Mainstream marijunna and minorities.

[The Wandering God]

So, CNN ran an opinion piece (http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/05/marijuana.racial.arrests/index.html) about marijunna becoming more mainstream. However, more arrests than ever are taking place.
In 2008, the police arrested 847,864 people nationwide for marijuana violations, according to the 2008 FBI Uniform Crime Report. Pot arrests represent fully half of all drug arrests reported in the United States. The overwhelming majority -- a whopping 89 percent -- were charged with possession only.

Most striking, the marijuana arrest rate in the United States has nearly tripled since 1991.
And, surprise surprise, the arrests are mostly among blacks and Latinos.
In New York City, blacks and Latinos -- who represent about half the city's population -- accounted for 86 percent of everyone charged with pot possession in 2008. The NYCLU report says federal studies show young whites use marijuana at higher rates than blacks and Latinos.

I realize we've done this before, but I wanted to post it for a couple of reasons.

1. It was on the main page of CNN, and it is a anti-prohibition piece.

2. That is a pretty atrocious imbalance in arrests. I hate seeing cops live down to the stereotype of racist oppressors.

Lastly, I'll leave you with some words from Mr. Carl Sagan.
… the illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.

[Funka Genocide]

The fact that you misspelled marijuana leads me to believe you might very well be on it right now!

This is pretty sad and yet not surprising. Racial profiling has become sort of the unspoken standard operating procedure for most law enforcement agencies.

[Odjn]

See, people have been telling me it's decriminalized for small amounts here in NYC- guess they were wrong?

[Bells]

… the illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.


And this is enough for me to not want to touch this subject with a 10ft pole...

EDIT: Yeah, ok, just so it won't look like a spammy post... i said that because i honestly think that it was a very stupid bullshitty thing to say

[The Wandering God]

And this is enough for me to not want to touch this subject with a 10ft pole...

EDIT: Yeah, ok, just so it won't look like a spammy post... i said that because i honestly think that it was a very stupid bullshitty thing to say
You mind explaining why you think that?

[Bells]

That would be a big, quite biased, rant... but the phrase itself is quite stupid, at least it sounds so to me.

I mean, if he wants to support legalization of a recreational drug for personal use, then do so. Come out and say that he wants this becase he believes he has the right and is willing to accept the negative effects of the use of such drug and that he ALSO believes that legalizing it won't warm in any shape or form the rights and freedoms of the people who don't want to use, don't care for it...

But c'mon, don't come out with this bullshit saying that the world is so cold and mean and we need a magical herb that will make everyone fart rainbows and be bestest friends evar...

You see, my main problem with this whole issue is that both sides aren't honest. And both sides of the argument are more than willing to sent flying bullshit torwards the other...

For me, you can do anything your want with your life and body, but if your habits and desires cause any sort of effect to other people... than it's no longer a "i can do because i can" deal, now we have to sit down and talk, and one of the sides needs to accept the idea that they might not get what the want and deal with it. Walk it off.

But with this subject, neither side is willing to do so. In a case like this, i feel better leaving things as they are than to risk a change fueled by personal interests of a minority (in both sides) that inflate and manipulate a larger mass to try and become a majority (in both sides).

[Meister]

But c'mon, don't come out with this bullshit saying that the world is so cold and mean and we need a magical herb that will make everyone fart rainbows and be bestest friends evar...
I interpret the gist of the quote more as something like "so, if more of us treated weed like a normal drug, we'd probably be able to live together a lot more peacefully."

and that he ALSO believes that legalizing it won't warm in any shape or form the rights and freedoms of the people who don't want to use, don't care for it...
Well, how would it? Serious question, I've never seen the rights of anyone who didn't want to smoke harmed in any way.

[Funka Genocide]

I kind of agree with Bells, not because I think it's some sort of indicator of a slippery slope towards pot fueled apocalypse, just because that statement is completely retarded.

I am reminded of a quote by Hunter S. Thompson in regards to the whole psychedelic movement of the 60's.

"We are all wired into a survival trip now. No more of the speed that fueled the 60's. That was the fatal flaw in Tim Leary's trip. He crashed around America selling "consciousness expansion" without ever giving a thought to the grim meat-hook realities that were lying in wait for all the people who took him seriously... All those pathetically eager acid freaks who thought they could buy Peace and Understanding for three bucks a hit. But their loss and failure is ours too. What Leary took down with him was the central illusion of a whole life-style that he helped create... a generation of permanent cripples, failed seekers, who never understood the essential old-mystic fallacy of the Acid Culture: the desperate assumption that somebody... or at least some force - is tending the light at the end of the tunnel. "

Drugs are drugs, they're not pathways to universal truth or a gateway to enlightenment. They just work the sense in interesting ways, nothing more substantial than a delicious confection of empty calories.

[Osterbaum]

The fact that marijuana is illegal is one of the biggest hypocrisies of our time.

[Viridis]

This graph (http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/visualising-the-guardian-datablog/) might be very interesting (Near the bottom). It's the UK I just noticed, but still useful.

[Bells]

Well, how would it? Serious question, I've never seen the rights of anyone who didn't want to smoke harmed in any way.

That would be the point where things i said would start getting bloated and biased as all hell, but i'll try to keep it simple...

First of all, what Funka said was pretty much spot on...

But, just to draw a co-relation of things. Considering not the individual, but the full picture of the subject. Would you agree with me that people who don't smoke tobacco got harmed in some ways in the past few years? Don't thik of just the rights as they are printed on paper, Social and economic effects hardly can be predicted this away.

