Large Legal Brains Agree: Free The Weed!

[Okla-homey]

from the ABA Journal.

I would add, I am 100% in support. The failed war against weed is a collosal waste of time and resources. It's legal ban has resulted in untold misery and enrichment of criminal syndicates the world over.

FREE THE WEED!


Chemerinsky, High-Profile Law Profs Sign Petition Backing Pot Decriminalization
Posted Oct 14, 2010 11:18 AM CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

A proposal to decriminalize private use of small amounts of marijuana in California is getting the backing from the dean of the University of California’s law school at Irvine and several high-profile law professors.

The Wall Street Journal Law Blog says law professors “across the political spectrum” are supporting California’s Proposition 19.

The law dean, Erwin Chemerinsky, is joined by high-profile profs such as Harvard Law’s Alan Dershowitz, UC Irvine’s Elizabeth Loftus, and Cardozo’s Barry Scheck on the the petition in support of Yes on 19. According to the Volokh Conspiracy, others who have signed the list include blog contributors Jonathan Adler, Randy Barnett, David Bernstein, David Post, Sasha Volokh and Ilya Somin.

The profs’ petition says they endorse the “wholesale rethinking of marijuana policy in this country.”

“Our communities would be better served if the criminal justice resources we currently spend to investigate, arrest, and prosecute people for marijuana offenses each year were redirected toward addressing unsolved violent crimes,” the petition says. “In short, the present policy is causing more harm than good, and is eroding respect for the law.”

[yermom]

i wonder how the dispensary lobby is in CA compared to the liquor store one here

because they already have a pretty good scam going

[Leroy Lizard]

High-profile = celebrity, not smart.

"across a wide spectrum" = "there's a few here and there."

There's no story there. You have a handful of law professors that want marijuana legalized. BFD.

[OklahomaTuba]

So we ban fast food, and legalize weed?

BRILLIANT!!!

[soonerinkaty]

So we ban fast food, and legalize weed?

BRILLIANT!!!

If thats the case, I'm buying stock in Slim Jim.

[Leroy Lizard]

So we ban fast food, and legalize weed?

BRILLIANT!!!

Not sure what you mean. Have they banned fast food in CA?

[MR2-Sooner86]

http://l.yimg.com/lk/api/res/1.2/nyBVtPQCxLn8xqDwtKoU6w--/YXBwaWQ9eW1lZGlhO2g9NDE0O3c9NjEw/http://mit.zenfs.com/5/2010/10/Picture-3.png
http://media.komonews.com/images/070815_marijuana_bust_2.jpg

There is no difference between the two.

In a free society people have the choice to put whatever the **** the want into their bodies whether it's fast food loaded up with chemicals or a simple plant.

Get the **** off your high horse and let people do what they want you nanny state ***holes.

[47straight]

Poppies are just a plant LEGALIZE OPIUM YARRRREHIU$E I#y7 y(& @Y (@&EY#E#FH KJSER PIYIP$#HIUHUCFHDIUP YR#WIPRCHIOPFOIUPEHRF(#R(HUhdfsyif987ewyjF!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111


Oh yeah, and **** cherminksy.

[Frozen Sooner]

from the ABA Journal.

I would add, I am 100% in support. The failed war against weed is a collosal waste of time and resources. It's legal ban has resulted in untold misery and enrichment of criminal syndicates the world over.

FREE THE WEED!

Twice in one year I have you on record as agreeing with Dean Chemerinsky. We'll have you yet.

[SicEmBaylor]

http://l.yimg.com/lk/api/res/1.2/nyBVtPQCxLn8xqDwtKoU6w--/YXBwaWQ9eW1lZGlhO2g9NDE0O3c9NjEw/http://mit.zenfs.com/5/2010/10/Picture-3.png
http://media.komonews.com/images/070815_marijuana_bust_2.jpg

There is no difference between the two.

In a free society people have the choice to put whatever the **** the want into their bodies whether it's fast food loaded up with chemicals or a simple plant.

Get the **** off your high horse and let people do what they want you nanny state ***holes.

100% right.

[Frozen Sooner]

High-profile = celebrity, not smart.

Out of curiosity, do you have any special qualification that allows you to make the determination that the Volokhs aren't smart? You might want to look at their bios before deciding that they're nothing more than celebrities.

[Frozen Sooner]

So we ban fast food, and legalize weed?

BRILLIANT!!!

Where did you come up with the idea that any of the people mentioned above support banning fast food? I would be quite surprised if Eugene Volokh, a rabid libertarian, supported that.

[Leroy Lizard]

There is no difference between the two.

In a free society people have the choice to put whatever the **** the want into their bodies whether it's fast food loaded up with chemicals or a simple plant.

This isn't a free society. Never has been. In fact, I am not aware of any truly free society on this planet. Although some have tried such Shangri-las in the past, they never seem to work out on anything but a tiny scale.

[Jacie]

This isn't a free society. Never has been.

True, but it is way ahead of whatever's second. Here's an example of one that doesn't even make the Top 10:

Chinese college professors about my age once got to go on sabbatical . . . whether they wanted to or not, to spend some time being re-educated by working alongside the peasants. Seems there was this thing called the Cultural Revolution going on and it was decided that those free-thinking college professor types had it all wrong.

Maybe we're not so free but you don't have to worry about your government deciding you'd make a better farmer than a teacher . . .

As for the criminalization of something as trivial as marijuana, just another example of a special interest group lobbying (throwing money at people working under false pretenses) to pass the laws to suit them.

Another funny thing about it, for decades, law enforcement didn't really catch up with pot users because by and large it was just them crazy, jazz-playing Negroes who smoked it. Then along came the 60's, college kids began to flaunt it and now the country is going to hell because of that? Give me a break.

[SicEmBaylor]

This isn't a free society. Never has been.

No, you're right, but our Founding Fathers knew that. That's why they created a system whereby we continually STRIVE toward individual liberty and a free society. We're supposed to be working toward that goal not doing everything we can to destroy the idea. It frankly makes me sick.

[Soonerfan88]

I'm pretty conservative but I have absolutely no issue with legalizing marijuana. Do they have a test that measures current rate of high or whatever like we can BAC?

[Midtowner]

Pshhh... Chemerinsky? All he ever did was edit my law school con law book and video teach my BARBRI Bar Review class for ConLaw. What the heck does he know?

[Frozen Sooner]

Pshhh... Chemerinsky? All he ever did was edit my law school con law book and video teach my BARBRI Bar Review class for ConLaw. What the heck does he know?

Quoth Judge Pryor of the 11th Circuit: "Erwin knows what the law is. He's loony, and he may not LIKE the law, but he knows what it is."

He also wrote THE supplement for Federal Courts/Jurisdiction. That thing is a monster. Dislike his politics or his personal life all you want, but the guy knows his ****.

[OUinFLA]

Here is my concern:
Legalizing weed in California is up to California.
However, unless it is legalized nationwide, I'm afraid the results will be catastrophic.

How long will it take the drug sellers to grow it legaly in California, then easily transport it across the entire county with no check points along the way?

Logistically, every transport out of California cannot be checked for what will be contraband in all the states who do not legalize it.

Therefore, the illegal pushers in say.........Oklahoma will have easy access to supply. Cutting their costs a lot, decreasing their risk to almost nil.

The drug cartels will quit importing across the borders and just grow their supply in California. Not, them growing specifically, but using thousands of smaller growers to meet their supply.

