# Myles Rockwell busted for growing pot.....



## singltraxx (May 13, 2004)

In Durango. The cops seized 52 plants in a hydro operation at his house and arrested him. Here is a link to the Durango Herald.
http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bi...=news&article_path=/news/04/news040513_11.htm


----------



## Bulldozer (Jan 14, 2004)

singltraxx said:


> In Durango. The cops seized 52 plants in a hydro operation at his house and arrested him. Here is a link to the Durango Herald.
> http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type=news&article_path=/news/04/news040513_11.htm


Idiot. If you're going to do that crap at least don't get caught.


----------



## wg (Dec 20, 2003)

"Hopefully things turn out OK," he said.
Ha! 52 plants is probably a bit high (pun) for claiming private use?

Werner


----------



## Finch Platte (Nov 14, 2003)

*Jeez.*



singltraxx said:


> In Durango. The cops seized 52 plants in a hydro operation at his house and arrested him. Here is a link to the Durango Herald.
> http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bi...=news&article_path=/news/04/news040513_11.htm


Don't cops have anything better to do? Leave smokers alone and go after the real criminals.

I'll bet he needed it to assuage the pain of the many broken bones. That's what _I_ would say, anyhoo.

fp


----------



## YuriB (Jan 12, 2004)

*Bs*

Jeez- glad they're going after such hard a violent criminals.....


----------



## Ebo (Dec 30, 2003)

Finch Platte said:


> Don't cops have anything better to do? Leave smokers alone and go after the real criminals.
> 
> I'll bet he needed it to assuage the pain of the many broken bones. That's what _I_ would say, anyhoo.
> 
> fp


"Legalize it, don't criticize it". Wise words by Pete Tosh that still apply.


----------



## kitchenware (Jan 13, 2004)

I'm sorry, but that's just too effing funny. Is that a 'WTF was I thinking' moment or what! Jeeze, why own 'the store' and the responsibilities when you can just drop by now and again...


----------



## Hollywood (Dec 30, 2003)

*bad boys, bad boys, whatchoo gonna do?*



crash test dummy said:


> Jeez- glad they're going after such hard a violent criminals.....


http://www.canorml.org/news/fedmmjcases.html

Feds going after the medicinal/caregiver growers. Now THAT'S a Drug War I can support!  Go in guns a' blazin boys. Those cancer patients are a wily bunch...

agree it wasn't wise for MR to have so much on hand, but at least he's under the 100-plant "mandatory minimum" laws.

HW


----------



## LowCel (Jan 16, 2004)

Well I blame it on NORBA, after all if they were still giving out prize money the racers wouldn't have to find a second income.


----------



## upNdown (Jan 12, 2004)

*52 plants may not be too much for personal use...*



wg said:


> "Hopefully things turn out OK," he said.
> Ha! 52 plants is probably a bit high (pun) for claiming private use?
> 
> Werner


I knew a guy in college that grew quality stuff. He'd start out with 100 or more plants, but then as the grew, he'd "weed out" the lower quality ones. He probably only grew 10-15 plants to maturity, but since they were the best out of 100, he had some high quality stuff.

I don't endorse or condemm such things.


----------



## 02Slayer (Mar 5, 2004)

*52 plants?*

And to think some people claim that the inhalation of intoxicating combustable materials can make you lazy, apathetic, lack ambition, and damage higher order thinking skills. I think Miles has demonstrated careful planning, forward thinking, discipline, and go-getter gumption. And, he's showing that he's not greedy, just one plant per week for personal use only. 
Either that or that frisbee full of seeds he through out the window from cleaning last year's harvest were way more fertile than he gave them credit for.


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

*Hey now.*



zachdank said:


> every one knows freeride and weed are like pb&j


Let's not be blaming the Freeride movement on weed....Taurine is the true offender.


----------



## RobW (Jan 18, 2004)

"Investigators credit sheriff's Deputy Jerry Little with discovering the cultivation during a routine contact."

I wonder who he pissed off?


----------



## 02Slayer (Mar 5, 2004)

*or didn't*

Or didn't hook up with the free sack.


----------



## Fast Eddy (Dec 30, 2003)

*High electric bill = search warrant*

Glad we've got all those other pesky crimes like murder, sexual assault and terrorism and stuff under control. Keep safe.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=search+warrant+electric+bill


----------



## Zignzag (Jan 23, 2004)

"The seized marijuana was determined to be of extremely high quality," 

One way to find out! (cough cough)


----------



## Ebo (Dec 30, 2003)

Fast Eddy said:


> Glad we've got all those other pesky crimes like murder, sexual assault and terrorism and stuff under control. Keep safe.
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=search+warrant+electric+bill


Fourth story on that Google page is about a search warrant issued that lead to the discovery of a family that had a high electricity bill due to the normals demands that come with having three kids. Nice detective work being done on the tax payers $$$'s. Moral of story is that drug traffic goes on, the war is being lost, and pot smokers are not those who are committing real crimes.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

The problem is that we do not have the "guts" to enforce the laws and fight the war. If we started shooting drug dealers, on the spot or a day after the trial, you'd see a lot less. If you get caught dealing or doing, your life is over for the most part as it pertains to most professional situations, and since there is not much threat of bodily harm or death ("hey, I'll go to jail for a little while"), it is a problem. 

It is one problem that I have no idea how to solve. We are a compassionate society that requires hospitals to give care to anyone that walks in, we don't sentance people to death for petty crimes, and we don't mow down immigrants on the boarders with machine guns. Because we do not do these things, we are force to combat the problems for the most inneficiant way possible. If we just up and shot every drug dealer then I'd surmise that a lot of people would change VERY fast, and after the intialy "clean up" there wouldn't be much more of a problem after that. It sounds harsh, but that is what a WAR is and that is how a WAR on drugs would be won. 

I hope he goes down for it. I see the lack of motivation in a few of my friends that do the stuff, and I really doubt myles was really planning for his future. What, was he going to retire on selling drugs or something? The idiot should be looking to his future and how he is going to be able to retire and/or make money in the rest of his life. Maybe start a business, maybe work for a company, maybe get some education, whatever. It is totally idiodic. It makes sense of course when you are 17 or something, but when you get closer to 30 and you are growing 50-some-odd plants, it's simply stupid. There isn't a law against stupidity, but at least there are laws against drug dealing, abeit ones without much real consequence.


----------



## XC Jedi (Feb 8, 2004)

Jm. said:


> The problem is that we do not have the "guts" to enforce the laws and fight the war. If we started shooting drug dealers, on the spot or a day after the trial, you'd see a lot less. If you get caught dealing or doing, your life is over for the most part as it pertains to most professional situations, and since there is not much threat of bodily harm or death ("hey, I'll go to jail for a little while"), it is a problem.
> 
> It is one problem that I have no idea how to solve. We are a compassionate society that requires hospitals to give care to anyone that walks in, we don't sentance people to death for petty crimes, and we don't mow down immigrants on the boarders with machine guns. Because we do not do these things, we are force to combat the problems for the most inneficiant way possible. If we just up and shot every drug dealer then I'd surmise that a lot of people would change VERY fast, and after the intialy "clean up" there wouldn't be much more of a problem after that. It sounds harsh, but that is what a WAR is and that is how a WAR on drugs would be won.
> 
> I hope he goes down for it. I see the lack of motivation in a few of my friends that do the stuff, and I really doubt myles was really planning for his future. What, was he going to retire on selling drugs or something? The idiot should be looking to his future and how he is going to be able to retire and/or make money in the rest of his life. Maybe start a business, maybe work for a company, maybe get some education, whatever. It is totally idiodic. It makes sense of course when you are 17 or something, but when you get closer to 30 and you are growing 50-some-odd plants, it's simply stupid. There isn't a law against stupidity, but at least there are laws against drug dealing, abeit ones without much real consequence.


Very well said. Drug dealers in general will get no sympathy from me, nor will drug producers. I do feel bad that Myles made this choice, one that will quite likely haunt him for the rest of his life, but it was his choice.


----------



## Punker (Jan 19, 2004)

"Moral of story is that drug traffic goes on, the war is being lost, and pot smokers are not those who are committing real crimes"

An individual in my community was just found guilty, and sentenced to two life sentences, for murdering two people and attempting kill a third person. It was a bunch of "pot smokers" partying, the covicted "pot smoker" was a low level drug dealer. Everyone passed out, the convicted "pot smoker" woke up and found that less then a pound of his weed was missing. He was concened that his reputation would be tarnished by the other "pot smokers" stealing his stash. He left the party, went to his house got a 45 and returned only to shot three people, at close range, in the head. Two dead, one shot in the head and by some miracle survived. So I challenge your conclusion that "pot smokers are not those who are committing real crimes."


----------



## george_da_trog (Jul 1, 2003)

I hear he's got the glocoma really bad.

george


----------



## george_da_trog (Jul 1, 2003)

Another article.

http://www.velonews.com/race/mtn/articles/6065.0.html

george


----------



## Finch Platte (Nov 14, 2003)

*Hmmmm.*



george_da_trog said:


> I hear he's got the glocoma really bad.
> 
> george


Nice tits on the chicks in that cartoon. No _wonder_ you like it.

fp


----------



## Ebo (Dec 30, 2003)

I agree with your stance on our justice system on all counts. If we would just uphold the laws laid down and prosecuted accordingly, there would be far less of a problem. And this applies to all laws. Too many repeat offenders with drugs, violence, child molesting, etc. This being said, I feel marijuana is a soft drug. I see far more problems with alcohol abuse. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## briwear (Feb 7, 2004)

punker-
guilty by association eh? that guy was a murderer. just like a guy who murderers his girlfriend for cheating on him. should we outlaw monogamy because it was related to a murder?


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

Punker said:


> An individual in my community was just found guilty, and sentenced to two life sentences, for murdering two people and attempting kill a third person. It was a bunch of "pot smokers" partying, the covicted "pot smoker" was a low level drug dealer. Everyone passed out, the convicted "pot smoker" woke up and found that less then a pound of his weed was missing. He was concened that his reputation would be tarnished by the other "pot smokers" stealing his stash. He left the party, went to his house got a 45 and returned only to shot three people, at close range, in the head. Two dead, one shot in the head and by some miracle survived. So I challenge your conclusion that "pot smokers are not those who are committing real crimes."


The "pot smoker" in your story is a dumbass, and I'm sure he was a dumbass before he ever smoked pot. An individual in my community shot a man in the back and killed him because he thought he was stealing his car. The car was or should be insured, the pot (a pound can be worth $5000) was not, not that that would warrent killing someone. So I think car owners are the ones committing crimes. Did this "pot smoker" own a car?

As far as murdering anyone caught dealing? I hope that was an attempt at a joke. Jm. maybe you should start by killing your buddies who use, without users, there would be no dealers.


----------



## dsully575 (Feb 23, 2004)

As a member of the law enforcement community, I know first hand the affects of drug abuse on society. Well over half of all theft crimes are drug related--users stealing to get $$ to buy more dope(yes it is called DOPE for a reason!!!) Drug users can claim all they want that their using is a "victimless" crime, but everyone knows this is not the case. Granted, there are "more serious" criminals out there, but breaking the law is breaking the law. Now getting caught smoking dope is no reason to be handed a life sentence, but 52 plants is not a personal stash.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. A stupid old saying yes, but one that is very true. If you don't want to pay a speeding ticket fine--don't speed. Simple rules to live by. They are called laws for a reason.

Now--all you dopers feel free to tell me how wrong I am.......


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

DSDuke said:


> As a member of the law enforcement community, I know first hand the affects of drug abuse on society. Well over half of all theft crimes are drug related--users stealing to get $$ to buy more dope(yes it is called DOPE for a reason!!!) Drug users can claim all they want that their using is a "victimless" crime, but everyone knows this is not the case. Granted, there are "more serious" criminals out there, but breaking the law is breaking the law. Now getting caught smoking dope is no reason to be handed a life sentence, but 52 plants is not a personal stash.
> 
> If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. A stupid old saying yes, but one that is very true. If you don't want to pay a speeding ticket fine--don't speed. Simple rules to live by. They are called laws for a reason.
> 
> Now--all you dopers feel free to tell me how wrong I am.......


First, you make the assumption that all use is abuse. Second, ADDICTS who are out of control and out of money may steal to support their habit, but this effect is not limited to illegal drugs. As a member of the law enforcement community you should know that They also tend to be "petty" crimes. The most costly theft crimes are committed by scotch and wine drinking white collar businessmen. Third, the illegal status of the drugs only makes them more expensive. (thus requiring a down and out addict to steal more to support the habit) Third, stealing is a crime regardless of a persons status as a drug user, lock them up for that. For every negative act that you can blame on drug use, there is a criminal statute to cover it. Wasting your time, and taxpayer $ to try to stop the unstoppable is insane. And pointless.


----------



## mtnwing (Jan 13, 2004)

LowCel said:


> Well I blame it on NORBA, after all if they were still giving out prize money the racers wouldn't have to find a second income.


That's a good one!

I'd have to say the bike mfg's aren't angels either. Most have moved on to paying guys who are will to impersonate Evil Knievel vs talented DH race althletes.

The DH guys who were invaluable in helping the bike mfg's learn how to build bikes you can actually "huck" off a skyscraper and roll away fine, have ironically helped create their own biggest competitor for dollars - the freeride movement. Meanwhile the mfg's continue to reap the benefits without much concern for the collapse their dwindling support for the DH scene or showcasing the worlds best talent would create.

Take nothing away from some of the talent on the Freeride circuit. Clearly "some" of these guys are deserving of a check, but it's sad to see the carnage this has created on the DH scene regarding paychecks and teams. Cedric and a few others have been able to make the transition but the stakes are high and there are a lot of great athletes in DH that will never fit this scene.

This said state of our sport is enough to "drive a man to drinkin' (or smokin I guess!)

-mtnwing


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

zachdank said:


> you bring a new meaning to the word idiot.


It's called reality. You don't seem to be living in it.


----------



## XC Jedi (Feb 8, 2004)

Black Bart said:


> First, you make the assumption that all use is abuse. Second, ADDICTS who are out of control and out of money may steal to support their habit, but this effect is not limited to illegal drugs. As a member of the law enforcement community you should know that They also tend to be "petty" crimes. The most costly theft crimes are committed by scotch and wine drinking white collar businessmen. Third, the illegal status of the drugs only makes them more expensive. (thus requiring a down and out addict to steal more to support the habit) Third, stealing is a crime regardless of a persons status as a drug user, lock them up for that. For every negative act that you can blame on drug use, there is a criminal statute to cover it. Wasting your time, and taxpayer $ to try to stop the unstoppable is insane. And pointless.


What a crock of bologna. No matter how much you try to make excuses or try to divert attention to other possible sources of crime (no one is denying that there are other sources), DSDuke is right. Dope use is a crime and it supports crime (including violent crime). The "casual" user may genuinely believe (or not care) that he is not hurting others, but inevitably either he or the idiot he bought the crap from is going to do some serious harm to someone else. DSDuke (and myself) see it everyday. Maybe after you've been around the block a few times you will be in a position to speak on the subject.

Oh, and the assumption that all use of illegal drugs is abuse is absolutely correct!


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

XC Jedi said:


> What a crock of bologna. No matter how much you try to make excuses or try to divert attention to other possible sources of crime (no one is denying that there are other sources), DSDuke is right. Dope use is a crime and it supports crime (including violent crime). The "casual" user may genuinely believe (or not care) that he is not hurting others, but inevitably either he or the idiot he bought the crap from is going to do some serious harm to someone else. DSDuke (and myself) see it everyday. Maybe after you've been around the block a few times you will be in a position to speak on the subject.
> 
> Oh, and the assumption that all use of illegal drugs is abuse is absolutely correct!


Yeah, but you gotta admit it's a nearly endless amount of fun watching potheads try to justify it all....


----------



## dsully575 (Feb 23, 2004)

Black Bart said:


> First, you make the assumption that all use is abuse. Second, ADDICTS who are out of control and out of money may steal to support their habit, but this effect is not limited to illegal drugs. As a member of the law enforcement community you should know that They also tend to be "petty" crimes. The most costly theft crimes are committed by scotch and wine drinking white collar businessmen. Third, the illegal status of the drugs only makes them more expensive. (thus requiring a down and out addict to steal more to support the habit) Third, stealing is a crime regardless of a persons status as a drug user, lock them up for that. For every negative act that you can blame on drug use, there is a criminal statute to cover it. Wasting your time, and taxpayer $ to try to stop the unstoppable is insane. And pointless.


All use is abuse--I guaranty trying to quit would be harder than you think. Also, who cares if it is a petty theft crime. So an addict breaking into a car and stealing the radio and everything else in it is not that bad because compared to murder, it is "petty"?? Nice logic there. So you justify your dope habit as "ok" because some white collar businessman embezzels millions?? Also, addicts steal not so much because drugs are expensive because they are illegal, but because their addiction makes it impossible for them to hold down a job and earn money at all. Now, I'm not saying potheads are out of control addicts who can't hold down jobs, I know wealthy succesful people smoke as well. But against the law means against the law. If you break the law, whichever one it may be, no matter how strongly you agree or disagree with it, you deserve to be fined/prosecuted/imprisoned etc.

Stopping drunk driving, robberies and burglaries, assaults and homicides is also an impossible task. So by your logic we should stop fighting those as well??

Your argument was predictable and expected. I have heard it all a million times. Oh well, remember when we used to talk about mt bikes.....


----------



## mtnwing (Jan 13, 2004)

Jm. said:


> Yeah, but you gotta admit it's a nearly endless amount of fun watching potheads try to justify it all....


Hope he gets himself a good lawyer fast . . .

