|
Xeom posted:They will wait for the shops to get nice big and fat and then raid them. Remember they are just after profits. Asset forfeiture my friend, asset forfeiture. Once these companies have enough money in the bank and enough weed that the DEA can make a good bit of money from raiding it, you best drat well believe they will. This is what will happen. If Romney wins election, he will raid every medical dispensary and send every single medical patient to jail even if they are suffering horribly on their deathbeds. Welcome to america. mdemone posted:Nope, they're perfectly happy to let SCOTUS deal with the fallout, because their funding is limited and there are bigger fish to fry, and they know it. The DEA gets an incredible, absolutely ridiculously massive amount of money from the war on drugs, specifically the war on marijuana. I'm sure they'd love to get their hands on the profits of a massively succesful marijuana selling company.
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
FetusSlapper posted:People shouldn't ever get to take medicine that they might enjoy, even if they're children. Suffering is a learning tool to stop being so sick in the future. The only time it's ok to use prescription meds for recreation is when you're white. I recall Rush Limbaugh railing against seniors getting their meds paid for by the gub'mint literally right before he went down for scoring oxys.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
I know plenty of people who have started that young. Whatever damage it does is very obviously not even close to enough to deny its prescription to kids, given what other terrible things we prescribe them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2012 07:54
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Today was "A Cautionary Tale" in local newscasts everywhere else reporting on Seattle. What? What are they cautioning against, sleeping?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
If some kind of crackdown happens on or near december 21st then conspiracy nuts everywhere are going to cream their pants.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
Xeom posted:I am not surprised at all, and would not be surprised if this started the pendulum swinging back the other way. I doubt i will ever see marijuana legal in my lifetime. I think if the federal government steps in and stops a state from doing what it's citizens lawfully voted to do, there will be serious trouble. Has the government ever done that before - forced a state to follow its laws after the state as a whole voted not to?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 16:16
|
|
|
ProFootballGuy posted:Right. And this is great for Obama (who I guarantee is personally for legalization) because if he does nothing, he wins. If he does nothing, that's allowing a state to flaunt federal law.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 01:56
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:I would say yes (although replace cases of wine with cases of cheap vodka or something), but I lived in a place where there were a ton of dry communities and supporting smugglers taking advantage of people seems shady to me. So yes, but only because your opinion is based on something stupid? Basically it is irresponsible because prohibition makes it irresponsible.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:Yes, I'm sure cut-to-poo poo heroin is readily available in small rural communities in bumfuck AK. So tyranny of the majority is ok as long as it is a localized majority?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
So the individual living in those small places who wants to, can't because a bunch of assholes were alcoholics that should've gotten treatment for their disease?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:
You probably have a very bizarre and skewed vision of what drug dealers are like. gently caress no it should not be criminal for me to grow a plant that does nobody anything but good, and pick it up out of the ground and sell it to someone. Why in the blue gently caress should it be?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 06:29
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:It's actually possible to treat people and get them off of opiates. And having them have a different kind of drug to use to get over whatever it is in their lives makes it easier to keep them from going back to opiates specifically. Weed will not 'get someone off' opiates. It's just not like that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
Babylon the Bright posted:Except two wrongs don't make a right. If I engage in fraud for the purposes of getting around an unjust law, the fact that my fraud is less bad than the existence of the law is irrelevant, as long as the violation of the law is morally neutral at best (as is the case when selling drugs). Of course it may be that committing fraud may be part of a virtuous act, for example, creating a fake id for a Jew so they can leave Nazi Germany, but that is not the case that we're talking about here. Unless you want to argue that selling drugs to enrich yourself is a moral imperative or a virtuous act in and of itself. Why are you limiting this to selling? If I gave it away because I am a nice guy, they'd treat it the same.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2012 09:59
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Because the headline "Black man legalizes Weed" practically writes campaign ads by itself. "Black man returns civil right to Americans, republicans furious."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2012 18:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:For many conservatives (and even non-conservatives on occasion), drugs are as much a moral issue as rape. There is absolutely no way this is an opinion held by anything approaching a majority of Americans.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
Good ol shrooms, no effects besides trippin out some hippies. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2012 08:09
