marijuana

[Yoga Face]

Do you think marijuana should be legal ?


If you want to vote "no" watch this 30 miute documentary first

Makes you realize how pathetic some politicians are


http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/marijuana-its-time-for-a-conversation

 

[oldjones]

But why would we think of decriminalizing marijuana when prohibition of alcohol has been such a success? Driving the boozemakers underground and arresting and jailing saloonkeepers, their customers and all who drink the evil stuff has given our country the prosperous, healthy, crime-free, peaceable reputation that the whole world admires, envies and emulates.

 

[Yoga Face]

But why would we think of decriminalizing marijuana when prohibition of alcohol has been such a success? Driving the boozemakers underground and arresting and jailing saloonkeepers, their customers and all who drink the evil stuff has given our country the prosperous, healthy, crime-free, peaceable reputation that the whole world admires, envies and emulates.

Watch the film

Marijuana was criminalized after prohibition failed

to keep the jobs of the prohibition people

 

[papasmerf]

Until an accurate field sobriety test for THC can be administered legalizing it is out of the question.

There is enough people driving under the influence be it if drugs or alcohol now. We do not need to green light 100's of thousands more people to drive under the influence.

Create a viable field sobriety test first and then get the use of THC legalized.

 

[papasmerf]

Watch the film

Marijuana was criminalized after prohibition failed

to keep the jobs of the prohibition people

Canada never had Prohibition, how did this keep people working in Canada??

 

[Brill]

Canada had prohibition, there were some exceptions so we could make money exporting to you guys though.
Parts of Toronto were still dry until a few years ago.

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

 

[Yoga Face]

Canada never had Prohibition, how did this keep people working in Canada??

It is an American film

Canada has not legalized dope because USA does not want us to

 

[papasmerf]

It is an American film

Canada has not legalized dope because USA does not want us to

I am sure most Americans would not be upset if Canada legalized it.

You don't hear about border communities protesting over Canada allowing 19 years old drink when in most every community in the US the drinking age is 21.

If Canada would like to be the first North American country to allow unrestricted use of THC, I am sure it would become a vacation destination for many.

 

[papasmerf]

I'm certain he meant the US Goverment and we all know how paranoid the DEA is.

I will bet dollars to doughnuts that the DEA did not exist when Canada outlawed THC

 

[papasmerf]

I'm sure the DEA is on the phone to Canadian Gov leaders telling them they are being bad boys whenever the subject comes up

What are you kidding me?

Any idea how much money is raised in fines at the borders?

 

[luckyjackson]

Until an accurate field sobriety test for THC can be administered legalizing it is out of the question.

There is enough people driving under the influence be it if drugs or alcohol now. We do not need to green light 100's of thousands more people to drive under the influence.

Create a viable field sobriety test first and then get the use of THC legalized.

What logic. So a sobriety test would make it ok to have more people driving "under the influence"? Surely the correct conclusion to your argument would be to make alcohol illegal as well?

I'd think a right wing type such as yourself would be in favour of less government intervention. We're a society that likes to use mind and mood altering substances. Let the onus be on the government to prove which cannot be used with a reasonable degree of safety.

 

[papasmerf]

1. Nope

2. Nope

Good answers

 

[oldjones]

Watch the film

Marijuana was criminalized after prohibition failed

to keep the jobs of the prohibition people

Should I have used one of those horrid emoticons to indicate my sarcasm better?
One of the biggest factors leading to the outlawing of marijuana was the empire-building rivalry at Justice between J. Edgar Hoover who had just created his own agency, and Harry J. Anslinger who needed a Drug Enforcement Agency to keep up and just hadda convince the powers that be to make some drugs illegal so he could start one.

'Sides since overt racism was becoming unacceptable publicly, there were all sorts of coded possibilities in suppressing 'race' drugs.

 

[Perry Mason]

Talk about human stupidity...

The only thing more ridiculous than Ansliger's successful campaign to criminalize marijuana is the stubborn determination of our ruling elites to continue the practice... the refusal to acknowledge -- in the face of numerous studies, continuous research, mounting evidence and formal government sponsored commissions from around the world -- that it was a mistake.

I can understand if not forgive mistakes... but I cannot understand why we exacerbate rather than correct them!

Well, I can understand... but the explanation only reinforces my increasing cynicism concerning human stupidity.

Perry

 

[WoodPeckr]

I can understand if not forgive mistakes... but I cannot understand why we exacerbate rather than correct them!
Perry

Tune into and watch FAUX news.
They demonstrate how it's done!....

 

[Aardvark154]

Marijuana was criminalized after prohibition failed

to keep the jobs of the prohibition people

Really?

Perhaps the film’s writers need to do some further research. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) the direct successor of the Bureau of Prohibition, deals with illegal distilleries and non-taxed spirits but has nothing to do with the enforcement of drug law.

 

[oldjones]

Until an accurate field sobriety test for THC can be administered legalizing it is out of the question.

There is enough people driving under the influence be it if drugs or alcohol now. We do not need to green light 100's of thousands more people to drive under the influence.

Create a viable field sobriety test first and then get the use of THC legalized.

I sadly suspect your first sentence is right. Folks do seem to have forgotten we coped for decades without breathalysers and still managed some sort of drunk driving enforcement.

