Legalize Pot by AURaptor

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Legalize Pot

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 13:00
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1745
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, April 28, 2013 11:09 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Yes or no?

Niki, I wanna hear your views on the matter, especially.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 29, 2013 12:15 AM

AGENTROUKA

Just so there will be a reply: I think there's no reason to treat it differently from alcohol or tobacco. Regulate and tax it. Treat its abuse-related issues the way you would with alcohol. Protect the public the way you would with cigarette regulations.

The main problem seems to be that it's illegal, not anything particular to this specific drug.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 29, 2013 2:53 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Decriminalize it at least. Cut down on the large number of folks who are in Federal and State prisons for drug crimes.
http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp#4
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-population-of-private-
prison-by-offense-2012-3

Legalization and taxation wouldn't seem to be a bad idea, as currently we're just seeing a replay of the Prohibition movie, with criminalization of a drug just leading to more crime.

P.S. I expect PN's pictures of body parts at any time.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 29, 2013 3:06 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Rouka answered for me, perfectly. I only started smoking pot in my late teens because booze and I do NOT get along and I wanted something at parties. From all the parties I went to and everything since then, I've seen far, FAR worse from drunks than those who are stoned. And after living with a fall-down drunk, and seeing the results of alcohol abuse in families I've known, I think dope being illegal and booze being legal is asinine. That's my prejudice.

Mankind will always seeks ways to escape reality. Marijuana is one of the least worst, in my opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 29, 2013 4:06 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

I don't smoke it and have no interest in smoking it, but I did vote yea on the bill to legalize and tax it in Colorado, a bill that passed by a pretty good margin. It's no worse than alcohol in its effects, and is probably easier on the liver of those who do it. I honestly don't understand why tobacco can be legal but marijuana is not. Makes no sense to me.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 29, 2013 10:42 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
I honestly don't understand why tobacco can be legal but marijuana is not. Makes no sense to me.

Tobacco doesn't have as potent an effect on the user as does pot , maybe?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 29, 2013 11:19 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
I honestly don't understand why tobacco can be legal but marijuana is not. Makes no sense to me.

Tobacco doesn't have as potent an effect on the user as does pot , maybe?

Alcohol certainly does.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 29, 2013 1:02 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
I honestly don't understand why tobacco can be legal but marijuana is not. Makes no sense to me.

Tobacco doesn't have as potent an effect on the user as does pot , maybe?

That depends on which effects you're talking about. Addiction? Cancer? Yeah, tobacco's got pot beat hands-down in the potency of those effects.

Like PR, I have no interest in pot. Been there, tried it, tried it some more, just never really liked the high it gives. But I'm fully supportive of legalization.

One sticking point as far as working or driving after imbibing pop, though - it tends to stay in your system for quite a while afterwards. In other words, if you get hurt on the job and they do a drug test (Workers' Comp requires such in Texas; not sure how it works elsewhere), pot can show up in your system weeks after you used it. How do you prove you weren't high when it happened, or how do they prove you were? Same thing with driving - how do they prove you were actually *under the influence* if it shows up two weeks later in a piss test?

Those are really the only semi-valid reasons I can see for people being against legalization: the legal ramifications of pot use well after the fact of its use.

As for me, I'm sensitive enough to pot that I still "feel" it up to a few days after use, which is another big reason I don't use it. If I drink, I might feel it the next day in the form of a hangover, but that's about it.

Also, there's absolutely no need to smoke pot. There are lots and lots and lots of ingestibles these days. My sis-in-law lives in WA State and has advanced stage MS, so she's got a medical marijuana card. She's partial to the carrot cake they sell at the dispensary, because the effect lasts all day long. Hearing that made my skin crawl, because being high for an hour or two was too much for me; I couldn't imagine feeling like that for an entire day - I'd think I was going to be stuck like that forever!

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 30, 2013 3:12 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

If you have no problems in allowing citizens to resource their own arsenal stocked full of military style weapons, I can't see how a bit of pot can be an issue - I mean when you way up the potential damage of each, its kind of ridikilus.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 30, 2013 3:45 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
One sticking point as far as working or driving after imbibing pop, though - it tends to stay in your system for quite a while afterwards. In other words, if you get hurt on the job and they do a drug test (Workers' Comp requires such in Texas; not sure how it works elsewhere), pot can show up in your system weeks after you used it. How do you prove you weren't high when it happened, or how do they prove you were? Same thing with driving - how do they prove you were actually *under the influence* if it shows up two weeks later in a piss test?