The drug convictions in California will decrease for sure, but the supply line to our kids will become easier. And even without California as a "retail" outlet for weed, there will be plenty of profit in the other 47 lower states to more than make up for what is now going to be decreased costs of goods.

The profit incentive is the only reason the drug cartels are in business.

On the other hand if the US of A were to legalize it nationally, the profit incentive is now gone.

As it stands being only California, this proposed law scares me.

Feel free to convence me Im wrong.

[pphilfran]

I agree...one state cannot make it legal...bad situation...

[Frozen Sooner]

Here is my concern:
Legalizing weed in California is up to California.
However, unless it is legalized nationwide, I'm afraid the results will be catastrophic.

How long will it take the drug sellers to grow it legaly in California, then easily transport it across the entire county with no check points along the way?

Logistically, every transport out of California cannot be checked for what will be contraband in all the states who do not legalize it.

Therefore, the illegal pushers in say.........Oklahoma will have easy access to supply. Cutting their costs a lot, decreasing their risk to almost nil.

The drug cartels will quit importing across the borders and just grow their supply in California. Not, them growing specifically, but using thousands of smaller growers to meet their supply.

The drug convictions in California will decrease for sure, but the supply line to our kids will become easier. And even without California as a "retail" outlet for weed, there will be plenty of profit in the other 47 lower states to more than make up for what is now going to be decreased costs of goods.

The profit incentive is the only reason the drug cartels are in business.

On the other hand if the US of A were to legalize it nationally, the profit incentive is now gone.

As it stands being only California, this proposed law scares me.

Feel free to convence me Im wrong.

This is almost the exact reasoning of Gonzales v. Raich. Interesting case.

[MonkeyMouth]

I'm not sure I'd want some pothead behind the wheel of a car, out on the streets, stoned out of their head.

How are you going to be able to monitor and measure the amount of pot someone smokes and consider them safe to drive or operate machinery?

What's going to be considered a safe amount to smoke and what's going to be deemed over the limit?

If you ask me, legalizing Marijuana is going to open up a whole 'nother can of worms that our law enforcement officials and judicial system just doesn't need to deal with.

[yermom]

it's already basically legal in California. how do they deal with it?

[silverwheels]

it's already basically legal in California. how do they deal with it?

They put Lindsay Lohan in jail for about 2 hours, then make her go to rehab for a day.

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm not sure I'd want some pothead behind the wheel of a car, out on the streets, stoned out of their head.

How are you going to be able to monitor and measure the amount of pot someone smokes and consider them safe to drive or operate machinery?

What's going to be considered a safe amount to smoke and what's going to be deemed over the limit?

If you ask me, legalizing Marijuana is going to open up a whole 'nother can of worms that our law enforcement officials and judicial system just doesn't need to deal with.

It's like alcohol. If it impairs your judgement then it's a problem. I don't happen to believe in blood alcohol laws -- I think laws should punish result and not punish intent or the possibility of a result. I don't see how weed is any different in that respect. If someone smokes weed, gets behind the wheel and then hurts someone then they should be severely punished. Otherwise, if they aren't hurting anyone else then leave them alone.

[Frozen Sooner]

It's like alcohol. If it impairs your judgement then it's a problem. I don't happen to believe in blood alcohol laws -- I think laws should punish result and not punish intent or the possibility of a result. I don't see how weed is any different in that respect. If someone smokes weed, gets behind the wheel and then hurts someone then they should be severely punished. Otherwise, if they aren't hurting anyone else then leave them alone.

Don't agree with speeding laws either, I take it? How about laws mandating what side of the road to drive on? Stop lights?

[SicEmBaylor]

Don't agree with speeding laws either, I take it? How about laws mandating what side of the road to drive on? Stop lights?

Interesting you should mention this...I was watching Stossel's show a month or two ago and they showed this town somewhere in the UK that did away with all traffic laws all together. No speed limits, no stop signs, no red-lights, no right of ways, etc. As a result, the driving conditions there have become much better and accidents fewer.

[Frozen Sooner]

Huh. Everything I've been able to find on Ipswitch doesn't seem to paint the same idyllic picture you do.

[SicEmBaylor]

Huh. Everything I've been able to find on Ipswitch doesn't seem to paint the same idyllic picture you do.

Painting overly idyllic pictures of situations that rarely work well in real life is kinda my thing. Don't be a downer!

[Penguin]

More people will be fired for testing positive for weed. Addiction rates will be thru the roof. People will get picky about their weed and start looking for stronger ****. Then, folks will discover certain pills will you the same effect as weed without the telltale odor, and on and on and on.

[OUinFLA]

Interesting you should mention this...I was watching Stossel's show a month or two ago and they showed this town somewhere in the UK that did away with all traffic laws all together. No speed limits, no stop signs, no red-lights, no right of ways, etc. As a result, the driving conditions there have become much better and accidents fewer.

everyone died in an accident in the first couple of months?

[GKeeper316]

More people will be fired for testing positive for weed. Addiction rates will be thru the roof. People will get picky about their weed and start looking for stronger ****. Then, folks will discover certain pills will you the same effect as weed without the telltale odor, and on and on and on.

its physically impossible to become addicted to marijuana. and by "addicted" i mean physically dependent upon, like heroin.

the war on drugs has cost american taxpayers over a trillion dollars and has achieved not one of its long term goals. its a collossal failure, and the only reasons we still have federal and state agencies enforcing this terrible policy is so the dea and state agencies like the obn can perpetuate thier bureaucracies, while the prescription drug and alcohol companies (the partership for a drug free america) can keep you paying them. you think they wanna put prozac up against weed? they'd lose and lose big. its something that we can grow ourselves, easily. it doesnt require a lab to cook it up. it doesnt require a lot of land in order for it to be profitable. it makes better paper than wood pulp, and stronger rope than cotton. its quite possibly the single most beneficial plant on the planet.

[SicEmBaylor]

its physically impossible to become addicted to marijuana. and by "addicted" i mean physically dependent upon, like heroin.

the war on drugs has cost american taxpayers over a trillion dollars and has achieved not one of its long term goals. its a collossal failure, and the only reasons we still have federal and state agencies enforcing this terrible policy is so the dea and state agencies like the obn can perpetuate thier bureaucracies, while the prescription drug and alcohol companies (the partership for a drug free america) can keep you paying them. you think they wanna put prozac up against weed? they'd lose and lose big. its something that we can grow ourselves, easily. it doesnt require a lab to cook it up. it doesnt require a lot of land in order for it to be profitable. it makes better paper than wood pulp, and stronger rope than cotton. its quite possibly the single most beneficial plant on the planet.

I rarely agree with you but everything in this post is right on.

[sooner59]

Alcohol is far more destructive to the individual and society as a whole. Its just that preconceived notions and the fear of change from society's norms make it complicated. Or maybe alcohol is just far more destructive in my life and everyone that I have ever known. Its whoopin my *** as we speak. Either way, I am only hurting myself since I refuse to get behind the wheel no matter how much I drink. With the other stuff, its paranoia that keeps you at home most of the time. Otherwise, you drive 7 miles an hour to Taco Bell and get arrested and suspended from the Baylor FB team. Sorry SicEm. :D

[GKeeper316]

you drive 7 miles an hour to Taco Bell and get arrested and suspended from the Baylor FB team. Sorry SicEm. :D

heh wicked baylor burn :D

and why bother testing athletes for it anyway? i dont think anyone would ever try to make the case that it's performance enhancing, so why would any athletic governing body give a ****?