"I grew, watered, picked, and rolled . . . . but I never inhaled . . . and I definately never had sex with those plants, "high quality sinsemilla" - - - not sure what kind of legal defense will get you out of this mess, but it will surely need to be a creative one!

-mtnwing
www.carbonbicycles.com


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

XC Jedi said:


> What a crock of bologna. No matter how much you try to make excuses or try to divert attention to other possible sources of crime (no one is denying that there are other sources), DSDuke is right. Dope use is a crime and it supports crime (including violent crime). The "casual" user may genuinely believe (or not care) that he is not hurting others, but inevitably either he or the idiot he bought the crap from is going to do some serious harm to someone else. DSDuke (and myself) see it everyday. Maybe after you've been around the block a few times you will be in a position to speak on the subject.
> 
> Oh, and the assumption that all use of illegal drugs is abuse is absolutely correct!


So, are you and DSDuke beat cops? Whom do you spend more time dealing with and have more problems with, drunks or pot smokers? Do you like to have a beer after your shift? Is that abuse? Would it be abuse if you drank the same beer during prohibition? Remember the violence associated with alcohol trafficking during prohibition? Same thing with today's drug market.

Now, both you and DSDuke show what small minded individuals you are, you assume that someone who sees the futility of criminalizing pot must be a user and an addict. Well, surprise! I'm not. I also support keeping abortion legal, but I never intend on having one. Been around the block, yeah, been there, done that. The problem with being in law enforcement is the only people you have contact with are people with a problem. It's like the Midas man saying "every car I see needs a new transmission".


----------



## XC Jedi (Feb 8, 2004)

Black Bart said:


> So, are you and DSDuke beat cops? Whom do you spend more time dealing with and have more problems with, drunks or pot smokers? Do you like to have a beer after your shift? Is that abuse? Would it be abuse if you drank the same beer during prohibition? Remember the violence associated with alcohol trafficking during prohibition? Same thing with today's drug market.
> 
> Now, both you and DSDuke show what small minded individuals you are, you assume that someone who sees the futility of criminalizing pot must be a user and an addict. Well, surprise! I'm not. I also support keeping abortion legal, but I never intend on having one. Been around the block, yeah, been there, done that. The problem with being in law enforcement is the only people you have contact with are people with a problem. It's like the Midas man saying "every car I see needs a new transmission".


1. I'm not a cop, I'm a paramedic. 
2. No, I don't drink a beer after my shift, but I don't diss people who do. No, a beer off-duty is not abuse, when done responsibly. Beer is not an illegal drug (provided you are of age), thats what we were talking about, remember? Prohibition is not in effect. But along those lines, 50% of our calls are alcohol related. I have seen entire families, dads, moms, children, wiped out by irresponsible use of both alcohol and marijuana. I doubt that you've "been there, done that". When you see it, you won't forget it. 
3. I don't assume that you are a pot user, only someone who doesn't fully understand the ramifications of it. Yes, when I am called its usually for someone with a problem, thats the nature of the job. The other side of the coin is that you DON'T see the problems, only the "harmless" end user. Big difference.


----------



## dsully575 (Feb 23, 2004)

Black Bart said:


> So, are you and DSDuke beat cops? Whom do you spend more time dealing with and have more problems with, drunks or pot smokers? Do you like to have a beer after your shift? Is that abuse? Would it be abuse if you drank the same beer during prohibition? Remember the violence associated with alcohol trafficking during prohibition? Same thing with today's drug market.
> 
> Now, both you and DSDuke show what small minded individuals you are, you assume that someone who sees the futility of criminalizing pot must be a user and an addict. Well, surprise! I'm not. I also support keeping abortion legal, but I never intend on having one. Been around the block, yeah, been there, done that. The problem with being in law enforcement is the only people you have contact with are people with a problem. It's like the Midas man saying "every car I see needs a new transmission".


Thanks for the reply. You drive my point home more and more with each mindless word you type. You just agreed with me that drug trafficking is violent. No alcohol for me after my shift--I don't drink. If I lived during prohibition(and drank) I would not drink because as I said before--against the law means against the law. Why is it you can't seem to grasp that concept?? I don't only deal with people who have a problem. I'm not in uniform 24 hrs a day. I'm not surprised you are pro-choice on the abortion issue. Is that what you consider another "victimless" crime??

See, the simple fact of the matter is, is that drug users are drug users for one of two reasons: 1) You are an addict and can't stop, or 2)You could stop whenever you wanted, but you use drugs to fill a void or unhappy situation in your life. Without your drugs, you feel an emptiness. You use to forget whatever it is that makes you unhappy with your life.

It doesn't matter what you say to dispute this--it is true. You know it is. I feel sorry for you. It is sad and pathetic that you rely on dope to fill a void in your life. I pray for people in either of these two situations--i.e. all drug users. Can't you just get high on life--mt biking for instance??

Anyway, I've given my .02. Enough of this foolish bantering. I need to go clean my bike for tomorrows ride. Peace Bart


----------



## frank n. beans (Jan 19, 2004)

DSDuke said:


> If you break the law, whichever one it may be, no matter how strongly you agree or disagree with it, you deserve to be fined/prosecuted/imprisoned etc.


That is quite a generalization. Does that apply to all laws? In all countries? I doubt Dr. Martin Luther King would agree with you.


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

DSDuke said:


> If you break the law, whichever one it may be, no matter how strongly you agree or disagree with it, you deserve to be fined/prosecuted/imprisoned etc.


Nice. You ever drive faster than the speed limit? I'll bet you exceed the posted speed limit by at least an mph or two every day. Put your money where your mouth is and start sending the local police their just due in fines, or at least bring it to their attention that you're a habitual lawbreaker. After all, "you deserve to be fined/prosecuted/imprisoned etc."


----------



## NAHTNOJ (Jan 12, 2004)

DSDuke said:


> As a member of the law enforcement community, I know first hand the affects of drug abuse on society. Well over half of all theft crimes are drug related--users stealing to get $$ to buy more dope(yes it is called DOPE for a reason!!!) Drug users can claim all they want that their using is a "victimless" crime, but everyone knows this is not the case. Granted, there are "more serious" criminals out there, but breaking the law is breaking the law. Now getting caught smoking dope is no reason to be handed a life sentence, but 52 plants is not a personal stash.
> 
> If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. A stupid old saying yes, but one that is very true. If you don't want to pay a speeding ticket fine--don't speed. Simple rules to live by. They are called laws for a reason.
> 
> Now--all you dopers feel free to tell me how wrong I am.......


I don't smoke, never really felt the need to. For that matter, I don't like to take medicine unless I'm very sick on in extreme pain. However, I am a stauch defender of personal freedom. Arbitrary "rules to live by?" ********. That is tyranny. If my behavior does not have any consequences for you, give me one good reason why I should not be able to? There are none. Sorry, but the attitude you display in your last paragraph is what makes me hate members of the "law enforcement community" so much. If you took the time to explore the issues, rather than enforce what your superiors tell you to, you might not have such an absolutist perspective on the world.

Lets talk about the "victimless crime" angle. Is alcohol consumption a victimless equation? No. Drunk driving claims lives, and people die of liver cancer, etc. But the vast majority of drinkers can handle themselves. So we don't punish them. Yet you want to punish all smokers, no matter what? By "victims," I assume you refer to gang violence. There would be far fewer victims if the drugs were brought off the streets and into state-run stores, just like alcohol is. Pretty simple solution there, unless you would rather live in a society where freedom is restricted by expensive, arbitrary, and hopeless standards. Do you ever feel like you are beating your head against a wall? Ever ask why that may be and what a better approach might entail?

We treat alcoholism. We treat gambling addictions. Quite simply, there are people who lack personal control, and pot smokers are no exception. But why is the treatment of their (ab)use handled so differently than the abuse of an alcoholic?

There are LOTS of legal mind-altering substances out there. Prozac, Valium, Ritalin etc. Over 60% of my family psychicians patients are on some sort of anti-depressant or mood enhancing drug. No one is locking them up. It is all a matter of choice. Some people pop Valium, others smoke the reefer. I could go on and on about the political, economic, and socio-economic reasons for these discrepencies. But the basic question is, what business of yours is it to decide for them how they choose to deal with their problems?


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

So, your behavior is based on what others tell you to do, not from your own reasoning. Interesting. And telling.
Those aren't your $.02, so maybe you shouldn't be giving them away...


----------



## Ebo (Dec 30, 2003)

DSDuke said:


> Thanks for the reply. You drive my point home more and more with each mindless word you type. You just agreed with me that drug trafficking is violent. No alcohol for me after my shift--I don't drink. If I lived during prohibition(and drank) I would not drink because as I said before--against the law means against the law. Why is it you can't seem to grasp that concept?? I don't only deal with people who have a problem. I'm not in uniform 24 hrs a day. I'm not surprised you are pro-choice on the abortion issue. Is that what you consider another "victimless" crime??
> 
> See, the simple fact of the matter is, is that drug users are drug users for one of two reasons: 1) You are an addict and can't stop, or 2)You could stop whenever you wanted, but you use drugs to fill a void or unhappy situation in your life. Without your drugs, you feel an emptiness. You use to forget whatever it is that makes you unhappy with your life.
> 
> ...


I'm thinking you mean "drug abusers are drug abusers for one of two reasons". Because tomorrow morning I'm going to have a cup of coffee (drug), and it's not because I'm an addict and can't stop, or I am unhappy and/ or filling a void. Let's not go overboard on this whole thing. Nothing like a cup of joe, dropping the kids off at school, and getting out for a good ride. Cheers.


----------



## dsully575 (Feb 23, 2004)

Archdukeferdinand said:


> Nice. You ever drive faster than the speed limit?


No--I don't. It's quite easy to stay under the limit. Try it sometime.


----------



## NAHTNOJ (Jan 12, 2004)

DSDuke said:


> -against the law means against the law.


j e s u s c h r i s t !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you ever think that some laws might not be the best idea? That they may do more harm than good? That they may not be in the interests of social stability? The job of citizens in a free society is to voice their opposition to ideas they find to be unfair, and fight to change these things. Not to shrug, say "the law is the law," and give up. Its 2AM here, but your level of dumb has me so wound up that I can't get sleep.


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

DSDuke said:


> No--I don't. It's quite easy to stay under the limit. Try it sometime.


Woah bud. I typically drive 5 under and 10 under on the highway. That's the only way to get decent mileage in my jeep.


----------



## dsully575 (Feb 23, 2004)

NAHTNOJ said:


> I don't smoke, never really felt the need to. For that matter, I don't like to take medicine unless I'm very sick on in extreme pain. However, I am a stauch defender of personal freedom. Arbitrary "rules to live by?" ********. That is tyranny. If my behavior does not have any consequences for you, give me one good reason why I should not be able to? There are none. Sorry, but the attitude you display in your last paragraph is what makes me hate members of the "law enforcement community" so much. If you took the time to explore the issues, rather than enforce what your superiors tell you to, you might not have such an absolutist perspective on the world.
> 
> Lets talk about the "victimless crime" angle. Is alcohol consumption a victimless equation? No. Drunk driving claims lives, and people die of liver cancer, etc. But the vast majority of drinkers can handle themselves. So we don't punish them. Yet you want to punish all smokers, no matter what? By "victims," I assume you refer to gang violence. There would be far fewer victims if the drugs were brought off the streets and into state-run stores, just like alcohol is. Pretty simple solution there, unless you would rather live in a society where freedom is restricted by expensive, arbitrary, and hopeless standards. Do you ever feel like you are beating your head against a wall? Ever ask why that may be and what a better approach might entail?
> 
> ...


Well put, though a lot of it is still excuses. So you hate law enforcement?? Whatever. Is it because the only time you have had contact with a cop is when he was writing you a ticket?? So outlawing drugs is tyranny?? Hmm. That's a good one. Do you actually believe that lawmakers just threw darts at a board to decide what to legalize and what to outlaw?? Think about what went into making that law to begin with. Drug use is a behavior that affects others--whether you see it or not--which you haven't--I have.

I really couldn't care less about pot users. It's only a fine these days anyway. I don't deal with them that much---small potatos if you ask me.

Oh yeah--what business of mine is it to decide for people---I didn't decide, but I did take an oath to support the decision that was made.


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

Ebo said:


> I'm thinking you mean "drug abusers are drug abusers for one of two reasons".


In DSDukes world, there is no difference...


----------



## dsully575 (Feb 23, 2004)

Archdukeferdinand said:


> Nice. You ever drive faster than the speed limit? I'll bet you exceed the posted speed limit by at least an mph or two every day. Put your money where your mouth is and start sending the local police their just due in fines, or at least bring it to their attention that you're a habitual lawbreaker. After all, "you deserve to be fined/prosecuted/imprisoned etc."


Nice edit after I replied to your first version. Chill dude--it's OK


----------



## dsully575 (Feb 23, 2004)

NAHTNOJ said:


> j e s u s c h r i s t !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you ever think that some laws might not be the best idea? That they may do more harm than good? That they may not be in the interests of social stability? The job of citizens in a free society is to voice their opposition to ideas they find to be unfair, and fight to change these things. Not to shrug, say "the law is the law," and give up. Its 2AM here, but your level of dumb has me so wound up that I can't get sleep.


Chill dude--I was talking about drug use. Sucks for you that this converstion is keeping you up. That sucks. So sorry you think my differing opinion makes me "dumb". Whatever. Take a deep breath and go to bed. You sound tired.


----------



## Sapper (Jan 22, 2004)

They also tend to be "petty" crimes ?!?!?!

I never would've thought having a gun in your face while someone emptied your pockets, or your head smashed in with a metal pipe, or being shot, stabbed, beaten, burnt, etc would be considered "petty" crimes. Or how about "renting out" your 10 year old daughter so you could scrape together $20? Is it "petty" when someone breaks into your car and takes the stereo out in 30 seconds that it took you a month to save up for? How about when you come home from work and find everything of value in your home gone? Is it "petty" that now society has to pay for your food, housing, & healthcare that you are unable to provide for yourself becaue of physical and/or mental disabilities that were caused solely by your self-induced chemical dependency? The majority of the calls/crimes I deal with 24/7 are drug related. And to the victim, there's no such thing as a "petty" crime.

That being said, we will never cut off the supply of drugs, we can only reduce the demand. The only way to reduce the demand is to make the consequences outweigh the "fun factor". There's lots of trash on the streets and ditches need digging.....


"we're fighting a war we can't win, but it's a war we can't afford to lose.".... Choke


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

DSDuke said:


> Nice edit after I replied to your first version. Chill dude--it's OK


Nah, I hadn't yet read your reply. I simply thought I I had been brusque in the first response. Typed a lot more and ended up deleting it because it wasn't on point and was stuff that was more about the philosophical ideals of laws. Too many folks flying off the handle on this topic.

But I digress. This isn't an argument worth having (pot heads V. anti-drug zealots). 
Both sides refuse to deal in reality because their agendas are a bit extreme


----------



## frank n. beans (Jan 19, 2004)

DSDuke said:


> Think about what went into making that law to begin with.


Actually if you read into the history of marijuana prohibition you might find out that it probably is not illegal for the reasons that you think. Look up the history of Harry Anslinger, it is an interesting read no matter how you feel about the topic.


----------



## dsully575 (Feb 23, 2004)

Archdukeferdinand said:


> Nah, I hadn't yet read your reply. I simply thought I I had been brusque in the first response. Typed a lot more and ended up deleting it because it wasn't on point and was stuff that was more about the philosophical ideals of laws. Too many folks flying off the handle on this topic.
> 
> But I digress. This isn't an argument worth having (pot heads V. anti-drug zealots).
> Both sides refuse to deal in reality because their agendas are a bit extreme


I couldn't agree more. I'll just say this. I do what I do to try to make the world a better place. I don't pat myself on the back, and I'm not tooting my own horn. I know I'm right when I say "we all" do what we can to make the world a better place. I have no beefs with anyone here. We are all brothers and sisters in the vast scheme of things. And we are all here on this board because we love biking. That's a good enough reason for me. I'd be happy and honored to ride with anyone here.

Now I really have to go clean my bike for tomorrow's ride--it's late here. Peace y'all


----------



## Tracerboy (Oct 13, 2002)

DSDuke said:


> Oh yeah--what business of mine is it to decide for people---I didn't decide, but I did take an oath to support the decision that was made.


That's great, I didn't realize you were a police officer. Of COURSE you never speed. You are the speed limit  I've been friends with too many cops to get pissed at them for doing their jobs.

For the 2% of the time you have legitimate reasont to dislike police, you have 98% of the time to thank them.

Now what I'd like to know is would you have asked miles for his autograph if you'd arrested him?


----------



## dsully575 (Feb 23, 2004)

I'll just end with this. I do what I do to try to make the world a better place. I don't pat myself on the back, and I'm not tooting my own horn. I know I'm right when I say "we all" do what we can to make the world a better place. I have no beefs with anyone here. We are all brothers and sisters in the vast scheme of things. And we are all here on this board because we love biking. That's a good enough reason for me. I'd be happy and honored to ride with anyone here.

Now I really have to go clean my bike for tomorrow's ride--it's late here. Peace y'all


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

Armed robbery, assault, attempted murder, whoring out your child, these are not petty crimes, never said they were. They all rise above a simple "theft crime". Also DSDuke contends that over half of all theft crimes are drug related. An interesting "fact" he came up with since most theft crimes go unsolved. 

The "majority" of the calls you deal with are drug related? You must be including alcohol. Or are you a drug abuse counselor?

Personally, I don't care if someone wants to do drugs, but if their drug use leads to other crimes, arrest and punish them for those crimes.


----------



## Shockee (Jan 16, 2004)

*reality according to Nancy Reagan*



Jm. said:


> It's called reality. You don't seem to be living in it.