|
|
|
Hey, people smoke cigs while they drink, why don't we make them illegal again? No, legalizing marijuana is simply the right thing to do and I reject anything less than that. I really hate that even with legalizing weed people want to talk about how much money it will save instead of the very real human cost of people being sent to prison, being killed in the drug war, or being denied their medicine. How it effects heavy drinking is - or should be - completely, utterly irrelevant, even if(and it will be) it is good for the cause.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
spengler posted:
No, there is no rational or sane way to defend criminalization of any drug. Control, sure, but throwing people in jail for possession of personal amounts of recreational drugs with little to no dangers associated with their use will never be acceptable. There might be consequences for supplying harmful substances without proper warning, it might disqualify you from insurance coverage if you irresponsibly ruin your body, but jail? No.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:You just contradicted yourself. You say you can't criminalize any drug then immediately turn around and add a "little to no danger" requirement. Which is it? There obviously has to be a line drawn somewhere about what people can have - that is, having things like poisons and huge quantities of controlled substances. But personal amounts of recreational drugs should never be illegal, though there may be other unavoidable consequences of use, and those consequences will have to be codified somehow. But jail time? No. I guess I did word that stupidly.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:But you can take acetaminophen or ibuprofen or aspirin and not worry about being impaired while you can't with opiates. That's why we don't issue opiates all willy nilly, most people need to drive somewhere on a workday. First of all, no, that isn't why we don't issue opiates all willy nilly. Second of all, we DO issue opiates all willy-nilly. How dangerous a drug is to take doesn't have much of anything to do with how it's scheduled. Amanitas Muscarina, the 'alice in wonderland' mushroom, is extremely dangerous and can kill you at relatively low doses. Comparitively, psilocybin mushrooms are extremely safe; guess which one is illegal, and which is not?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Maybe the stores in your alternate universes are different but I can't walk into a gas station and just grab a pack of hydrocodone off the shelf? Can do that with aspirin or acetaminophen though. You just don't seem to realize exactly how many people have scrips for opiates and benzos, both of which will make driving a bad idea. Yes, MORE people use aspirin or whatever, but you are absolutely kidding yourself if you think they limit prescriptions for road safety or whatever such nonsense. Money is being made here.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
Torka posted:From an admittedly anecdotal perspective, the animosity of big alcohol towards legal weed has never made sense to me. The vast majority of people I've known in my life who enjoy weed enjoy alcohol too and are happy to imbibe either or both depending on location and social context. No doubt teetotal weed smokers exist but I'm pretty sure they're a small minority. I smoke weed every day but I drink maybe once every couple weeks. There's probably more drinkers + smokers, but I wouldn't say it's a small minority of people who only smoke.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Some new stuff just out about how pot sales will be regulated. The task force has finalized their proposal and it's off to the state legislature. Legal pot will result in more homeless teenagers? What the gently caress? It'll make it easier for them to throw in the towel? This sounds exactly like someone who has never smoked pot, never known anyone who smoked pot, and never looked a single inch past his stupid stereotypes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2013 06:54
|
|
|
redshirt posted:I'm as pro-legalization as you can get, but this issue is sticky. CO and WA (and any medical marijuana state) are breaking federal law. If these states were instead denying the vote to minorities, or even ignoring Medicare laws, the Feds would crush them. They'd have to crush them. We'd all want them to crush them. But MJ? Totally different. Um no, that is not the same thing. In fact, it is so far not the same thing that I honest to god cannot believe you thought this was even one percent correct. And undermining the law is the entire point. It should be undermined. It needs to be undermined. It needs to be swallowed into the depths of the center of the earth along with every rear end in a top hat who ever put up even the tiniest bit of resistance to legalization. Once you start enacting and enforcing tyrannical laws that ruin or end lives over something as utterly harmless as marijuana, you have undermined the law and the entire government. I have absolutely no problem breaking laws as long as I don't get caught because of things like marijuana laws proving that the government isn't making laws to protect or help citizens, but to harm them and control them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:Do you know what a Schedule V drug is? Tiny doses of higher scheduled drugs like opium (Schedule II), codeine (Schedule II), and defenoxin (Schedule I).. IIRC, they supposedly have a 'scientific study' justification for marijuana being illegal wherein they set bales of weed on fire and pumped it through a gas mask to monkeys till they died of oxygen deprivation, which they claimed was marijuana toxicity. This study has yet to be re-evaluated. I'm saying this off the top of my head so I reserve the right to have gotten it completely the gently caress wrong and I'm gonna go see if I can freshen up on it, but I believe that is the story.