Now, i'm not talking about the relationship between smoker and non-smoker. But rather about the relationship with the industry built around it and the people it affects. And of course The people who actually profit from it.

I already saw people claiming that making pot legal could Save california from Bankrupcy... that the price would go down, that it would actually take money away from criminals and drug dealers... everything i saw, knew and reed about it made me think that the exact opposite of those things are WAY more likely and logical to happen (not to say that Pot would bankrupt California, just that it would barely help or not at all).

[NonCon]

that the price would go down, that it would actually take money away from criminals and drug dealers... everything i saw, knew and reed about it made me think that the exact opposite of those things are WAY more likely and logical to happen (not to say that Pot would bankrupt California, just that it would barely help or not at all).

I think one cigarette company, don't know which one, has already patented marijuana cigarettes in case they get legalized. Street sellers are not going to be able to compete with large companies. It just ain't happening. The money won't go to the drug venders of the streets, will instead go to companies, and those companies will be taxed on that money, thus money that wasn't going to the government now is. I'm not going to say it will save California, but explain to me how the opposite of this is going to happen, and why.

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

Well let's consider prohibition as an example. Prohibition was ridiculously expensive to enforce and all the profits went straight to criminals without the huge tax benefits that we get from alcohol these days.
And consider that studies have shown that decriminalisation/liberalisation of marijuana has not shown increases in use during studies. Here is a newspaper article talking about this, today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/07/bad-science-nott-drugs

But I have no idea how taking away pot would cost the state as you claim. What costs will they have? And how can they compete with the tax benefits.

[bluestarultor]

The problem with pot is that, unlike alcohol, it's piss-easy to grow and any idiot can do it fairly quickly, where alcohol needs the ingredients, needs to ferment, etc. My grandpa grew up during the Depression and one of his childhood memories was that alcohol was legal to make, just not to sell, and his dad regularly DID make it and even left a portion out for the friendly neighborhood beat cops so they could be merry on their lunch breaks.

Pot, on the other hand, actually had to be removed from regular bird seed because people picked it out and planted it. All pot needs is sun and water and you're set. Put it in your back yard, trim the leaves, and you've got yourself a supply.

Basically, I don't see legalizing pot as helping much. To put it this way, if you simply de-criminalize pot, you get to stop wasting money on finding growers and everyone gets some and things are easy. If you legalize it, depending on the restrictions, you still have to find the growers and see if they have a license and spend time and money regulating it, and then if someone is growing it who's not supposed to be, there's less you can do about it because it's not actually illegal to have anymore, and there's really no good way to tell which pot is from authorized growers and which isn't. Basically, if you're going to legalize and regulate, you're back where you started with an over-complicated mess. Again, this is depending on how its growth is regulated. If we're talking just legalizing its use, all you have to worry about is confiscating it when someone is carrying too much.

Overall, though, I think the idea that with how easy it is to grow, legalization is not going to really solve any problems. Sure, it might siphon a portion of the money into the government, but the idea that people are going to just sit back and let the farmers handle growing it doesn't strike me as realistic.

[BitVyper]

Put it in your back yard, trim the leaves, and you've got yourself a supply.

Why is this even bad?

but the idea that people are going to just sit back and let the farmers handle growing it doesn't strike me as realistic.

You know what else is piss easy to grow? Like, 90% of the produce you buy at the supermarket. You're over-estimating people. Yeah, some would grow small amount in their backyards - and I don't really see that as much of an issue - but the majority are just gonna go "fuck it," and buy it at the store.

Honestly, I'd much rather see small-scale stuff than another tobacco industry anyway.

[NonCon]

This is also why fast food restaraunts exist.

[BitVyper]

I'm figuring the guys who are going to grow it in their back yards are probably exactly the same ones who are growing it already.

[bluestarultor]

You know what else is piss easy to grow? Like, 90% of the produce you buy at the supermarket. You're over-estimating people. Yeah, some would grow small amount in their backyards - and I don't really see that as much of an issue - but the majority are just gonna go "fuck it," and buy it at the store.

Tell me about it. We have an apple tree and a pear tree in our back yard. The apples aren't really very good (although my grandpa's are much better), but the pears are great and we got a ton of them this year without lifting a finger. No pesticides, no watering, my brother and I just happened to be raking and saw it was loaded this year, he grabbed one and took a bite, and we decided to grab everything we could. Our neighbors two houses down the street have a plum tree with THE sweetest plums I've ever tasted. When I was friends with the neighbors on the other side of them (Steve and I had a falling out, sadly), we'd go over and grab some. The Kerswells don't even eat the things. They just throw them all out. It's a total waste, but I don't have an excuse to be nearby anymore to sneak any.

Then again, not everyone has fruit trees, which take a long time to grow, where pot has a waiting time a few good years shorter than that. Non-tree fruit requires a ton of planting and maintenance every year and isn't as good an example.

Honestly, I'd much rather see small-scale stuff than another tobacco industry anyway.

Well, while I have nothing major against that, I don't think that's what people are hoping for when they're arguing this from a political standpoint.

[Sithdarth]

The problem with pot is that, unlike alcohol, it's piss-easy to grow and any idiot can do it fairly quickly, where alcohol needs the ingredients, needs to ferment, etc.

See here is the big gaping hole in your theory. Tobacco is basically as easy to grow as pot and without the legal ramifications. With the ridiculous taxes on tobacco most states have to encourage you not to smoke you'd think massive amounts of people would be growing it but they're not. Modern man is a lazy son of a bitch that won't do anything for himself that someone else will do and will pay extra for the convenience. Not to mention with microbrewing making your own alcohol has become almost as easy as growing tobacco or pot.