[47straight]

Pshhh... Chemerinsky? All he ever did was edit my law school con law book and video teach my BARBRI Bar Review class for ConLaw. What the heck does he know?

For con law, a book full of chopped down cases and preparation for a multiple choice exam is worth about four and half pounds of dog ****.



I'm sorry that your professor used a con law book. That's terrible.

[Fraggle145]

I'm pretty conservative but I have absolutely no issue with legalizing marijuana. Do they have a test that measures current rate of high or whatever like we can BAC?

That's cuz being conservative has nothing to do with marijuana legalization! :D

Hell legalizing weed makes money. And we wont have to pay to feed all the people that are in jail for weed anymore (well until ~75% of em do something else stupid).

Maybe they will just get stoned and sit on the couch :O

[sooner59]

That's cuz being conservative has nothing to do with marijuana legalization! :D

Hell legalizing weed makes money. And we wont have to pay to feed all the people that are in jail for weed anymore (well until ~75% of em do something else stupid).

Maybe they will just get stoned and sit on the couch :O

Sadly this is what the majority of those who use it want to do, yet it is demonized like its crystal meth or something. If you compared the overall effects of weed and alcohol without naming them, people would say alcohol is the one that shouldn't be legal. I just sigh and figure one of these days people will wake up.

[Leroy Lizard]

its physically impossible to become addicted to marijuana.

Physically impossible? Wow, that's a pretty strong statement.

[Leroy Lizard]

Interesting you should mention this...I was watching Stossel's show a month or two ago and they showed this town somewhere in the UK that did away with all traffic laws all together. No speed limits, no stop signs, no red-lights, no right of ways, etc. As a result, the driving conditions there have become much better and accidents fewer.

Up in Oregon they had one juvenile who took down the stop signs at an intersection. A motorist plowed right into another car and killed two young girls.

I can just imagine LA with no rules of the road. Actually, I can't.

[sooner59]

Physically impossible? Wow, that's a pretty strong statement.

Yeah, with all of the people in the world, I'm sure some become addicted, as many people are addicted to TV, the internet, hamburgers, adrenaline, etc. Its nowhere near the extent of narcotics, alcohol, nicotine, etc. There is a fine line. I would say most people would not be addicted. Hell most people who do it regularly don't even do because of addiction, they probably do it because they are already lazy and worthless, so they have no excuse not to do it. Not to say that everyone that has done it is lazy or worthless, but they are until they come back down. :D

[sooner59]

Up in Oregon they had one juvenile who took down the stop signs at an intersection. A motorist plowed right into another car and killed two young girls.

I can just imagine LA with no rules of the road. Actually, I can't.

Don't forget that this is America.....home of the bat**** crazy, drunk, texting, and generally dense driver.

[GKeeper316]

Physically impossible? Wow, that's a pretty strong statement.

just a medical fact.

[OUinFLA]

all seem to somewhat agree that legalization would be a good thing.

more specifically, is it a good thing for CA to legalize it while it is still a crime in the majority of the states?

again, Im going to say NO. However, Nationally.........that's another matter.

some of you might say if CA does it, then other states will follow.
Really? How fast do you think that can possibly happen?
In the more conservative States, do you think it will happen next month? next year? couple of years?
I firmly believe the drug cartels with have a financial bonanza out of this CA bill.
As of last night what I "heard" on the news is the bill is more than likely going to pass.
Not good, IMO.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Look what's happened with medical marijuana for an indicator of "how fast". Not instant, but it keeps spreading as states see it works.

[Frozen Sooner]

all seem to somewhat agree that legalization would be a good thing.

more specifically, is it a good thing for CA to legalize it while it is still a crime in the majority of the states?

again, Im going to say NO. However, Nationally.........that's another matter.

some of you might say if CA does it, then other states will follow.
Really? How fast do you think that can possibly happen?
In the more conservative States, do you think it will happen next month? next year? couple of years?
I firmly believe the drug cartels with have a financial bonanza out of this CA bill.
As of last night what I "heard" on the news is the bill is more than likely going to pass.
Not good, IMO.

On the other hand, is it really the proper concern of California what crimes occur in Nevada, particularly when it's the considered judgment of the people of California that those things shouldn't be crimes?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Froze...People in Nevada have CA medical cards since CA had the good sense to provide a legal way to get weed. NV thought it would be a bright idea to make medical MJ legal, but without legal dispensaries and while also making it illegal to buy! lol

[OUinFLA]

somewhere in my confused head, this sounds similar to the AZ Immigration Check law.
Why should AZ care about CA problems?
End result is the Feds smack them with a lawsuit.
I suspect if CA passes this law, the Feds will feel compelled to do something similar.
I even suspect they will envoke "Interstate Transport" (suspected) or whatever you lawyer types call it.
It looks like a mess to me unless it is passed nationally.

[Frozen Sooner]

somewhere in my confused head, this sounds similar to the AZ Immigration Check law.
Why should AZ care about CA problems?
End result is the Feds smack them with a lawsuit.
I suspect if CA passes this law, the Feds will feel compelled to do something similar.
I even suspect they will envoke "Interstate Transport" (suspected) or whatever you lawyer types call it.
It looks like a mess to me unless it is passed nationally.

Not really comparable at all. One involves a state legislating in an area of exclusive federal competency as provided by the Constitution. The other involves a state legislating in an area of concurrent jurisdiction.

The Federal Government still has laws against marijuana possession and cultivation. The State of California is free to remove any penalties under state law and instruct their executive branch officials to not enforce the federal laws.

[OUinFLA]

Thanks for the clarification Froz.
I understand.


edit:
If the State removes penalties, does the Fed still have the right to prosecute under Federal law and enforce Federal penalties?

[NateHeupel]

I firmly believe the drug cartels with have a financial bonanza out of this CA bill.

This argument is like saying that owners of speakeasy's were really looking forward to the end of Prohibition. They may have much lower risk, but their payout could be slashed massively. The incredibly high profit margin of marijuana is based on two facts. First, the product is relatively hard to access. Second, the product is illegal to possess for private, non-medical use. In economic terms, the current state of affairs allows drug cartels full control of the chain of supply without government regulation of any sort. You can read up on how well that turns out for the public.

Obviously, the product has a steady demand. If you've never met or known drug dealers, they're not all like the guy from Pineapple Express. They're just as often dangerous and prone to violence. Why deal with that guy when you can deal with the cute girl at CVS?

Further, the people who deal weed very usually deal other, more dangerous drugs. This is where the idea of weed as a "gateway" drug came to pass. Studies have shown that it's not the use of weed itself that is the gateway, it's having to go to people who deal other things and give you a "free sample" to get you hooked. Again, would you rather go to the guy pushing "samples" of heroin and meth on you, or would you rather go see some dude at the pharmacy counter of a Wal Mart?

However, I readily concede that the turning point on how effective this law will be is whether or not the state makes prices competitive with what the cartels currently charge. When given the choice between buying a song for a dollar on iTunes, or bittorrenting the whole CD, a majority will just buy the song. Thus, we see the insane popularity of iTunes. HOWEVER, there's a very substantial minority that will just bittorrent the CD. They understand the risks (viruses, lawsuits, etc) and refuse to spend money on something they don't think is worth that much. The price must be very carefully monitored and regulated, or this law's passing will become the nightmare OUinFLA and others fear.


is it really the proper concern of California what crimes occur in Nevada, particularly when it's the considered judgment of the people of California that those things shouldn't be crimes?