What's with the reefer madness?

Who is to say your acquaintances doing pot wouldn't be just as lazy without the stuff.

I personally know many accomplished academics, a top-drawer corporate lawyer, other professionals, artists and businesspeople that regularly use the stuff as I use alcohol - no ill effects, no lack of motivation, measurable financial prosperity.

You assume that the drug of THC is equal in its effect to all other illegal drugs. It is not. It is in a minor league of ill effects - probably with less ill effect that alcohol. Sure, you shouldn't drive a car or go to work after a toke, but you better lay off alcoho and many overthecounter cold medicines. Benzodiazapines are another example of legal drugs that are far more destructive, addictive, and rampantly abused.

I don't use MJ, I dislike the idea of inhaling burning fumes. I have tried it and may again, though.

I laughed at the excerpt from Prez Reagan when he said something like: 'we haven't even begun to know the ill effects of this drug of marijuana ... but I am sure that it is a terrible and destructive drug' - contradicting himself in that very statement. Every scientific study performed has disproved any and all claims of ill effects from THC in Marijuana smoke. The few studies that did find ill effects were not only tainted with political bias, but 100% unreliable and ruled invalid upon sober academic peer scutiny. MJ enemies really want to believe in the bogeyman, and politicians know that fear breeds votes; thereby, they have been selling this BS for 3 decades or more.


----------



## Sapper (Jan 22, 2004)

Nope, just an inner-city beat cop in a mid-size east coast city, with a "big-city" drug problem. The 50% question? That comes from statistics compiled from interviewing users and others who have been arrested stealing. Depending where you live that number may be higher or lower. My response was to the post implying that drug users only commit "petty"crimes. There is no such thing to the victim. Without the user there would be no dealer, without the dealer there would be no smuggler, without the smuggler there would be no narco-terrorists in Central/South America murdering Judges, Police, and politicians and kidnapping Europeans and Americans. America's fondness for recreational drug use has destroyed more lives in that part of the world than any other cause. Been there, seen it, was a soldier before I became a cop. Probally why I enjoy arresting users as much as the dealers, they're all one big, happy family.

We could go on all night about our revolving door justice system, world politics and the morality of any law out there and get nowhere. You are going to do what you want to do (this is not directed at you personally Black Bart), no matter what anyone else says, but don't demean the victim's by calling a crime "petty". And on this note I'm going to sleep, I'm working nights tomorrow and I want to wake up early enought to go for a ride.


----------



## gonzostrike (Jan 3, 2004)

> That being said, we will never cut off the supply of drugs, we can only reduce the demand. The only way to reduce the demand is to make the consequences outweigh the "fun factor". There's lots of trash on the streets and ditches need digging.....


this is so self-centered as to be bordering on arrogant.

I know of one other SIGNIFICANTLY more successful way to reduce the demand: REDUCE THE DEMAND. people use drugs because they want an escape. what do they want to escape? their lives, the ugly facts of their depressing lives. maybe they're so sad and/or alienated that they don't even care that it's illegal. or maybe they just ignore the illegality as a peaceful means of protest, as Gandhi or MLKJr would have urged. have you never heard the saying "a law that is amoral has no legal force"? why do you think people habitually break the speed limit? to piss you off? do you take it so personally?

do you think people use illegal drugs simply to piss you off? why are you so angry at them? why are you so eager to INCREASE THE PUNISHMENT?

do you think people make more durable decisions when those decisions were made with free will?

or do you think that free will is irrelevant?

please explain your position. I don't understand it.


----------



## irieness (Feb 22, 2004)

Sapper said:


> Nope, just an inner-city beat cop in a mid-size east coast city, with a "big-city" drug problem. The 50% question? That comes from statistics compiled from interviewing users and others who have been arrested stealing. Depending where you live that number may be higher or lower. My response was to the post implying that drug users only commit "petty"crimes. There is no such thing to the victim. Without the user there would be no dealer, without the dealer there would be no smuggler, without the smuggler there would be no narco-terrorists in Central/South America murdering Judges, Police, and politicians and kidnapping Europeans and Americans. America's fondness for recreational drug use has destroyed more lives in that part of the world than any other cause. Been there, seen it, was a soldier before I became a cop. Probally why I enjoy arresting users as much as the dealers, they're all one big, happy family.
> 
> We could go on all night about our revolving door justice system, world politics and the morality of any law out there and get nowhere. You are going to do what you want to do (this is not directed at you personally Black Bart), no matter what anyone else says, but don't demean the victim's by calling a crime "petty". And on this note I'm going to sleep, I'm working nights tomorrow and I want to wake up early enought to go for a ride.


Sapper..DS...and the rest of you all out for the "war on drugs"....You seem to have forgotten to whom you are speaking to on this forum and the people you arrest in the "Inner Cities"...you all seem to be speaking of marijuana and referring to it as dope...MJ in not dope...it's only referred to as dope by narrow minded people who lack the ability for independent thinking and listen to everything the government tells them...Dope to the drug counterculture- the people who actually are around it rather than trying to bust it- refers to much harder drugs such as methamphetamines and heroin...You speak of marijuana users as if we're all junkies and addicts and live in the projects...many MJ users are upstanding, well educated, and prosperous citizens of this country...the only difference between us and you is that we understand MJ doesn't have a negative effect on all users...give me a statistic that isn't tainted by politics that says MJ EVER killed anyone that was ONLY using MJ...I bet you every statistic you can find says they were on at least one other drug...most likely alcohol...If you really want to fight drugs that kill people take alcohol and cigarettes off the market and see how many deaths that reduces each year...guarantee it will be hundreds of thousands more than if you erradicated marijuana off the planet...The problem with your affiliation with marijuana is that you work as cops in the inner city...the drug use and abuse is a whole different ball game in the neighborhoods you're speaking of...the problems there happen to stem from the environment and culture they're brought up in...doesn't start with the fact that they use marijuana...and I'm generalizing when I say this...I know not all inner city people come from broken homes and poverty...and the other problem with your generalization is that the majority of these people are most likely also meth users...and there's no comparison between MJ and meth...and as far as MJ users and dealers in the US supporting drug militias in South America...that's only true if you're talking about imported Mexican dirt weed...(Or else you're generalizing your reference to "dope" and including cocaine and heroine)..if you all would just open up your minds and think for yourselves and let us grow MJ in the States legally....then there would be no need to import crappy dirt weed and thus supporting Drug Lords in South America who feel the need to mix violence with the wonderful world of MJ...luckily, I live in Cali and have no need to support mexi weed...and I will say that some people are lazy and unmotivated on MJ...and they shouldn't use it or at least abuse it then...but many people are allergic and have different reactions to different medications...why would it be different with marijuana?? doesn't mean we ALL can't use it...and it's also comforting to know that someone with a gun and a license to shoot thinks that all users should be shot...that was such an intelligent statement there's really no need for much more response...peace to y'all...and I will add my statements towards the cops does not come from a hatred of cops...my brother is a detective and I love him very much...but it doesn't mean his lack of motivation to be an independent thinker makes me love him or any other cop any less...(and my edit was only a grammatical error that I HAD to correct)


----------



## Jive Tolkien (Jan 12, 2004)

I'm enjoying the "pot smoker = hopeless thieving drug addict" equation that's been drawn in this thread.

By the same reasoning, "beer drinker = hopeless alcoholic and drunk driver".


----------



## RobW (Jan 18, 2004)

DSDuke said:


> as I said before--against the law means against the law. Why is it you can't seem to grasp that concept?? I don't only deal with people who have a problem. I'm not in uniform 24 hrs a day. I'm not surprised you are pro-choice on the abortion issue. Is that what you consider another "victimless" crime??


It was against the law to be Jewish in Germany in 1939, so I guess had you been there, you would gladly have rounded those lawbreakers up, huh? Legal doesn't mean ethical or moral. Abortion - I'm gonna guess you are a Christian, right? Ever read the book of Daniel? Nebachadnezzar had an epiphany that Daniel's God was the one true God, but still didn't get that He only wants you to follow Him willingly, and so tried to legislate his (Neb's) version of morality. I'd agree that gov't funding of abortion is wrong (I personally find it the wrong course of action, but wouldn't dream of imposing my moral code on someone else), but you outlaw it and there will be many, worse problems to deal with as a direct result. Judge not lest ye be judged, hey?

Edited for clarity, and to say I do respect the law enforcement community, one tough job man, you get to deal with the worst, all the time.


----------



## Punker (Jan 19, 2004)

"Moral of story is that drug traffic goes on, the war is being lost, and pot smokers are not those who are committing real crimes"


Where in my post did I mention guilt by association? If I did, please point out where. I was responding to the above quote that indicates "pot smokers" are not those who are committing real crimes. No where in my response did I make any reference to the legalization/prohibition of drugs.


----------



## Old Oi Punk (Sep 8, 2003)

*While I'm not condoning nor condemming......*



Punker said:


> "Moral of story is that drug traffic goes on, the war is being lost, and pot smokers are not those who are committing real crimes"
> 
> Where in my post did I mention guilt by association? If I did, please point out where. I was responding to the above quote that indicates "pot smokers" are not those who are committing real crimes. No where in my response did I make any reference to the legalization/prohibition of drugs.


....I still think in a country that gives a nod and wink to alcohol and cigarrettes, considering that alcohol can outright kill you, the reasons for the illegalization of the herb seem like a joke. I know a few HIGHLY (no pun intended) motivated people that smoke it, and have for decades. The list includes lawyers, a medical doctor(!!), a couple of SUCCESSFUL business owners. If my job did not have a drug testing policy, I probably would be partaking. So, brainiacs, tell me how pot is more dangerous than alcohol, and let's quit acting like pot smokers are "Cheech and Chongs" with no motivations or plans! There are MANY more casual users than abusers (potheads)!


----------



## Jim Beam (Dec 22, 2003)

*Yep. You're wrong.*



DSDuke said:


> Well over half of all theft crimes are drug related--users stealing to get $$ to buy more .
> 
> Now--all you dopers feel free to tell me how wrong I am


Roll your eyes all you want, DS, but you are wrong when you assume that people who smoke pot are the ones committing crimes. People who steal daily to buy drugs are using highly addictive stuff like crack, meth, and heroin.


----------



## Boy named SSue (Jan 7, 2004)

[Without the user there would be no dealer, without the dealer there would be no smuggler, without the smuggler there would be no narco-terrorists in Central/South America murdering Judges, Police, and politicians and kidnapping Europeans and Americans. America's fondness for recreational drug use has destroyed more lives in that part of the world than any other cause. Been there, seen it, was a soldier before I became a cop. Probally why I enjoy arresting users as much as the dealers, they're all one big, happy family.
]

Colorado? I thought we were talking about Rockwell.

I don't see how homegrown and distributed ties into this unless we are still going on the gateway drug thing.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Shockee said:


> What's with the reefer madness?
> 
> Who is to say your acquaintances doing pot wouldn't be just as lazy without the stuff.
> 
> ...


Actually I do know because I knew these people before they started smoking pot. I know what it has done to their motivation, I know what it has done to ruin a lot of their life plans. While there might be plenty of academics, scientists, businessmen, professionals, that smoke the stuff, I'd wager that within their fields, they are not "leaders". We had a professor (not in my college thank god, but in the same university) that was bused a few years ago, and he was (and still is) a looser for the most part.

I've known a lot of people that smoke the stuff, but I can't think of any of those that are exceptionally motivated, focused, or leaders within their field.


----------



## butocabra (Jan 12, 2004)

*sad to see someone so ill informed.*



DSDuke said:


> Do you actually believe that lawmakers just threw darts at a board to decide what to legalize and what to outlaw?? Think about what went into making that law to begin with. Drug use is a behavior that affects others--whether you see it or not--which you haven't--I have.


Wow, did someone leave their critical thinking skills in their other pants? Do me a favor and read "Ain't nobody's business if you do". It's all about 'consensual' crimes. If you actually choose to read it, you'll learn a few things about why marijuana was criminalized, and alcohol (temprence and prohibition aside) isn't. There are lots of motives for laws, like providing for a level playing field in business, prohibiting violence, etc. The worst motive (IMHO) is private morality (as distinguished from public morality). "You shouldn't do this, even though it only affects you, because I think its wrong". That's no basis for a law.

The crimes associated with drug use (operating a vehicle, theft, etc) are already crimes. They're crimes because they affect the person or property of another. No one is debating the justice of these laws. Possesion of a drug is a crime because lawmakers think it's bad to take some drugs (pot,coke, heroin, etc), but not others (alcohol, tabacco, caffine). Ask yourself (if you still have any critical thinking skills left) whether you think both sets of laws are equally just. If it helps you think better, just replace the words pot with beer in any of your arguments, and see if they make sense.


----------



## Shockee (Jan 16, 2004)

Jm. said:


> Actually I do know because I knew these people before they started smoking pot. I know what it has done to their motivation, I know what it has done to ruin a lot of their life plans. While there might be plenty of academics, scientists, businessmen, professionals, that smoke the stuff, I'd wager that within their fields, they are not "leaders". We had a professor (not in my college thank god, but in the same university) that was bused a few years ago, and he was (and still is) a looser for the most part.
> 
> I've known a lot of people that smoke the stuff, but I can't think of any of those that are exceptionally motivated, focused, or leaders within their field.


1st of all, using anecdotes for your findings is hardly scientific. For rebuttal, I could just say that 'if you take drug X in sufficient quantities every single day, you're pretty likely to fick up your life - no matter what X is (might even be true for excessive food consumption). This leaves out the vast majority of responsible users that toke only a couple times a month or year, and tars them with the same brush as your anecdote's idiots.'


----------



## Drewdane (Dec 19, 2003)

*Like I posted in "General"*



singltraxx said:


> In Durango. The cops seized 52 plants in a hydro operation at his house and arrested him. Here is a link to the Durango Herald.
> http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bi...=news&article_path=/news/04/news040513_11.htm


Poor baby - broke the law and got caught. Whether pot should or should not be illegal is beside the point.


----------



## seenvic (Sep 9, 2003)

DSDuke said:


> If I lived during prohibition(and drank) I would not drink because as I said before--against the law means against the law. Why is it you can't seem to grasp that concept?? I don't only deal with people who have a problem. I'm not in uniform 24 hrs a day. I'm not surprised you are pro-choice on the abortion issue. Is that what you consider another "victimless" crime??


If Jefferson had adopted this theory, he'd have paid the King his taxes and we'd all be paying them today. There would be no USA and we'd all be subjects of England.

I thought abortion was legal. How can it be a called a crime at all, under the law and not your opinion?

Think our policy is working? http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/5/836

As a person with a viewpoint that a small gov't is good, it seems like a waste of money.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Shockee said:


> 1st of all, using anecdotes for your findings is hardly scientific. For rebuttal, I could just say that 'if you take drug X in sufficient quantities every single day, you're pretty likely to fick up your life - no matter what X is (might even be true for excessive food consumption). This leaves out the vast majority of responsible users that toke only a couple times a month or year, and tars them with the same brush as your anecdote's idiots.'


well why did you say it in the first place if you knew it wasn't scientific?

You felt the need to "argue" with me about all the outstanding members of society that are potheads, and then when I say that I don't know any and that the potheads I know are not the brightest stars, you suddenly get defensive and say that my comment was worthless. You made your own comment worthless though by your own reasoning, so it begs the question, why did you say it in the first place?

See what pot does to your mind?


----------



## ShivaSteve (Jan 15, 2004)

*what year is this?*

"If I lived during prohibition(and drank) I would not drink because as I said before--against the law means against the law. Why is it you can't seem to grasp that concept??"

"It doesn't matter what you say to dispute this--it is true."

OCEANIA IS AT WAR WITH EASTASIA
OCEANIA HAS ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH EAST ASIA

Freedom is slavery, huh?


----------



## Boy named SSue (Jan 7, 2004)

Jm. said:


> well why did you say it in the first place if you knew it wasn't scientific?
> 
> You felt the need to "argue" with me about all the outstanding members of society that are potheads, and then when I say that I don't know any and that the potheads I know are not the brightest stars, you suddenly get defensive and say that my comment was worthless. You made your own comment worthless though by your own reasoning, so it begs the question, why did you say it in the first place?
> 
> See what pot does to your mind?


His point was that if your evidence is an isolated anecdote, he can rebuff it with his own. He used it as an example of the flaw in how you build your argument. Shouldn't be that tough to figure out for such a bright star as yourself.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Boy named SSue said:


> His point was that if your evidence is an isolated anecdote, he can rebuff it with his own. He used it as an example of the flaw in how you build your argument. Shouldn't be that tough to figure out for such a bright star as yourself.


well, it is hilarious

he says "I know X people that are contributing members of society and smoke pot"

so I say; "The potheads I know do not contribute much, if anything, to society"

he says "Thats not scientific!! waahhhh!!!"

I say "Yeah, so why did you bring it up?"


----------



## RobW (Jan 18, 2004)

Insert your own comment in lieu of the stupid comment I just made here __________


----------



## Boy named SSue (Jan 7, 2004)

RobW said:


> Hey - I think he's bin smokin dope or sumthin!!!


Tried it a few times, never really took to the stuff. Haven't smoked it or anything since '94. I just try to keep an open mind. Try not to accuse me of something when you know little of me. Judgemental self-richeous prick.


----------



## RobW (Jan 18, 2004)

Boy named SSue said:


> Tried it a few times, never really took to the stuff. Haven't smoked it or anything since '94. I just try to keep an open mind. Try not to accuse me of something when you know little of me. Judgemental self-richeous prick.


Wasn't talkin about you...


----------



## Boy named SSue (Jan 7, 2004)

RobW said:


> Wasn't talkin about you...


Of course not, that's why you had a quote from me in there. Nice edit Bob.