Overall, though, I think the idea that with how easy it is to grow, legalization is not going to really solve any problems.

It would certainly solve the problem where we spend millions (or is it in the billions now) of dollars trying to catch and keep in prison people growing and using it. I mean the money spent on housing prisoners alone has to be crazy. It costs a lot to keep a person alive and somewhat comfortable and I here there are a relatively large number of people whose only crime is pot in jail. That is not to say that some people don't do pot related stuff and non-pot related stuff. Then of course there is also court costs. I don't have hard numbers but I'd expect it to be rather high.

People want to smoke it let them smoke it. As long as we add it to the DUI list and keep it out of enclosed spaces it'll be fine.

[BitVyper]

Drugs are drugs, they're not pathways to universal truth or a gateway to enlightenment.

I'm sure you've heard someone use courage as a metaphor for alcohol before, yes? Drugs are interesting in that they allow you to force your mind to operate on a different track. This can have a wide range of effects, both positive and negative, and yes, they CAN help you attain a better state of mind (what you call that is up to you). We've been using drugs for this exact purpose in mental patients for years. Much harder drugs than marijuana, at that. Now they aren't Get Into Enlightenment Free cards, but you can benefit from a temporarily altered perspective both in the short and long term. If you're an idiot about it - and a lot of people are - then they can also fuck you up, but in the case of marijuana, you have to try very very hard to do that. Even then, it's debatable whether or not you actually can.

Lot of guys have come up with some fantastic art and music under the influence of drugs. I've seen firsthand how it can make people create really cool things they wouldn't have created otherwise. So yeah, drugs can actually open you up to positive things that you wouldn't have otherwise seen. They can make you stupid too, so there's good and bad.

Edit: Very little of this post applies to marijuana, because marijuana is just not all that strong of a drug. Hell, it's barely worth calling a drug at all. I'd be willing to bet that caffiene has a stronger effect.

It would certainly solve the problem where we spend millions (or is it in the billions now) of dollars trying to catch and keep in prison people growing and using it.

Lets not forget the problem where we pretend decent people are hardened criminals.

[bluestarultor]

See here is the big gaping hole in your theory. Tobacco is basically as easy to grow as pot and without the legal ramifications. With the ridiculous taxes on tobacco most states have to encourage you not to smoke you'd think massive amounts of people would be growing it but they're not. Modern man is a lazy son of a bitch that won't do anything for himself that someone else will do and will pay extra for the convenience. Not to mention with microbrewing making your own alcohol has become almost as easy as growing tobacco or pot.

I may be confused, but I thought tobacco needed really good soil and wam temperatures or something. :sweatdrop

I mean, if not, I'll totally step back on that one, but I was under the impression that that was at least partly why it was only grown in the South.

It would certainly solve the problem where we spend millions (or is it in the billions now) of dollars trying to catch and keep in prison people growing and using it. I mean the money spent on housing prisoners alone has to be crazy. It costs a lot to keep a person alive and somewhat comfortable and I here there are a relatively large number of people whose only crime is pot in jail. That is not to say that some people don't do pot related stuff and non-pot related stuff. Then of course there is also court costs. I don't have hard numbers but I'd expect it to be rather high.

I did not consider that. But then it still holds that de-criminalization would still be even better, given you don't have to spend money to regulate. Add it to the DUI list and off you go, no worries about growers, users, or sellers, let the market sort itself out. I know that sounds conservative on the issue, and maybe it is, but if all we want to do is save money, laissez-faire is really the best route.

I don't have hard numbers, either, but there's an old phrase saying, "you have to spend money to make money." They want to regulate and capitalize off of pot, which means they're either going to have to defend it, meaning more time and money spent, or they're going to have to risk losses outside of their acceptable margins by letting small third parties cut into it, which I'm sure will add up.

Edit: I should qualify that. I don't think small growers are going to absolutely march over big corporations on this. That would be an accomplishment given the resources of Big Farming. I do think there's a possibility that said big corporations may not get enough profit out of it for it to be fiscally beneficial for them to do so and therefore may not start unless they have some assurance they'll be able to turn a decent profit.

[NonCon]

I may be confused, but I thought tobacco needed really good soil and wam temperatures or something.

Warm temperatures could be created via heat lamp or some such, good soil can be purchased if you don't already have some. Would still be cheaper than buying tobacco.

[Sithdarth]

I may be confused, but I thought tobacco needed really good soil and wam temperatures or something.

I mean, if not, I'll totally step back on that one, but I was under the impression that that was at least partly why it was only grown in the South.


Its essentially the same processes in both cases. Tobacco needs a little bit of fertilizer to grow but you can use tomato or pepper fertilizer for that. Other than that you might have to start them inside if you are in a colder climate but you have to do that with pot too. After that you just have to stick to the warmer months which again is when you grow pot. Unless you are growing it all inside in which case you could just do that with tobacco anyway.

[bluestarultor]

Well, in that case, I'll yield on that.

[NonCon]

Why do drug sellers make money, Blues? The money doesn't just fall from the sky by virtue of the fact that they sell weed. People buy it. Enough people buy it that they can make a large profit. By your logic, the logic that everyone who smokes weed is going to just grow it themselves because it's soooo cheap and easy, these people would not be making money. Big corporations will be able to grow more, and thus make more money, especially after markup.