+1

[OUinFLA]

Thanks NH,
You have some excellent points.

[Frozen Sooner]

Thanks for the clarification Froz.
I understand.


edit:
If the State removes penalties, does the Fed still have the right to prosecute under Federal law and enforce Federal penalties?

Yep. Not only that, but the Supremacy Clause requires state courts to enforce the federal law if the AUSA decides to bring the federal charges in state court (though they'd probably bring the charges in federal court anyhow.)

[MR2-Sooner86]

I could go point by point by all the bull**** that has been spewed over this thread. It's the same song, different tune, every single god damn time. You mention marijuana legalization and the world is going to end. Alright kids, I got some homework for you to do this weekend.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/comparecht.gif

Myth: Marijuana Use is a Major Cause Of Highway Accidents. Like alcohol, marijuana impairs psychomotor function and decreases driving ability. If marijuana use increases, an increase in of traffic fatalities is inevitable.

Fact: There is no compelling evidence that marijuana contributes substantially to traffic accidents and fatalities. At some doses, marijuana affects perception and psychomotor performances- changes which could impair driving ability. However, in driving studies, marijuana produces little or no car-handling impairment- consistently less than produced by low moderate doses of alcohol and many legal medications. In contrast to alcohol, which tends to increase risky driving practices, marijuana tends to make subjects more cautious. Surveys of fatally injured drivers show that when THC is detected in the blood, alcohol is almost always detected as well. For some individuals, marijuana may play a role in bad driving. The overall rate of highway accidents appears not to be significantly affected by marijuana's widespread use in society. (http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/#accidents)

Cause of Death by Florida autopsy reports
Cocaine-348
Methadone-312
Alprazolam-194
Oxycodone-185
Ethyl Alcohol-160
Morphine-106
Hydrocodone-106
Other Benzodiazepine-62
Diazepam-59
Fentanyl-51
Propoxyphene-38
Carisoprodol/Meprobamate-36
Heroin-29
Methamphetamine-9
Amphetamine-3
MDMA-2
CANNABINOIDS-0 (http://blog.austindefense.com/2006/11/articles/marijuana-controlled-substances/the-safety-of-marijuana/)

Myth: Marijuana Kills Brain Cells. Used over time, marijuana permanently alters brain structure and function, causing memory loss, cognitive impairment, personality deterioration, and reduced productivity.

Fact: None of the medical tests currently used to detect brain damage in humans have found harm from marijuana, even from long term high-dose use. An early study reported brain damage in rhesus monkeys after six months exposure to high concentrations of marijuana smoke. In a recent, more carefully conducted study, researchers found no evidence of brain abnormality in monkeys that were forced to inhale the equivalent of four to five marijuana cigarettes every day for a year. The claim that marijuana kills brain cells is based on a speculative report dating back a quarter of a century that has never been supported by any scientific study. (http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/#accidents)

Prevalence of Rape Higher in Heavy Drinking College Environments (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/cas/Documents/rapeintox-pressRelease/)

Alcohol is the drug most commonly used to help commit sexual assault. (http://www.womenshealth.gov/faq/date-rape-drugs.cfm#5)

Number of alcoholic liver disease deaths: 13,050
Number of alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides: 22,073 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm)

Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States (1) and is associated with multiple adverse health consequences, including liver cirrhosis, various cancers, unintentional injuries, and violence. To analyze alcohol-related health impacts, CDC estimated the number of alcohol-attributable deaths (AADs) and years of potential life lost (YPLLs) in the United States during 2001. This report summarizes the results of that analysis, which indicated that approximately 75,766 AADs and 2.3 million YPLLs, or approximately 30 years of life lost on average per AAD, were attributable to excessive alcohol use in 2001. (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm)

Smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html)

Irvin Rosenfeld, a 56-year-old stockbroker from Fort Lauderdale, Fla. will smoke his 115,000th marijuana cigarette Friday, a possible world record, and he can thank the U.S. government for his supply.
"Yep, provided by Uncle Sam," Rosenfeld told NBCMiami.com. "They grow it for me, I find that quite ironic."
Since 1982, Rosenfeld has been a patient in the Federal Drug Administration's Investigational New Drug Program. He suffers from a rare bone disorder called multiple congenital cartilaginous exostoses. To alleviate the pain associated with the disorder he was prescribed marijuana.
The marijuana is grown on a farm on the campus of the University of Mississippi and is delivered to a pharmacy where Rosenfeld picks up a tin of 300 federally grown and rolled cigarettes that have been sent for him. He said he smokes between 10 and 12 marijuana joints per day. (http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/dpgo-Irvin-Rosenfeld-Marijuana-Record-fc-200911201258728790321)

Development Of Breath Tests For Drugs (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37134.php)

Blood and Urine Test for Marijuana (http://www.idmu.co.uk/pdfs/drugtest.pdf)

Cannabis Poses Less On-Road Risk Than Alcohol, US Crash Data Says (http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7189)

Driving under the influence of cannabis increases the risk of involvement in a crash. However, in France its share in fatal crashes is significantly lower than that associated with positive blood alcohol concentration. (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/331/7529/1371)

Myth: Marijuana Use is a Major Cause Of Highway Accidents.
Fact: Surveys of fatally injured drivers show that when THC is detected in the blood, alcohol is almost always detected as well. (http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/#accidents)

Excessive alcohol use is the 3rd leading cause of death in the United States annually and its economic impact is estimated at over $150 billion. (http://apha.confex.com/apha/136am/webprogram/Paper186294.html)

Pot vs. Booze: A Former Police Chief's Take (http://www.alternet.org/story/137752/)

[pphilfran]

MR2, I'm going to roll a big fat one and celebrate!

[OUinFLA]

This argument is like saying that owners of speakeasy's were really looking forward to the end of Prohibition. They may have much lower risk, but their payout could be slashed massively.

The difference as I see it is: The repeal of prohibition was a national law.
If it had only been repealed in Kentucky, then 1000's of stills would have been added to the production of whiskey and the pipelines would have been spreading out like spiderwebs to all the other states will only minor inconveniences of the chance of being caught. Unlike whiskey coming in across a US boarder like Canada.

Plus, the distribution of 50 pounds of weed is considerably easier than the distribution of hundreds of cases of quart bottles of moonshine.

Again, I can see national legalization as being a detriment to the wholesaler(cartels) and probably the right thing to do to solve a huge expense to our legal system.

Single state legalization still will allow the major illegal drug players a place to grow and a pipeline to market in illegal states with minimal risk of being caught going across state lines.

Are Californians going to like it if at every state exit there is established a "check point" to protect the other states laws? Are common air carriers going to like it that Florida requires a "certified inspection" prior to flying to Florida from California?

Im not saying those policies will happen, but are they a possiblilty? Sure, I import product from around the world and I deal with inspections at the shipping site and at the entrance point. I even have some issues with product between the states and have to be accountable for items I send from Florida to ....say, Texas who does not allow some of my products to be in the state legally. However, Ohio does. If I do screw up and send a restricted item to Texas, they are on me like ticks on a dog when they find them.