Madame Geezer was commenting on this last week. If you don't have a field test for pot analogous to a breathalyzer - that not only shows you've been using, but how impaired you are - how could you cite someone for driving under the influence of pot? You'd also have to determine at what level you're impaired, like the pretty standard .08 for blood alcohol level. So looks like both technical and legislative hurdles to be jumped.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:17 AM

HERO

I'm still of the opinion that the govt should take all of the illegal drugs it seizes from all the stops along the drug pipeline from production, deliver, distribution, and possession and simply reintroduce those drugs back into the general market AFTER having laced them with a variety of deadly poisons.

It seems to me that poisoning the supply of illegal drugs would go a long way to dealing with illegal drugs and would cut demand to such an extent that legalization would not be necessary.

Sure, some people would get upset, but since most drugs are a form or poison already, simply increasing general lethality would not dramatically change the nature of the product. Instead it would merely speed up the inevitable conculsion. This would save time and effort allowing us to devote our resources to people who truly want to get clean (ie, avoid certain death).

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:34 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Outlawing what people do to their own bodies with chemicals is the e-pit-o-me of arrogance/hubris. Try a citizen the same for what they DO, even if under the influence (or in need of said chemicals).

This bs didn't work with prohibition, hasn't worked now.

"None of you seem to understand. I'm not locked in here with you... YOU are locked in here with ME."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:38 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
I honestly don't understand why tobacco can be legal but marijuana is not. Makes no sense to me.

Tobacco doesn't have as potent an effect on the user as does pot , maybe?

Alcohol certainly does.

I know folks can get 'baked ' on smoking weed, but it seems far easier to down a drink and a few shots , on an empty stomach, and be completely blitzed. Even with weed getting more potent ( Niki. am I right ? ) than it was, a couple of decades ago.

Seems to me that pot would be between alcohol and tobacco in terms of immediate, mind altering effects. Just my observation.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:55 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Madame Geezer was commenting on this last week. If you don't have a field test for pot analogous to a breathalyzer - that not only shows you've been using, but how impaired you are - how could you cite someone for driving under the influence of pot? You'd also have to determine at what level you're impaired, like the pretty standard .08 for blood alcohol level. So looks like both technical and legislative hurdles to be jumped.

we have random drug testing for drivers here, same as booze. I think they use a saliva test, then blood test if positive.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 30, 2013 12:01 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

MD... I don't keep track of this stuff, but are you in Australia ?

Everyone I know who has been there, lived there, says the Auzzies drink a LOT more than most Americans, on average, and yet my guess is y'all have less of a problem w/ drunks getting behind the wheel than we have here in the US. Stricter laws, and an over all awareness that if you get nailed for doing something so stupid, it'll result in far worse than losing your license for 6 months, am I right ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 30, 2013 3:22 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
One sticking point as far as working or driving after imbibing pop, though - it tends to stay in your system for quite a while afterwards. In other words, if you get hurt on the job and they do a drug test (Workers' Comp requires such in Texas; not sure how it works elsewhere), pot can show up in your system weeks after you used it. How do you prove you weren't high when it happened, or how do they prove you were? Same thing with driving - how do they prove you were actually *under the influence* if it shows up two weeks later in a piss test?

Madame Geezer was commenting on this last week. If you don't have a field test for pot analogous to a breathalyzer - that not only shows you've been using, but how impaired you are - how could you cite someone for driving under the influence of pot? You'd also have to determine at what level you're impaired, like the pretty standard .08 for blood alcohol level. So looks like both technical and legislative hurdles to be jumped.

Well, once upon a time there were no breathalyzers or blood tests for alcohol, and they still managed to bust people for driving under the influence if they were clearly impaired.

But yeah, it's a bit of a thorny issue - if you bust someone and they appear on dashcam to not be wasted, how do you uphold the charge against them?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 30, 2013 3:25 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
I honestly don't understand why tobacco can be legal but marijuana is not. Makes no sense to me.

Tobacco doesn't have as potent an effect on the user as does pot , maybe?

Alcohol certainly does.

I know folks can get 'baked ' on smoking weed, but it seems far easier to down a drink and a few shots , on an empty stomach, and be completely blitzed. Even with weed getting more potent ( Niki. am I right ? ) than it was, a couple of decades ago.

Seems to me that pot would be between alcohol and tobacco in terms of immediate, mind altering effects. Just my observation.

I can actually drive a car functionally after a couple shots or beers (I've been tested); I cannot functionally operate a motor vehicle after a couple hits of pot.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 30, 2013 3:37 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
I honestly don't understand why tobacco can be legal but marijuana is not. Makes no sense to me.

Tobacco doesn't have as potent an effect on the user as does pot , maybe?

Alcohol certainly does.