Can't agree with number two, though. We still have too many drug-disabled folks—alcohol being a drug—driving now, even though it's illegal to do so, and obviously, to all but the criminally stupid, dangerous as hell. But anyone law-abiding enough, or frightened enough of consequences to stay off the weed and the road isn't likely to drop their good driving behaviour just because possession's no longer a crime. I think the bad people are already out there, doing it already with booze and pot, and any blip in the stats will be small and quickly over.

While your field test is a great concept and desireable, it's harder to invent than a simple device attached to the engine that would jam all cell phone transmission in the vehicle while in motion. That would assuredly improve road safety and save lives in much greater numbers than any test administered only after your driving was bad enough to get you pulled over. But we both know we'll never see such a thing allowed, let alone required.

So, back to ones: We did OK by police observation of behaviour, and tests like the straight line walk from the invention of cars to very recently. And even the Breathalyser™'s only used after the cop has her suspicions aroused And it can be and has been challenged in court and still isn't valid taken at roadside. But we manage. So the difference between THC and ethanol impairment is not impossible to deal with if you're setting a reasonable standard for the test.

Let's just stop pretending the requirement for the "field sobriety test" is some kind of first step and recognise it as code for, "Never".

 

[papasmerf]

I sadly suspect your first sentence is right. Folks do seem to have forgotten we coped for decades without breathalysers and still managed some sort of drunk driving enforcement.

Can't agree with number two, though. We still have too many drug-disabled folks—alcohol being a drug—driving now, even though it's illegal to do so, and obviously, to all but the criminally stupid, dangerous as hell. But anyone law-abiding enough, or frightened enough of consequences to stay off the weed and the road isn't likely to drop their good driving behaviour just because possession's no longer a crime. I think the bad people are already out there, doing it already with booze and pot, and any blip in the stats will be small and quickly over.

While your field test is a great concept and desireable, it's harder to invent than a simple device attached to the engine that would jam all cell phone transmission in the vehicle while in motion. That would assuredly improve road safety and save lives in much greater numbers than any test administered only after your driving was bad enough to get you pulled over. But we both know we'll never see such a thing allowed, let alone required.

So, back to ones: We did OK by police observation of behaviour, and tests like the straight line walk from the invention of cars to very recently. And even the Breathalyser™'s only used after the cop has her suspicions aroused And it can be and has been challenged in court and still isn't valid taken at roadside. But we manage. So the difference between THC and ethanol impairment is not impossible to deal with if you're setting a reasonable standard for the test.

Let's just stop pretending the requirement for the "field sobriety test" is some kind of first step and recognise it as code for, "Never".

I am telling you what the first step to code enforcement would be.

Find a way to detect THC in the field.
Determine a safe level and test for over that.

You want to legalize THC this is the best route.

 

[oldjones]

Really?

Perhaps the film’s writers need to do some further research. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) the direct successor of the Bureau of Prohibition, deals with illegal distilleries and non-taxed spirits but has nothing to do with the enforcement of drug law.

In 1930 as Roosevelt reorganized (or disorganized) federal government and law enforcement, the Bureau of Prohibition was moved into the young FBI. This wasn't to the liking of Hoover because liquor (like drugs today) enforcement was tainted and corrupt, nor did it please the assistant commisioner of the B of P, Harry Anslinger.

He managed to finagle his own agency, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, and Hoover managed to get the Prohibition Bureau moved out again to become BATF.

With repeal obviously on the horizon—many prominent pols had campaigned for it in '28 and it came in '33 no one wanted the sinking ship.

 

[oldjones]

I am telling you what the first step to code enforcement would be.

Find a way to detect THC in the field.
Determine a safe level and test for over that.

You want to legalize THC this is the best route.

And I'm saying this is as transparent a smokescreen for the status quo as not registering Black voters was back in the fities and sixties, unless they first passed the test of reciting the Declaration of Independence.

Of course your's is the 'best route'. Having every voter thoroughly versed in the Constitution would also be the best route, but we don't require that. We say the level of test that works for must appliy to all, and any harm will be outweghed by the good.

Anything else is a just a pretence of fair and just, and a stain on the law.

Or think outside the box for a moment: Compare the 'carnage on the roads' you threaten, with the millions now locked up with hardenedl criminals and stigmatized for the rest of their lives, compare it with the murders, injury and brutality in the drug world, with the the police-gang deaths and the untreated ODs and hospitalizations. All of these are a consequence of drug prohibition and taper away after legalization. Compare, and tell me your 'road carnage' would be worse.

a) Hard to believe, considering today's drug users are likely in the traffic stats already and those goody-two-shoes who are not using, are quite probably goody enough not to drug and drive after Legalization.
and
b) Hard to believe that a similar spike after repeal in '33 wouldn't have lead to restoring Prohibition. Oh, and you might just give the details of that 'field test' that was required before it was possible to think of repealing Prohibition '33.

Except there was none. No test, no carnage. We survived.

And we still have no alcohol test that does the job you say we must do on THC, before we can cope w/ it legally. And we're actually catching drunks on the road, convicting them and bringing down the numbers.

I can't imagine how we could do worse by legalizing, but there's a kinda Stockholm Syndrome about the devil you know that infects some folks and they fall in love with the dark side and can't see the light.