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Do you know what's on the CSA? It's not just weed and cocaine. Why the gently caress should the government get to tell me what I can put in my body and what I can't, in my own living room? Why should that be the case for any drug?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm going to cut to the chase and say that date rape drugs are something that the government might have an interest in controlling. You don't know what you're talking about. GHB is actually a recreational drug that people enjoy using. Ok, sure, substances like that should be controlled. But if I want to put it in my body, why is that anybody's business but mine? Why would you defend something as utterly evil as the CSA? It isn't there to protect you. It's there to put people in jail because they wanted to get high. That's why it's there. That's not helping anyone. It's destroying lives, it's imprisoning people, it's creating the drug war, drug cartels, the DEA, gangs, and good god the list goes. The evil produced by the CSA is absolutely staggering.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm not saying illegal, I'm saying "hard to get in large quantities". We already allow people to take currently scheduled drugs in small quantities (even the Schedule II ones, ie Desoxyn). Yes but we want to do it to get hosed up, and no matter what kind of mental gymnastics you use, it isn't any of anyone's business if I want to do that. It's my body.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Depends on a few factors. If [negative effect] requires more dosage than [positive effect], then yeah that'd be a good compromise. I suspect it's not for GHB, however, which means that you have to weigh whether you value unlimited personal choice or whether there's so few people using it recreationally that banning it won't piss off many people. You suspect? Why would a negative effect take less of a drug than a positive one? What is positive and negative? It sounds like you're arguing from your gut, and I think you ought to know better than that. computer parts posted:Depends on a few factors. If [negative effect] requires more dosage than [positive effect], then yeah that'd be a good compromise. I suspect it's not for GHB, however, which means that you have to weigh whether you value unlimited personal choice or whether there's so few people using it recreationally that banning it won't piss off many people. Oh really? Tobacco is completely banned and will land you in prison for years because you possess it? This isn't just a matter of degree. Nobody should have their lives ruined for using a drug recreationally, period. Ever. Literally for any reason, at all, ever. The CSA does that, constantly. Controlling substances is fine. Making them safe is fine. Ruining lives and killing over them is not, which is what the CSA is for: ruining lives. empty whippet box fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Do you realize just how cheap opiates are before the markup for being illegal kicks in? The price for heroin, for example, gets inflated something like 5000% between the producer and final street value, and that's with the producer price already ridiculously above cost because it has to be done clandestinely, without access to proper capital markets or equipment, etc, etc. The price of maintenance doses of licitly produced opiates wouldn't factor into the budget of even the most destitute of people. For at least a sampling of this reality, look at the prices for grey-market research chemicals. For most of them, you can buy thousands of doses for less than you'd buy a hundred of traditional psychedelics - literally thousands. This would likely be the same for all drugs - it's easy to produce them, and you can produce them in absolutely staggering quantities. It's just another example of how 99% of the negative aspects of drug use are caused by prohibition, not the drugs themselves. Even the worst drugs like krokodil would be many orders of magnitude safer and cleaner and cheaper if they just weren't illegal.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:For the record, I think a pack of cigarettes is about 0.7 grams/cigarette * 20 cigarettes, or 14 grams of tobacco. This is a half ounce. There are certainly people who smoke two packs a day, I find it hard to believe that anyone smokes an ounce of weed a day. (That's a challenge goons get on it.) I don't know how much a heavy user would smoke a day but I imagine the highest(snicker) would would be ~1/4 oz a day, and that's still insane. Even on my heaviest days I don't go above 1.5 grams a day, and 1.5 grams of tobacco is way worse for you than 1.5 grams of weed. I've heard of hardcore concentrate-only smokers burning through the hash equivalent of 7 or 8 ounces of bud a week though. Plus my bong isn't soaked in formeldahyde or whatever the gently caress. Mrit posted:So... as someone who has never used any marijuana in his life, would you say brownies or something like that is the healthiest/best option? I'm not trying to get all TCC, but this is coming to my state soon(barring a federal lawsuit) and I'm pretty sure the local stores will be carrying pot in multiple forms. Vaporizing is the best of all worlds. No calories, no negative health effects(zero), more efficient, better taste. But eating weed is definitely second best. Honestly, combusting is the hedonistic, wasteful way to do it. But there's something about a big rip off a bong that hits you and just smacks you with highness. empty whippet box fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Mar 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:I see the argument that you are trying to make, but the existence of medical uses for a Schedule I drug (regardless of who owns the patent), doesn't invalidate its scheduling. The U.S. Supposedly owns the patent so it can issue licenses for studies and so it can get around schedule I. The reason that cannabis has no "accepted medical use" (which is a