I know folks can get 'baked ' on smoking weed, but it seems far easier to down a drink and a few shots , on an empty stomach, and be completely blitzed. Even with weed getting more potent ( Niki. am I right ? ) than it was, a couple of decades ago.

Seems to me that pot would be between alcohol and tobacco in terms of immediate, mind altering effects. Just my observation.

I can actually drive a car functionally after a couple shots or beers (I've been tested); I cannot functionally operate a motor vehicle after a couple hits of pot.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

One big difference is that alcohol, while it impairs ability, it tends to impair judgement as well, which is why many who are too drunk to drive insist they're not impaired. With weed, the user tends to be entirely aware of how impaired they are, and judge accordingly.

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 30, 2013 4:11 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by STORYMARK:

One big difference is that alcohol, while it impairs ability, it tends to impair judgement as well, which is why many who are too drunk to drive insist they're not impaired. With weed, the user tends to be entirely aware of how impaired they are, and judge accordingly.

Good point. I've actually had those conversations in the parking lot of a bar - me and a friend throwing the keys back and forth at each other, both insisting we were entirely too wasted to drive. We both were. We ended up taking a cab. :)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 30, 2013 5:05 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I understand pot is good for pain. Maybe I should give it a try and see if it works. If it did I would definitely pursue a prescription, which is quasi-legal in California. What I don't understand is why the laws consider it so much worse than Oxycontin, something doctors are allowed to freely prescribe anywhere in the country. Really? They can prescribe hard narcotics, but not pot? How strange is that?

But overall, I have as much or little a problem with pot as a freely obtainable substance as I do with alcohol and tobacco. In every population there are some people who will become addicted. Alcohol and tobacco purveyors know that and spend lots of money glamourizing their product, in order to hook that fraction of people. Legalized pot wouldn't be any different.

I think they should all be sold by the government at cost to anyone with a prescription (heroin, XTC, speed, etc as well), out of drab little stores in drab little containers. No pushing, no profit motive, no glamour, just an addict and their fix of choice. Nothing like watching a person nod off drooling with a needle in their arm to provide a realistic perspective on what it's really like. If you're going to decide to try it, at least you'd have an idea what could be ahead.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 30, 2013 8:19 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
MD... I don't keep track of this stuff, but are you in Australia ?

Everyone I know who has been there, lived there, says the Auzzies drink a LOT more than most Americans, on average, and yet my guess is y'all have less of a problem w/ drunks getting behind the wheel than we have here in the US. Stricter laws, and an over all awareness that if you get nailed for doing something so stupid, it'll result in far worse than losing your license for 6 months, am I right ?

What are all these things floating across my screen *hic* I don't know whether we drink more or less than Americans, but some of us sure drink a lot.

Drink driving laws - and now drug driving laws are very strict here and you can and will be randomly tested. It has changed the culture around driving under the influence. I don't know what the penalties are, but I think 12 months is first offence but perhaps it depends on how far you are over the limit. 0.05 is the blood alcohol limit.

There are also lots of ad campaigns around these things.

Remember, if you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 1, 2013 5:19 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Just getting back on line; went up to the Sierras for a couple of days--gawd it's gorgeous up there!! Snow melting off the granite, the rivers are up (tho' not as high as I'd like, given we didn't have great rain), wildflowers a-bloom, lupine EVERYWHERE along the road, and out in the Eastern Sierra dessert, where Paula lives, it's gorgeous and silent and, well, just gorgeous...

That's the "back side" of the Sierra Nevadas, just this side of the Nevada border; they built their home (and whatta home!) in the high desert JUST beyond the mountains...snow doesn't stick as bad and it's a 20-acre minimum...no close neighbors! Me, I'd have rather she'd have built where she rangered, IN the mountains, but it wasn't my money, and I've learned to love it there, too; in its way, it's beautiful.

But oh, man, that fucking DRIVE! Two hours of it are through the mountains, which is great, but from here to Placerville, straight freeway--through Saccamenna area, 75 mph bumper to bumper just to SURVIVE! That and the fact that I never sleep well up there (dogs antsy, altitude, change of routine, etc.,) I feel "stoned" this morning.

Onward:

Rap, we are once again, as in most things not about politics, in complete agreement.

Quote:
When people evolve past base idiocy we can lift all those pesky laws.

Which, will, of course, be never.

Mark, I totally disagree. You can be JUST as unaware of how stoned you are, if you're a regular stoner, as you can if drunk...even moreso because the effects seem milder. One difference for me was that it was easier to "straighten up"--marijuana is as much as anything a psychological high...the brain intensifies the high itself. For me, I would start feeling stoned immediately after my first toke, and obviously the drug hadn't hit my brain yet (20 minutes or so is normal). Alternatively, I could "sober up" real quick if I needed to--not sober, obviously, but more "conscious" if you will. If something happened--seeing a cop car for example--I got a lot more aware and "awake" immediately. I was still obviously under the influence, but the effect was lessened.