Just to clarify, I am in the business of shipping live tropical fish before you get the wrong idea. Some southern mild climate states restrict certain items that can actually live and thrive in their waters. Ohio on the other hand has almost no restrictions as my product cannot overwinter in their climate.

[Penguin]

its physically impossible to become addicted to marijuana. and by "addicted" i mean physically dependent upon, like heroin.


Who is talking about physical addiction? The psychological addiction to marijuana is off the charts. Tell an alcoholic to stop drinking for 6 months and tell a pothead not to smoke weed for 6 months. Invariably, it's the pothead that will most likely relapse. I have heard this prase at least a dozen times: "Please pray for me! I failed another drug test and I have to see the judge tomorrow. Boo hoo hoo, poor me, boo hoo..." and then it's off to jail they go. I have heard so many potheads say that they are not addicted. Ok, then go 6 months without smoking weed and you get to stay out of jail. They just can't do it. That is insane. That is addiction.


Of course potheads are 100% addicted! Why would anyone break the law right now to smoke it???? Because they are not aware of the law? No. Cuz Bubba wants to get baked.


Why are so many people so determined to be worthless potheads? Nobody in your family will want to visit. Use a sick day and everybody at work assumes you are at home smoking your brains out. How many people have said, "I'm a millionaire today because I smoked weed everyday!"?


I just hope the employers in CA get tough on pot addicts and adopt a zero tolerance policy. Somebody needs to have some common sense.

[OUinFLA]

MR2, obviously, we should ban Cafeine.

I am not against the legalization of mj, Im just concerned about the outcome of one state legalizing it while none of the others do, or can follow suit rapidly.

[Leroy Lizard]

just a medical fact.

A medical fact (which is a rather weak statement) does not make it physically impossible.

Now if you want to use the word fact as in "absolutely true" be advised that there are very few medical facts.

[yermom]

Who is talking about physical addiction? The psychological addiction to marijuana is off the charts. Tell an alcoholic to stop drinking for 6 months and tell a pothead not to smoke weed for 6 months. Invariably, it's the pothead that will most likely relapse. I have heard this prase at least a dozen times: "Please pray for me! I failed another drug test and I have to see the judge tomorrow. Boo hoo hoo, poor me, boo hoo..." and then it's off to jail they go. I have heard so many potheads say that they are not addicted. Ok, then go 6 months without smoking weed and you get to stay out of jail. They just can't do it. That is insane. That is addiction.


Of course potheads are 100% addicted! Why would anyone break the law right now to smoke it???? Because they are not aware of the law? No. Cuz Bubba wants to get baked.


Why are so many people so determined to be worthless potheads? Nobody in your family will want to visit. Use a sick day and everybody at work assumes you are at home smoking your brains out. How many people have said, "I'm a millionaire today because I smoked weed everyday!"?


I just hope the employers in CA get tough on pot addicts and adopt a zero tolerance policy. Somebody needs to have some common sense.

i didn't know you were Dr. Penguin

[Leroy Lizard]

Who is talking about physical addiction? The psychological addiction to marijuana is off the charts. Tell an alcoholic to stop drinking for 6 months and tell a pothead not to smoke weed for 6 months. Invariably, it's the pothead that will most likely relapse. I have heard this prase at least a dozen times: "Please pray for me! I failed another drug test and I have to see the judge tomorrow. Boo hoo hoo, poor me, boo hoo..." and then it's off to jail they go. I have heard so many potheads say that they are not addicted. Ok, then go 6 months without smoking weed and you get to stay out of jail. They just can't do it. That is insane. That is addiction.

http://www.courtsidepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/WeedBGone.jpg

[Leroy Lizard]

Not really comparable at all. One involves a state legislating in an area of exclusive federal competency as provided by the Constitution. The other involves a state legislating in an area of concurrent jurisdiction.

The Federal Government still has laws against marijuana possession and cultivation. The State of California is free to remove any penalties under state law and instruct their executive branch officials to not enforce the federal laws.

But haven't the feds pretty much taken over ownership of the war on drugs?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Just to reply to a previous post, in 41 years I've never known a pot dealer who sold "more dangerous drugs". I'm sure they exist, but I really don't know any and never have.

[Crucifax Autumn]

A medical fact (which is a rather weak statement) does not make it physically impossible.

Now if you want to use the word fact as in "absolutely true" be advised that there are very few medical facts.

Yeah. And a real conservative would want the government out of their life.

[Leroy Lizard]

This argument is like saying that owners of speakeasy's were really looking forward to the end of Prohibition.

The owner of a speakeasy is not relevant here, but rather the supplier. The Mob made a fortune on Prohibition. Once we made liquor legal again, the Mob made an even bigger fortune on narcotics.

Those inclined to break laws to rake in easy money are not going to go away. They will simply push harder drugs.

[Leroy Lizard]

Just to reply to a previous post, in 41 years I've never known a pot dealer who sold "more dangerous drugs".

I guess he's going to have to if pot is legalized. Or he will have to straighten out and get a regular job making minimum wage. (Yeah, right!)

[Frozen Sooner]

The difference as I see it is: The repeal of prohibition was a national law.
If it had only been repealed in Kentucky, then 1000's of stills would have been added to the production of whiskey and the pipelines would have been spreading out like spiderwebs to all the other states will only minor inconveniences of the chance of being caught. Unlike whiskey coming in across a US boarder like Canada.

Plus, the distribution of 50 pounds of weed is considerably easier than the distribution of hundreds of cases of quart bottles of moonshine.

Again, I can see national legalization as being a detriment to the wholesaler(cartels) and probably the right thing to do to solve a huge expense to our legal system.

Single state legalization still will allow the major illegal drug players a place to grow and a pipeline to market in illegal states with minimal risk of being caught going across state lines.

Are Californians going to like it if at every state exit there is established a "check point" to protect the other states laws? Are common air carriers going to like it that Florida requires a "certified inspection" prior to flying to Florida from California?

Im not saying those policies will happen, but are they a possiblilty? Sure, I import product from around the world and I deal with inspections at the shipping site and at the entrance point. I even have some issues with product between the states and have to be accountable for items I send from Florida to ....say, Texas who does not allow some of my products to be in the state legally. However, Ohio does. If I do screw up and send a restricted item to Texas, they are on me like ticks on a dog when they find them.

Just to clarify, I am in the business of shipping live tropical fish before you get the wrong idea. Some southern mild climate states restrict certain items that can actually live and thrive in their waters. Ohio on the other hand has almost no restrictions as my product cannot overwinter in their climate.

The 21st Amendment ended the Volstead Act and the 18th Amendment. It did not, however, immediately provide for all states to be "wet." That decision was left up to the states individually. In fact, § 2 of the 21st Amendment specifically allows states to prohibit alcohol sales in the state (so long as they don't discriminate against out of state sellers). I'm relatively sure that various states stayed dry for a while after the enactment of the 21st.

[Frozen Sooner]

But haven't the feds pretty much taken over ownership of the war on drugs?

I don't know that your question makes sense in light of the discussion.