----------



## RobW (Jan 18, 2004)

Boy named SSue said:


> Of course not, that's why you had a quote from me in there. Nice edit Bob.


was agreeing with you that the other guy didn't get it, shitheel


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

lol!!!


----------



## moonraker (Jan 22, 2004)

XC Jedi said:


> What a crock of bologna. No matter how much you try to make excuses or try to divert attention to other possible sources of crime (no one is denying that there are other sources), DSDuke is right. Dope use is a crime and it supports crime (including violent crime). The "casual" user may genuinely believe (or not care) that he is not hurting others, but inevitably either he or the idiot he bought the crap from is going to do some serious harm to someone else. DSDuke (and myself) see it everyday. Maybe after you've been around the block a few times you will be in a position to speak on the subject.
> 
> Oh, and the assumption that all use of illegal drugs is abuse is absolutely correct!


Drugs should be legalized.

If drugs were legal, we would have less crime and fewer break-ins; we would be much safer in our homes.

Our drug laws are neither practical nor humane. Drugs are here whether we like it or not and are here to stay. It's time Americans and Canadians all stood tall and told the police and politicians to butt out of our private lives.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

moonraker said:


> Drugs should be legalized.
> 
> If drugs were legal, we would have less crime and fewer break-ins; we would be much safer in our homes.
> 
> Our drug laws are neither practical nor humane. Drugs are here whether we like it or not and are here to stay. It's time Americans and Canadians all stood tall and told the police and politicians to butt out of our private lives.


Your pot-induced narrow-mindedness fails to consider all the people that would be suffering because of drugs, whether it is as a result of frying your brain and body on PCP or heroin, or simply from addiction and not being able to hold down a job or whatever.

Now, I would agree to your suggestion if we could pass the law in such a way to exclude drug users from medicare and heath insurance. In other words if they choose to F-up their bodys, let them do it on their own money of if they have none, just let them die off. While this makes perfect logical sense, it doesn't make much sense morally, and society would have to foot-the bill. I don't want to pay for junkies and others. This might not happen if just "pot" was legalized, but I noticed you are saying "all drugs".

If "all drugs" are legalized...thats fine, but let them screw themselves up without affecting us. If you want society to pay for it in terms of taxes, hospitals that give out care to anyone (instead of just letting junkies die) and rehab programs, then screw that and screw you, I aint paint for that.

You are fooling yourself if you think that "all problems" would go away. Yes, some violence associated with dealing probably would, but you are completely ignoring the costs that society would have to foot. If you got some sort of plan, or you are going to foot the cost yourself with the billions of dollars that you have, go right ahead then.


----------



## Shockee (Jan 16, 2004)

Jm. said:


> well, it is hilarious
> 
> he says "I know X people that are contributing members of society and smoke pot"
> 
> ...


Because your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that the drug is universally detrimental. I think the onus is on you to prove that the drug is more unsafe than alcohol, not on MJ users to prove that it is safe. In reality, however, there have been studies of the effects of THC on the brain which conclude that there is no long term effect of the drug.

The only ill effects from the profusion of marijuana is the few cases of addiction + the efforts of the brainwashed law enforcement and exective branch. The crime exists expressly because the drug had been ARBITRARILY ruled illegal beginning largely under the Nixon administration. Such laws tweaked the market to limit supply and demand drove up the prices followed by the motivation to commit crimes. If every pothead could buy a joint at the cold beer and wine store, I would bet there would be less crime among MJ users than among the general population.


----------



## toad (Jan 29, 2004)

. . . So any use of an ILLEGAL drug is abuse? How did you conclude that logic? Alcohol is by FAR a much worse problem in this nation than mj. Here in New Mexico drunk driving is a huge killer. It is the PEOPLE who are behaving irresponsibley that do the damage, not the drug of choice. When you say one drug is worse than another just because it is illegal, you sound like a real idiot. 

I have used mj frequently in the past, and still would today if it was more available. People who grow mj for personal use are, in fact, more responsible as they choose to not support the drug delivery system that often involves less than desirable people. What gives you the right to judge these individuals as worse than people who drink casually? What the hell is the difference? If you drink casually, you CANNOT denounce the occasional smoker. And if you drink alot, don't think you're any better than a pothead. I see nothing wrong with being a casual drinker or smoker. -t


----------



## butocabra (Jan 12, 2004)

*reality check time...*



Jm. said:


> ...society would have to foot-the bill. I don't want to pay for junkies and others. This might not happen if just "pot" was legalized, but I noticed you are saying "all drugs".
> 
> If "all drugs" are legalized...thats fine, but let them screw themselves up without affecting us. If you want society to pay for it in terms of taxes, hospitals that give out care to anyone (instead of just letting junkies die) and rehab programs, then screw that and screw you, I aint paint for that.
> ...
> you are completely ignoring the costs that society would have to foot. If you got some sort of plan, or you are going to foot the cost yourself with the billions of dollars that you have, go right ahead then.


Uh Jim, you're completely ignoring the costs that we pay right now to jail someone for a consensual crime. Treatment programs are much cheaper than jail time. If you're that concerned about how your taxes are spent, you should be for decriminalization.


----------



## Old Oi Punk (Sep 8, 2003)

*Some laws are absurd and outdated....*

Like the backward laws that make it illegal to have certain types of sex, even if it is your legal spouse, but most married couples do it anyway, so should they be put in prison for, say, oral sex. By your arguments "it is against the law" you are saying they should be arrested!! Please, the reasons for pot being illegal are a joke. I am all for outlawing alcohol, and I will vote for a politician that is willing to try to make it illegal. Might reduce the number of innocent people killed by f#^king drunks! Get over the "law" part, and explain, using independantly funded research results( not the biased, slanted Gov. funded crap!), how pot is more dangerous than alcohol, and if pot ISN'T more dangerous, then why the hell do we want to keep alcohol legal!? I'll check back on Monday for an intelligent response to this question, in the mean time, I'm going camping/Mountain biking this weekend.
Freedom is slavery, huh?[/QUOTE]


----------



## B R H (Jan 13, 2004)

*But it would probably be cheaper and more effective to legalize most drugs.*

Wasn't that something that has already been proven historically thru the immense failure of prohibition?

I don't use or endorse the use of drugs, but it seems plainly obvious to me that their being illegal causes more problems than it solves.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

butocabra said:


> Uh Jim, you're completely ignoring the costs that we pay right now to jail someone for a consensual crime. Treatment programs are much cheaper than jail time. If you're that concerned about how your taxes are spent, you should be for decriminalization.


Um, eric, he was talking about "all drugs", not just MJ. Heroin, cocain, etc. These aren't very "casual" and neither are the effects.


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

Jm., have you gone out and murdered your user buddies yet?


----------



## slowride (Jan 13, 2004)

I heard a rumour that he was working as sort of a trainer for the Santa Cruz race team. He was probably just trying to do his job...



Drewdane said:


> Poor baby - broke the law and got caught. Whether pot should or should not be illegal is beside the point.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Jm. said:


> but I can't think of any of those that are exceptionally motivated, focused, or leaders within their field.


Heard of the Beatles? 

There are thousands of famous artist who are associated with drug use. If fact I'm speculating that MR was pretty on top of the DH game in this time.

....and anyway, who's to say that being "exceptionally motivated, focused, or leaders within their field" is the be all end all? If that's your game, good for you. But it's not for everyone, so why use that measure to success?


----------



## Kaparzo (Dec 21, 2003)

Drewdane said:


> Poor baby - broke the law and got caught. Whether pot should or should not be illegal is beside the point.


 Hell yeah. Why can't people own up and be responsible for what they do. What the hell is there to think about otherwise. Its illiegal. Sure you can argue why it shouldn't be, but for mother of goddamn sake IT IS ILLIEGAL, meaning you get caught, you are in trouble. I think it would be a bad precedent to simply follow a policy of loosley following the rules. Why is it that no one is comfortable accepting the consequences of their actions, regardless of how good or bad they may be. IMO, anyone who refuses to accept responsibility is an outright baby, a spolied *****. Whatever, i am ranting.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Steve71 said:


> Heard of the Beatles?
> 
> There are thousands of famous artist who are associated with drug use. If fact I'm speculating that MR was pretty on top of the DH game in this time.


Yeah, and I've heard how crappy they sound when they are trying to do concerts under the unfluence of drugs.

In any case, it is sad more than anything. Sad to see a pro DH mountain bike racer throw away his future for something as lame as this.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Some people adhere to the universal "Moral Law" rather than the ever changing, "owned by vested interests" type law. Pot has only been a crime for a small smidgen of time that the plant has been in existence.


----------



## Ebo (Dec 30, 2003)

Black Bart said:


> Jm., have you gone out and murdered your user buddies yet?


I wonder if everyone will be safe up in Downieville this year? There will be a bunch of law breaking, under achieving, loser, pot smoking, drug abusing, mountain bikers at the gathering again.


----------



## Drewdane (Dec 19, 2003)

Steve71 said:


> Some people adhere to the universal "Moral Law" rather than the ever changing, "owned by vested interests" type law. Pot has only been a crime for a small smidgen of time that the plant has been in existence.


I don't know if you're replying to me as well as to Kaparzo, but my point had to do with recognizing the risks and accepting the consequences of one's actions.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Jm. said:


> Yeah, and I've heard how crappy they sound when they are trying to do concerts under the unfluence of drugs.
> 
> In any case, it is sad more than anything. Sad to see a pro DH mountain bike racer throw away his future for something as lame as this.


The beatles used to smoke up AFTER concerts and when they were composing.
Just because you smoke doesn't mean your HI all the time LOL.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Ebo said:


> I wonder if everyone will be safe up in Downieville this year? There will be a bunch of law breaking, under achieving, loser, pot smoking, drug abusing, mountain bikers at the gathering again.


Yeah, and I hope this year those potheads from Risse aren't getting high and abusing their dog again. Cause they were high, it was "hella funny" to them.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Steve71 said:


> The beatles used to smoke up AFTER concerts and when they were composing.
> Just because you smoke doesn't mean your HI all the time LOL.


Notice I didn't quote the part about the beatles. Are you this dumb? or is it just the pot? Do you think I've seen BEATLES CONCERTS! I'm only 25 years old...again, probably smoking too much of your product....


----------



## Ebo (Dec 30, 2003)

Jm. said:


> Yeah, and I hope this year those potheads from rissue aren't getting high and abusing their dog again.


That's a good one. I think Jed has already put a limit on unfriendly dogs anyways. There will also be a separate camping area for families, since dog abuse should not be seen by children.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Ebo said:


> That's a good one. I think Jed has already put a limit on unfriendly dogs anyways. There will also be a separate camping area for families, since dog abuse should not be seen by children.


Why? I thought pot was great and did not promote anything bad?


----------



## rr (Dec 28, 2003)

Ebo said:


> I wonder if everyone will be safe up in Downieville this year? There will be a bunch of law breaking, under achieving, loser, pot smoking, drug abusing, mountain bikers at the gathering again.


count me in


----------



## Ebo (Dec 30, 2003)

Jm. said:


> Why? I thought pot was great and did not promote anything bad?


Easy. Because smoking pot leads to harder drugs. Like alcohol.


----------



## Haroow (Mar 10, 2004)

XC Jedi said:


> What a crock of bologna. No matter how much you try to make excuses or try to divert attention to other possible sources of crime (no one is denying that there are other sources), DSDuke is right. Dope use is a crime and it supports crime (including violent crime). The "casual" user may genuinely believe (or not care) that he is not hurting others, but inevitably either he or the idiot he bought the crap from is going to do some serious harm to someone else. DSDuke (and myself) see it everyday. Maybe after you've been around the block a few times you will be in a position to speak on the subject.
> 
> Oh, and the assumption that all use of illegal drugs is abuse is absolutely correct!


Right on Guys, I too see the kids in my area, doing stupid stuff, stealing from freinds, breaking in etc.. etc.. crank heads are even worse...

It is a cycle...( uhh its just pot man)..why you hasslin me... well you just ran the stop sign, and just about got hit.

How about MJ is better than smokin cigarettes...HAhhh

I don't condone either, but your choice is what makes you responsible..own up to it or stop whining..face the consquences of smokin, dopin, drinkin, shootin etcc..


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Jm. said:


> Notice I didn't quote the part about the beatles. Are you this dumb? or is it just the pot? Do you think I've seen BEATLES CONCERTS! I'm only 25 years old...again, probably smoking too much of your product....


You said;

Originally Posted by Jm.
but I can't think of any of those that are exceptionally motivated, focused, or leaders within their field.

And I pointed out that you are very wrong. There are many many successful artist who smoke. MR himself was motivated and focused enough to be one of the best in his field.

Rather than admit you were wrong, you start personal insults and make assumptions to try and save face.


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

Jm. said:


> Notice I didn't quote the part about the beatles. Are you this dumb? or is it just the pot? Do you think I've seen BEATLES CONCERTS! I'm only 25 years old...again, probably smoking too much of your product....


You are this confused while sober? You did quote the Beatles part, and he never said you saw them live. There is also this thing called film and audio tape which is used to record live events for later viewing.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

um, i was talking about concerts that i have seen in my lifetime that were obviously being conducted under the influence...


I don't know what the heck you are trying to prove, but I was talking about the cocernts I've seen, not the beatles. I must have quoted it by mistake, but oh well..surely you did not believe that I was talking about all the "beatles" concerts that I've attended?

arguing about some little detail that doesn't even disprove my point sure makes you look credible...


----------



## butocabra (Jan 12, 2004)

*so was I*



Jm. said:


> Um, eric, he was talking about "all drugs", not just MJ. Heroin, cocain, etc. These aren't very "casual" and neither are the effects.


 We were talking about decriminialization. You said you didn't want to pay for all the problems it would cause. I countered that decriminalizing and treating adiction would be much cheaper than jailing addicts. That holds for all sorts of substance abuse. I might argue that alcohol abuse is worse in it's adictiveness and its effects than marijuanna, heroin is worse than both, but in all cases I belive treatment costs less than jail time.

This is distinct from punishing abherent behavior resulting from substance abuse (dui, for instance). I would also point out (as have others) that decriminalization removes the motives for organized criminal distribution of product. Prohibition made the chicago and detroit mobs rich because it created demand and reduced supply. The 'war on drugs' has done much the same thing for the south american cartels, heroin suppliers (terrorists), etc. Wanna take away a major funding source for terrorism? Decriminalize opiates and grow poppies in the US.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 23, 2003)

Jm. said:


> Yeah, and I've heard how crappy they sound when they are trying to do concerts under the unfluence of drugs.
> 
> In any case, it is sad more than anything. Sad to see a pro DH mountain bike racer throw away his future for something as lame as this.


I dont want to get into the middle of this silly argument, but I'm curious, What concerts have you been to that sucked because the bands were "under the influence". I've been to lotsa concerts, and the only problems I've seen were when a band memebr was too drunk, or passed out from H and couldn't take the stage. most musicians who use pot seeem to be able to play fine while high. Crap, most bands I've seen, i assume they are all stoned, and yet they sound great to me.

I'm really only asking this to hear which bands have been too f-ed up to perform adequately?? Pretty unprofessional, whatever the excuse.

Oh yeah, and what was the name of the basketball player who is in the hall of Fame, and said he smoked every day of his career, including moments before games??? I think he was a Celtic in the 80's.
And how about that baseball player that pitched a no hitter under the influence of LSD?? If that's possible, i cant imagine a little weed affecting performance significantly.

Later, Sasquatch


----------



## seenvic (Sep 9, 2003)

Jm. said:


> I've known a lot of people that smoke the stuff, but I can't think of any of those that are exceptionally motivated, focused, or leaders within their field.


Kareem Abdul Jabbar. All time leading scorer in NBA, I think.

Does he qualify as exceptionally motivated, focused, or a leader within his field?


----------



## mtbberzrkr (Jan 12, 2004)

Jm. said:


> Notice I didn't quote the part about the beatles. Are you this dumb? or is it just the pot? Do you think I've seen BEATLES CONCERTS! I'm only 25 years old...again, probably smoking too much of your product....


WOW! for only being 25 you sure know a lot about everything.
Do you have any idea what it's like to smoke pot, or do you just believe everything you read on the internet? Far more damage is done by alcohol than weed. Personally I think anything that occurs naturally should be legal.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

mtbberzrkr said:


> .
> Do you have any idea what it's like to smoke pot,.


yes. firsthand knowledge.


----------



## Kaparzo (Dec 21, 2003)

butocabra said:


> We were talking about decriminialization. You said you didn't want to pay for all the problems it would cause. I countered that decriminalizing and treating adiction would be much cheaper than jailing addicts. That holds for all sorts of substance abuse. I might argue that alcohol abuse is worse in it's adictiveness and its effects than marijuanna, heroin is worse than both, but in all cases I belive treatment costs less than jail time.
> 
> This is distinct from punishing abherent behavior resulting from substance abuse (dui, for instance). I would also point out (as have others) that decriminalization removes the motives for organized criminal distribution of product. Prohibition made the chicago and detroit mobs rich because it created demand and reduced supply. The 'war on drugs' has done much the same thing for the south american cartels, heroin suppliers (terrorists), etc. Wanna take away a major funding source for terrorism? Decriminalize opiates and grow poppies in the US.


 The problem is that the marijuana and cocaine industries are intertwined. One doesn't go without the other in countries outside of the U.S. You simply can't be sure that marijuana money isn't also going to the prodcution of more illicit, dangerous, and more expensive drugs. The cartels aren't going to give up their largest customer (America) just like that. Thousands of people have died over the last thirty years to stay in the game. It certainly isn't likely that they are going to give up.