The danger with dope and driving is that you drive a lot SLOWER, often far too much slower, and can become ridiculously "cautious", which is as dangerous on the road as swerving and being obviously drunk, in its way. If you check out Google, there are lots of tests they've done and yes, we're as dangerous in our way behind a wheel as anyone who drinks. I used to drive stoned all the time...but that was back when dope wasn't what it is now.

As to potency. Dope nowadays is TONS more potent than it used to be, even not that long ago. One reason I gave it up. I'm not into getting wasted, I just liked my couple of hits, like an evening cocktail, to mellow out my normal hyperness. I used to smoke as much as anyone in my twenties; as it got stronger and stronger, I smoked less and less, until it was down to a toke or two at night by my thirties. Now, one toke can lay me out, so where's the pleasure in that? If I had a hit during the day, I just ended up nodding off. Bah. From my early twenties on I smoked nothing but Humboldt Gold, as I have a friend up there. When it became medically legal, I started buying it around at local marijuana clubs, and it's tons stronger than what I smoked before. But I just had a hit of the stuff I used to smoke yesterday, as it happened, and one toke had me nicely stoned, so even the illegal stuff has gotten a lot stronger. Probably not the same--my entire body metabolism changed when I stopped taking all my meds a couple of months ago, so that's part of it for ME anyway.

The negative I have against dope is it's a killer of motivation. It may well have been part of why I never pursued a real career path, just fell into secretarial because my parents wouldn't pay to put me into jr. college unless I took business courses, so that's all I had. I spent most of my not-quite-two-years in jr. college at communal houses, taking philosophy courses, etc., and, toward the end, using meth. Dope isn't the "gateway drug" they make it out to be, but back then, its EXTREMELY illegal status meant those who dealt it also dealt heavy stuff. Less so these days.

Kiki, there will ALWAYS be "glamor" associated with drugs of any kind; aside from it being how everything is marketed, mankind has always sought escape, and escape is glamorous. I wouldn't recommend pot to anyone, it's an individual decision, but while it hasn't helped me with pain like Aleve does, it sure made me not FOCUS on the pain, so that I often times forgot about it for long stretches of time.

As to why dope was classed as a Schedule 1 drug (patently asininely), there were several reasons. The intense anti-marijuana movement of the 1930s dovetailed nicely with the intense anti-Chicano movement of the 1930s. Marijuana was associated with Mexican Americans, and a ban on marijuana was seen as a way of discouraging Mexican-American subcultures from developing.

There's also the 1937 passage of the Marihuana Tax Act, which prohibited the production of hemp in addition to cannabis. Several scholars have claimed that the Act was passed in order to destroy U.S tiny hemp industry, with the primary involvement of businessmen Andrew Mellon, California's own "beloved" Randolph Hearst, and the Du Pont family. With the invention of the decorticator, hemp became a very cheap substitute for the paper pulp that was used in the newspaper industry and Hearst consequently believed that his extensive timber holdings were at threat. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury and the wealthiest man in America at that time, had invested heavily in DuPont's new synthetic fiber, nylon, and believed that the replacement of the traditional resource, hemp, was integral to the new product's success. Money=power=political might.

There were other things involved, "beatniks" being the main "white" users of marijuana, and of course being outside society's norms, there was prejudice against them. The Nixons helped keep it in the "evil" category, conveniently helping funding for their damned War On Drugs, and on and on. I've actually got a copy of "Marijuana, Assasin of Youth" and a couple of the other propaganda videos; they're funnier than hell (especially when stoned!), but they worked at the time. Pot's classification as a Schedule I was intially political, not scientific, medical or logical, and politics has kept it that way until recently.

There will also always be money and influence to push back from the private prison industry when it comes to decriminalization. First time in my life I think it's actually going to happen, probably on a state-by-state basis just like everything else (since our federal government has been ground to a virtual halt by the Party of No), but it's a beginning. Far too many "just folk" are making profit for the prison industry because of the laws against marijuana. I knew several who were busted, tricked, LURED back in the '60s into spending years in jail for a bit of dope.

That's things from my perspective.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 1, 2013 2:12 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
MD... I don't keep track of this stuff, but are you in Australia ?

Everyone I know who has been there, lived there, says the Auzzies drink a LOT more than most Americans, on average, and yet my guess is y'all have less of a problem w/ drunks getting behind the wheel than we have here in the US. Stricter laws, and an over all awareness that if you get nailed for doing something so stupid, it'll result in far worse than losing your license for 6 months, am I right ?