[bluestarultor]

Why do drug sellers make money, Blues? The money doesn't just fall from the sky by virtue of the fact that they sell weed. People buy it. Enough people buy it that they can make a large profit. By your logic, the logic that everyone who smokes weed is going to just grow it themselves because it's soooo cheap and easy, these people would not be making money. Big corporations will be able to grow more, and thus make more money, especially after markup.

You're forgetting that weed is also ILLEGAL at the moment and most people don't have the resources or desire to hide it to avoid getting caught with the plants. In this case, it's easier to buy it because you can better avoid the penalties associated with having it. If the cops come, you can flush a bag of weed. It's much harder to flush a potted plant. :J

[NonCon]

You're forgetting that weed is also ILLEGAL at the moment and most people don't have the resources or desire to hide it to avoid getting caught with the plants. In this case, it's easier to buy it because you can better avoid the penalties associated with having it. If the cops come, you can flush a bag of weed. It's much harder to flush a potted plant. :J

Counter: If you grow it yourself, people are less likely to know you have it. You go out and buy it, you can always get caught by the cops because they might be watching a seller or whatever. Grow it at home and you avoid that risk.

[bluestarultor]

Counter: If you grow it yourself, people are less likely to know you have it. You go out and buy it, you can always get caught by the cops because they might be watching a seller or whatever. Grow it at home and you avoid that risk.

Counter counter: The heat generated by the lamps used to grow pot is easily detectable with an IR camera and police have taken to using aerial IR to scan cities for growers. You need to have good insulation underground to get by undetected.

[NonCon]

police have taken to using aerial IR to scan cities for growers.

Counter Counter Counter: If we are so obsessed with catching pot growers that we're resorting to something of this level we are spending far, far, far too much time and money trying to catch them that could be better spent catching people who actually deserve it and paying for things states should be paying for. If we are doing motherfucking aerial scans to catch these people, then pot needs to be decriminalized/legalized/whatever-the-fuck because seriously.

[bluestarultor]

Funny how your counter brings us back to a point I've already established I agree with and not the thing we were talking about. :J

To wit, yeah, things are getting pretty heavy, which is WHY people can't grow their own pot at the moment. You need special facilities to get away with it at this point. We're talking underground bunkers packed full of the things are providing the goods now, like factory farms do for cattle. With the need for that removed, yeah, I see a lot of people skipping the cost if they're going to use and growing it on their own if they can get away with it.

[NonCon]

Funny how your counter brings us back to a point I've already established I agree with and not the thing we were talking about. :JSee previous post's title.

To wit, yeah, things are getting pretty heavy, which is WHY people can't grow their own pot at the moment. You need special facilities to get away with it at this point. We're talking underground bunkers packed full of the things are providing the goods now, like factory farms do for cattle. With the need for that removed, yeah, I see a lot of people skipping the cost if they're going to use and growing it on their own if they can get away with it.You never did provide a reason for why this doesn't happen with tobacco, so I hardly see how this is the foregone conclusion you keep treating it as.

[bluestarultor]

You never did provide a reason for why this doesn't happen with tobacco, so I hardly see how this is the foregone conclusion you keep treating it as.

Well, I could say that some people do grow their own tobacco, but the people I know who do are Native Americans and don't really provide an accurate subset given they use it for their ceremonies. So I'll just have to take a guess and say that it goes back to the days of Southern plantations when they all just did that stuff due to having the right climate and soil for it and people have been depending on big farms for it for quite some time. With pot, it hasn't been that long since people COULD grow their own, and many still take the risk, so there's already a do-it-yourself culture to it. People who grow the stuff aren't going to up and stop just because someone else starts. It's often a large chunk of their income, and I doubt they'll be giving that up, especially if they can snatch up more market share and offer competitive prices. Aside from that, they have full control over what goes into it and a loyal buyer market already, so not only will people often stick with a source they can trust, but they can also raise flags on the superior safety and purity of the product.

[NonCon]

And fast food? I'm not saying people won't grow their own, but there are a ridiculous amount of cases in modern society where people with the ability to make/grow/prepare their own food, vegetables, tobacco and what have you, and there are a large number of benefits to doing so, but they still don't, and businesses are able to capitalize off this. And your argument basically boils down to "Well what if they don't capitalize off of it?" Every reason you've given for why people will still grown their own, to the point where it might not be profitable for big business, has a perfectly valid counter-example.

[bluestarultor]

And fast food? I'm not saying people won't grow their own, but there are a ridiculous amount of cases in modern society where people with the ability to make/grow/prepare their own food, vegetables, tobacco and what have you, and there are a large number of benefits to doing so, but they still don't, and businesses are able to capitalize off this. And your argument basically boils down to "Well what if they don't capitalize off of it?" Every reason you've given for why people will still grown their own, to the point where it might not be profitable for big business, has a perfectly valid counter-example.

One could argue that a counter-example is really just another option and not a replacement, NonCon. What I'm saying is there's already a culture of independence here. It's not just going to change overnight. The growers will continue to grow to get their livelihood and the buyers will go wherever they feel is best, which will end up depending on factors of safety, quality, and price. If they have a provider that already gives them un-cut goods of good quality for an affordable rate, they probably aren't all going to jump to give their money to a big, faceless corporation.

[Mirai Gen]

Blues the only reason marijuana growing is an acceptable profession is because it's illegal - nobody after abolition was repealed made their own alcohol, and this isn't any different. You'll have a handful based on the exclusive market who prefer the 'all natural' but nobody does their own anything. All the examples you bring up are just, as Noncon said, "Well, what if they don't?"