[yermom]

I guess he's going to have to if pot is legalized. Or he will have to straighten out and get a regular job making minimum wage. (Yeah, right!)


you really think every weed dealer will just immediately start selling heroin or crack?

i'm not exactly deep into the drug world, but all the dealers i met had other real jobs. they just liked smoking weed and sold it to make extra cash and/or keep themselves in weed

there just aren't as many buyers out there for the harder stuff, and you'd have to run in more dangerous circles to get into that other ****

[OUinFLA]

The 21st Amendment ended the Volstead Act and the 18th Amendment. It did not, however, immediately provide for all states to be "wet." That decision was left up to the states individually. In fact, § 2 of the 21st Amendment specifically allows states to prohibit alcohol sales in the state (so long as they don't discriminate against out of state sellers). I'm relatively sure that various states stayed dry for a while after the enactment of the 21st.

Again, thanks for the clarification.
I guess I should have remembered how dry Oklahoma was when I was growing up. I remember the passage of liquor by the drink. Before that, it was bottle clubs or beer bars.

[Leroy Lizard]

I don't know that your question makes sense in light of the discussion.

IOW, the feds will make it their business and file suit against CA, no matter what our Constitution says. (And they have pretty much already done that in other avenues.)

[yermom]

hasn't Obama said he's not doing that?

[Leroy Lizard]

you really think every weed dealer will just immediately start selling heroin or crack?

The small-timer who sells a little weed on the side is not the problem.


there just aren't as many buyers out there for the harder stuff...

They'll try to fix that problem.

[Leroy Lizard]

hasn't Obama said he's not doing that?

I meant it more as a hypothetical.

[Frozen Sooner]

IOW, the feds will make it their business and file suit against CA, no matter what our Constitution says. (And they have pretty much already done that in other avenues.)

No. Sorry, you're flat wrong. Precedent is very clear on this point.

[yermom]

The small-timer who sells a little weed on the side is not the problem.



They'll try to fix that problem.


whatever keeps people from jumping from weed to that **** isn't changing

besides, the feds could then focus on the harder drugs, making it more risky, i'd think

[Frozen Sooner]

No. Sorry, you're flat wrong. Precedent is very clear on this point.

To be a bit more expansive, while simplifying a great deal:

Regulation of intrastate sale of marijuana is an area of concurrent federal and state competency, because Congress' power to do so is derived from the Necessary and Proper Clause pursuant to a comprehensive regulation of Interstate Commerce. Congress does not occupy the field as it would if, say, California were to ban only the import of Nevada marijuana without banning the sale of marijuana entirely. Either sovereign may legislate in this area and enforce their own laws. However, neither sovereign may compel the other to specific legislation. Congress may, as an exercise of the Spending Power, induce a state to legislate a particular way. Congress may pre-empt state legislation by telling a state to legislate in a particular way or the Federal Government will legislate that way and enforce the law they want it enforced. What they may not do is command a state to legislate in a particular manner regarding the intrastate sale and possession of marijuana. Were the federal government to go to court and attempt to compel such legislation, it'd be tossed on its tuchus pretty quickly.

[Okla-homey]

Again, thanks for the clarification.
I guess I should have remembered how dry Oklahoma was when I was growing up. I remember the passage of liquor by the drink. Before that, it was bottle clubs or beer bars.

Tru dat. In fact, Oklahoma law reagrding alcohol was commonly referred to as "liquor by the wink" until the late 1980's.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Who is talking about physical addiction? The psychological addiction to marijuana is off the charts. Tell an alcoholic to stop drinking for 6 months and tell a pothead not to smoke weed for 6 months. First flaw in your argument. You assume everybody who smokes is a pothead. Invariably, it's the pothead that will most likely relapse. Proof? I have heard this prase at least a dozen times: "Please pray for me! I failed another drug test and I have to see the judge tomorrow. Boo hoo hoo, poor me, boo hoo..." I've also heard, "I got a DUI and I'm in big trouble." Your point? and then it's off to jail they go. I have heard so many potheads say that they are not addicted. Ok, then go 6 months without smoking weed and you get to stay out of jail. They just can't do it. So 100% of everybody arrested for marijuana can't stop smoking to stay out of jail? Fascinating, I'm sure you have hard facts to back up this claim. That is insane. Just like your logic. That is addiction. Smoking a recreational drug is not an addiction. Smoking it every single day of the week while doing nothing with yourself is an addiction. The same way people are with alcohol or compulsive gambling. Oh yeah, those are perfectly legal so we don't say anything about that.

Of course potheads are 100% addicted! And alcoholics are 100% addicted as well. Why would anyone break the law right now to smoke it???? Why do minors break the law to drink and smoke? Because they are not aware of the law? No. Cuz Bubba wants to get baked. Kids also love to get drunk and smoke after a football game too.

Why are so many people so determined to be worthless potheads? You're assuming society will collapse. Did everybody become alcohols when prohibition was lifted? No. Nobody in your family will want to visit. Nobody wants to visit a chain smoker if they don't smoke or a raging alcoholic either. Use a sick day and everybody at work assumes you are at home smoking your brains out. How many people have said, "I'm a millionaire today because I smoked weed everyday!"? How many presidents have admitted to at least smoking pot? How many authors, musicians, actors, and politicians have admitted doing it?

I just hope the employers in CA get tough on pot addicts and adopt a zero tolerance policy. Somebody needs to have some common sense.Starting with you.

Until you can come up with a better argument than pulling random sentences out of your *** with no evidence or proof to back your claims up...
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/images/quiet-sign.jpg

[Jacie]

The 21st Amendment ended the Volstead Act and the 18th Amendment. It did not, however, immediately provide for all states to be "wet." That decision was left up to the states individually. In fact, § 2 of the 21st Amendment specifically allows states to prohibit alcohol sales in the state (so long as they don't discriminate against out of state sellers). I'm relatively sure that various states stayed dry for a while after the enactment of the 21st.

Oklahoma was completely dry until 1959. My father was one of the first to open a liquor store in OKC. Stores were open from 10 to 10, Monday-Saturday. Daddy used to say it was easier to get a drink before it was legal. Back then, you could go to a bootlegger any day of the week.

However, going wet did not mean you could order a mixed drink or shot in a bar or restaurant. For years, bars and restaurants tried to skirt the law by selling memberships or requiring customers to byob. Raids by agents of the ABC were common. Owners would have to bail out the employees who were busted serving drinks and replace the confiscated stock, but were usually back in business the next day.

The law against liquor by the drink was cited as being detrimental to venues in Tulsa and OKC from being able to attract convention business. It took a few decades after going wet but ultimately the money argument won out over Oklahoma's bible-belt roots and liquor by the drink became a legal reality.

Now about not being able to buy booze on Sunday . . .

[SicEmBaylor]

Some Texas counties still require "memberships" to buy drinks.

[Frozen Sooner]

Oklahoma was completely dry until 1959. My father was one of the first to open a liquor store in OKC. Stores were open from 10 to 10, Monday-Saturday. Daddy used to say it was easier to get a drink before it was legal. Back then, you could go to a bootlegger any day of the week.

However, going wet did not mean you could order a mixed drink or shot in a bar or restaurant. For years, bars and restaurants tried to skirt the law by selling memberships or requiring customers to byob. Raids by agents of the ABC were common. Owners would have to bail out the employees who were busted serving drinks and replace the confiscated stock, but were usually back in business the next day.

The law against liquor by the drink was cited as being detrimental to venues in Tulsa and OKC from being able to attract convention business. It took a few decades after going wet but ultimately the money argument won out over Oklahoma's bible-belt roots and liquor by the drink became a legal reality.

Now about not being able to buy booze on Sunday . . .