----------



## Kaparzo (Dec 21, 2003)

Sasquatch said:


> I dont want to get into the middle of this silly argument, but I'm curious, What concerts have you been to that sucked because the bands were "under the influence". I've been to lotsa concerts, and the only problems I've seen were when a band memebr was too drunk, or passed out from H and couldn't take the stage. most musicians who use pot seeem to be able to play fine while high. Crap, most bands I've seen, i assume they are all stoned, and yet they sound great to me.
> 
> I'm really only asking this to hear which bands have been too f-ed up to perform adequately?? Pretty unprofessional, whatever the excuse.
> 
> ...


 How about that basketball player, Reggie Lewis, and oh yes Len Bias. Len Bias is a large reason why you MJ users didn't get decriminilization. He essentially put Crack on the front page, and diminished any ability for the marijuana movement to gain ground in Washington, as they began the "War on Drugs." i think there are other players who have been negativly effected, players of a high caliber. Darel Strawberry had one of the purest swings since ted williams. You can definetly find examples on both sides.


----------



## TNJED® (Dec 30, 2003)

*Are you f'ing kidding me??!!*



Punker said:


> "Moral of story is that drug traffic goes on, the war is being lost, and pot smokers are not those who are committing real crimes"
> 
> An individual in my community was just found guilty, and sentenced to two life sentences, for murdering two people and attempting kill a third person. It was a bunch of "pot smokers" partying, the covicted "pot smoker" was a low level drug dealer. Everyone passed out, the convicted "pot smoker" woke up and found that less then a pound of his weed was missing. He was concened that his reputation would be tarnished by the other "pot smokers" stealing his stash. He left the party, went to his house got a 45 and returned only to shot three people, at close range, in the head. Two dead, one shot in the head and by some miracle survived. So I challenge your conclusion that "pot smokers are not those who are committing real crimes."


Are you f'ing kidding me?!
A. Nice community you got there
B. Do you really think pot drove this guy to murder?! If anything, it made the guy too lazy to use the last 2 bullets.

I have alot of friends who smoke, and I have met many people that smoke. I have never, in all of the people I've come across seen violence brought on by the drug. As stated above, the guy was a murderer. Odds are, that he wasn't even on pot. I would bet a party involving a pound of weed, also hosted a plethora of other drugs as well. Tying pot into violence is like tying alcohol into good judgement

I don't believe pot should be legalized, because our society is not mature enough to handle it. Next thing you know, nationwide productivity would decline from lack of motivation. People seem abuse things that make them feel good...see obesity, drunk driving laws, and AA. Therefore, the fact that it is illegal keeps it inline.

I'll tell you what I'm sick of is ignorant folks that feel that they have the knowledge to judge and criticize something that they've never experienced except for that one time in college when, after eating an odd tasting brownie, they spent the night under a table trying to remember what they were thinking about 5 minutes ago.

How many times have you had this conversation?:
-"I did pot ONCE and I freaked out and puked"
-"That's odd, pot cures notiousness cancer patients"
-"Oh, maybe it was the 25 beers I drank"

Lighten up and light one up!

TNJED


----------



## Shockee (Jan 16, 2004)

*blacks to back of the bus*

So would you so earnestly enforce/condone/blindly adhere to the laws where:

- Black people were prohibited from sitting at the front of the bus?
- Jews were to be turned into the local gestapo in the 40s?
- newlywed wives were to be subjected to the landlord's rape in Scotland?
- Japanese with American citizenship were ordered into internment camps?
- homosexual sex was punishible with fines and incarceration?

'It's the law, therefore it is right' LOL

If anyone was ever in need of a joint, it is you, good sir


----------



## Kaparzo (Dec 21, 2003)

Shockee said:


> So would you so earnestly enforce/condone/blindly adhere to the laws where:
> 
> - Black people were prohibited from sitting at the front of the bus?
> - Jews were to be turned into the local gestapo in the 40s?
> ...


 Wow. You just compared the civil rights movement to the movement for the decriminilization of pot. Lets take one second here and think. Was the civil rights movement absolutley necessary? YES. Is the legalization or whatever of marijuana absolutley necessary? NO. I don't think that alcohol and tobacco are necessary either, it just so happens that they are legal. I don't think that most people are saying that it is the law, and therefore it is right, but that it is the law, therefore you should be man enough to accept the responsibilities for breaking it. I can't beleive you just compared marijuana to those things that don't even fit in a realm remotley close to the one we are discussing in terms of importance. i am wowed.


----------



## ditchdiver56 (Feb 10, 2004)

*here's your answer*

What a bull crap arguement for the legalization of weed. If you guys get so bent out of shape becuase it's illegal, write your freakin congressman. It's the people that were elected into office in the first place that made it and keep it illegal. Not the street cops or the DEA, the politicians that (hopefully some of you vote) you (or society) voted for. Maybe you should watch the old School House Rock commercials again on how a Bill becomes a Law. As for marijuana not hurting anybody? Well it sure F'ed up my future, and no, it wasn't just one time. It was a mistake I'll live with forever. Hopefully, in the next month or so I'll have a shot at redemption, but we'll just have to wait and see. 
All this liberal BS is getting on my nerves. I think DS said it best with "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" (or something like that). 
The bottom line is weed is illegal. it's illegal in the ghetto, it's illegal in the suburbs, it's illegal in the University's. What about illegal is so hard to understand. If you want it to be legal, lay off it while it's illegal and use your government! It might not happen tomorrow, or the next day, but if your lucky maybe your kids will have the opportunity to smoke weed legally (that's what you really want, isn't it?) Pathetic...

DD


----------



## irieness (Feb 22, 2004)

ditchdiver56 said:


> What a bull crap arguement for the legalization of weed. If you guys get so bent out of shape becuase it's illegal, write your freakin congressman. It's the people that were elected into office in the first place that made it and keep it illegal. Not the street cops or the DEA, the politicians that (hopefully some of you vote) you (or society) voted for. Maybe you should watch the old School House Rock commercials again on how a Bill becomes a Law. As for marijuana not hurting anybody? Well it sure F'ed up my future, and no, it wasn't just one time. It was a mistake I'll live with forever. Hopefully, in the next month or so I'll have a shot at redemption, but we'll just have to wait and see.
> All this liberal BS is getting on my nerves. I think DS said it best with "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" (or something like that).
> The bottom line is weed is illegal. it's illegal in the ghetto, it's illegal in the suburbs, it's illegal in the University's. What about illegal is so hard to understand. If you want it to be legal, lay off it while it's illegal and use your government! It might not happen tomorrow, or the next day, but if your lucky maybe your kids will have the opportunity to smoke weed legally (that's what you really want, isn't it?) Pathetic...
> 
> DD


Writing to your congressman or voting for President will never get the herb legalized. You think that your vote honestly counts?? Politics and the law has everything to do with greed and money and nothing to do with the "society's" vote. Why do you actually think MJ's still illegal?? Believe me...it's not because they've proven it's harmful to you...I've checked...and if you think that half of the researched stats on it are true, think again, because whoever funded them, is the way the stats will be swayed...it's sad you've let them warp your mind into thinking the herb rather than your own personal faults created the delimena you got yourself in...just like it's sad if you really think the President has any actual power to vote laws in according to what "the People" really want...money, money, money...that's what rules...so maybe instead of being pissed at the herb , you can just accept the fact that you couldn't handle what trouble you got yourself into for being associated with it(whatever that may be)...but like you quoted...if you can't do the time, don't do the crime...I can accept the consequences if I get busted...but obviously you couldn't and that's not the herbs fault...and why would we quit smokin' when we can give the gov't a nice F You??


----------



## ditchdiver56 (Feb 10, 2004)

Yes, I can take responsibility and I did take responsibility for my mistake. What I meant was it wasn't worth it. And if you think writing to your congressman or voting and trying to make it legal won't work, then you're already defeated. See, marijuana does affect people and give them a lack of motivation. If think you can take do the time, then more power to you man. 

One thing I'm not clear on, how does getting high give an "F-you" to the government? You're the one that's gonna get the F-you in jail by a big guy named Bubba.

DD


----------



## ditchdiver56 (Feb 10, 2004)

One more thing. Don't you think if the majority of America wanted it legalized it would be?
I do... that's how a democracy works...

DD


----------



## kitchenware (Jan 13, 2004)

ditchdiver56 said:


> If think you can take do the time, then more power to you man.
> DD


Are you high right now? Whew, I might have to be high to understand that.


----------



## ditchdiver56 (Feb 10, 2004)

Wow, kinda embarrassing. Just a little tired I think. 

I meant:

If you think you can do the time, more power to you man.


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

ditchdiver56 said:


> What a bull crap arguement for the legalization of weed. If you guys get so bent out of shape becuase it's illegal, write your freakin congressman. It's the people that were elected into office in the first place that made it and keep it illegal. Not the street cops or the DEA, the politicians that (hopefully some of you vote) you (or society) voted for. Maybe you should watch the old School House Rock commercials again on how a Bill becomes a Law. As for marijuana not hurting anybody? Well it sure F'ed up my future, and no, it wasn't just one time. It was a mistake I'll live with forever. Hopefully, in the next month or so I'll have a shot at redemption, but we'll just have to wait and see.
> 
> DD


Just a few things to ponder for those of you who believe it is the will of the people being carried out by Congress.

"In 1998, voters in the District of Columbia approved their medical marijuana initiative by 69% but Congress has nullified the election results, preventing the will of the voters from taking effect."

"According to a 1999 Gallup poll, 73% of Americans are in favor of "making marijuana legally available for doctors to prescribe in order to reduce pain and suffering.""

"Currently, laws that effectively remove state-level criminal penalties for growing and/or possessing medical marijuana are in place in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Ten states, plus the District of Columbia, have symbolic medical marijuana laws (laws that support medical marijuana but do not provide patients with legal protection under state law)"

"Despite overwhelming public support, Congress has refused to recognize marijuana's medicinal value and protect patients from federal prosecution. In 1998, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 311-94 for a non-binding resolution condemning medical marijuana. In 1978, the federal government was forced to allow some patients access to medical marijuana after a "medical necessity" defense was recognized and the Investigational New Drug (IND) compassionate access program was created. The IND, which allowed some patients to receive medical marijuana from the government, was closed in 1992 after it was flooded by applications from AIDS patients. Today, eight surviving patients still receive medical marijuana from the federal government.

In addition to changing state laws, medical marijuana advocates have also pursued reform through the courts. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, defined as having a high potential for abuse and no medicinal value. In 1972, a petition was submitted to the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (now known as the Drug Enforcement Administration, or DEA) to reschedule marijuana so that it could be prescribed to patients. In 1988, the DEA's chief administrative law judge, Francis L. Young, ruled that, "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known . . . It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance . . ." The DEA refused to implement this ruling and continues to classify marijuana as a Schedule I substance."

Any response from the "any and all use is abuse" crowd?


----------



## ditchdiver56 (Feb 10, 2004)

http://www.theantidrug.com/drug_info/drugs_marijuana.asp

my anti-drug is mountain biking


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

ditchdiver56 said:


> http://www.theantidrug.com/drug_info/drugs_marijuana.asp
> 
> my anti-drug is mountain biking


Hey, that's great! Mountain biking is good, but what does that have to do with my post?


----------



## Kaparzo (Dec 21, 2003)

ditchdiver56 said:


> http://www.theantidrug.com/drug_info/drugs_marijuana.asp
> 
> my anti-drug is mountain biking


 me too. I don't smoke b/c i need all the help i can get when it comes to racing. Its also kind of expensive after a while, and mountain biking is certainly not a cheap sport. I also don't use marijuana simply because of the fact i stated earlier, concerning foreign imports, etc. Nobody really seems to want to listen to that argument, its a tough one to swallow for most.


----------



## Spongedog (Dec 23, 2003)

Pot laws are simply a revenue source for the DEA and other law enforcement agencies. The fact that pot is outlawed creates the criminal element in the pot distribution trade. If it were legal, then the government could clean up the distribution channels, and then there are no victims. Pot is already the leading cash crop in Kentucky, and it is unfortunate that the government is not allowed to share in the huge potential tax base becuase of the selfish needs of the DEA.

Frankly, the billions spent on putting potheads in jail is a travesty of justice when the money could be better used to fight gang warfare, terrorism, and other real ills of society.


----------



## Kaparzo (Dec 21, 2003)

Spongedog said:


> Pot laws are simply a revenue source for the DEA and other law enforcement agencies. The fact that pot is outlawed creates the criminal element in the pot distribution trade. If it were legal, then the government could clean up the distribution channels, and then there are no victims. Pot is already the leading cash crop in Kentucky, and it is unfortunate that the government is not allowed to share in the huge potential tax base becuase of the selfish needs of the DEA.
> 
> Frankly, the billions spent on putting potheads in jail is a travesty of justice when the money could be better used to fight gang warfare, terrorism, and other real ills of society.


 Clean up the distribution channels? You mean outlaw foreign drug trafficing from Mexico, etc.? You mean the drug war we are already fighting? The criminal element is inherent to marijuana simply because of its connections to cocaine. The connection can't be erased. I don't think many people would argue for the legalization of cocaine.


----------



## Spongedog (Dec 23, 2003)

If pot were legal, then American farmers would be able to legally sell their product on the open market. Why would a user want to purchase illegal Mexican dirt weed, when they could purchase legal American Grown pot. The answer is: they would purchase the legal stuff. This simple fact is what cleans up the distribution channel...all this without a "drug war". You have to start thinking bigger.

A perfect example is today's bootleggers. While you occasionally hear about bootleggers today, by and large, they are out of business. A few still hang in there becuase they think that they can sell something that will screw you up better for less money than legal liquor. The consumer is a little to smart for that, so most folks head to the 7-11 or liquor store to get some legal juice. Back during prohibition, bootlegging was a big business, and it only existed because the culture police thought that liquor was corrupting society. The war on booze was never won on the battlefield...it was won by congress when booze was legalized. While there is still a small crimial element, for the most part it is a clean business today.


----------



## Spongedog (Dec 23, 2003)

Ditchdiver,

You must know that just becuase IT is the will of the people, IT will not necessarily be taken up by our representatives. The reality is that a small minority of political supporters are rewarded in kind by successful candidates. Today, the religious right controls alot of polititicians, and social issues are being more tighly regulated than in years past, so any talk of legalization of drugs is not realisic, no matter how much sense it makes.


----------



## ditchdiver56 (Feb 10, 2004)

Black Bart said:


> Hey, that's great! Mountain biking is good, but what does that have to do with my post?


did you look at the website?

DD


----------



## Kaparzo (Dec 21, 2003)

Spongedog said:


> If pot were legal, then American farmers would be able to legally sell their product on the open market. Why would a user want to purchase illegal Mexican dirt weed, when they could purchase legal American Grown pot. The answer is: they would purchase the legal stuff. This simple fact is what cleans up the distribution channel...all this without a "drug war". You have to start thinking bigger.
> 
> A perfect example is today's bootleggers. While you occasionally hear about bootleggers today, by and large, they are out of business. A few still hang in there becuase they think that they can sell something that will screw you up better for less money than legal liquor. The consumer is a little to smart for that, so most folks head to the 7-11 or liquor store to get some legal juice. Back during prohibition, bootlegging was a big business, and it only existed because the culture police thought that liquor was corrupting society. The war on booze was never won on the battlefield...it was won by congress when booze was legalized. While there is still a small crimial element, for the most part it is a clean business today.


First off, about the thinking bigger thing, i think it is unfair to give the foreign importers of marijuana the benefiet of the doubt. Thinking bigger means thinking outside the confines of our country. You really think they are going to give up the largeest consumer of drugs in the entire world? The drug trade is a 60billion dollar industry. The bootleggers certainly never thought about half a billion, never mind 60. I think even with inflation the drug trade looms over the alcohol trade like a giant standing over a midget. In the 1980s, close to 70percent of the money in Miami could be attributed to the drug trade.

You really think they are just going to give up and shrug it off? Do you really think that the government won't tax this new legal American weed? Do you really think people who can't afford the taxes on American weed are going to pony up, when they can simply buy the cheap stuff off the street, the dirt weed, the mexican weed? What i am trying to say is that legalization isn't the solve-all solution. Its far from it.


----------



## ditchdiver56 (Feb 10, 2004)

Spongedog said:


> Ditchdiver,
> 
> You must know that just becuase IT is the will of the people, IT will not necessarily be taken up by our representatives. The reality is that a small minority of political supporters are rewarded in kind by successful candidates. Today, the religious right controls alot of polititicians, and social issues are being more tighly regulated than in years past, so any talk of legalization of drugs is not realisic, no matter how much sense it makes.


I don't think it makes any sense at all, but trying to lobby for it and writing your representative is better than getting pissed at cops for doing their job. It's definitely not gonna be legalized if all you (general you, not anyone in particular)do is sit around and smoke up and complain on the internet how weed should be legal. Now that's just dumb.
If you guys really believe that strongly on the subject than fight it! That's the beauty of this country! It's gonna take some hard workAs for myself, I think legalization would be the wrong thing to do, but that's my opinion (however I do agree with quite a few of you that drug treatment programs would be better than prison time).

DD

DD


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

ditchdiver56 said:


> did you look at the website?
> 
> DD


Yes, it is a government controlled propaganda site. So what?

You said, "One more thing. Don't you think if the majority of America wanted it legalized it would be?
I do... that's how a democracy works..."

I pointed out that in at least one aspect of the drug war, the majority of Americans want it legalized (medical marijuana), yet Congress has consistently done the exact opposite.

Congress and the DEA will convene a panel of experts (doctors) who tell them the benefits marijuana can provide for their patients, and then they put their (corporate funded) blinders on and ignore the information these experts give them. *Over 20% more* Americans want medical marijuana to be legal than wanted Bush to be President, but Congress still will not listen.

