PDA

View Full Version : Barney Frank to introduce "Make Room for the Serious Criminals" bill


Ultra Peanut
03-23-2008, 08:57 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/22/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3960027.shtml

MTG#10
03-23-2008, 09:08 AM
It will never pass but it should. Locking up pot-heads is ridiculous and a waste of tax payer's money. Coke heads, meth heads, and heroin users are one thing, but pot doesnt cause violence or ruin thousands of lives.

chiefforlife
03-23-2008, 09:14 AM
Barney was on Bill Maher the other night talking about this, it was great!

patteeu
03-23-2008, 10:14 AM
LOL @ creative bill titles.

FWIW, I agree with the sentiment.

banyon
03-23-2008, 10:17 AM
I'm 100% behind this. Quit wasting our time and resources with these petty dope cases. Focus on the hard drugs and real crime.

BCD
03-23-2008, 10:17 AM
I really don't understand why our government has such a big problem with weed. Alcohol is a much more dangerous drug.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2008, 10:34 AM
I really don't understand why our government has such a big problem with weed. Alcohol is a much more dangerous drug.

"If weed was legal, there wouldn't be Starbucks, there'd be Weedbucks."

pikesome
03-23-2008, 10:50 AM
I really don't understand why our government has such a big problem with weed. Alcohol is a much more dangerous drug.

I don't buy this. If weed had the same kind of usage alcohol has I don't think we'd see that much difference.

It's a moot point, we're far more likely to see tobacco and alcohol controlled in my lifetime than pot legalized.

Adept Havelock
03-23-2008, 10:56 AM
It's a moot point, we're far more likely to see tobacco and alcohol controlled in my lifetime than pot legalized.


I forgot...that's one part of life you do want the government micromanaging. :p

They are "controlled" currently. However, it wouldn't surprise me if some in the government repeated the idiocy of the 18th amendment with regards to alcohol (and expanded it to tobacco)...as they haven't learned their lesson that the exact same problems that stemmed from the 18th amendment also happen because of the quixotic WOD.

I suppose all they have to do to convince many "useful idiots" to support a new prohibition is whine about how "it's for the children". :shake:

banyon
03-23-2008, 11:10 AM
I don't buy this. If weed had the same kind of usage alcohol has I don't think we'd see that much difference.

It's a moot point, we're far more likely to see tobacco and alcohol controlled in my lifetime than pot legalized.

There aren't many angry stoners (Dom. Violence/assaults, etc.), also alcohol impairment is much more likely to be joined to a lead foot while driving.

Plus it's not as addictive:

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

pikesome
03-23-2008, 11:16 AM
I forgot...that's one part of life you do want the government micromanaging. :p

They are "controlled" currently. However, it wouldn't surprise me if some in the government repeated the idiocy of the 18th amendment with regards to alcohol (and expanded it to tobacco)...as they haven't learned their lesson that the exact same problems that stemmed from the 18th amendment also happen because of the quixotic WOD.

I suppose all they have to do to convince many "useful idiots" to support a new prohibition is whine about how "it's for the children". :shake:

I'm not in favor of tobacco or alcohol going the way of pot, I'm happy with "the line" being wacky weed.

I typed what I typed not because it's what I want but what I expect. We have employers getting rid and/or not hiring smokers. We're banning smoking in more and more places. A few cities have banned or are looking to ban certain food stuffs. Throw in a collective HC, which seems to be an unavoidable idea, and the Gov's limits and controls on what we use/eat/inhale is only going to get worse, not better.

pikesome
03-23-2008, 11:21 AM
There aren't many angry stoners (Dom. Violence/assaults, etc.), also alcohol impairment is much more likely to be joined to a lead foot while driving.

Plus it's not as addictive:

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

Nicotine is supper addictive, it doesn't really endanger other people though (outside long term usage).

Driving or operating heavy machinery while high isn't any less dangerous than alcohol I'm guessing. Those are the things people would be doing far more if it was legal.

jAZ
03-23-2008, 11:22 AM
There aren't many angry stoners (Dom. Violence/assaults, etc.), also alcohol impairment is much more likely to be joined to a lead foot while driving.

