Man Tells Cops that his Pot was Stolen!

[yavoon]

I'm pointing out the flaw of the argument of futility. I think u just kinda jumped on me cuz u smelled someone to flame. I never really responded to nething u originaly posted cuz I didn't and don't care to address any of that.

so have a nice day.

[yavoon]

heh yes the idea if ur that stupid should we not have to pay for ur idiocy? well in all practicality u have to stitch him up. in theory tho, should u treat smokers for lung cancer(on tax payers dollar obviously)? its kinda interesting really.

and I do wear my seatbelt. libertarian, not stupid.

[Willem]

Originally posted by yavoon
so I'd say that prohibition is actually WORKING.

Yeah right. I had a grow operation for 5 years and remained completely undetected, and there are dozens of people like me in this city alone. Hence the need for 3 stores selling grow equipment and supplies in a city of only 400,000. I can walk downtown at almost any time, and find a complete stranger to sell it to me probably within an hour. Yes, it's working really well I'd say. If adults are smoking less, it's because of choice, not availability. If you're looking for some, it won't be hard to find.

[Ben Kenobi]

No Brain, no pain.

Very true, rah.

Willem:

I had a grow operation for 5 years and remained completely undetected, and there are dozens of people like me in this city alone.

Obviously we need more enforcement to defend our drug laws.

It didn't work then, and it's not working now for marijuana, which is even less harmful to people than alcohol.

How do you deal with the gateway drug arguement, in the percentage of heroin and cocaine users who started with marijuana?

Secondly, what standard are you using for harms to society? Why is cocaine harmful, while marijuana is not?

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Obviously we need more enforcement to defend our drug laws.

There's barely enough money to support the enforcement laws as it is. By removing marijuana from the equation, there's more resources to devote to the more dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin.

How do you deal with the gateway drug arguement, in the percentage of heroin and cocaine users who started with marijuana?

That's a crap argument. It's a gateway drug only in the sense that the people who control the trade in cocaine and heroin also have their hands in the marijuana business. Seperate those ties to the black market, who have a vested interest in getting people addicted to more dangerous drugs, and you remove the temptation.

I've been smoking consistently for 5 years steady now, 32 in total, and I have no desire whatsoever to go out and snort cocaine or take any harder drugs. And I know/have known a fair number of long term smokers who feel the same way.

Secondly, what standard are you using for harms to society? Why is cocaine harmful, while marijuana is not?

Well for one thing, it's not physically addictive, or at least if it is, it's very mildly so. I just had proof of that myself recently. I'm a daily toker and I just spent 10 days at my sisters with nothing to smoke. And I didn't feel one bit of discomfort at not having my "fix", physically or psychologically. I just didn't care.

And it it's relatively benign on my health overall, in fact it even has some medical benefits. As someone pointed out, if I ate it instead of smoking it, it would have very little effect on my body and might even help me in some ways. Aside from the fact that I tend to be somewhat lazy, I've suffered no ill effects from it's use. I'm in perfect health after 5 years of smoking almost every day. I haven't even had so much as a cold in at least 3 years. And I can still think clearly and perform complex tasks.

Plus it doesn't destroy families the way alcohol and other addictive substances do. When was the last time you ever heard of someone smoking a joint, flying into a blind rage and beating up on their family? Or taken the grocery money so that they could get a fix in order to ease their withdrawal symptoms?

[alva]

How do you deal with the gateway drug arguement, in the percentage of heroin and cocaine users who started with marijuana?

In most cases, people who end up hooked, it doesn't really matter what it is, the drugs are just the trigger.
If they wouldn't have been introduced to hard drugs, they would have found something else: gambling,alcolic...,..extrame sports..., something.
The 'stepping theory' is a myth. Is it because you drink a beer, you end up being an alcoholic? No, you already were one before you startd drinking..

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is the last time I post a humorious article! Hrumph!

Maybe I should just as Ming to close this thread .

[Zylka]

I seriously don't see what's wrong with this. If they pressed him and asked "ARE YOU SURE that's the extent of what they took" he could feel obliged. Probably reluctant. It seems being a liar is a hurtful and confusing game, but telling the truth is just idiocy

[Berzerker]

Yavoon -

yah the murder prohibition thing has failed pretty horribly too. I think we should just repeal that.

1) You think laws against murder don't dramatically reduce murder? Laws against drug use haven't reduced drug use, consumption is about the same today as it was 100-150 years ago. So, you're missing the whole point of that argument. Prohibition doesn't reduce drug use, but prohibition does produce all sorts of negative consequences like increased crime and violence.

2) Your analogy requires comparing pot use to murder too, another big mistake.

no actually it brings up a valid pt. ur trying to convince ppl who think its wrong to smoke pot that we should repeal it on the basis that the ban "isnt working." u dont make laws of convenience.

Does common sense qualify as a valid reason? Look at this graph and tell us how "moral" the drug war has been:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/.../graphs/10.htm

Funny you'd mention murder in a debate about a drug when homicides roughly doubled under alcohol prohibition and the drug war.

see cuz wut ur really saying is "weed isnt harmful." but ur wrapping it up in this piece of crap excuse about "enforcement not being successful." and when I use the bad analogy about murder that comes out pretty quickly.

Why do you acknowledge that your analogy is bad and then tell us your bad analogy exposes a flaw in our logic? The problem is you've given that argument about as much thought as your "analogy".

there's "futility" in lots of laws. heroine, murder, child abuse, etc...do u think the way to solve these is to decriminalise them?

First, some acts are crimes regardless of their (il)legal status. Slavery and genocide are crimes even though some states have legalised them. Second, why are laws against murder "futile"? You know, if roughly half the cops in this country weren't running around chasing drug users and other people exercising their freedom, there would be more cops chasing murderers, rapists and robbers (and terrorists seeking to knock down tall buildings). And there wouldn't be early release programs for real criminals to make room for all the drug users.

u just need to giveup on the futility of enforcement thing. cuz when someone thinks something should be illegal they aren't gna be like well "since ppl do it neway" I guess I"ll make it legal.

That's true, so many of the drug war's supporters have difficulty understanding the ramifications of that argument.

sorry rufus I dont cost/benefit my morality.

Let us get this straight: you believe it's immoral for "John Doe" to smoke pot in the privacy of his home, and you believe it is moral to steal our money to pay people to break down the doors of millions of pot smokers to abduct and cage them?

and I imagine I'm not alone. mind u I don't care if marijuana is legal or not. just consider me the logic police.

That wasn't an argument involving logic, you said yourself you don't let any cost-benefit analysis (i.e. LOGIC) get in the way of your "morality".

yah well willem alcohol isnt legal cuz its cough drops.

Alcohol is legal because more voters use it.

so to say that weed should be legal because its less harmful when alcohol legality isnt based on its harm.
is tenuous.

That argument exposes the hypocrisy of banning less harmful drugs.

and I only brought up murder to introduce a point, which I then stated.

Hmm...you introduce an absurdly illogical "analogy" comparing murder with pot and then say it isn't logical to compare alcohol and pot?

if u have someone who finds something should be immoral/illegal(regardless of how "wrong" u think that postition is). he's not going to want it decriminalised just because other ppl do it. and infact the very idea is laffable. so now I've stated it twice.

You haven't justified your accusation that pot use is immoral.

and I'm pretty libertarian so protecting me from myself is something I will never be in favor of(just to ward off all those psycho ppl who still think I wna keep marijuana illegal).

You introduced arguments for criminalisation and waited quite a while before stating your "I don't care" position, so why are we the psychos? Btw, you said you don't care if it's legal or illegal and then say you oppose laws protecting you from yourself - that's what drug laws ostensibly do.

to say marijuana "prohibition" is not working on the same level of alcohol prohibition is insane. alcohol consumption is the vast majority of the nation. marijuana consumption is a most definite minority. and probably a small minority at that.

Both attempts at prohibition failed, that's the insanity. The sane would have learned the first time or thought thru cause and effect before the first attempt.

lots of ppl have smoked, very few smoke when they are adults tho. so I'd say that prohibition is actually WORKING.

Since adulthood begins at the age of 18, I'd say that is an inaccurate statement. It is true that far fewer people smoke at 50 than at 20. The proof you need for that argument is pot use rates before and during prohibition. You don't have the proof because the rates are comparable just as addiction rates are comparable.

Obiwan -

Obviously we need more enforcement to defend our drug laws.

Which means less law enforcement to catch murderers, pedophiles, rapists, robbers, and terrorists. Did Jesus tell you to run around caging people for using pot?