That was my point. And you post a link to a propaganda site which states that mj causes a loss of coordination, (Is that why some downhillers and gold medal winning snowboarders use it?) which has nothing to do with my post.

Now, I don't know what you did to F'up your future, but maybe it's time to stop blaming the weed, look in the mirror and tell yourself, "The world needs ditch diggers too..."


----------



## ditchdiver56 (Feb 10, 2004)

Black Bart said:


> Yes, it is a government controlled propaganda site. So what?
> 
> You said, "One more thing. Don't you think if the majority of America wanted it legalized it would be?
> I do... that's how a democracy works..."
> ...


That's a good one. When did I blame my mistake on a plant? Don't remember saying that. Anyway, I'm curious as to WHERE your statistics come from. Didn't notice any references.

DD


----------



## ditchdiver56 (Feb 10, 2004)

[ (Is that why some downhillers and gold medal winning snowboarders use it?) QUOTE]

Good for them. It's still illegal.


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

ditchdiver56 said:


> That's a good one. When did I blame my mistake on a plant? Don't remember saying that. Anyway, I'm curious as to WHERE your statistics come from. Didn't notice any references.
> 
> DD


"As for marijuana not hurting anybody? Well it sure F'ed up my future" - Ditchdiver56, 23 hours ago.
So, what is that?

According to a 1999 Gallup poll, 73% of Americans are in favor of "making marijuana legally available for doctors to prescribe in order to reduce pain and suffering."

From that stat, I took my knowledge that Bush had (way) less than 50% of the popular vote, did a little basic math and came up with my "Over 20% more" stat.

This was all found on http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/medical/

Now, as far as the number of states with MM laws, do you need a source? Do a simple google. Congressional votes? Public record. If you dispute my information, find something creditable to counter with.

Your "Good for them. It's still illegal." as usual, you missed the point, which is that their claim is BS. Now, show me where ANYONE here said recreational mj use is not illegal. Maybe it makes you feel better to "win" a nonexistent argument like that, but it really is pointless.


----------



## irieness (Feb 22, 2004)

*No it's not...*



ditchdiver56 said:


> One more thing. Don't you think if the majority of America wanted it legalized it would be?
> I do... that's how a democracy works...
> 
> DD


If you think that is Really how democracy works...you're sadly mistaken...that's maybe how the state gov'ts work(hence Proposition 215...doesn't mean the Feds have stayed out of it..and WE the People voted that one in)...and if you think "our vote" has anything to do with elections, think again my friend...Bush didn't really win his presidency, and America knew that...and if we could really change the laws with our votes...Don't you think it would have been done by now??...You're not getting it...Our gov't and politics are run by MONEY...straight up...you think we're really at war with Iraq to free their people too...don't you???


----------



## ditchdiver56 (Feb 10, 2004)

Black Bart said:


> "As for marijuana not hurting anybody? Well it sure F'ed up my future" - Ditchdiver56, 23 hours ago.
> So, what is that?
> 
> According to a 1999 Gallup poll, 73% of Americans are in favor of "making marijuana legally available for doctors to prescribe in order to reduce pain and suffering."
> ...


"Yes, I can take responsibility and I did take responsibility for my mistake." Ditchdiver56 9 hours ago.

Thank you for the references.

by the way, just curious. do you smoke marijuana? if so is it for medicinal purposes?

DD


----------



## irieness (Feb 22, 2004)

ditchdiver56 said:


> Yes, I can take responsibility and I did take responsibility for my mistake. What I meant was it wasn't worth it. And if you think writing to your congressman or voting and trying to make it legal won't work, then you're already defeated. See, marijuana does affect people and give them a lack of motivation. If think you can take do the time, then more power to you man.
> 
> One thing I'm not clear on, how does getting high give an "F-you" to the government? You're the one that's gonna get the F-you in jail by a big guy named Bubba.
> 
> DD


You might have thought it wasn't worth it...but some of us aren't afraid to have free room and board just to prove that we don't agree with their law and we're not going to abide by it...because it's WRONG...and the pro-pot movement isn't defeated because we realize how the gov't works...it's just that that's not the approach that will work to change the law...and that has NOTHING to do with lack of motivation from smoking MJ...that comes from being REALISTIC...whether you non-smokers think we live in reality or not...

And smoking Mj and getting blisfully irie gives the gov't an F You by saying I'm not going to let you convince me that what I'm doing is wrong and I'll keep enjoying it whether you're going to let me or not...and no, there won't be any Bubba's in my jail cell...unless it's a nickname for a very large woman...and who says being locked up with a bunch of horny females would be THAT bad...


----------



## ditchdiver56 (Feb 10, 2004)

Black Bart said:


> Yes, it is a government controlled propaganda site. So what?
> 
> You said, "One more thing. Don't you think if the majority of America wanted it legalized it would be?
> I do... that's how a democracy works..."
> ...


The only difference between the site I posted and the site you posted is which way the stats were swayed. This argument is pointless to continue...

DD


----------



## Gnarlygig (Jan 27, 2004)

*Then again, even some of the professionals that have...*



Ebo said:


> I agree with your stance on our justice system on all counts. If we would just uphold the laws laid down and prosecuted accordingly, there would be far less of a problem. And this applies to all laws. Too many repeat offenders with drugs, violence, child molesting, etc. This being said, I feel marijuana is a soft drug. I see far more problems with alcohol abuse. Just my 2 cents.


...researched the effects of it, and claim it's not harmful, speak of ways that "subtley" change you, that are anything but subtle:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/correx/archives/dopey.htm

This one's alot longer, but much more detailed:

http://www.antiessays.com/essay.php?eid=1297

I wish there were more tests specifically comparing Alchohol use to Marijuana use, but the detailed info available about pot itself, does indicate it's harful effects, whether compared or not.

Sometimes I think the only reason BOTH aren't illeagal, is that the people were successfull at rebeling against prohibition of Alchohol.

That they've not been able to do so with Marijuana tends to indicate that there are plenty of citizens out there, either by personal experience (such as myself), or by those of their friends and families, whom know first hand it is better left illegal.


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

ditchdiver56 said:


> "Yes, I can take responsibility and I did take responsibility for my mistake." Ditchdiver56 9 hours ago.
> 
> Thank you for the references.
> 
> ...


First, you blamed pot. When someone called you on it, you changed your tune. I believe your first post was more truthful to your view.

Now, if I tell you that I no longer smoke mj, you will just say I'm lying, for only a pothead would care about changing drug laws, right? If I said I did smoke it, what? Same thing?
So, it really is immaterial.

The point of this conversation is if pot should be legalized, why it is illegal and if Congress really responds to the will of the people.


----------



## tl1 (Dec 21, 2003)

ditchdiver56 said:


> I don't think it makes any sense at all, but trying to lobby for it and writing your representative is better than getting pissed at cops for doing their job. It's definitely not gonna be legalized if all you (general you, not anyone in particular)do is sit around and smoke up and complain on the internet how weed should be legal. Now that's just dumb.
> If you guys really believe that strongly on the subject than fight it! That's the beauty of this country! It's gonna take some hard workAs for myself, I think legalization would be the wrong thing to do, but that's my opinion (however I do agree with quite a few of you that drug treatment programs would be better than prison time).
> 
> DD
> ...


I laugh everytime I hear something like this. There's thousands of laws that are ingored and not enforced everywhere, every day. Hell, the vast majority of police officers don't even KNOW half of the laws on the books. Enforcing pot laws is a cheap attention grabber and relatively safe because most small growers are non-violent unlike real dangerous criminals like bank robbers, rapists, crackheads, meth-freaks, home-invaders, big drug dealers etc. Let's not even go into all the white collar crime that's routinely ignored. I say all this being a non-smoker too so don't label me as a "pot-head" trying to justify pot.


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

ditchdiver56 said:


> The only difference between the site I posted and the site you posted is which way the stats were swayed. This argument is pointless to continue...
> 
> DD


 Well, the first difference is the theantidrug.com is funded by Congress and really only addresses KIDS and drugs. I'm not saying teens should be using any drug.

The second difference is theantidrug.com does not even address the medical marijuana issue. Do a search, this is what you will find...

Sorry your query returned no matching documents.
Please try another query.

So, they don't make an attempt to sway any of the stats I gave.
Please explain how to "sway" the stats on how many states have now passed pro-MM laws.


----------



## ditchdiver56 (Feb 10, 2004)

Black Bart said:


> First, you blamed pot. When someone called you on it, you changed your tune. I believe your first post was more truthful to your view.
> 
> Now, if I tell you that I no longer smoke mj, you will just say I'm lying, for only a pothead would care about changing drug laws, right? If I said I did smoke it, what? Same thing?
> So, it really is immaterial.
> ...


Well, I apoligize if my first post was misleading. I'm secure enough to realize my mistake. In reality, I never blamed my problem on the marijuana, but always took responsibility for my own actions. Why would I call you a liar, I'm just curious. You know my experiences with it, why are you afraid to hide yours? I don't care, it's your freedom. Check out Gnarlygig's post above. He has found some interesting material on the subject. 
I do however wish to clear one thing up that I am confused on. Are you arguing for legalization of marijuana ONLY for medicinal purposes? It may just be my own confusion but I'm unclear on that aspect of your arguement.

" In 1998, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 311-94 for a non-binding resolution condemning medical marijuana." (http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/medical/)

How did all of those Representatives get into office?

DD


----------



## dustyrider (Feb 19, 2004)

*How to deal with the real "threat"*

"if we started shooting drug dealers, on the spot or a day after the trial, you'd see a lot less.

We are a compassionate society we don't sentance people to death for petty crimes, and we don't mow down immigrants on the boarders with machine guns. If we just up and shot every drug dealer then I'd surmise that a lot of people would change VERY fast, and after the intialy "clean up" there wouldn't be much more of a problem after that. It sounds harsh, but that is what a WAR is and that is how a WAR on drugs would be won."

The real threat comes from people like you who can sentence people to death in one breath and claim to be compassionate in the next .


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Or the threat comes from people who can't read, since I wasn't advocating that, I was just explaining the REAL situation, and how there really is not a war on drugs. You need to come back to reality. 

I wasn't aware I could sentance people to death!


----------



## antisocial (Jan 28, 2004)

*Legalize it!*

I'm just wondering how many people here have actually been hurt by MJ or someone who has just toked...

...anyway this isn't a black and white issue, what is good for some might not be good for others. Some are more responsible than others, not everyone who drinks is an alcohic. just because the herb makes some people lazy or stupid doesn't mean a cancer patient should be denied an affective treatment to alliviate their suffering. though it does damage the lungs when smoked, herb will not impare the brain for longer than a few hours. Also, weed is not addictive the brain will not become chemically dependant on THC as is could on alcohol.

It is my personal oppinion that something that is so prevailant in nature should not be outlawed. Chemicals like PHP, MDMA, Meth. etc. must be manufactured in a lab. They are also destructive dangerous. therefore their manufacture should be illegal. Cocaine and Heroin must be meticulously refined from their natural source, they too are destructive, dangerous and addictive. That process of refinement should be prohibited.
But marijuana is flower that grows rampantly in much of the world without cultivation as does hemp. Doesn't it seem absurd to prohibit nature?

www.norml.org


----------



## Wheelie (May 17, 2004)

I know of someone who used to drink copius quantities of booze, smoke J's and snort blow but he still went on to be quite successful. Then again, we could debate all day long as to whether or not GWB has really been successful at anything he's ever done.  

Personally, I think pot prohibition is rediculous. I consider myself a successful professional and I graduated magna cum laude way back in the mid 80's. I've smoked only after 5 and on weekends since my first year of college. Actually, I've averaged about 1-3 doobies a week for the last ten years. I hate drinking and drunks, especially considering that a drunk driver killed one of my best friend's wife and their three children. The fact that a dangerous drug like alcohol is legal and a benign drug like MJ is illegal has baffled me for years. I really don't care if smoking grass is illegal and I will continue to have an occasional spliff no matter what the thought police, the cops or the DEA have to say about it. I anticipate that in the not so distant future we will decrimialize MJ. Then I can build a nice little hydro set-up and grow my own herbs without fear that the Gestapo is going to break down my door, invade my home and screw up what I consider a pretty darn good life.


----------



## Zonic Man (Dec 19, 2003)

This thread sucks.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Beats me!


----------



## singletrack (Feb 19, 2004)

Jm. said:


> Or the threat comes from people who can't read, since I wasn't advocating that, I was just explaining the REAL situation, and how there really is not a war on drugs. You need to come back to reality.
> 
> I wasn't aware I could sentance people to death!


*Actually, you did advocate just such a thing:*



Jm. said:


> The problem is that we do not have the "guts" to enforce the laws and fight the war. If we started shooting drug dealers, on the spot or a day after the trial, you'd see a lot less. If you get caught dealing or doing, your life is over for the most part as it pertains to most professional situations, and since there is not much threat of bodily harm or death ("hey, I'll go to jail for a little while"), it is a problem.
> 
> It is one problem that I have no idea how to solve. We are a compassionate society that requires hospitals to give care to anyone that walks in, we don't sentance people to death for petty crimes, and we don't mow down immigrants on the boarders with machine guns. Because we do not do these things, we are force to combat the problems for the most inneficiant way possible. If we just up and shot every drug dealer then I'd surmise that a lot of people would change VERY fast, and after the intialy "clean up" there wouldn't be much more of a problem after that. It sounds harsh, but that is what a WAR is and that is how a WAR on drugs would be won.


We smoke pot. We know it's illegal. Go Away.


----------



## Old Oi Punk (Sep 8, 2003)

*Marijuana imports. Yeah, Right!*



Kaparzo said:


> me too. I don't smoke b/c i need all the help i can get when it comes to racing. Its also kind of expensive after a while, and mountain biking is certainly not a cheap sport. I also don't use marijuana simply because of the fact i stated earlier, concerning foreign imports, etc. Nobody really seems to want to listen to that argument, its a tough one to swallow for most.


According to a police detective friend of mine, in my part of the state of Illinois, almost 90% of all pot confiscated IS GROWN LOCALLY IN HYDROPONIC HOME OPERATIONS. See, the Gov. lies when it states marijuana supports terrorism, it can't because a lot of dope is grown in U.S.A. homes. They have to lie, and hype, to keep it illegal! PATHETIC!!!!


----------



## Zenfrog (Feb 12, 2004)

Hollywood said:


> agree it wasn't wise for MR to have so much on hand, but at least he's under the 100-plant "mandatory minimum" laws.
> HW


I dont think that they have medical in CO. If Miles was back in his home town of Fairfax, CA. there would be no prob.s


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

singletrack said:


> *Actually, you did advocate just such a thing:*
> 
> We smoke pot. We know it's illegal. Go Away.


ROTFLMAO!!!! Are you really that stupid??? Do you know what "if" means? If I said "we should kill drug dealers to make a real difference" do you know what it means?

Ok, now lets try something different, do you know what; "if we are to really have a war on drugs, we'd kill drug dealers because that would truely be a war"

Do those two statements mean the same thing? No they do not, the key here (I know you need help so I'll explain it rather than hope you can grasp the meaning) is the word *"if"* .

I didn't say that I wanted to kill drug dealers, I simply pointed out the obvious fact that there is no real war on drugs, and I illustrated what a REAL war on drugs would mean.

Way to go!


----------



## BigMoots (Mar 3, 2004)

*Law is Law, That F**ker deserves what he gets.......*

If you think it should be legal is a matter of opinion. But Myles f**ked up when he decided to grow it. Its a gamble that he took, and he got busted, so what! Who f**king cares? I don't, so I think I'll get on my bike and go ride.

Enjoy your day!

BM


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*Stupid Stoners!*



singltraxx said:


> In Durango. The cops seized 52 plants in a hydro operation at his house and arrested him. Here is a link to the Durango Herald.
> http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bi...=news&article_path=/news/04/news040513_11.htm


My $1.02:

The actual problem of this thread revolves around a lack of common sense on both sides of this discussion. First, we need to define the argument. The overwhelming majority of people responding here in favor of legalizing MJ indicated a distinction between it and other illegal drugs. It seems to me that in response against legalizing MJ, many are lumping ALL illegal drugs in to the same classification. There is a clear difference between growing a plant, drying it and then ingesting it vs. taking a plant and chemically altering it, adding other ingredients, adding chemicals, processing it and then ingesting it (coffee vs. cigarettes or pot vs. meth or X for example).

In addition, by lumping the main point of the poached threads (legalizing MJ) in with moral opinions (ALL illegal drugs are bad because they're illegal and an affront to personal beliefs), it's hard to lend huge amounts of credibility to some assertions. Also, the logic that because someone is anti-legalization and doesn't agree with someone who is pro-legalization and therefore the pro-legalization person is smoking pot based on not sharing similar viewpoints is about the stupidest argument someone could make. Insert anything in the place of smoking pot and the argument is just as invalid: _Of course you would make that comment or feel that way, after all, you're an *ice cream eater! * Therefore my opinion is more valid. _

There's a lack of common sense from the pro-pot side as well. Generalizations, urban myths and "facts" about MJ that are not validated only add to the misconception that pot smokers lack drive, are somehow slower and less motivated than people who don't smoke pot, despite the fact that medical studies have never concluded these misconceptions as proven fact.

History
Are we all aware that it used to be illegal _not_ to grow pot in most states? That's right, in many states households were expected to grow at least one plant. This was due to hemp's overall utilitarian diversity: Rope, clothes, writing paper, and medicinal properties (mostly in tea's and pharmacy applications) etc.

Are we also aware that MJ was Federally outlawed because according to those who argued to make it illegal, it posed a threat to the National Security of the USA because (according to the congressional testimony) illegal immigrants from Mexico were smoking it, getting all hopped up and causing chaos that would more than likely spread to the rest of the United States from the border towns if it weren't stopped immediately? The term "devil weed" was coined from these testimonies.

Are we also aware that several of the same representatives who brought Congress this threat to National Security were also moonlighting for a company named Dupont who just happened to have developed a synthetic alternative to hemp called Nylon?

Can anyone conclusively state that the Federal Government isn't or wasn't motivated by money or imposing their own moral views on the rest of society? By and large the Federal Government may want what is best for the overall good of the American people but does that mean that this entity is 100% right and that people have no right to question policy or laws?

Politics
Are we all aware that the Nixon Administration formally commissioned a study to determine the effects of MJ on the Nation during his administration called National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse in 1972 headed by the former Republican Governor of Pennsylvania, Raymond P. Schafer?

Are we all aware that the Schafer Commission advocated licensing marijuana for individual home consumption?

Are we also aware that MJ is less addictive than caffeine and less harmful physically and to society than either alcohol or tobacco based on scientific studies. As in published, scientifically controlled studies? Feel free to look them up. I did, but I don't feel like researching them. If you care enough, you can look them up. Perhaps this indicates that my cognitive abilities are affected by any partaking I may have done in college 15 years ago? Then again, perhaps not....

I'm sure we're all aware that a John Hopkins study published in May 1999, examined marijuana's effects on cognition on 1,318 participants over a 15-year period. Researchers reported "no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis." They also found "no male-female differences in cognitive decline in relation to cannabis use." "These results ... seem to provide strong evidence of the absence of a long-term residual effect of cannabis use on cognition," they concluded.

Statistics
We're all aware that 22 years ago, 80% of Americans thought adults should be able to use MJ for medical purposes, right? We're also aware that that same poll indicated that 72% of Americans thought that people arrested for possessing small amounts (personal use) of MJ should be fined, rather than jailed, correct?

Speaking of jailed, we're all aware that as of 2 years ago, there were approximately 20,000 people in federal prison based on MJ convictions? We also realize that this 20,000-person figure is just Federal prison and doesn't include any state run prisons?

Economics
Although I don't have specific numbers can we all agree that these 20,000 people incarcerated on MJ convictions have cost the US taxpayers millions, if not billions of dollars by the time you factor legal, judicial, incarceration and enforcement (police) costs? After all, if we assume that the cost to house someone in jail for one year is approximately $20,000, then those 20,000 people cost us $400,000,000 each year in food, clothing and shelter alone. This doesn't even factor in legal fees, court costs, law enforcement costs, etc.

We're also aware that the FY 2004 Budget for the National Drug Control Strategy (Commonly referred to as the "War on Drugs") is 12,100,000,000.00 (that's right, billion with a "b") with well over half (approximately $7 billion) of this money earmarked for "Disrupting the Market". Incidentally, the rest of the budget is slated for "Stopping Use" ($2 billion) and "Healing Users" ($5 billion). I'm also sure that we're all aware that approximately 60% of arrests and convictions associated with "Disrupting the Market" have historically been for domestic MJ incidents?

Conclusion
So we're spending tens of billions of dollars each year to prosecute people who are ingesting a weed that grows naturally in all 50 states, that is less addictive than caffeine and less socially and physically harmful than either cigarettes or alcohol based on the fact that hemp was first declared illegal so that Dupont could sell more Nylon rope.

Solution
Whether you agree morally with ingesting MJ or not, the point is that the government could generate millions (perhaps billions) of dollars in revenue while saving billions of dollars in expenses by simply legalizing MJ and taxing the living crap out of it. The legislation to govern this is already on the books for alcohol. Treat pot like booze. It's illegal to drive after drinking in excess, so too would it be illegal to drive having smoking pot.

The same people who claim that smoking MJ is a sin are the same people who would vote to reenact prohibition for the same reason. In fact, there are areas in the USA that are "dry" and don't allow booze to be sold there. The same procedures and legislation should be in place for MJ.

It's simply another "sin tax". Tax it 200% for all I care, but stop spending billions of dollars a year to stop people from smoking what really amounts to crab grass or dandelions (although dandelions aren't native to the US, where hemp is) when there is no logical reasons for MJ being illegal anyway.

The fact that it's illegal to possess or smoke (or eat) MJ doesn't mean that it _should_ be illegal. That's circular logic: It's illegal to ride singletrack trail on a mountain bike because it's illegal to ride singletrack trails on a mountain bike and therefore, you shouldn't ride a mountain bike on singletrack.

Generating Revenue
I'm basically making the following numbers up to prove a point. I preface this entire section by stating that I don't know about the specific production costs of cigarettes, MJ or beer. I do however have a significant amount of experience in food packaging, which I'm basing some of these costs on:

- Cigarettes
Cost per pack: $3? (I don't know, I've never bought a pack)
Number per pack: 24? (Again, this is a guess)
Cost to mfg: Less than $1 (including packing, distribution and profit)
Taxes generated per pack: around $2
Tax per cigarette smoked: 8.3¢

- Beer
Cost per 6-pack: $6 (for fairly decent beer)
Number per: 6
Cost to mfg: $1.50-$3.00
Taxes generated per pack: Around $3.00
Tax per beer drank: 50¢

- MJ
Cost per 6-pack: $15 (Made up, I have no idea)
Number per pack: 6
Cost to legally mfg: Less than $1 (again, a guess based on packaging costs)
Taxes generated per pack: $14
Tax per joint smoked: $2.33

Would people buy it? Sure they would. Would they pay $15 per pack for legal MJ? I have no idea. I suspect that if you gave a MJ user the option to buy 6 joints from someone off the street or from their local liquor store where the product would be regulated, tested and certified to not contain a bunch of crap any time that store was open; they would pay the taxes at the store.

If only half of the estimated 24 million (hard to estimate since it's illegal) pot smokers in the United States paid $14 per pack in taxes and used one pack a month, the government would generate $2 billion dollars each year in tax revenue (12 million pot smokers x 1 pack per month x $14 per pack in taxes). This doesn't even factor in tax savings based on reduced prison, judicial, enforcement and monitoring costs and some significant chunk of the Market Disruption budget of $7 billion along with a portion of the additional $5 billion associated with prevention and cure.

If a pot smoker were stoned driving a car, they would be subject to the same penalties as a beer drinker would be if he/she were drunk and driving a car. Impaired is impaired, regardless of how you get there. If someone gave MJ to someone underage, they would be prosecuted just as if they'd have given a minor a fifth of whiskey.

Common sense and generating revenue seem like a much better approach to me than throwing people in jail for me to pay for them to have a place to live. The logic that MJ use is illegal therefore it should not be legal is not common sense. The logic that smoking MJ is a sin and therefore it should be illegal also defies common sense. Legalize it, tax it and then lower my F'ing taxes! That's what I care about.

Have a great day.

Ken

P.S. Smoking MJ is DANGEROUS! Are we all aware that you can overdose and kill yourself on MJ? In theory at least, if someone smokes 100 kilos of pot in less than 15 minutes, the THC level introduced in to a body would be toxic. Of course, they haven't been able to find anyone that can smoke 220 pounds of pot in 15 minutes, so it's just a theory at this point. The same can't be said for booze however.

P.P.S. My sources:

- William F. Buckely Jr.: National Review, 10/29/02, The Pot War Boiling
- William F. Buckely Jr.: National Review, 6/10/03, Reefer Madness
- United States Government: National Drug Control Strategy FY 2005 Budget Summary
- United States Government: National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972
- Eric Schlosser: Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market, Published May 8, 2003 ISBN: 0618334661


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Not sure what you hope to prove by that, since there is plenty of evidence in the other direction, and despite what your polls say, I still don't think it's a good idea for me to get high and fly a plane.

*
Recent Research Advances

In 1988, William Devane, et al. found a specific cannabinoid receptor in a rat brain [8] and subsequently, the distribution of this receptor in the human brain was mapped. [9] Today, it is generally accepted that cannabis acts on specific cannabinoid receptors in the brain. (Interestingly, the opioids also act through specific receptors.) The cannabis receptors sit on the cell membranes of the nerve cells.

In humans, the highest densities of receptors were found in the basal ganglia and the molecular layer of the cerebellum, which is consistent with cannabinoids' interference with movement. Dense binding was also found in parts of the hippocampus, and the dentate gyrus and layers I and Vl of the cortex. The latter is consistent with the findings of investigators, over the years, that the primary effects of marijuana were on the cognitive faculties.

In 1990, Lisa Matsuda provided conclusive evidence documenting the damage of marijuana on the cognitive faculties, after cloning a gene for the cannabinoid receptor in the rat brain which, in collaboration with M. Herkenham, was found to be 97 percent identical with the human receptor.[10] Interestingly enough, the cannabis receptor was also located in the nervous system of lower vertebrates like chickens, and even trout, suggesting that the gene must have been present early in evolution. The conservation of this gene implies that the receptor serves an important biological function in the body. Later, another receptor was found, in the spleen, and still a third was found in the uterus. [11]

Naturally, the rodent brain, or that of any animal, for that matter, cannot be compared to the human brain. But there are many effects, such as the impact of cannabis on movement, that are easier to evaluate with animals, because it is possible to maintain tight control over laboratory conditions, doses, and animal history. Investigators then project these results onto humans, making enormous qualitative allowances for the species differentiation of the brain.

In 1992, another crucial discovery was made. William Devane and Raphaet Mechoulam, working at Hebrew University in Israel, pinpointed a naturally occurring brain molecule, anandamide, that binds to the cannabis receptor and creates a "high" similar to that of marijuana. Anandamide is a compound derived from fatty-acid, which possesses pharmacological properties similar to those of delta-9-THC. This would indicate that smoked marijuana operates through a specific biochemical system that already exists in the body. If receptors for exogenously supplied substances exist, then there must also exist corresponding chemically related substances, which occur naturally in the body, and are very similar.[12] The anandamide is found particularly in the hippocampus, the thalamus, and in the cortex structures of the brain.

Although these two discoveries contribute to our knowledge of how cannabinoid action works in the body, they also raise some puzzling new questions. For example, in laboratory rats, anandamide was shown not to have the same strength of effect on spatial memory in rats as did delta-9-THC. Does this mean that the naturally produced cannabis, the anandamide, is different from smoked cannabis? And if so, why? What, then, is the purpose of anandamide? Under what conditions is anandamide released? Scientists are now trying to figure out the actual function of this system. [13]Surely it does not exist in the body so that humans could smoke marijuana.










Figure 2
NEURONS AND THEIR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS

Neurons (a) have three parts: (13) the cell body, which contains the nucleus, where the molecules that the neuron needs to survive and function are manufactured; (14) dendrites, which extend out of from the cell body and exchange messages with other nreve cells; (15) axons, through which signals pass from the dendrites through the cell body; (16) an insulating sheath for the axon.
When a signal reaches the end of the axon, it stimulates tiny sacs (17), which release chemicals known as neurotransmitters (18), into the synapse (19). These neurotransmitters cross the synapse and attach to receptors (20) on a neighboring cell.

Source: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Short-term Memory Damage

In a useful review of the scientific literature, conducted in 1983 by Miller and Branconnier, they found that the most consistently reported cognitive deficits from chronic marijuana smoking were memory deficits. [14] Scientists today consistently voice concern over the effects of marijuana smoking on short-term memory. Physically, it is the hippocampus in the brain where researchers locate the series of actions that converts information into short-term memory, and perhaps, also, long-memory episodic memory and "gates" information for memory as well as coding spatial and temporal relations among stimuli. Scientists think that they have a long way to go before they understand the hippocampus fully. Since the discovery of the cannabinoid receptor family, researchers know that high number of cannabinoid receptors exist in this structure as well as the anandamide.

How human memory literally goes up in marijuana smoke, by its medium and longer-term effects on the hippocampus, was graphically described by Professor Samuel Deadwyler from the Bowman Gray School of Medicine in North Carolina, in a speech at the 1995 National Conference on Marijuana Use, sponsored by the National Institute of Drug Abuse:

"It is this area, when damaged, that renders patients literally incapable of remembering new information for more than a few minutes and is undoubtedly critically involved in the well known memory deficits in Alzheimer's disease. When these hippocampal marijuana receptors are affected by the cannabis, they have the effect of rendering the hippocampus inactive."

"Long term exposure to marijuana has dual consequences for the memory. First, repeated exposure to marijuana in animals makes them more and more tolerant of this memory disruptive effect. However, this also means that continued use of the drug requires higher and higher doses before the euphoric or high state is achieved."

"Hence, even though memory is not impaired at the same dose as before, it will be impaired just as much because the individual will take more drugs to obtain the original state. What this means is that chronic use will eventually produce permanent effect on memory since the hippocampus will adjust its memory storage mechanisms to handle the lower capacity or volume of information produced by the drug. Thus, even when the drug is not present, the hippocampus will be altered and reduced in capacity to perform at optimum level. This may be the basis for the well-known memory deficits that are present in chronic marijuana users" [emphasis added].[15]

Deadwyler and his associates have been preoccupied, for at least 10 years with obtaining more detailed information on how this structure actually works. Deadwyler found that delta-9-THC selectively suppresses hippocampal electrical cellular activity in rats. He also located the fact that the granule cells provide a critical link between the entorhinal cortex and the hippocampus. Another scientist, K.A. Campbell, found in 1986 that the dentate gyrus, an area of the hippocampus, has its sensory decoding disrupted by THC. [15]

Neural pathways are conventionally thought of as electrical circuits, either parallel or serial. Understanding the brain's organization of the cannabinoid circuitry and its relation to other brain circuitry, not only could help to elucidate the functioning of the body's cannabinqid system, but also could provide specific data on the workings of the hippocampus memorv itself.

Such research is ongoing. Dr. Billy Martin's laboratory in Virginia, for example, has been researching the effects of THC for more than 20 years. Recently, Martin and Lichtman have presented data showing, for example, that cholinergic and cannabinoid receptors are not in series in disrupting memory in the hippocampus. [17] Acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter released by the cholinergic system, which seems to direct attention and maintain attention. Higher intellectual functions, such as memory and learning, require controlled attention. The fact that both cholinergic and cannabinoid receptors exist in the hippocampus, and in other brain areas associated with memory, would suggest the possibility that these two neural pathways work together, but how this happens is still not understood.

Brain scientists freely admit there is still much uncertainty about the operations of the hippocampus; for example, consciousness is possible even when the hippocampus is removed. But, as one researcher stresses, one crucial thing is certain: Long-term and short-term memory survive such a lesion "but transfer from the former to the latter becomes impossible [emphasis added]. [18] No matter how one looks at the function of memory, it is obvious that man needs his hippocampus. Children and young adults, in particular, depend on their short-term memory, since they are learning and receiving new input constantly.

In addition, the hippocampus is dependent on information processing and input from other brain areas that are affected by cannabis smoking. For example, there are many cannabinoid receptors on the cerebellum. The cerebellum processes information which is largely related to motor function. The frontal lobes, which process temporal relations, also have cannabinoid receptors. Given the number of regions of the brain that are affected, this means that, ultimately, the entire brain, and the entire body, will be affected.

The cognitive drawbacks of cannabis-caused impairment are not inconsequential. They affect driving a car, operating a plane, or employing a complicated piece of machinery. In such skilled activities, one's undivided attention, recall, quick visual-spatial mapping, and split-second timing, are required at every second. [19] Or to take a simpler example, what about the young adult who is attempting to learn how to play the trumpet. How can the student who has smoked too much marijuana simultaneously have command over the complex processes required to perform a piece of music - memory, coordination of hands and mouth, emotion, and interpretation?
The Neuroendocrine System and Cannabis

Another important aspect of brain and long-term effects of chronic cannabis use is its effect on the hippocampus and its hormone system. Researchers J.C. Eldridge and P.W. Landfield are studying the relationship between the glucocorticoid receptor system in the hippocampus, and chronic cannabis use. Glucocorticoid, is a steroid that is secreted in times of stress. They write:

Chronic THC administration induced aging-like degenerative changes in the rat brain that resembled... the effects of stress exposure and elevated corticosterone secretion. [20]

A research team headed by Dr. Eliezer Huberman, at Argonne National Laboratory, has shown that active ingredients in marijuana, THC and related cannabinoids, keep blood cells from maturing, thereby reducing the body's ability to fight disease. Here, Huberman (left) examines a protein map that reveals the individual proteins in blood.

Eldridge and Landfeld's work was conducted before the discovery of anandamide, so that they did not have the benefit of knowledge of the cannabis "lock." Nevertheless, their work on the interactions of marijuana with the hormone system of the body is very useful, for hormones play a central role in regulating the body's reaction to stress, and because marijuana is used ostensibly to relieve stressful situations.

The importance of hormones can be seen in looking at the effects of cannabinoids on pituitary hormone secretion. The pituitary gland secretes eight different hormones that play crucial roles in regulating metabolic and reproductive functions throughout the body. The adrenocorticotropin hormone (ACTH) is released in response to stress. The thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH), and the growth hormone (GH), are important in the maintenance of metabolism. Studies indicate that chronic and acute use of marijuana may have an effect on the reproductive system and the individual's ability to respond to different metabolic changes and stress. [21] Some researchers also believe that too little stress is unhealthful for the brain, for then the brain is not in gear.

Figure 3
TRANSPORT VESICLES IN THE CELL

The cell is like a well-organized city: This artist's illustration shows the various transport vesicles in a cell. Some convey proteins made in the endoplasmic reticlum to the Golgi apparatus, which modifies the proteins. Others transport proteins and enzymes in and out of the cells, or store them. Scientists have found that the THC cannabinoid causes subtle changes in cell processes.