different thing than no medical use) has been outlined by the DEA before. Its perverse and almost catch 22ish, but it isn't evidence of some grand moneymaking conspiracy (especially given how much marijuana prosecutions/sentences cost in taxpayer money). Um, actually, yes, it is a grand moneymaking scheme. THey seize absolutely gigantic amounts of assets and auction them off because they claim they were bought with drug money. They've taken entire hotels from people because a patron was selling drugs from their room one night. They'll take your house, they'll take your car, they'll take everything in your bank account. It IS a grand moneymaking scheme. The DEA also gets a per-plant reward for every pot plant - hemp, marijuana, whatever - they find and destroy. This can include random ditch weeds, plants they find in forests, blah blah. There are a LOT of ways to make money off of the war on drugs. The DEA is funded by these things, and lots of people make lots of money every year locking up kids who smoked a little pot. Oh, and another thing you're forgetting: the for-profit prison industry. Do you think they had nothing to do with all this? The war on drugs plus privatized prisons mean we have the highest incarceration rate in the world, and lots of people are getting really rich off of it. Again, and I do mean to really run this into the ground: yes, actually the war on drugs is one gigantic moneymaking scheme. And then there's politicians running on anti-drug platforms because it's easy to play on people's ignorance, politicians running on tough-on-crime and longer prison sentences, it just goes on and on, and it all starts with the war on drugs. Of course, minorities magically wind up being the most oppressed, but I think that actually might be just a happy bonus for the assholes in charge. empty whippet box fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
Before anyone submits any argument of any kind against marijuana, they should have to explain why it doesn't apply to alcohol as well because gently caress me I am tired of bringing out that argument. But it applies to every single point ever raised ever about marijuana prohibition. More adolescents would smoke? Well, do more adolescents drink? It's so very easy to get weed right now. Dealers don't check ID.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
I went to practically every class, rehearsal and performance of my entire master's degree stoned as loving poo poo. Result? Getting my doctorate. I really hate that argument. Weed does not make people failures.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:Like you can literally type "order marijuana seeds online USA" into google and find dozens of non-US websites willing to ship you seeds straight to your house. Growing isn't that easy. I mean, if for no other reason than because the cops will find your teenagers grow because of the massive cloud of fresh marijuana smell it will produce.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Yeah, this is real dumb. Unless that was an MFE I'm guessing you already know that the plural of anecdote is not data, and the singular definitely isn't either. There are plenty of high-functioning alcoholics out there, that doesn't mean heavy alcohol use is harmless. There should be statistics on it. There aren't, because it's illegal. Vague notions of what it does aren't enough to make it illegal, just like vague notions of what it doesn't do aren't enough to justify its safety on their own.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
Umph posted:My buddy in high school got into a car accident and died because he smoked some weed that was laced with embalming fluid. Making up stories is cool. This didn't happen, sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
Umph posted:Yes, my friend smoked adulterated weed and then died in a a car accident in 1998 when he was 16. This did happen. The issue is if it's not a black market substance these things wouldn't happen. I also had 3 friends from high school die from Heroin accidents in the subsequent years. Some died in DWI incidents, some in fights while under the influence of drugs. The dealer had bragged about dipping his cigarettes in the stuff, so we assumed that's what it had been. People became delirious after smoking it. I suppose it could have been something else wrong with it. I don't mean to continue a pointless derail, but people are supposed to get delirious after smoking weed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
size1one posted:It an illegal search when cops lie about smelling weed too but that doesn't stop them. It's still near zero risk to fish for arrests this way when weed is legal. Even if there is more chance that people will get charges dropped, not all will. I don't see any reason the practice will stop. As far as I know there is no penalty whatsoever regardless of what they do if they just claim they smelled weed or get a dog to mark. They can literally kick your door down, find nothing, and go 'Lol Oops well you flushed it before we could find it but we know  ' and then leave you to fix your doorframe and whatever else they destroyed while searching. Last I checked this was the case and I doubt it has changed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Because if weed is legal then saying "I smell pot" isn't a valid excuse to search property? Sure, cops lie about it now but the lie is impossible to prove so whatever evidence they get in the search will be admissible in court but, post legalization, what are they going to do, be all like "I smell a perfectly legal substance!" and toss your poo poo? Why? Whatever they find would be immediately thrown out of court if "smelled marijuana" is listed as probable cause. I'm not saying they wouldn't try to find another excuse, but pot specifically has been the go-to for cops who want to do blind fishing expeditions and taking that away would make it harder. Federal law.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2013 02:30
|
|