Convenience and ease is, and has always been, the deciding factor. Its the same reason fast food chains are so profitable - the people who like to prepare (let alone grow and prepare) their own food are much, much less frequent.

Also most of your argument is "But what if they didn't?" which I think is giving Noncon a conniption.

[Fifthfiend]

The problem with pot is that, unlike alcohol, it's piss-easy to grow and any idiot can do it fairly quickly, where alcohol needs the ingredients, needs to ferment, etc. My grandpa grew up during the Depression and one of his childhood memories was that alcohol was legal to make, just not to sell, and his dad regularly DID make it and even left a portion out for the friendly neighborhood beat cops so they could be merry on their lunch breaks.

Pot, on the other hand, actually had to be removed from regular bird seed because people picked it out and planted it. All pot needs is sun and water and you're set. Put it in your back yard, trim the leaves, and you've got yourself a supply.

Basically, I don't see legalizing pot as helping much. To put it this way, if you simply de-criminalize pot, you get to stop wasting money on finding growers and everyone gets some and things are easy. If you legalize it, depending on the restrictions, you still have to find the growers and see if they have a license and spend time and money regulating it, and then if someone is growing it who's not supposed to be, there's less you can do about it because it's not actually illegal to have anymore, and there's really no good way to tell which pot is from authorized growers and which isn't. Basically, if you're going to legalize and regulate, you're back where you started with an over-complicated mess. Again, this is depending on how its growth is regulated. If we're talking just legalizing its use, all you have to worry about is confiscating it when someone is carrying too much.

Overall, though, I think the idea that with how easy it is to grow, legalization is not going to really solve any problems. Sure, it might siphon a portion of the money into the government, but the idea that people are going to just sit back and let the farmers handle growing it doesn't strike me as realistic.

The fact that police can arrest you for walking around with it is more or less the entirety of the problem, so yeah, I would say that legalizing it would solve the problem.

The prospect of some people skirting tax laws or whatever is a different and minor problem next to spending billions of dollars investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating people for using an popular and relatively harmless yet illegal product.

EDIT: I think the main problem with your argument is it relies on the assumption that people like buying pot from Shifty Pete's buddy Bill who won't sell to you cause him and Pete have unspecified DRAMA right now so instead let's call Joey's cousin Ray-Ray who totally knows a guy who can hook us up except that he's not picking up his phone so let's drive to his place to maybe see if he's around and then pick him up and drive him to the place of the guy who can hook us up which is in the part of town where you get to see crazy homeless men shitting into buckets and then we go up to Ray Ray's buddy's rathole apartment and have to hang out and watch half of Date Movie with him while he digs around under his laundry pile for his shit which isn't ACTUALLY the shit we thought we were buying but it's almost as good if you ignore the seeds and the stems and also it's fifteen dollars more an eighth

...as opposed to

walk into store of legally licensed retailer
pay listed price for weed
have weed
4:20 SMOKE WEED EVVY DAY

[Sir Pinkleton]

EDIT: I think the main problem with your argument is it relies on the assumption that people like buying pot from Shifty Pete's buddy Bill who won't sell to you cause him and Pete have unspecified DRAMA right now so instead let's call Joey's cousin Ray-Ray who totally knows a guy who can hook us up except that he's not picking up his phone so let's drive to his place to maybe see if he's around and then pick him up and drive him to the place of the guy who can hook us up which is in the part of town where you get to see crazy homeless men shitting into buckets and then we go up to Ray Ray's buddy's rathole apartment and have to hang out and watch half of Date Movie with him while he digs around under his laundry pile for his shit which isn't ACTUALLY the shit we thought we were buying but it's almost as good if you ignore the seeds and the stems and also it's fifteen dollars more an eighth

...as opposed to

walk into store of legally licensed retailer
pay listed price for weed
have weed
go get high

Where's your sense of adventure, man? :p

EDIT: Also, I've nothing to provide content wise really. I'd never smoke weed, but that's a personal reason, so I see little reason to keep it illegal given the evidence.

Actually, I'm going to look up the official reason why pot is illegal right now. Maybe after reading the legalize I can see why. [/optimism]

[Fifthfiend]

Where's your sense of adventure, man? :p

It died in Ray-Ray's hookup's shithole apartment.

[BitVyper]

Actually, I'm going to look up the official reason why pot is illegal right now. Maybe after reading the legalize I can see why.

I'm pretty sure the official reason is "HAHA FUCK YOU. HIPPIES!"

[Mac]

I'm pretty sure the official reason is "HAHA FUCK YOU. HIPPIES!"

Actually if memory serves, Marijuana was made illegal by William Randolph Hearst. I do not know the official reasons right now, but part of it was because of Hemp and how it was a cheaper substitute to Paper and Oil and Hearst owned many paper mills.

Don't quote me on it yet. I need to find the source.

[Sir Pinkleton]

Okay, so one source here (http://civilliberty.about.com/od/drugpolicy/tp/Why-is-Marijuana-Illegal.htm) (and you can find the same copy and pasted argument on wikianswers) shows the conservative view, I guess. As far as why it was banned originally (I heard of a conspiracy of the paper making companies afraid of the abilities of Hemp, and lobbied for its ban) I don't know. Seems like Mac is looking that up though.

Oddly enough, it basically is a "HAHA, FUCK YOU HIPPIES" now (or the image of them), though it used to be a racial-profiling kind of deal. Also, fears of its link to hard narcotics (and hence also addiction) and apathy for change are proposed to be the biggest reasons.