Plus it's not as addictive:

Not that I oppose legalization or decriminalization of pot, but ths is really the main remaining argument for keeping pot illegal.

http://aol.mediresource.com/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=669&news_channel_id=11&channel_id=11

Early marijuana use can lead to harder drugs, says Australian twin study
Provided by: The Canadian Press
Written by: LINDSEY TANNER
Jan. 22, 2003

CHICAGO (AP) - A study of Australian twins and marijuana bolsters the fiercely debated "gateway theory" that pot can lead to harder drugs.

The researchers found 311 sets of same-sex twins in which only one twin had smoked marijuana before age 17. Early marijuana smokers were found to be up to five times more likely than their twins to move on to harder drugs. They were about twice as likely to use opiates, which include heroin, and five times more likely to use hallucinogens, which include LSD.

patteeu
03-23-2008, 11:29 AM
Nicotine is supper addictive, it doesn't really endanger other people though (outside long term usage).

Driving or operating heavy machinery while high isn't any less dangerous than alcohol I'm guessing. Those are the things people would be doing far more if it was legal.

Driving or operating heavy machinery while high on pot may be comparable to low levels of blood alcohol, but you simply can't get as blitzed on pot as you can on alcohol at higher levels.

jAZ
03-23-2008, 11:30 AM
Nicotine is supper addictive, it doesn't really endanger other people though (outside long term usage).

Driving or operating heavy machinery while high isn't any less dangerous than alcohol I'm guessing. Those are the things people would be doing far more if it was legal.
I wonder (would like to see a study) about the gateway affects of alcohol and tobacco.

I would bet that a large % of people smoking pot are or were previously drinking and smoking cigarettes. So they might be the first gateway.

And I wonder if the legal/illegal nature is the actual gateway itself. By that I mean, that the person willing to break the law to get high on pot has crossed a psycological threshold that demonstrates their increased willingness to do riskier things to get high.

That maybe pot is only the gateway drug because it's the lowest drug on the totem pole just across the line of legal. Ban alcohol and it becomes identified as the gateway drug. Legalize pot and something else becomes the gateway.

patteeu
03-23-2008, 11:31 AM
Not that I oppose legalization or decriminalization of pot, but ths is really the main remaining argument for keeping pot illegal.

http://aol.mediresource.com/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=669&news_channel_id=11&channel_id=11

Early marijuana use can lead to harder drugs, says Australian twin study
Provided by: The Canadian Press
Written by: LINDSEY TANNER
Jan. 22, 2003

CHICAGO (AP) - A study of Australian twins and marijuana bolsters the fiercely debated "gateway theory" that pot can lead to harder drugs.

The researchers found 311 sets of same-sex twins in which only one twin had smoked marijuana before age 17. Early marijuana smokers were found to be up to five times more likely than their twins to move on to harder drugs. They were about twice as likely to use opiates, which include heroin, and five times more likely to use hallucinogens, which include LSD.

I don't know how they can control a test like that for the effect of one twin simply being more inclined toward drugs at all. IOW, if pot were not available how many of those twins who went on to harder drugs would have really failed to leap directly to those harder drugs?

pikesome
03-23-2008, 11:43 AM
Driving or operating heavy machinery while high on pot may be comparable to low levels of blood alcohol, but you simply can't get as blitzed on pot as you can on alcohol at higher levels.

Driving impaired is driving impaired. Whether it's from pot or beer. Hell, we have people who can't drive properly sober.

pikesome
03-23-2008, 11:48 AM
I wonder (would like to see a study) about the gateway affects of alcohol and tobacco.

I would bet that a large % of people smoking pot are or were previously drinking and smoking cigarettes. So they might be the first gateway.

And I wonder if the legal/illegal nature is the actual gateway itself. By that I mean, that the person willing to break the law to get high on pot has crossed a psycological threshold that demonstrates their increased willingness to do riskier things to get high.

That maybe pot is only the gateway drug because it's the lowest drug on the totem pole just across the line of legal. Ban alcohol and it becomes identified as the gateway drug. Legalize pot and something else becomes the gateway.

From my experiences with pot smokers, that's my biggest question. For a lot of people who don't have underlying problems I'd guess that's a big, if not the biggest, reason.

Ultra Peanut
03-23-2008, 12:17 PM
Not that I oppose legalization or decriminalization of pot, but ths is really the main remaining argument for keeping pot illegal.

http://aol.mediresource.com/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=669&news_channel_id=11&channel_id=11

Early marijuana use can lead to harder drugs, says Australian twin study
Provided by: The Canadian Press
Written by: LINDSEY TANNER
Jan. 22, 2003

CHICAGO (AP) - A study of Australian twins and marijuana bolsters the fiercely debated "gateway theory" that pot can lead to harder drugs.