What are all these things floating across my screen *hic* I don't know whether we drink more or less than Americans, but some of us sure drink a lot.

Drink driving laws - and now drug driving laws are very strict here and you can and will be randomly tested. It has changed the culture around driving under the influence. I don't know what the penalties are, but I think 12 months is first offence but perhaps it depends on how far you are over the limit. 0.05 is the blood alcohol limit.

There are also lots of ad campaigns around these things.

Remember, if you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot ;)

Here, in most places, I believe it's 0.08 to be registered as DUI. It use to be 0.10, or maybe a bit higher. ( varies by state, I believe ) 1st offense , you lose your license for 6 months, but you can get a waiver that allows you to drive to and from work. Penalties get higher and higher, of course, but there's only token ads which drive home the hassle you can go through if you get nailed.

Many think of it almost as a challenge, a game, to get tanked and then sneak past the cops and 'win' by making it home alive, or not killing anyone else.

It's a sad commentary on U.S. culture, I have to admit.

Also... cool pics, Niki. Thanks for posting.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 1, 2013 4:17 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Dope isn't the "gateway drug" they make it out to be, but back then, its EXTREMELY illegal status meant those who dealt it also dealt heavy stuff. Less so these days.

Yup, that was pretty much my experience, too - if you knew a pot dealer, chances are he was also selling anything from meth to coke to heroin or crack, because at that point illegal is illegal, since they're all basically on the same level of illegality.

As I've said before, I never cared for the high pot gave - it made me feel slowed down and dumbed down, and I much prefer to be "up" and on edge. I could see myself getting very hooked on coke or speed, which is why I avoid them. I even limit my intake of stuff like Red Bull.

Ecstasy was quite enjoyable while it was legal, but it was a strange high. You *felt* very relaxed and chilled out, but you were in fact very "up" - and if you ever saw anyone on X, they tended to look a bit crazed, even though inside, they probably felt like they just had a valium or something. Once it became illegal, there were all sorts of "bathtub" blends going around, and they tended to come with some really nasty side effects like anxiety attacks and paranoia weeks after the fact, or withdrawal symptoms on a par with heroin, and stuff like that. I tried some exactly one time after it was banned, and it was a bad time.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 1, 2013 11:24 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Niki

I'm not sure I agree with your summary.

I'm going to focus on young people, b/c mostly us older folk have been there/ done that; and b/c young people tend to get more addicted the earlier they start using drugs; and their brains are still wiring-up, so effects can last a lifetime.

When I think of the young people who are doing drugs that I know of, they're not trying to escape reality in the way you and I might - they're just trying to par-TAY! A part of the cachet is that they're not supposed to be doing it, and all the cool kids are. And also when you're young you're invincible so you'll do anything. And while kids are doing more drugs younger, what they're mostly doing is getting wasted on alcohol in massive binges at parties.

So I don't see them turning to drugs to escape per se.

I think if drugs were legal and not a socially forbidden territory, but obtainable only through prescription, it would take some of the lure of drugs away from early experimenters.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 2, 2013 2:43 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Kiki:

Of course, you made a good point. Also young people get high because it's a "social" thing, everyone else is doing something at that par-TAY (large part of the reason I started when I did). Very valid point. The fact remains that humans always have sought some form of inebriation, in virtually every society, but your point is quite right as well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 13, 2023 12:36 PM

JAYNEZTOWN

Growing cannabis in CT will be legal in July. Here's why buying seeds is complicated.

https://www.sfgate.com/cannabis/article/growing-marijuana-in-connectic
ut-2023-18090689.php

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 26, 2023 1:00 PM

JAYNEZTOWN

its not as dangerous as other drugs, cigarettes and booze might in fact be more 'dangerous' but States and Nations have rules yet

Potheads can be idiots, it can be annoying being around them like drunks are annoying but pot heads then get to be 'sleepy' while drunks can be the loud type of annoying

Gigi Hadid Photographed in Public for the First Time Since Her Arrest
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/gigi-hadid-photographed-public-first-0148386
09.html
This marks Hadid’s first public outing since she was arrested last week for carrying marijuana and drug paraphernalia

Cayman Islands arrest

a self-governing British Overseas Territory 264-square-kilometre (102-square-mile) territory comprises the three islands of Grand Cayman, Cayman Brac and Little Cayman, nearCuba and northeast of Honduras, sort of like the British Virgin Islands a British Overseas Territory in the Caribbean and not linked to Epstein island the Cayman's are between Jamaica and Mexico's Yucatán Peninsula.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE