PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Screw the WOT I wanna know what we are gonna do about


DenverChief
08-31-2011, 12:10 AM
the War on Drugs. Specifically I mean when are we gonna send some Spec Ops guys into Mexico to finish off some of these cartels once and for all?

BucEyedPea
08-31-2011, 12:36 AM
Dump the WoD's.

DenverChief
08-31-2011, 01:13 AM
Dump the WoD's.

And let Mexico turn into Afghanistan...

RubberSponge
08-31-2011, 04:31 AM
Only one logical thing left to do. Legalize and allow everyone the freedom to make the choice to do drugs or not. Let's see, we have been at the war on drugs for 70+ years now. And yet they are more readily available and more potent than ever before. I'd wouldn't call that any kind of truimph. I'd call that an utter failure akin to pounding your head on a brick wall to alleviate a headache. Law enforcement has failed, not for lack of trying. But because they just aren't the proper solution.

The bigger question is, when is law enforcement and the private prison industry going to admit that they are the wrong people to even be in the addiction arena. When are you going to admit that LE is on the wrong side of the issue, Lt. Dan?

RubberSponge
08-31-2011, 04:37 AM
And let Mexico turn into Afghanistan...

Mexico is pretty much Afghanistan. And drugs are illegal already BTW.

Your post shows no merit in actual fact and is just an excuse to further continue to scare the uneducated masses.

I bet you would lose your job if we didn't have a war on drugs. That's exactly why LE wants to keep them illegal. Don't touch your funding, huh?

blaise
08-31-2011, 05:23 AM
You're not wiping out the cartels and their soldiers once and for all with force. If people have nothing they have nothing to lose, and if you kill him someone else will just take his place.

evenfall
08-31-2011, 06:12 AM
Maybe you missed this, but the current regime is sending them guns, not fighting them.

WilliamTheIrish
08-31-2011, 06:21 AM
the War on Drugs. Specifically I mean when are we gonna send some Spec Ops guys into Mexico to finish off some of these cartels once and for all?

I think we know historically how well that works.

HonestChieffan
08-31-2011, 07:04 AM
Maybe you missed this, but the current regime is sending them guns, not fighting them.


Missed by a lot of folks.....

BucEyedPea
08-31-2011, 08:49 AM
And let Mexico turn into Afghanistan...

Yeah right. It's probably leading to it.

Jenson71
08-31-2011, 08:52 AM
An interesting recent development: the administration allows Mexican police to cross the border into USA and fight the drug trade.

blaise
08-31-2011, 08:55 AM
An interesting recent development: the administration allows Mexican police to cross the border into USA and fight the drug trade.

How does that work? Are they then charged by Mexico, the US, the state or what?

Jenson71
08-31-2011, 09:14 AM
How does that work? Are they then charged by Mexico, the US, the state or what?

I think that when they catch a Mexican, they are detained, and brought back to Mexico.

Here's a link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/26/world/americas/26drugs.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

blaise
08-31-2011, 09:27 AM
I think that when they catch a Mexican, they are detained, and brought back to Mexico.

Here's a link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/26/world/americas/26drugs.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

It seems like they allow the Mexican law enforcement to sort of prepare on the US side, get their stuff ready and then go back across the border for a raid. To create an element of surprise, I guess. Or maybe they're better able to move quickly along the border on the US side. Or do surveillance, undetected.

alnorth
08-31-2011, 09:35 AM
the War on Drugs. Specifically I mean when are we gonna send some Spec Ops guys into Mexico to finish off some of these cartels once and for all?

We've completely and thoroughly proven that we can't beat and pummel the desire to make money dealing drugs out of poor people. The violence is caused by gang rivalry, not because of the drug trade itself. Go in and annihilate all drug gangs, and you'll have new ones spring up within months. The WoD is not winnable.

If you are concerned about the violence, we have only two options: eliminate the demand for drugs in the US, or eliminate the drug black market.

The first option is impossible. The second option is possible only through legalization. If the drug gangs are undercut with plentiful cheap drugs everywhere, they go out of business.

Jaric
08-31-2011, 09:37 AM
We've completely and thoroughly proven that we can't beat and pummel the desire to make money dealing drugs out of poor people. The violence is caused by gang rivalry, not because of the drug trade itself. Go in and annihilate all drug gangs, and you'll have new ones spring up within months. The WoD is not winnable.

If you are concerned about the violence, we have only two options: eliminate the demand for drugs in the US, or eliminate the drug black market.

The first option is impossible. The second option is possible only through legalization. If the drug gangs are undercut with plentiful cheap drugs everywhere, they go out of business.

This.

See Al Capone, Prohibition for historical evidence.

Brock
08-31-2011, 09:49 AM
If you are concerned about the violence, we have only two options: eliminate the demand for drugs in the US, or eliminate the drug black market.

The first option is impossible. The second option is possible only through legalization. If the drug gangs are undercut with plentiful cheap drugs everywhere, they go out of business.

Plentiful, cheap methamphetamine and heroin? Yeah, that's never going to happen.

alnorth
08-31-2011, 09:53 AM
Plentiful, cheap methamphetamine and heroin? Yeah, that's never going to happen.

True, and I'm not deranged enough to think it ever will happen in this country, at least not in my lifetime. (probably marijuana in a few decades, but nothing else) So, drug gang violence and the high cost of jailing non-violent drug offenders are just the price we pay for not legalizing it. Rather than get mad about it, just understand and resign yourself to that inevitability, and hope you don't get shot by a stray bullet.

Brock
08-31-2011, 09:55 AM
True, and I'm not deranged enough to think it ever will happen in this country, at least not in my lifetime. (probably marijuana in a few decades, but nothing else) So, drug gang violence and the high cost of jailing non-violent drug offenders are just the price we pay for not legalizing it. Rather than get mad about it, just understand and resign yourself to that inevitability, and hope you don't get shot by a stray bullet.

I don't see why bolded needs to be true.

Radar Chief
08-31-2011, 09:56 AM
An interesting recent development: the administration allows Mexican police to cross the border into USA and fight the drug trade.

Oh THATíS a great fucking idea. :facepalm:

Radar Chief
08-31-2011, 09:58 AM
Plentiful, cheap methamphetamine and heroin? Yeah, that's never going to happen.

Exactly right, and throw cocaine in with it. Weíre not just talking about pot anymore.

alnorth
08-31-2011, 10:00 AM
I don't see why bolded needs to be true.

If the punishment for creating and using is small, then you are basically talking about backdoor legalization. Which I'm fine with, if we cant legalize then decriminalize it. I'd make all aspects, creating, selling, using, about the same as a parking ticket.

Brock
08-31-2011, 10:02 AM
If the punishment for creating and using is small, then you are basically talking about backdoor legalization. Which I'm fine with, if we cant legalize then decriminalize it. I'd make all aspects, creating, selling, using, about the same as a parking ticket.

Using for sure. I can't think of a bigger waste of time and money than putting bottom end users in the system. From the processing, to the court, to the warehousing. It's just stupid.

alnorth
08-31-2011, 10:02 AM
Exactly right, and throw cocaine in with it. Weíre not just talking about pot anymore.

I'd also throw cigarettes into that pile, except tobacco had the good fortune of becoming popular in the earliest days of our nation.

vailpass
08-31-2011, 10:20 AM
I'd also throw cigarettes into that pile, except tobacco had the good fortune of becoming popular in the earliest days of our nation.

Although deleterious to a person's health cigarettes are hardly on par with heroin, cocaine and meth in terms of societal effects in a mass-availability scenario.

DenverChief
08-31-2011, 11:38 AM
You're not wiping out the cartels and their soldiers once and for all with force. If people have nothing they have nothing to lose, and if you kill him someone else will just take his place.

but the people taking their place will not be the Zetas, who if you don't know are former Mexican military Spec Ops guys who went rouge for the money and has lead to the bloodiest violence in Mexico since well ever....

BucEyedPea
08-31-2011, 11:40 AM
but the people taking their place will not be the Zetas, who if you don't know are former Mexican military Spec Ops guys who went rouge for the money and has lead to the bloodiest violence in Mexico since well ever....

Invade, occupy, annex

DenverChief
08-31-2011, 11:49 AM
Invade, occupy, annex

51st state you say ;)

BucEyedPea
08-31-2011, 11:50 AM
51st state you say ;)

May have to make it more than one. It's pretty big.

Inspector
08-31-2011, 12:14 PM
Mexico is pretty much Afghanistan. And drugs are illegal already BTW.

Your post shows no merit in actual fact and is just an excuse to further continue to scare the uneducated masses.

I bet you would lose your job if we didn't have a war on drugs. That's exactly why LE wants to keep them illegal. Don't touch your funding, huh?


I suspect this is what it's mostly about. The WOD is a huge industry that pays lots of paychecks. Legalization might put dealers or cartels or whatever they're called out of business, but there would be a lot of jobs lost in the police and jail business. Or, maybe we'd just put those resources toward fighting crime instead?

Not an easy answer.

Radar Chief
08-31-2011, 12:17 PM
51st state you say ;)

Isnít Mexico already split into, like, seven states?

Jaric
08-31-2011, 12:46 PM
Although deleterious to a person's health cigarettes are hardly on par with heroin, cocaine and meth in terms of societal effects in a mass-availability scenario.

And none of them compare to the negative societal effects of alcohol.

Not to mention that the legality of Meth, coke, and smack have absolutely no impact on if a person chooses to use or not. Smack addicts will continue to be smack addicts, and the rest of us will continue to not be smack addicts. I have yet to find one single person who wants to be a meth/smack/coke user, but just can't get passed the law breaking part.

vailpass
08-31-2011, 12:50 PM
And none of them compare to the negative societal effects of alcohol.

Not to mention that the legality of Meth, coke, and smack have absolutely no impact on if a person chooses to use or not. Smack addicts will continue to be smack addicts, and the rest of us will continue to not be smack addicts. I have yet to find one single person who wants to be a meth/smack/coke user, but just can't get passed the law breaking part.

Legalization and wide-spread use of heroin, meth and cocaine would outstrip alcohol's negative effects in a short time.

Of course legality of a substance impacts whether a law-abiding person chooses to use it or not.

Jaric
08-31-2011, 01:13 PM
Legalization and wide-spread use of heroin, meth and cocaine would outstrip alcohol's negative effects in a short time.

Of course legality of a substance impacts whether a law-abiding person chooses to use it or not.

Really? Do you know even a single person who would start using meth/coke/smack if it became legal? I don't. The way I figure it, the reason people choose not to do meth/coke/smack is because they don't want to become a meth/coke/smack addict.

And while I agree widespread use would pass booze in terms of most damaging to society, however, I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that legalizing those substances is going to make everyone rush out an try them.

go bowe
08-31-2011, 01:16 PM
Really? Do you know even a single person who would start using meth/coke/smack if it became legal? I don't. The way I figure it, the reason people choose not to do meth/coke/smack is because they don't want to become a meth/coke/smack addict.

And while I agree widespread use would pass booze in terms of most damaging to society, however, I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that legalizing those substances is going to make everyone rush out an try them.

oh yeah?

i've been waiting for legalization so i can become a heroin addict...

RubberSponge
08-31-2011, 01:18 PM
There isn't any historical evidence that indicates that legalization will result into a rise in addiction rates.

Just another lame scare tactic.

Jaric
08-31-2011, 01:19 PM
oh yeah?

i've been waiting for legalization so i can become a heroin addict...

I'm holding out for meth legalization. That "faces of meth" website or whatever it is was the deciding factor for me. They all look so thin and who here couldnt stand to lose a few pounds?

RubberSponge
08-31-2011, 01:20 PM
I'm holding out for meth legalization. That "faces of meth" website or whatever it is was the deciding factor for me. They all look so thin and who here couldnt stand to lose a few pounds?


ohh sexy /Omaha

Radar Chief
08-31-2011, 01:20 PM
Really? Do you know even a single person who would start using meth/coke/smack if it became legal? I don't.

Me neither, but I donít hang out with anyone doing meth, coke or smack, purposely so. But I havenít always been the lamb of a law abiding citizen that posts on this board today. When I was younger, dumber (crazier) and unattached I knew plenty of party people that would hop right on whatever the latest high was were it more available.

go bowe
08-31-2011, 01:23 PM
I'm holding out for meth legalization. That "faces of meth" website or whatever it is was the deciding factor for me. They all look so thin and who here couldnt stand to lose a few pounds?

it's the facial sores and such that attract me to meth...

although i am trying to lose weight, so maybe that part would be good too...