How do you deal with the gateway drug arguement, in the percentage of heroin and cocaine users who started with marijuana?

Wanna bet most started with booze or tobacco before ever trying pot? People who are inclined to use alcohol or tobacco are more inclined to use pot and other drugs than people who don't use any drugs. We are individuals with individual personalities, some like to experiment and some don't. I've played a variety of sports in my life, if basketball was my first sport, would you call basketball a "gateway" sport? Of course not, playing sports is part of my nature. Which person in this example would you consider more likely to parachute out of a plane for fun - a rock climber or a computer "nerd"? Does that mean rock climbing is a "gateway" to parachuting out of planes? No, it means the kind of person who is attracted to dangerous activities will try different dangerous activities and the person who avoids dangerous activities will likely continue avoiding them.

Secondly, what standard are you using for harms to society?

"Harm to society" is an attempt to justify the immorality of punishing the innocent for the sake of the guilty. If you advocate punishing a million pot smokers because there are 10,000 pot smokers who "harm society", then you are punishing a million innocent people for the "crimes" of 10,000. Would you want to be punished for a murder I committed? If not, why punish one pot smoker for a crime committed by another?

Why is cocaine harmful, while marijuana is not?

Neither is harmful, it all depends on the user. We don't conclude aspirin is harmful just because a small percentage develop bleeding ulcers. Obviously some people won't use cocaine in moderation, but that doesn't mean cocaine is harmful to everyone else. For centuries, plenty of Andean Indians have used coca without causing harm to themselves or others, and that's true for pot users.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Neither is harmful, it all depends on the user. We don't conclude aspirin is harmful just because a small percentage develop bleeding ulcers. Obviously some people won't use cocaine in moderation, but that doesn't mean cocaine is harmful to everyone else. For centuries, plenty of Andean Indians have used coca without causing harm to themselves or others, and that's true for pot users.

They were chewing raw leaves with the coca solution naturally diluted - A difference of high and potential for abuse in comparison to modern administrations in the thousands of percent

This little bit makes about as much sense as saying "a 12 gauge metal slug to the face isn't harmful, it all depends on the user!" [Unless you want to pander out on differences of admin. once alikened for your own sake ]

[DanielXY]

Hm, I would rather definite more or less harmfull in terms of addictive or not. And 2. What sideeffects there are. Such list goes easy:

Non-Addictive:
- any amount of Pot
- small to medium amounts of alcohol
- small amounts of tabaco
- very small to small amounts of heavy drugs (cocaine, heroin, ...)

Addictive:
- medium to large amounts of Alcohol
- medium amounts of tabaco
- small amounts of heavy drugs.

Healthrisks from tabaco and Alcohol are bigger than the ones of pot.

Ergo pot should the first drug to be legal. After that you can think about making alcohol and tabaco legal and so on.
That would be the logical way

[Zylka]

Addictive qualities of substances are proffessionally split up into Physical and Psychological/Emotional potentials (of standard craving and chance for relapse during withdrawal)

Physical is straightforward enough in referal, but psychological is obviously subjective beyond explanation (yet safely follows a general curve)

So I guess I'll have to say some of what you're saying is right Berz, but you're taking it a little further than safe education permits

[DanielXY]

Ok in the end all Drugs are Emotional addictive, because you like the turn.
Similar to go dancing or having your favorite food is emotional addictiv, because you like the action or the taste or whatever.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by yavoon
sorry rufus I dont cost/benefit my morality. and I imagine I'm not alone. mind u I don't care if marijuana is legal or not. just consider me the logic police.

You don't cost-benefit your morality? Does that mean you think smoking dope is the moral equivalent of murder and child abuse, as you imply? Are all things that are illegal moral equivalents? Speeding and rape, perhaps? How about downloading mp3s and arson? Because that's what your saying. And, frankly, that's about the dopiest thing I've ever heard -- no pun intended.

Alternatively, I suppose you could be arguing that the function of the law is to punish people whose behavior you consider immoral. If that's the case, you might want to get on over to Afganistan; recent news reports indicate that the Taliban is regrouping.

[Zylka]

Exactly, but they rate rather well according to each other when it comes to which is worse for emotional addiction and in specific areas and situations how. Again, it's so very subjective. The last few times I used certain substances I was (and very well still am) emotionally addicted rather to attaining those substances, preparing them for use, getting myself ready physically etc.