[Mac]

This is relevant. (http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/)

According to the website, Hearst, along side others sensationalized the ill affects and blamed of course minorities.

And here is some quotes from Hearst's wiki page partially validating my claim about running out Hemp as a viable rival to wood pulp, although there are those who disagree with it (http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/77339/).

Hearst sympathized with Harry J. Anslinger in his war against marijuana. Jack Herer and others argue that Hearst's paper empire (he owned hundreds of acres of timber forests and a vast number of paper mills designed to manufacture paper from wood pulp) in the early 1930s was threatened by hemp, which: 1) like wood pulp, could also be used to manufacture paper[10] and 2) also had an advantage over wood pulp, because it could be regrown yearly as well.[10] Between 1936 and 1937, Hearst associated marijuana with hemp in his newspapers and published many of the stories that Anslinger fabricated.[11] Hearst played a major part in aiding the anti-marijuana movement, leading to its prohibition in the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937,[12] a law which also effectively outlawed hemp.

Other commentators have subsequently pointed out that the Hearst chain was one of the biggest buyers of newsprint in the U.S.[13] As buyers of newsprint, the Hearst chain had a strong interest in a low price for newsprint. If anyone could produce large amounts of cheap newsprint from a new crop it would lower Hearst's purchasing cost for newsprint. These commentators conclude that Hearst had no relevant financial interest in a ban on hemp cultivation

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

Hearst was a crazy ass mofo who would just bring whatever came into his head. He invented the Spanish-American war cause he wanted to sell more papers. Basing laws off him is a tad ridiculous!

[Mirai Gen]

I'm pretty sure it was because he thought it would harm his profits, but don't quote me there.

[Mac]

Hearst was a crazy ass mofo who would just bring whatever came into his head. He invented the Spanish-American war cause he wanted to sell more papers. Basing laws off him is a tad ridiculous!

Hearst had enough clout, he co much do pretty much anything. Because he owned so many papers, if he wanted to spread the lies and slander about someone, he could quite easily kill a man's reputation. So it is not much of a stretch that he lied about pot (blaming the minorities and Jazz Musicians) that could get what he wants.

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

I'm pretty sure it was because he thought it would harm his profits, but don't quote me there.

Well yeah. Hearst wasn't the type to do detailed economic projections and things. He just be like "Hemp? No ways dog! I can smash that shit!" and did so with his giant ogre-like hands (his hands being newspapers).

[Fifthfiend]

Inasmuch as HBO's Deadwood can be taken as an accurate depiction of history* this is pretty much how the whole Hearst family rolled.

*it probably can't, but what the hell.

[The Wandering God]

Okay, doing some catching up in this topic.
That would be a big, quite biased, rant... but the phrase itself is quite stupid, at least it sounds so to me.

I mean, if he wants to support legalization of a recreational drug for personal use, then do so. Come out and say that he wants this becase he believes he has the right and is willing to accept the negative effects of the use of such drug and that he ALSO believes that legalizing it won't warm in any shape or form the rights and freedoms of the people who don't want to use, don't care for it...

But c'mon, don't come out with this bullshit saying that the world is so cold and mean and we need a magical herb that will make everyone fart rainbows and be bestest friends evar...

You see, my main problem with this whole issue is that both sides aren't honest. And both sides of the argument are more than willing to sent flying bullshit torwards the other...

For me, you can do anything your want with your life and body, but if your habits and desires cause any sort of effect to other people... than it's no longer a "i can do because i can" deal, now we have to sit down and talk, and one of the sides needs to accept the idea that they might not get what the want and deal with it. Walk it off.

But with this subject, neither side is willing to do so. In a case like this, i feel better leaving things as they are than to risk a change fueled by personal interests of a minority (in both sides) that inflate and manipulate a larger mass to try and become a majority (in both sides).
First off, that's not the only quote by Sagan about it. It's merely one I liked because I thought it captured the absurdity of it's illegality. Second, he said it helps. It doesn't do anything on its own. But the mindset needed to accept it is what the world needs. More acceptance, less discrimination. Third, you ALWAYS have an effect on other people. That's the nature of life. We don't live in bubbles, nor should we. It isn't just personal interest that makes people want to legalize it. It's the greater benefits of taxation and decreased criminal prosecution that would result.

I kind of agree with Bells, not because I think it's some sort of indicator of a slippery slope towards pot fueled apocalypse, just because that statement is completely retarded.

I am reminded of a quote by Hunter S. Thompson in regards to the whole psychedelic movement of the 60's.

"We are all wired into a survival trip now. No more of the speed that fueled the 60's. That was the fatal flaw in Tim Leary's trip. He crashed around America selling "consciousness expansion" without ever giving a thought to the grim meat-hook realities that were lying in wait for all the people who took him seriously... All those pathetically eager acid freaks who thought they could buy Peace and Understanding for three bucks a hit. But their loss and failure is ours too. What Leary took down with him was the central illusion of a whole life-style that he helped create... a generation of permanent cripples, failed seekers, who never understood the essential old-mystic fallacy of the Acid Culture: the desperate assumption that somebody... or at least some force - is tending the light at the end of the tunnel. "

Drugs are drugs, they're not pathways to universal truth or a gateway to enlightenment. They just work the sense in interesting ways, nothing more substantial than a delicious confection of empty calories.
I should say I posted the quote more for the first and last part. I wasn't trying to say that the drug would magically make things better, but that it was ridiculous to be illegal and we need all serenity, fellowship, etc right now because humanity could tear itself apart. I should point out that Sagan thought our odds of destroying ourselves were pretty high. Whether you agree with any of that or not is, of course, your choice.