Jaric
08-31-2011, 01:24 PM
Me neither, but I donít hang out with anyone doing meth, coke or smack, purposely so. But I havenít always been the lamb of a law abiding citizen that posts on this board today. When I was younger, dumber (crazier) and unattached I knew plenty of party people that would hop right on whatever the latest high was were it more available.

Yeah, I read a rolling stone article on how they make meth complete with pictures.

Fuck that. As much fun as staying up for days at a time and twitching uncontrollably sounds, I think I'll pass and stick to herb. Far less likely to end up homeless, sucking random dick in an alley.

Dave Lane
08-31-2011, 01:26 PM
We've completely and thoroughly proven that we can't beat and pummel the desire to make money dealing drugs out of poor people. The violence is caused by gang rivalry, not because of the drug trade itself. Go in and annihilate all drug gangs, and you'll have new ones spring up within months. The WoD is not winnable.

If you are concerned about the violence, we have only two options: eliminate the demand for drugs in the US, or eliminate the drug black market.

The first option is impossible. The second option is possible only through legalization. If the drug gangs are undercut with plentiful cheap drugs everywhere, they go out of business.

Once again my hero Al to the rescue. Thanks to him I have cut down my posting in this forum but 83.2%. Reason is such a rarity.

Radar Chief
08-31-2011, 01:34 PM
Yeah, I read a rolling stone article on how they make meth complete with pictures.

**** that. As much fun as staying up for days at a time and twitching uncontrollably sounds, I think I'll pass and stick to herb. Far less likely to end up homeless, sucking random dick in an alley.

LMAO

<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dWQM6sOsd5k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

CoMoChief
08-31-2011, 07:11 PM
the War on Drugs. Specifically I mean when are we gonna send some Spec Ops guys into Mexico to finish off some of these cartels once and for all?

Dude, our govt is SUPPLYING THE CARTELS with their guns/money etc.

Wake up asshole.

CoMoChief
08-31-2011, 07:13 PM
One of the main reasons why pot isn't legal is because it would trash the alcohol and tobacco industries. There's big money in that and there are lobbyists from those industries that do whatever they can to manipulate govt officials to keep it illegal.

Taco John
08-31-2011, 07:26 PM
Once again my hero Al to the rescue. Thanks to him I have cut down my posting in this forum but 83.2%. Reason is such a rarity.

LOL

Like anyone here believes you are a voice of reason around this place! ROFL

Thanks for the laugh!

Mr. Flopnuts
08-31-2011, 07:35 PM
And let Mexico turn into Afghanistan...

I would argue that drug legalization would lead to cartels falling apart. If the government allowed to produce it, and sell it, there would be no need for cartels. Oh, and we of course would tax the shit out of it.

Imagine that. Instead of spending billions of dollars a year on the war on drugs, we would make billions of dollars a year on taxing them. I wonder how that would bridge the budget gap.

blaise
09-01-2011, 05:59 AM
I would argue that drug legalization would lead to cartels falling apart. If the government allowed to produce it, and sell it, there would be no need for cartels. Oh, and we of course would tax the shit out of it.

Imagine that. Instead of spending billions of dollars a year on the war on drugs, we would make billions of dollars a year on taxing them. I wonder how that would bridge the budget gap.

It won't happen because no politician is going to get up and say he wants cocaine and heroin to be legal. He would instantly lose the election. A child could orchestrate a campaign against it. Photos of meth heads, commercials with anecdotes of people who lost everything to heroin.
Maybe 50 years from now people would be receptive to it, but not anytime soon.

Mr. Flopnuts
09-01-2011, 06:03 AM
It won't happen because no politician is going to get up and say he wants cocaine and heroin to be legal. He would instantly lose the election. A child could orchestrate a campaign against it. Photos of meth heads, commercials with anecdotes of people who lost everything to heroin.
Maybe 50 years from now people would be receptive to it, but not anytime soon.

Agreed. We'll just continue to be broke and wonder how to fix everything. ;)

Mr. Flopnuts
09-01-2011, 06:04 AM
Agreed. We'll just continue to be broke and wonder how to fix everything. ;)

Oh, and we'll spend the next 50 years looking at those same pictures of people who ruined their lives.

Earthling
09-01-2011, 06:29 AM
One of the main reasons why pot isn't legal is because it would trash the alcohol and tobacco industries. There's big money in that and there are lobbyists from those industries that do whatever they can to manipulate govt officials to keep it illegal.

It would not trash either the tobacco or alcohol industry IMO. At least I've never experienced that with having been around it for the last 40 years. If anything beer consumption increased with cotton-mouth as a side affect and smoking cigs went on as normal. :p

blaise
09-01-2011, 06:30 AM
Oh, and we'll spend the next 50 years looking at those same pictures of people who ruined their lives.

And advocating for the legalization of drugs even though we know it's not going to happen.

Earthling
09-01-2011, 06:37 AM
And advocating for the legalization of drugs even though we know it's not going to happen.

I kinda think pot will certainly be legalized eventually. A far cry from the day when a few persons got 20 years in prison for having as little as a single joint.

Jenson71
09-01-2011, 06:44 AM
I kinda think pot will certainly be legalized eventually. A far cry from the day when a few persons got 20 years in prison for having as little as a single joint.

I'm not against it being legalized (I wouldn't smoke it, though), but I think that today if smoking cigarettes were being decided on, I'm not sure that it would be legalized. Marijuana does have amounts of tar in it, and it may cause cancer after long term usage. I would be surprised if it is legalized. Again, it's not that I'm personally against legalizing it, but I do think the lung cancer groups and other health groups would put up a huge fight that most people would get behind.

Medical marijuana, on the other hand, for cancer patients, seems like a great tool for pain. I think it should be legalized, prescriptively.

Earthling
09-01-2011, 06:50 AM
I'm not against it being legalized (I wouldn't smoke it, though), but I think that today if smoking cigarettes were being decided on, I'm not sure that it would be legalized. Marijuana does have amounts of tar in it, and it may cause cancer after long term usage. I would be surprised if it is legalized. Again, it's not that I'm personally against legalizing it, but I do think the lung cancer groups and other health groups would put up a huge fight that most people would get behind.

Medical marijuana, on the other hand, for cancer patients, seems like a great tool. I think it should be legalized, prescriptively.

I was thinking that most of the bad things associated with cigs was actually in the paper used and not in the tobacco so much. I'll have to check that after work today...probably wrong about it though. :D

blaise
09-01-2011, 06:55 AM
I kinda think pot will certainly be legalized eventually. A far cry from the day when a few persons got 20 years in prison for having as little as a single joint.

I agree, and it should be legal. There's too much money spent fighting something that basically makes people sit around and play video games.

I don't think legal coke, heroin or meth is going to be legalized any time soon, and I doubt any candidate who advocates that they should be is going to get very far.

evenfall
09-01-2011, 07:01 AM
One of the main reasons why pot isn't legal is because it would trash the alcohol and tobacco industries. There's big money in that and there are lobbyists from those industries that do whatever they can to manipulate govt officials to keep it illegal.

I agree. The beverage alcohol industry is an extremely powerful lobby.

They are selling one of the more insidious drugs out there, but not only is it legal and cheaply available, advertising for it is omnipresent. There are tens of millions of people brainwashed by this industry to a fascinating degree. Look at all the people out there who think you practically have to buy some to go along with a sporting event.

There is so much money in it, it would be like trying to run the casinos out of Vegas. Their drug is more harmful than many that are illegal, but their lobbyists are elbow deep in every politician. That's the only real difference.

If we really wanted to protect the public good in safety an health we'd simply outlaw alcohol and tobacco - if you think the government exists to protect people from themselves.

Ace Gunner
09-01-2011, 07:06 AM
send out the surgical strike team, ask questions later. but not too many questions, please.


sincerely,

General Petraeus

blaise
09-01-2011, 07:11 AM
I agree. The beverage alcohol industry is an extremely powerful lobby.

They are selling one of the more insidious drugs out there, but not only is it legal and cheaply available, advertising for it is omnipresent. There are tens of millions of people brainwashed by this industry to a fascinating degree. Look at all the people out there who think you practically have to buy some to go along with a sporting event.