When the rush finally came, it was an absolute nightmare of wondering whether or not the high was even enjoyable (at all), and looking forward to the current not-so-pleasantness to subside and to giddily prepare everything for another attempt, another chance to do it right.

[Darius871]

Bah, this stuff happens all the time. I remember seeing video of a woman complaining to some cops in front of her mobile home that someone had sold her a bag of baking soda, pretending it was coke. She got to think it all over in jail.

[yavoon]

rufus plz dont twist my words. what I meant is things dont jump from moral to immoral based on a cost/benefit analysis. ie. stealing 50 cents is immoral. its not "ok" just cuz it was a very small #.

I like tho how I took an entire page to try and point out my own personal morality and u completely and totally missed the entire thing. thereby seemingly forcing me to restate it agian, well tuff. not gna happen.

[yavoon]

berzerker and ur yet another person to just jump on the flame mobile w/o understanding. I'm not going to beat back the fires of random dicks in this thread anymore.

[Frogman]

Pot should be legal. I know many professional people who like to smoke a little pot. The fact is that pot can be done in moderation by most users and the harm to society is negligable. Pot smokers are much safer drivers than drinkers, you don't lose consiousness or control of your body, you just laugh a little more and lose some short term memory. I tell you, I'd rather have my teenagers stoned than drunk.

I know the comparison to drinking doesn't justify it entirely, but the point is that pot has been around for millenia and I just haven't seen the justification for not allowing me to grow a couple weeds in my own back yard for my own personal use. The idea that I could be arrested for doing it seems to violate our basic property rights and freedom to pursue happiness.

[Ramo]

Man Tells Cops that his Pot was Stolen!

Oh man, that's beautiful.

Go legalization. Find the man his pot.

[Sava]

But Frogman? Haven't you seen the commercials? Pot is responsible for all child shootings, all traffic accidents, and date rape!

[Ramo]

And terrorism, of course.

[Sava]

oh crap I forgot that one!

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Ramo
And terrorism, of course.

The thing about pot is that you can grow all you need in your own yard. The stuff about supporting terrorism is such crap.

What we should have done in the 60's and 70's was plant pot seeds instead of throwing them out. We should have covered the country in more pot than they could control. It would be like Kudzu. We need a Johnny Potseed. Too bad you can't get high on dandelions.

[Ramo]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm

[Sava]

He was affirming your point Ramo...

Johnny Potseed

[Dr Strangelove]

(1) Sorry, people do actually murder other people to get pot. We had a case around here recently where a young man murdered another because he thought his pot had been stolen. People have also been murdered haggling over the price or in the process of stealing weed. People have also committed murder while under the influence of marijuana.

(2) Marijuana definitely impairs coordination and judgement. It clearly interferes with the user's ability to operate vehicles and machinery. While impairment by alcohol generally parallels blood levels, and alcohol has a simple linear excretion rate that makes it possibler for a user to reasonably temper his consumption to avoid impairment, marijuana's effects don't simply parallel either blood or urine levels, and its elimination is not linear, making moderation more difficult. Nailing stoned drivers would be harder than nailing drunks because testing for marijuana in the field would be more difficult.

(3) The results of one radio program is hardy a scientific survey. Here in the US during the last election a number of pro-weed propositions were offered in a variety of states, and every single one was defeated. In the past the minions of NORML have succeeded because no one made an effort to counter them. Prior to the last election a concerted effort was made to counter their propaganda. The results were gratifying.

(4) What kind of arguement is: "well if alcohol is legal then pot should be too"? We've got one legal intoxicant already. why do we need another. Do you honestly think that legalising pot will reduce the number of drunks? There's just no reason to believe that! Legalising dope just adds to our problems.

Oh, wait, I need the work. You know business has been slow because more people know that they don't need antibiotics to treat their common colds. Go ahead, legalise pot, and I'll fix you up when you need it....for a price.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We had a case around here recently where a young man murdered another because he thought his pot had been stolen.

He should have just informed the police

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

We had a case around here recently where a young man murdered another because he thought his pot had been stolen.

He should have just informed the police

Apparently he was high and things got out of hand. Stuff like that happens when you're high.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But the police would have found it for him!