Yup. To this day there are MANY towns in Alaska where not only purchase but possession of alcohol is forbidden.

[Ike]

Now about not being able to buy booze on Sunday . . .

Or this stupid 3.2% bullcrap...

[C&CDean]

Personally, IDGAS, however, I do know that smoking weed makes you a worthless POS. THIS is a medical fact. I've proven it. Brazillions of times. Science doesn't lie.

[Penguin]

Until you can come up with a better argument than pulling random sentences out of your *** with no evidence or proof to back your claims up...


Proof? Have you ever been to court? Take a day off and hang out at the county courthouse. Wait until the judge starts going thru the list of probation violators. Usually, it will be mid-morning and after because the courts usually like to go thru the free people first, then the jail birds come in. Listen for how many people tested positive for THC. All they had to do was not smoke the stuff and they would be free. Weed smokers cannot control themselves. They know if they smoke once that they will test positive for a month or two, but they just can't stop. They must have had a, boo hoo, rough day, and they just had to smoke a sweet and feel goofy for a few minutes. That is hardcore addiction.



There are actual logical people who do not want to break the law. However, if you legalize this junk, you will remove the final and only barrier keeping some people from getting addicted. There are people who line up in the morning for the liquor stores. I see people lining up in the morning for the "pain" doctor to open up. Now, we're going to start seeing people who were once normal lining up at the marijuana shop. God help America.

[Okla-homey]

Personally, IDGAS, however, I do know that smoking weed makes you a worthless POS.



ORLY? Hmmm. Completely worthless? As in an oxygen waster with no redeeming qualities? Whatsoever? Yikes!

[C&CDean]

ORLY? Hmmm. Completely worthless? As in an oxygen waster with no redeeming qualities? Whatsoever? Yikes!

Well I could play me some Pacman, Asteroids, and Pong, and I fancied myself a pretty good piano player until I realized I was the only one enjoying what I was playing.

For someone who has never smoked the **** you sure as hell have a strong opinion about it. "Smoke up Johnny" then go to court and try to represent a client. Or try to write a legal brief. You'll see what I'm smoking.

[Okla-homey]

Yup. To this day there are MANY towns in Alaska where not only purchase but possession of alcohol is forbidden.

But Froz, aren't those mostly tribal villages?

See, I watch this show on one of the cable channels about the Alaska Highway Patrol, and that was what I gathered. It almost seems like Aleuts and Inuits lack a gene for metabolizing alcohol or something.

On one episode, the postal inspector on the mainland was checking parcels for booze being mailed to some of these remote villages. He was intercepting a lot of the real cheap-o booze (plastic bottles) as well as plastic bottles of "mouthwash" in the mouthwash bottles that was in fact booze.

It reminded me of the quart bottle of "peroxide" I had esposita send me in a care package in Asscrackistan.

[Okla-homey]

Well I could play me some Pacman, Asteroids, and Pong, and I fancied myself a pretty good piano player until I realized I was the only one enjoying what I was playing.

For someone who has never smoked the **** you sure as hell have a strong opinion about it. "Smoke up Johnny" then go to court and try to represent a client. Or try to write a legal brief. You'll see what I'm smoking.

Sometimes, people smoke it in high school and college, then stop when they enter the military because it's verboten. Sometimes anyway.

[Frozen Sooner]

But Froz, aren't those mostly tribal villages?

See, I watch this show on one of the cable channels about the Alaska Highway Patrol, and that was what I gathered. It almost seems like Aleuts and Inuits lack a gene for metabolizing alcohol or something.

On one episode, the postal inspector on the mainland was checking parcels for booze being mailed to some of these remote villages. He was intercepting a lot of the real cheap-o booze (plastic bottles) as well as plastic bottles of "mouthwash" in the mouthwash bottles that was in fact booze.

It reminded me of the quart bottle of "peroxide" I had esposita send me in a care package in Asscrackistan.

Are you asking whether or not they have sovereignty? The Alaska Native tribes gave that up as part of ANILCA.

[Leroy Lizard]

whatever keeps people from jumping from weed to that **** isn't changing

besides, the feds could then focus on the harder drugs, making it more risky, i'd think

I thought that didn't work. :rolleyes:

[Leroy Lizard]

Regulation of intrastate sale of marijuana is an area of concurrent federal and state competency, because Congress' power to do so is derived from the Necessary and Proper Clause pursuant to a comprehensive regulation of Interstate Commerce. Congress does not occupy the field as it would if, say, California were to ban only the import of Nevada marijuana without banning the sale of marijuana entirely. Either sovereign may legislate in this area and enforce their own laws. However, neither sovereign may compel the other to specific legislation. Congress may, as an exercise of the Spending Power, induce a state to legislate a particular way.

Induce? That isn't inducement. It's financial extortion.

Sure, I can induce a man to mow my lawn for me if I put a gun to his head. He still doesn't have to mow my lawn. The consequences are severe, though.

The federal government, through the commerce clause and such "inducements," has decided that it can pretty much do whatever it wants.

[Okla-homey]

Are you asking whether or not they have sovereignty? The Alaska Native tribes gave that up as part of ANILCA.

No. I'm not making any sovereignty argument. I'm just asking if these places in AK where booze ist verboten are all native villages and whether that's pursuant to tribal, state or federal law.

[GKeeper316]

I do know that smoking weed makes you a worthless POS. THIS is a medical fact.

carl sagan disagrees.

your idiocy is centric to you.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Personally, IDGAS, however, I do know that smoking weed makes you a worthless POS. THIS is a medical fact. I've proven it. Brazillions of times. Science doesn't lie.


Proof? Have you ever been to court? Take a day off and hang out at the county courthouse. Wait until the judge starts going thru the list of probation violators. Usually, it will be mid-morning and after because the courts usually like to go thru the free people first, then the jail birds come in. Listen for how many people tested positive for THC. All they had to do was not smoke the stuff and they would be free. Weed smokers cannot control themselves. They know if they smoke once that they will test positive for a month or two, but they just can't stop. They must have had a, boo hoo, rough day, and they just had to smoke a sweet and feel goofy for a few minutes. That is hardcore addiction.

There are actual logical people who do not want to break the law. However, if you legalize this junk, you will remove the final and only barrier keeping some people from getting addicted. There are people who line up in the morning for the liquor stores. I see people lining up in the morning for the "pain" doctor to open up. Now, we're going to start seeing people who were once normal lining up at the marijuana shop. God help America.

http://www.druglibrary.org/mags/aapicture/flim/Devil's_Harvest.jpghttp://www.dailybruin.com/media/00/00/02/83/28380_web.ae.4.20.reefermadness.pica_big.jpg

Nancy Reagan is very proud.

[Leroy Lizard]

Oklahoma was completely dry until 1959. My father was one of the first to open a liquor store in OKC. Stores were open from 10 to 10, Monday-Saturday. Daddy used to say it was easier to get a drink before it was legal. Back then, you could go to a bootlegger any day of the week.

However, going wet did not mean you could order a mixed drink or shot in a bar or restaurant. For years, bars and restaurants tried to skirt the law by selling memberships or requiring customers to byob. Raids by agents of the ABC were common. Owners would have to bail out the employees who were busted serving drinks and replace the confiscated stock, but were usually back in business the next day.