There is so much money in it, it would be like trying to run the casinos out of Vegas. Their drug is more harmful than many that are illegal, but their lobbyists are elbow deep in every politician. That's the only real difference.

If we really wanted to protect the public good in safety an health we'd simply outlaw alcohol and tobacco - if you think the government exists to protect people from themselves.


I think the thing is, you can responsibly consume alcohol. I don't think you can really responsibly consume coke or heroin. Some people can, I guess, but not too many.

Ace Gunner
09-01-2011, 07:23 AM
I think the thing is, you can responsibly consume alcohol. I don't think you can really responsibly consume coke or heroin. Some people can, I guess, but not too many.

you must be an expert...

blaise
09-01-2011, 07:26 AM
you must be an expert...

Why?

Jaric
09-01-2011, 07:44 AM
Medical marijuana, on the other hand, for cancer patients, seems like a great tool for pain. I think it should be legalized, prescriptively.
It really is. It also helps revive the patient's appetite (a side effect of chemo) and well it just makes them feel better.

And while there are certainly side effects of marijuana usage, I don't see anything that compares to most of the prescription drugs I see advertised on television.

Also, regarding the tar, to my knowledge we have not found any cases of someone who exclusively smoked marijuana developing lung cancer. There is tar of course, and it's actually a higher concentration than a cigarette, however, I have yet to meet anyone who smoked weed at the same interval that most normal smokers smoke cigarettes, and I know some heavy smokers. As a result, the overall level of tar in the lungs is usually significantly less than a normal cigarette smoker (which I would consider to be anywhere from a half pack to a full pack a day)

Please keep in mind, I'm not arguing it's good for you. Just that relative to other substances we've a precedent for being legal it's not in the same ballpark.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-01-2011, 08:04 AM
It really is. It also helps revive the patient's appetite (a side effect of chemo) and well it just makes them feel better.

And while there are certainly side effects of marijuana usage, I don't see anything that compares to most of the prescription drugs I see advertised on television.

Also, regarding the tar, to my knowledge we have not found any cases of someone who exclusively smoked marijuana developing lung cancer. There is tar of course, and it's actually a higher concentration than a cigarette, however, I have yet to meet anyone who smoked weed at the same interval that most normal smokers smoke cigarettes, and I know some heavy smokers. As a result, the overall level of tar in the lungs is usually significantly less than a normal cigarette smoker (which I would consider to be anywhere from a half pack to a full pack a day)

Please keep in mind, I'm not arguing it's good for you. Just that relative to other substances we've a precedent for being legal it's not in the same ballpark.

Because it isn't the tar, it's the Polonium(alpha emitter) used in the fertilizer.

Jaric
09-01-2011, 08:05 AM
Because it isn't the tar, it's the Polonium(alpha emitter) used in the fertilizer.

Would you mind expanding on that thought? (I hadn't heard that before)

KILLER_CLOWN
09-01-2011, 08:08 AM
Would you mind expanding on that thought? (I hadn't heard that before)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium

http://www.webspawner.com/users/radioactivethreat/

Ace Gunner
09-01-2011, 08:09 AM
It really is. It also helps revive the patient's appetite (a side effect of chemo) and well it just makes them feel better.

And while there are certainly side effects of marijuana usage, I don't see anything that compares to most of the prescription drugs I see advertised on television.

Also, regarding the tar, to my knowledge we have not found any cases of someone who exclusively smoked marijuana developing lung cancer. There is tar of course, and it's actually a higher concentration than a cigarette, however, I have yet to meet anyone who smoked weed at the same interval that most normal smokers smoke cigarettes, and I know some heavy smokers. As a result, the overall level of tar in the lungs is usually significantly less than a normal cigarette smoker (which I would consider to be anywhere from a half pack to a full pack a day)

Please keep in mind, I'm not arguing it's good for you. Just that relative to other substances we've a precedent for being legal it's not in the same ballpark.

Medical Marijuana Disclaimer;

Warning, marijuana can make the user hungry.

Ace Gunner
09-01-2011, 08:13 AM
as for cancer risks smoking pot, no evidence, though I would'nt argue it. If users smoked the 'kief' they would eliminate cancer risk altogether. making kief is a snap.