The researchers found 311 sets of same-sex twins in which only one twin had smoked marijuana before age 17. Early marijuana smokers were found to be up to five times more likely than their twins to move on to harder drugs. They were about twice as likely to use opiates, which include heroin, and five times more likely to use hallucinogens, which include LSD.Well, I suppose the current approach HAS done a great job of keeping pot away from teens.

patteeu
03-23-2008, 12:22 PM
Driving impaired is driving impaired. Whether it's from pot or beer. Hell, we have people who can't drive properly sober.

Driving impaired at a level of 0.08 is legally the same as driving at 0.18, but it's not the same in reality. Driving at 0.09 didn't magically become worse when Missouri dropped it's limit from 0.10 to 0.08. And, as you point out with your last sentence, there's practical variation that would be impossible to capture in a legal scheme from driver to driver whether impaired or sober.

But none of that changes the fact, IMO, that the objective impairment from pot can not be compared to that of alcohol at the high end of intoxication if not across the entire spectrum. I'm not arguing that driving while pot impaired should be legal, I'm just trying point out a real difference between the two drugs.

pikesome
03-23-2008, 12:43 PM
Driving impaired at a level of 0.08 is legally the same as driving at 0.18, but it's not the same in reality. Driving at 0.09 didn't magically become worse when Missouri dropped it's limit from 0.10 to 0.08. And, as you point out with your last sentence, there's practical variation that would be impossible to capture in a legal scheme from driver to driver whether impaired or sober.

But none of that changes the fact, IMO, that the objective impairment from pot can not be compared to that of alcohol at the high end of intoxication if not across the entire spectrum. I'm not arguing that driving while pot impaired should be legal, I'm just trying point out a real difference between the two drugs.

I'm with you on the differences.

Driving stoned is dangerous and a lot more people would do that if pot was legal. That would make pot "more dangerous" than currently in the context I was trying to use.

MTG#10
03-23-2008, 12:46 PM
Driving stoned is dangerous

Maybe for some but when I was younger and smoked a lot of weed I would drive like 20MPH everywhere. I had old ladies cursing at me.

patteeu
03-23-2008, 12:47 PM
I'm with you on the differences.

Driving stoned is dangerous and a lot more people would do that if pot was legal. That would make pot "more dangerous" than currently in the context I was trying to use.

I see. I don't disagree with you on that.

pikesome
03-23-2008, 12:48 PM
Maybe for some but when I was younger and smoked a lot of weed I would drive like 20MPH everywhere. I had old ladies cursing at me.

Driving too slow is only a bit less dangerous than driving too fast.

Bob Dole
03-23-2008, 12:56 PM
Driving or operating heavy machinery while high on pot may be comparable to low levels of blood alcohol, but you simply can't get as blitzed on pot as you can on alcohol at higher levels.

Only because you get too lazy to take another hit.

BucEyedPea
03-23-2008, 02:24 PM
Driving impaired is driving impaired. Whether it's from pot or beer. Hell, we have people who can't drive properly sober.

We have a law here against driving impaired. I was pulled over one night by a cop. I must have been swerving because I was searched and everything. I had a migraine headache so bad I was dry heaving trying to get home to go to bed. Migraines affect my vision too. The cop just wouldn't believe I was clean until I started hurling on him.

Then he offered to take me home the rest of the way.

Amnorix
03-23-2008, 02:36 PM
I really don't understand why our government has such a big problem with weed. Alcohol is a much more dangerous drug.

It's a function of history. Alcohol is widely accepted in society and weed is not. Or at least, historically has not been.

I fully support Frank's bill. It's a collosal waste of time and money to deal with exceedingly minor offenses.

banyon
03-23-2008, 03:17 PM
I'm with you on the differences.

Driving stoned is dangerous and a lot more people would do that if pot was legal. That would make pot "more dangerous" than currently in the context I was trying to use.

I agree with the first part. I have to try a case next month for a Driving while high. I'm not sure that driving behaviors are worse though, or would be more widespread than pot. Driving fast is definitely more dangerous than slow though, crashes will do more damage by far.