Now, why is it illegal? Well, racism and political grandstanding mostly. It had absolutely nothing to do with health concerns. (Mayor of New York Fiorello H. La Guardia even had a team of doctors study the effects. They released a report (http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/viewsource.asp?ID=5934) saying it wasn't that big a deal, and even had some positive aspects.)

Hearst lost 800,000 acres of timberland to a raid by Pancho Villa. After this, he started targeting Mexicans as lazy, pot smoking layabouts. Harry Anslinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger), who initially didn't even want to fight against marijuana, decided it would be good for his political career to get a crusade under his belt. This, in spite of the fact that doctors were trying to tell him that it wasn't nearly as destructive as other drugs, it was still classified in the same category as cocaine.

I highly recommend watching the History Channel's Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way: Marijuana (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yqyx0pCIHA). You can find the rest of the series on Youtube right now.

[Doc T]

It's still illegal because our (baring the Dutch) governments:

a) will not admit they were wrong.

b) cannot be arsed sorting out the rules and regulations required for effective
legalisation

c) don't want the aggro from people who were imprisoned for breaking the marijuana wars before legalisation.

d) don't have enough people in them who are willing to seriously raise the issue. The PR Forces of Darkness would be unleahsed upon them, because

e) our governments are populated by old bastards.

I am deadly serious about the last one.

[The Wandering God]

Hooked: Illegal rad-killing unicorn motorcycles and How They Got That Way: Marijuana (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yqyx0pCIHA)
This has now become my favorite hyperlink that I've ever posted.

[Eldezar]

I can't believe I missed this one, but since it is still on the first page, I will add a pothead's knowledge and point of view to the discussion.

Marlboro owns the Marijuana cigarette patent. EDIT: Can't find my source, so let's change this to I am almost positive that Marlboro has the patent.

Add that hemp makes really cheap and good quality rope to your speculations of why it is banned and you got pretty much the exact reasons behind it.

Only the female plant contains THC, and even then only if it is un-pollinated, so a grower must pay attention to remove the male growths.

The cannabis plant gets really freaking huge, so unless you live alone or with other pot smokers, it is unlikely a grower will grow (while it's illegal). Also cats love hemp, and will eat it when given the chance. Why bring that up? Most pot smokers I know have or have had cats.

Even then, most pot smokers are lazy. I know some who have the perfect places to grow, but they don't. I doubt they would if it were legal.

Since history repeats, it is a pretty good assumption to say that most pot smokers will not grow after legalization. I don't know if I will or not, I don't even grow now, but then again I don't have my own place and apparently too much nitrogen in the ground impedes growing or something like that. I'm moving soon anyways so I don't care, maybe I'll see what happens at my new place.

[TheDarkChocobo]

I'm torn on the this topic. You see, i remember history (as i payed attention in highschool) prohibition of alcahol gave rise to one of the biggest scourges in american history, orginized crime, and the prohibition of MJ has done something very simmilair. The liberal in me says that if we were to legalize the stuff, it wouldn't give people a reason to commit violent crimes becasue of the stuff (don't judge... i don't smoke...pot)

The conservative in me says, DRUGS ARE BAD! no i don't drink alcahol before you set in on me about that. Just because there have been no MJ related deaths doesn't mean that if we make it readily available there won't be any MJ related incidents... in fact what if there are as many MJ related incidents as there are alcahol related incidents. Then we'll have two types of "under the influence" morons on the roads at any given moment... doubling your chances of getting plowed by one of those said morons.

To me, the government wanting to legalize just sounds like they want to tax something else and suck away more money from people's pockets (in other words, they want a cut of the action). There are too many questions left unanswered for me.

[Mesden]

Wait, what's wrong with taxing the theoretically legal Marijuana?

I mean you'd have to just because legalization would force the creation of regulatory agencies, else it'd just stay a street rad-killing unicorn motorcycle, and someone has to pay for regulation.

And I know this might seem like a mean spirited grammar nazi thing, but it's more just a peeve -- it's spelled alcohol.

[CABAL49]

Guys I need to be honest with you. North Carolina grows a lot of weed. I mean A LOT. It isn't uncommon to see it with other crops.

[Eldezar]

I'm torn on the this topic. You see, i remember history (as i payed attention in highschool) prohibition of alcahol gave rise to one of the biggest scourges in american history, orginized crime, and the prohibition of MJ has done something very simmilair. The liberal in me says that if we were to legalize the stuff, it wouldn't give people a reason to commit violent crimes becasue of the stuff (don't judge... i don't smoke...pot)

The conservative in me says, rad-killing unicorn motorcycleS ARE BAD! no i don't drink alcahol before you set in on me about that. Just because there have been no MJ related deaths doesn't mean that if we make it readily available there won't be any MJ related incidents... in fact what if there are as many MJ related incidents as there are alcahol related incidents. Then we'll have two types of "under the influence" morons on the roads at any given moment... doubling your chances of getting plowed by one of those said morons.

To me, the government wanting to legalize just sounds like they want to tax something else and suck away more money from people's pockets (in other words, they want a cut of the action). There are too many questions left unanswered for me.

The morons that drive drunk are more than likely to be the same ones that drive high. So, yes, I agree that it is certain that there will be an increase of pot-related accidents, though I doubt it will be much more than alcohol related ones. Making pot illegal does not turn responsible people irresponsible.