Ace Gunner
09-01-2011, 08:17 AM
Why?

just poking you :p

Brock
09-01-2011, 08:43 AM
I'm not against it being legalized (I wouldn't smoke it, though), but I think that today if smoking cigarettes were being decided on, I'm not sure that it would be legalized. Marijuana does have amounts of tar in it, and it may cause cancer after long term usage. I would be surprised if it is legalized. Again, it's not that I'm personally against legalizing it, but I do think the lung cancer groups and other health groups would put up a huge fight that most people would get behind.

Medical marijuana, on the other hand, for cancer patients, seems like a great tool for pain. I think it should be legalized, prescriptively.

Marijuana can be eaten or vaporized.

DenverChief
09-01-2011, 12:26 PM
I think the thing is, you can responsibly consume alcohol. I don't think you can really responsibly consume coke or heroin. Some people can, I guess, but not too many.

Charlie Sheen can!

KILLER_CLOWN
09-01-2011, 12:28 PM
Charlie Sheen can!

Dude does strafing runs in his underwear.

RubberSponge
09-01-2011, 01:30 PM
I'm not against it being legalized (I wouldn't smoke it, though), but I think that today if smoking cigarettes were being decided on, I'm not sure that it would be legalized. Marijuana does have amounts of tar in it, and it may cause cancer after long term usage. I would be surprised if it is legalized. Again, it's not that I'm personally against legalizing it, but I do think the lung cancer groups and other health groups would put up a huge fight that most people would get behind.

Medical marijuana, on the other hand, for cancer patients, seems like a great tool for pain. I think it should be legalized, prescriptively.

Public health effects are part of the con. Alcohol can cause cancer a well. Liver cancer through cirrhosis. As well as the ability to cause multiple organ failure and death.

At some point people just need to tell their politicians and their lobbyists no more lies or con games, or it's your head. No more stuffing of your pockets. No more filling of your buddies jails with non-violent offenders. But it will never happen because people(even the intelligent people)are weak, naive and uneducated on the matter to make a proper decision.

ChiefsCountry
09-01-2011, 01:33 PM
There is too many hands in the cookie jar on the WoD.

Radar Chief
09-01-2011, 01:37 PM
Dude does strafing runs in his underwear.

Tiger blood, Adonis DNA.

RubberSponge
09-01-2011, 01:38 PM
Marijuana can be eaten or vaporized.

Yes it can.

But the mode of injestion doesn't really matter. We could ban charcoal grills and smokers for public health if that was really the case. Do people think they aren't getting a higher concentration of carcinogens when they grill a steak rather than frying it in a pan. If it was about public health, we would ban fast food joints and peoples fry daddies as they clog their arteries on a daily basis. We should jail fat people when we see them eat a big mac. I could go on and on about the hypocrisy of the public health argument.

BucEyedPea
09-01-2011, 01:40 PM
I'm tired of all rhetorical wars that expand govt powers:

War on Poverty
War on Drugs
War on Terror


Govt just makes them worse and sometimes creates the problems that come from them. They also do not end because they can't be won.

Brock
09-01-2011, 01:41 PM
Yes it can.

But the mode of injestion doesn't really matter. We could ban charcoal grills and smokers for public health if that was really the case. Do people think they aren't getting a higher concentration of carcinogens when they grill a steak rather than frying it in a pan. If it was about public health, we would ban fast food joints and peoples fry daddies as they clog their arteries on a daily basis. We should jail fat people when we see them eat a big mac. I could go on and on about the hypocrisy of the public health argument.

Absolutely.

Inspector
09-01-2011, 02:19 PM
Yes it can.

But the mode of injestion doesn't really matter. We could ban charcoal grills and smokers for public health if that was really the case. Do people think they aren't getting a higher concentration of carcinogens when they grill a steak rather than frying it in a pan. If it was about public health, we would ban fast food joints and peoples fry daddies as they clog their arteries on a daily basis. We should jail fat people when we see them eat a big mac. I could go on and on about the hypocrisy of the public health argument.

I was saying this back in the 60's.

