking once in a blue moon this doesn't apply. Just like if you take drinks once in a while doesn't mean you are an alcoholic.

And again, I totally disagree with you that people just forget it about it. I can name a lot more people that quit and then went back after a few months than I can people that truly quit and never picked up again. Be honest, how many habitual pot smokers do you know that were able to quit and never look back?

I see that more as a matter of convenience than anything. It's fun, it's cheap, and it doesn't give you a hangover. When it comes to people who end up smoking again, I attribute that more to people liking pot than trying fill some physiological void much like people who drop and restart smoking cigarettes. They're different kinds of pressures at play.

There may indeed be some habitual users who have horrendous times coping without marijuana. But there's nothing inherent in the drug that causes it.

There are a lot of down sides to marijuana that affect you. Any idiot knows inhailing smoke is not a smart thing to do. Many places of employment here do drug screening. The jury is still out on what kind of mental effects it has on your brain. And it slows you down a lot, can be a problem when you are trying to get work done, drive a car, or raise your kids. Not to mention how absolutely ****ing expensive it is (I have no clue why you think it's cheap, $300 an oz isn't cheap; unless you are smoking some seedy ass shwag (sp?)). Because of this I think most people that smoke pot would gladly give it up if it wasn't as addicting as it clearly is.

And there is nothing in the drug that causes addiction? Where are you getting this from? THC isn't addicting?

There is such a thing as smoking unhealthy amounts of marijuana. But breaking an addiction to it is a sheer matter of willpower, unlike so many other drugs that can result in physical dependency. It's a matter of how you want to live your life, not because your skin starts itching for it. I'd advise some people to stop smoking if necessary, but I can't get fat off chocolate cake and blame it for tasting so good.

As I explained above, all the cons of marijuana clearly show that it's a little more than just preference. Just because you are lucky enough to not be affected by pot (because it doesn't affect your job, your financial situation, your family, or productivity) doesn't mean everyone is in the same fortunate position. And you will never be able to get away from the health effects it does have on you.

 

[Ennui]

Marijuana addiction is not a real addiction. It's a habit, or a lifestyle, but not an addiction like heroin or nicotine. I smoke cigarettes and weed. I love weed a lot more than cigarettes, for a lot of different reasons. Despite that, it would be easier for me to quit smoking weed cold turkey and never look back than it would be to quit cigarettes in such a fashion. People smoke weed often because they like it. Maybe that means they're addicted, but I think it mostly just means that weed is enjoyable.