The law against liquor by the drink was cited as being detrimental to venues in Tulsa and OKC from being able to attract convention business. It took a few decades after going wet but ultimately the money argument won out over Oklahoma's bible-belt roots and liquor by the drink became a legal reality.

Now about not being able to buy booze on Sunday . . .

Those compartments that look like mailboxes inside the Legends restaurant are actually storage units for customers' own booze.

[Crucifax Autumn]

This whole argument is stupid when you can stroll into any convenience store or head shop outside of Missouri and buy K2 and all that other **** that gets you as high as weed, but with untested chemicals.

[Frozen Sooner]

No. I'm not making any sovereignty argument. I'm just asking if these places in AK where booze ist verboten are all native villages and whether that's pursuant to tribal, state or federal law.

No such animal as tribal law in Alaska is what I was getting at. At least not enforceable in state courts. The bans are pursuant to local ordinance. Per Alaska state law, the decision is up to local communities.

[Frozen Sooner]

Induce? That isn't inducement. It's financial extortion.

Sure, I can induce a man to mow my lawn for me if I put a gun to his head. He still doesn't have to mow my lawn. The consequences are severe, though.

The federal government, through the commerce clause and such "inducements," has decided that it can pretty much do whatever it wants.

That's an incredibly inapt analogy.

The exercise of the Spending Power is much closer to saying "I'm going to give you $20 for fertilizer if you maintain your yard a certain way. If you don't, then you don't get the $20."

[Crucifax Autumn]

So I can't pet a tribal law at the zoo in Alaska?

Time to cancel the vacation and break it to the kids.

[Frozen Sooner]

Clarifying a bit:

There are indeed tribal laws and tribal courts. However, the villages themselves are not "tribal villages" as such. The only one I'm aware of is Venetie. An order of a tribal court within its jurisdiction is binding and is reviewable by appellate courts.

However, the anti-alcohol laws are, so far as I'm aware, a creature of regular city governments.

[King Crimson]

Froz, they are wondering about you over there 1B....superstar that you are. Vain as you are, I suspect ya know.

i don't have a MM card or caregiver myself.....but i could score for ya in like 30 minutes.

War Colorado.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed legislation making it an infraction to possess an ounce or less of pot.

Making the possession of recreational pot have similar consequences to getting a traffic ticket is a reasonable move, because it's too expensive for the state to incarcerate criminalized potheads.

I understand the appeal to make California a sanctuary state for potheads, but it won't solve many of the problems suggested and will likely create more problems. For example, I read that only 20% of the drug cartel revenue comes from pot, with the majority coming from cocaine and heroin. And California isn't a big pot market anyway because we grow so much of our own.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I've also read that Secretary Clinton is starting to talk tough about these drug cartels, with the U.S. stepping up to contribute in the battle against them. I'm going to write her a letter to suggest that everytime the drug lords behead a person, we should behead 10 of their customers. Now that will quickly hit them in the pocketbook.

The "cruel and unusual" deal should be no problem. It won't be unusual since there are so damned many drug users to behead (they pay $20 billion to the drug cartels every year!). And just inject them with a drug to put them to sleep before the beheadings so it won't be cruel.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I'm gonna smoke some King Krypto right now. Totally legal, a bit cheaper than lower grade chronic, and a nice high that doesn't show up on drug tests. It also lasts a little less time, so you don't get into the "oh ****, I'm too stoned to go do 'x' like I had planned".

Any of you stoners that DO try this stuff, don't oversmoke it like the dumbass teenagers. 3 hits and you're pretty stoned and these idiot kids are smoking a gram or 2 in a blunt and wondering why there heart rate goes up, they feel like their stomach's falling out their azzhole, and then they freak out, panic and run to the hospital thinking they are gonna die from something they are hallucinating. ****in' morons.

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm gonna smoke some King Krypto right now. Totally legal, a bit cheaper than lower grade chronic, and a nice high that doesn't show up on drug tests. It also lasts a little less time, so you don't get into the "oh ****, I'm too stoned to go do 'x' like I had planned".

Any of you stoners that DO try this stuff, don't oversmoke it like the dumbass teenagers. 3 hits and you're pretty stoned and these idiot kids are smoking a gram or 2 in a blunt and wondering why there heart rate goes up, they feel like their stomach's falling out their azzhole, and then they freak out, panic and run to the hospital thinking they are gonna die from something they are hallucinating. ****in' morons.

Sometime I wonder if Crucifax is an anti-drug shill.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

As an "individual liberty and free markets" guy, perhaps I should favor this Proposition 19 it legalize pot.

If it were simply an issue of adults privately smoking pot I would have no problem But if its legal, I would want drug testing for driving privledges, for teaching school, receiving a welfare check, etc., and maximum freedom for employers to drug test and fire employees who fail if they so choose.

And anyone giving pot to minors should move to the front of the beheading line. Seriously, they should be treated like child predators.

[yermom]

you don't need to be tested for NyQuil, or Benadryl, or alcohol, or Vicodin, etc... to do any of those things, why should you be tested for weed?

[StoopTroup]

I hope they legalize it. I'm tired of giving reasons why it's bad for you.

Right now thought I think they are trying to make some over the counter stuff that being sold as legal weed....illegal.

Just as a sidenote...

Hey kids....

Shooting up Drano is bad for you.

YWIA.

[Sooner5030]

It’ll never be “free”. Just another con to siphon more from entrepreneurs in order to keep the system going. If I grew it, took care of the land, labored to get a good crop, built a good customer base and distribution system I’d still have to surrender 40% of my productivity to someone who feels they have moral authority to steal from me to fund some ****ty inefficient program.
GO GALT!

[yermom]

oh, you mean like any other business? :confused:

[Sooner5030]

oh, you mean like any other business?

Yep. The ones that are suffocated and can no longer provide any growth to our economy. Those businesses. Good parasites should keep their hosts alive.

[GKeeper316]

It’ll never be “free”. Just another con to siphon more from entrepreneurs in order to keep the system going. If I grew it, took care of the land, labored to get a good crop, built a good customer base and distribution system I’d still have to surrender 40% of my productivity to someone who feels they have moral authority to steal from me to fund some ****ty inefficient program.
GO GALT!

someone's gotta pay for the water you use to grow them and the roads you use to transport them.

who's gonna pay for it if not business?

[Sooner5030]

someone's gotta pay for the water you use to grow them and the roads you use to transport them.

who's gonna pay for it if not business?

who the f-ck confused you into thinking I would use city water for agriculture? Besides if I did I pay for that service through my utilitiy bill.....but i'd actually use a well.

Also DOTs/fed is like $80 billion/year total. Seriously do you have any idea how that compares to entitlements?

Here read page 7 in order to have some perspective: http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2009/09stmt.pdf

[yermom]

someone's gotta pay for the world police force too

[Sooner5030]

not without a balanced budget admendment we dont nor have we. Dear leader's FY10 deficit will exceed DoDs total budget by like $600 billion.

Back to the OP. growing MJ will never be "free" because the system is fixed so that only the large companies can overcome the barriers to entry caused by regulatory compliance.

[yermom]

they have basically already done that in California, just like with smaller breweries in OK

[Leroy Lizard]

who the f-ck confused you into thinking I would use city water for agriculture? Besides if I did I pay for that service through my utilitiy bill.....but i'd actually use a well.

But that water needs to be shipped down to LA so that Jose's Cantina can serve water to its customers.

Farmers are so selfish.