You are absolutley correct. (At least in my opinion)

go bowe
09-01-2011, 02:53 PM
LOL

Like anyone here believes you are a voice of reason around this place! ROFL

Thanks for the laugh!

either i'm not here or i'm not anyone, maybe both...

go bowe
09-01-2011, 02:58 PM
I would argue that drug legalization would lead to cartels falling apart. If the government allowed to produce it, and sell it, there would be no need for cartels. Oh, and we of course would tax the shit out of it.

Imagine that. Instead of spending billions of dollars a year on the war on drugs, we would make billions of dollars a year on taxing them. I wonder how that would bridge the budget gap.

this...

RedNeckRaider
09-01-2011, 03:05 PM
I would argue that drug legalization would lead to cartels falling apart. If the government allowed to produce it, and sell it, there would be no need for cartels. Oh, and we of course would tax the shit out of it.

Imagine that. Instead of spending billions of dollars a year on the war on drugs, we would make billions of dollars a year on taxing them. I wonder how that would bridge the budget gap.

This is just the government being the government. They just make it up as they go along. Crime rates have decreased since the 90s yet that does not stop the propaganda. Warnings on video games, movies, music "THEY ARE TOO VIOLENT! They cause crime to go up! The government needs to get the hell out of our lives. I don't smoke weed but think it is absolutely moronic for it to be illegal. I am not gay and have no gay friends or family that I know of and I also think it is absolutely moronic for it to be illegal for gays to get married. I am not saying I want anarchy and no laws, I am saying I want the god damn government to quit telling people how to live their lives~

Ace Gunner
09-01-2011, 03:25 PM
amen

Mr. Flopnuts
09-01-2011, 03:32 PM
This is just the government being the government. They just make it up as they go along. Crime rates have decreased since the 90s yet that does not stop the propaganda. Warnings on video games, movies, music "THEY ARE TOO VIOLENT! They cause crime to go up! The government needs to get the hell out of our lives. I don't smoke weed but think it is absolutely moronic for it to be illegal. I am not gay and have no gay friends or family that I know of and I also think it is absolutely moronic for it to be illegal for gays to get married. I am not saying I want anarchy and no laws, I am saying I want the god damn government to quit telling people how to live their lives~

I couldnt state it any better if I tried.

evenfall
09-01-2011, 03:59 PM
It really is. It also helps revive the patient's appetite (a side effect of chemo) and well it just makes them feel better.

And while there are certainly side effects of marijuana usage, I don't see anything that compares to most of the prescription drugs I see advertised on television.

Also, regarding the tar, to my knowledge we have not found any cases of someone who exclusively smoked marijuana developing lung cancer. There is tar of course, and it's actually a higher concentration than a cigarette, however, I have yet to meet anyone who smoked weed at the same interval that most normal smokers smoke cigarettes, and I know some heavy smokers. As a result, the overall level of tar in the lungs is usually significantly less than a normal cigarette smoker (which I would consider to be anywhere from a half pack to a full pack a day)

Please keep in mind, I'm not arguing it's good for you. Just that relative to other substances we've a precedent for being legal it's not in the same ballpark.

There is no way that burning combustible material and inhaling the fumes many millions of times in a person's life is not going to cause lung cancer, emphysema, or the rest.

I know that weed advocates generally think of this stuff as a wonderful, life giving nutrient that just might cure everything, but you can't habitually inhale combusted biomass and not experience negative respiratory effects, to say nothing of long term effect on the brain. It should be common sense, but then again maybe we are usually talking to stoners and shouldn't set the bar too high...

Brock
09-01-2011, 05:00 PM
There is no way that burning combustible material and inhaling the fumes many millions of times in a person's life is not going to cause lung cancer, emphysema, or the rest.

I know that weed advocates generally think of this stuff as a wonderful, life giving nutrient that just might cure everything, but you can't habitually inhale combusted biomass and not experience negative respiratory effects, to say nothing of long term effect on the brain. It should be common sense, but then again maybe we are usually talking to stoners and shouldn't set the bar too high...

This is irrelevant. The vegetation isn't the psychotropic ingredient, which could be manufactured synthetically and ingested safely any number of ways. But guess what, it's ILLEGAL. And why is that? There's no answer to that question.

Oh, and "long term effect on the brain" ROFL.