Also of note is that conservative-leaning news outlets would definitely keep an eye out for any bit of juicy media involving pot. So, like any other crime or accident in the past few decades, we will hear more and more of it simply because the news media reports more on it, not necessarily because there is more of it.

So, instead of worrying about the legalization of pot allowing more morons to access to the drug, why not worry about there being so many morons in the first place, and do something about that?

[Kepor]

I don't really see any reason why we shouldn't legalize marijuana. It's not really a harmful chemical, especially considering that alcohol and tobacco are legal.

[Jagos]

Actually if memory serves, Marijuana was made illegal by William Randolph Hearst. I do not know the official reasons right now, but part of it was because of Hemp and how it was a cheaper substitute to Paper and Oil and Hearst owned many paper mills.

Don't quote me on it yet. I need to find the source.

Marijuana was made illegal because hemp was used to make rope. This is back in the 1930s. So it was mainly used to "protect" the shipping industry and the ones that could make rope. Guess how you could grow marijuana? What's that? A license from the government? Very good! Guess how much it cost?

Now move the decimal two spaces to the right and that's the price today.

Now I must admit, I don't take MJ. Don't want to. But if someone wants to do it, great. Just not around me. Should it be illegal? No. Should the government tax it and stop trying to put the brakes on culture? Yes. Should the government look to make a great amount of money because we have a lot of potheads in this country?

Why not ask the Netherlands?

[TheDarkChocobo]

first, i implied that the government would only legalize it to tax it.

second, there will always be morons.

lastly, how would legalizing MJ advance our culture?

really, MJ is only popular because of the mainstream icons. if we were to legalize it, hollywood would turn against it, then the youth will follow, then it'll become a whole generation of people wanting pot illegal.

but the government would never make it illegal again because then they are the biggest drug pushers in history, and enjoy the nice boost in taxes too much...

i really think just let sleeping dogs lie on this one. if you smoke, fine keep it in your house. if you buy the stuff, dont buy it off the street, use someone you know.

[Mesden]

No one wanted alcohol to be illegal once it was relegalized. There's no basis other than pure conjecture that the youth -- who mind you wouldn't be allowed to purchase it from licensed dealers -- would want to stop because it'd still be illegal to them. This grants access to a recreational rad-killing unicorn motorcycle for adults, just like smoking (to some extent) and drinking.

That the government would like to legalize it for taxes does not make it a bad idea. It just makes it an even better idea if the country can benefit financially off of it as well.

There's no 'sleeping dogs' to let lie here, either. It's an unnecessary contribution to the illegal drug trade that overcrowds our prisons and turns what is a mostly harmless activity into a vice hunt and talking point for deceitful politicians. It's a problem, plain and simple, that it's illegal, just like it was with alcohol.

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

Why it is wrong if the governmen legalised it precisely to tax it? I'm missing something here.

[Archbio]

really, MJ is only popular because of the mainstream icons. if we were to legalize it, hollywood would turn against it, then the youth will follow, then it'll become a whole generation of people wanting pot illegal.

I think I need someone to explain me that train of thought there? Why would "Hollywood" turn against something because it's legal? Not that I'm not boggled by the idea that the entire issue is dictated by "icons" which is dictated by "Hollywood."

Thomas Riker wants to know what's going on here.

[TheDarkChocobo]

for they same reason why kids under 21 drink themselves into comas. once i turned 21 (and everyone else i knew) the drinking curtailed extremely... and to the point where i don't drink at all.

hollywood is that kid under 21.

then again, this is only the opinion of the (from what i see) only conservative minded person on this board.

[Fifthfiend]

~*HoLLYwOOD*~

That aside, the argument that legalizing marijuana use would curtail the tendency to abuse it is a pretty good one in favor of legalization so thanks for bringing it up.

then again, this is only the opinion of the (from what i see) only conservative minded person on this board.

Man it sure is unfair of people to not agree with me.

[Tev]

then again, this is only the opinion of the (from what i see) only conservative minded person on this board.Have you met Snake yet?

[Fifthfiend]

Snake is kidding himself, the communofascist law school cabal is brainwashing him further into the liberal hive-mind every day.

[Ryanderman]

Perhaps Bob?

[Azisien]

Reasonably certain Bob just delivers us sociocommunoliberal cannibals a bucket of his family's dinner table conversation every few weeks to keep us well fed and up on our pedestals.

[Fifthfiend]

NPF has been browbeating Bob into quisling acceptance of our liberommunist dogma for years, rendering him helpless before the relentless onslaught of our lie-beral propogondolas.

[Ryanderman]

Surely that can't just leave me? Cause... cause that'd just be sad.

EDIT: Jagos! what about him?

[Kepor]

Looks like DarkChocolate is pretty much the only conservative on NPF.

[Tev]

Surely that can't just leave me? Cause... cause that'd just be sad.

EDIT: Jagos! what about him?Does Nykose count?

[Fifthfiend]

Surely that can't just leave me?

Oh ho ho ho, if you only knew our plans for you.

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

Oh ho ho ho, if you only knew our plans for you.

Ix-nay on-ay Operation-ay Enin-Lay

[Fifthfiend]

Liberobra-La!

[Archbio]

then again, this is only the opinion of the (from what i see) only conservative minded person on this board.


Thomas Riker knows from experience that just hoping that people will accept one's premises and conclusions without them following from one another makes for poor explanations.

Liberobra-La!

Back to work on the space to ground spore delivery system!