Source: Tomo Narashima/Scientific American

Biophysical Clues

Today, most scientists study how cannabis affects cells by chemical and electrical methods of examining neurons in the brain. In this method of investigation, scientists identify how membranes and proteins interact. Proteins are a large family of biological molecules, which are made by stringing amino acids together to form long chains. There are many kinds of proteins; they are the "machine tools" of the cell. Enzymes, for example, are made of protein, as are the ion channels that move ions across cell membranes. It is the movement of ions across cell membranes which is conventionally thought to be the main method for electrical signalling in the brain.

There have been many experiments on understanding the electrochemistry of the 9-delta-THC molecule, and the pharmacological kinetics of the THC-cell receptor bindings. Also, much has been done on non-receptor membrane interactions with cannabis. [22] Naturally, after the post-1988 discoveries of the cannabinoid receptors, the cannabis receptor and linked anandamide research became the most logical, and fruitful, method of investigation.

However, another avenue for examining how the psychoactive substances of cannabis, the cannabinoids, work is to perform biophysical experiments and measurements, looking at the physical interactions between the drug and the part of a living cell it targets, on a microphysical scale. This method has promising results for investigations of the medium- and long-term effects of cannabis on the brain and nervous system. The biophysical method of investigation asks different questions about cells than does the biochemical avenue. For example, are there changes in the physical state of a membrane that correlate with how THC molecules behave? A few words about the importance of the membrane. Each cell is surrounded by a double layer of lipid, called the lipid bilayer. Lipid is a name for certain organic molecules that have one water-attracting end, and one fat-attracting end. A typical cell membrane is about 5 nanometers thick, compared to a cell dimension of 1 to several micrometers in cross-section. (If the inside of a cell were scaled up to be as large as a big living room, the cell membrane would still be only a couple of centimeters in thickness.) [23]

Traditionally, one can think of a cell as being like a well-organized city, which contains water and different organelles, including the DNA, as the chemistry takes its course. The cell itself is full of membranes, because many parts of the cell have a surrounding frame, or bilayer. The nucleus, and the golgi apparatus, for example, are surrounded by a membrane. Thus, most biological processes have to interact with membranes. Phosphocholines (DPPC) are the main constituents of biological membranes; other constituents include the sterols and cholesterol.

Alexandros Makriyannis and colleagues, working at the University of Connecticut at Storrs, have been doing biophysical work with cannabis, for some time, in collaboration with other institutions. Synthetic membranes can be made very simply by dispensing lipid molecules in aqueous solutions. Using such model membranes is extremely useful, because it is possible to ask simple questions and have control over the physical properties. The Makriyannis group added THC molecules in varying concentrations to the model membranes, and then applied different spectroscopic techniques in order to measure the change induced by THC.

Another technique this group used is called differential scanning calorimetry, which makes use of the coupling between the temperature and the phase transition of a lipid bilayer. By using different analogs of the principal active ingredient, the delta-9-THC, in mixing with the model membrane DPPC, the Makriyannis group found that the gel states disappeared; they also found that the gel-to-fluid change was different when active THC-analogs were increased. [24]

A lipid bilayer has the ability to change between different physical states, which is important for biological processes in the cell. The fact that THC causes these tiny changes is significant, because of the physical dependence of cellular membrane structure on biological activity. It also points to the potential influence of THC as a membrane "perturber," with implications, ultimately, for the brain and the entire body.

Although the cannabinoid receptors and anandamide, have been identified - that is, there is a specific biochemical system for cannabis's psychoactive effects to be pharmacologically set into motion - this biophysical approach should not be abandoned. According to Mavromoustakos and Makriyannis, et al., it appears that not all the impacts on the body from cannabis smoking are cannabinoid-receptor related. As proof of this, for example, the researchers cite the impact of cannabinoids on neurotransmitter uptake systems and on blood platelets. [25] And researchers have admitted that chronic cannabis users may have symptoms even in the long-term and non-intoxicated state, long after cannabis is no longer detectable in the blood or fat. [26] Perhaps in the future, membrane research could explain some of these phenomena.

The overriding consideration here is that the entire brain and the entire body depend on each other and operate together. We cannot underestimate the impact, sometime in the future, of subtle effects such as those Moreau noted in the 19th century, which have their origin in tiny microphysical changes in the brain's substratum. Moreau once referred to this phenomenon as a "molecular disintegration" of personality, which is what we will next examine.

Marijuana As a Personality 'Agent Provocateur'

So far we looked at some individual structures of the brain and then at the microphysical level. Putting the head back on top of the person's body, now we might ask, how does the mind of an individual under cannabis's influence actually work? And what are the visible signs of this in the person's behavior?

Jacques-Joseph Moreau (1804-1884), a promment French psychiatrist, was the first medical man to do systematic work with drugs active in the central nervous system, and to catalogue, analyze, and record his observations. His 1845 book, Hashish and Mental Alienation, is still applicable today. Moreau termed marijuana a personality "agent provocateur."

The psychiatrist Moreau tested cannabis not only on his patients, but also on himself and his colleagues in the literary circle, Le Club des Hachichins. In fact, Moreau administered doses far exceeding that which any scientist today would be allowed to use. Without any government restrictions, Moreau dared to use up to 16 grams! When one reads his results, therefore, one has to be careful about the interrelationship between the high dose of which he is speaking, and the pre-existing mental state of his subject. Nevertheless Moreau's observations are still relevant.

As did later researchers, Moreau discovered in his experiments during the 1800s, that marijuana's effects are dose dependent. If the dose was high enough and the use chronic, Moreau observed that his subjects often became insane. With the administration of lower doses, Moreau identified long-term personality changes that were more subtle, including shortened attention span, distractability, and a progressive loss of mental powers. Moreau did not view the progressive destruction of the individual's mental powers, under the chronic use of marijuana, as simply a linear addition of one more cognitive deficit in a human performance test. He stated that any individual under the chronic use of marijuana was "mentally disturbed." Moreau wrote, based on his observations and scientific knowledge, that by destroying the unity of thought in the individual, that individual was mentally ill, even if he did not look like, or act like, a psychotic. Moreau did not think one could automatically see this devolution in the initial stages with the naked eye:

"Such are all, or almost all, the physical disorders caused by hashish from the weakest to the most intense. One sees that they all relate to the nervous system. As we have already said, they develop much more slowly than the mental disturbance, and the mind can be profoundly changed without affecting the body. It seems that the causal factor [that is, the drug] acts directly on the faculties of the mind without the mediation of the organs, as in the case of mental illness" [emphasis added].

Moreau identified how the mind is destroyed from marijuana smoking, notably through distractability:

One of the first measurable effects of hashish is the gradual weakening of the power to direct thoughts at will. We feel slowly overwhelmed by strange ideas unrelated to the subject on which we are trying to focus our attention. These ideas, which we have not willfully summoned in our mind, appear at random and become more and more numerous, lively, and keen. Soon they command more attention and generate bizarre associations and fantastic creations. If by an effort of will we resume the sequence of our ideas, the ones we have rejected still echo in our mind; but as if from a far-away distance muffled like dreams of a restless night.. .. [T]hese ideas, or rather this series of ideas, are actually dreams, "true dreams" in the strictest sense. One cannot distinguish them from those created by natural sleep.... You forget those things which at present most excite your interest and stir your passions, which absorb all your attention, to dream only those which were in the past.

A little further on, Moreau summarized this process, stating, "The action of hashish weakens the will - the mental power that rules ideas and associates and connects them together.[28]

Moreau's observations find frequent corroboration today. A comprehensive paper, "Effects of Smoked Marijuana on Human Performance: A Critical Review," by investigators L.D. Chaitt and J. Pierri in 1992, reviewed and analyzed many years of marijuana investigations on human beings. In addition to the well-known short-term memory deficits from cannabis usage, these researchers found that another reported result of the human studies were frequent memory intrusions. [29] (Memory intrusions are stimuli listed by the test subjects that are not actually present.) Also, they found reports of significant effects on tirne estimation. One of the researchers they cite, Nadaia Solowij, a cognitive scientist in Australia, recorded such memory intrusions, among other observations. She postulated that chronic use of cannabis might account for this, by creating long-term changes at the cannabinoid receptor. [30]

If Moreau were alive today he would probably say that the individuals in these studies have an "agent provocateur," a term he coined for the effects of marijuana upon the nervous system. Slowly, subtly, the will of the person is being undermined.

*

Notes and References

1. Y. Gaoni and R. Mechoulam, 1964. "Isolation, Structure, and Partial Synthesis of an Active Constituent of Hashish," Journal of the American Chemical Sociely, Vol. 86, pp. 1646-1647.

2. Richard M. Restak, 1994. Receptors (New York: Bantam Books).

3. S.A. Deadwyler, R.E. Hapson, B.A. Bennett, S. Wang, et al., l993. "Effects of Cannabinoids and Nicotine on Central Nervous System Neurons." In S.G. Korenman and J.D. Barchas (Eds.), Biological Basis of Substance Abuse (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp.201-219. This is an excellent resource book, edited and in part written, by one of the explorers of the cannabis receptor.

4. L.E. Hollister, 1986. "Health Aspects of Cannabis," Pharmacological Re- views, Vol. 38, pp. 1-20.

5. W. Hall, N. Solowij, and J. Lemon, 1994. The Health and Psychological Consequences of Cannabis Use (Sydney, Australia: The Australian Task Force on Cannabis). This 210-page document is the most recent comprehensive world overview of cannabis research. Written for both a scientific and an educated general audience, it is both extremely rigorous and fair.

6. I.B. Adams and B. Martin, 1996. "Cannabis: Pharmacology and Toxicology in Animals and Humans," Addiction, Vol. 91, No. 11, pp. 1585-1614. Read this to obtain an understanding of how advancements in the field of cannabinoid pharmacology have contributed to our understanding of the operations of cannabinoids in the body. See also, Academie des Sciences, Institut de France, Report No. 39, April 1997, "Aspects Moleculaires, Cellulaires et Physiologiques des Effects du Cannabis ». This contains updates on a valuable drug called SR141716, developed by Sanofi Researche in France. SR141716A is labelled an antagonist because it binds to the marijuana receptor but does not produce any strong pharmacological effects on its own and blocks the ettects of THC. Therefore, it is useful for many experiments on the work- ings of marijuana in the animal and human. There is a useful conclusion section (both in English and French), which is highly optimistic in that it gives suggestions about where the research should go in the future, given the new developments in pharmacology.

7. Jacques-Joseph Moreau, 1973. Hashish and Mental lllness. Eds. Helene Peters and Gabriel G. Nahas. (New York: Raven Press). Selections from Qoreau's work in the 1800s.

8. W A. Devane, F.A. Dysarz, M.R. Johnson, L.S. Melvin, and A. Hoiwett, 1988. "Determination and Characterization of a Cannabinoid Receptor in Rat Brain," Molecular Pharmacology, Vol. 34, pp. 605-613.

9. M Herkenham, 1992. "Cannabinoid Receptor Localization in Brain: Relationship to Motor and Reward Systems," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. P.W. Kalivas and H.H. Samson, Eds. The Neurobiology of Drug and Alcohol Addiction, pp. 19-32.

10. L.A. Matsuda, T.l. Bonner, and S.J. Lolait, 1990. Structure of a Cannabinoid Receptor and Functional Expression of the Cloned DNA, Nature, Vol. 346, pp. 561-564. For human cloning of receptor, see also, C.M. Gerard, C. Mollereau, G. Vassart, and M. Parmentier, 1991. "Molecular Cloning of a Human . Cannabinoid Receptor Which Is Also Expressed in Testes." Biochemistry Joumal, Vol. 279, pp. 129-134. An interesting history to these important discoveries is provided by Richard M. Restak, 1994. Receptors, pp.183-201 (New York: Bantam Books).

11. J. Travis, 1997. "Uterus Makes a Marijuanalike Compound," Science News, Vol. 151, p. 236 (April).

12. L.H. Schreiber, 1995. "Cannabisforschung - Der aktuelle Stand der Dinge - Oder: Anandamid, ein Korpereigenes Haschisch," Kriminalistik, Vol. 12, pp.803-806. Schreiber here gives a thorough treatment of the medical implications of the discovery of anandamide for cell and mem- brane activity in humans.

13. D. Pate, 1994. "Interview: Prof. Dr. Raphael Mechoulam, the discoverer of THC," Joumal of the International Hemp Association, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 21- 24. Mechoulam is located at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and is currently on the Editorial Advisory Board of the International Hemp Association.

14. L.L. Miller and R.J. Branconnier, 1983. "Cannabis Effects in Memory and the Cholinergic Limbic System." Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 93, No. 39, pp. 441-456.

15. NIDA, 1996. "National Conference on Marijuana Use: Prevention, Treatrnent, and Research," (Washingtori, D.C.: National Institutes of Health, Publication No. 96-4106), pp. 62-63.

17. K.A. Campbell, T.C. Foster, R.E. Hampson, and S.A. Deadwyler, 1986. "Effects of 9-tetrahydrocannabinol on Sensory-evoked Discharges of Granule Cells in the Dentate Gyrus of Behaving Rats," Journal of Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. Vol. 239, pp. 941-945.

18. A. Lichtman and B.R. Martin, 1996. "9-Tetrahydrocannabinol Impairs Spatial Memory through a Cannabinoid Receptor Mechanism," Psychopharmacology, Vol. 126, pp. 125-131.

19. T. Cotterill, 1995. "On the Unity of Conscious Experience," Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 2. No. 4, pp. 307-308.

20. P. Schmidt, et al., 1995. "Cannabiskonsum und Fahrtuechtigkeit," Kriminalistik, Vol. 41, p. 246.

21. J.C. Eldridge and P.W. Landfield, 1992. "Cannabinoid-Glucocorticoid Interactions in the Hippocampal Region of the Brain," in L. Murphy and A. Bartke, Eds. Marijuana/Cannabinoids: Neurobiology and Neurophysiology, pp. 93-119 (Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press).

22. See Note 20.

23. C.J. Hillard, A.S. Bloom, and M.D. Houslay, 1986. Biochem. Pharmacol., Vol. 35, pp. 2797-2803. See also, J.C. Gilbert, R.G. Pertwee, and M.G. Wyllie, 1977. British Journal Pharmacol., Vol. 59, pp.599-601. Also B.R. Martin, 1986. "Cellular Effects of Cannabinoids," Pharmacological Reviews, Vol. 38, pp. 45-74.

24. Thomas Vissing, 1997. "Interaction of Cannabis with Lipids in Cell Membranes." Unpublished discussion paper. Copenhagen.

25. T. Mavromoustakos, E. Theodoropoulou, and A. Makriyannis, et al., 1996. "Studies on the Thermotropic Effects of Cannabinoids on Phos- phatidylcholine Bilayers Using Differential Scanning Calorimetry and Small Angle X-ray Diffraction," Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, Vol. 1281, pp. 235-244.

26. See Note 24, pp. 235-244.

27. See Note 5, p. 36, and Note 15, pp. 22-23.

28. See Note 7, pp. 26-27.

29. See Note 7, pp. 32-33.

30. L.D. Chaitt and J. Pierri, 1992. "Effects of Smoked Marijuana on Human Performance: A Critical Review." In L. Murphy and A. Bartke, Eds. Marijuana/Cannabinoids: Neurobiology and Neurophysiology, pp. 387-423 (Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press).

31. See Note 5, p. 137.

32. See Note 15, p. 39.

33. D.C. Mather, and A.H. Ghodse, 1992. "Cannabis and Psychotic lllness," British Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 161, pp. 648-653. This is an excellent discussion paper on the controversy about cannabis and the outbreak of mental illness.

34. V. Rush and J. Fredman, "A $150 Billion Chunk of Dope, Inc., Production," Executive Intelligence Review, July 26, 1996, pp. 19-25.

35. See Note 15, pp. 26-27.

36. K. Steinherz, 1981. "Why British Aristocrats Invented 'Decrim,' War on Drugs, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 29-49.

37. Ibid.

38. J. Kempfer, 1997. "Hashmich," Blitz Tip (Feb.). The background to this is amply discussed in P. Raschke and J. Kalke, 1997. Cannabis in Apotheken - Kontrollierte Abgabe als Heroinpraevention (Freiburg im Breisgau: Lambertus Verlag). See also, U.K. Kelsch, I997. "Strategische Bedeutung der Drogenpolitik-Risikopotential Rot-Gruen," Magazin fuer die Polizei, No. 255-256, p. 21.

This is just one little excerpt from an article, but I think it proves that at the very least, just cause you can find a few articles that support (or do not support) MJ doesn't mean that you understand it and know everything about it.


----------



## Dr.Faustus (Jan 9, 2004)

*Now you've gone and done it!*



Ken in KC said:


> My $1.02:
> 
> .......
> 
> ...


You went and threw in a logical, well-reasoned argument and backed it up with information and even cited sources! That takes all the fun out of this mud fight.

Yeesh!
Dr.(I'd even popped a batch of popcorn for this one)F.


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*Perhaps you should reread my post....*



Jm. said:


> Not sure what you hope to prove by that, since there is plenty of evidence in the other direction, and despite what your polls say, I still don't think it's a good idea for me to get high and fly a plane.
> 
> *
> Recent Research Advances
> ...


Um... I think what I said was impared is impared, regardless of how you get there. Whether you're drunk or stoned, you shouldn't be flying a plane. If you weren't so staunchly anti-pot, I might think that your cognitive skills were impared by the long term affects of MJ.

Speaking of cognitive skills, your first source indicates that (be prepared for a big shock) that the study concludes that you get stoned from smoking MJ! Wow! That's news! Shocking that there are chemical receptors in people's brians that are affected by smoking pot. Although I don't care enough to prove it, I suspect that there are also chemical receptors in human brains that are also affected by alchohol, tabacco, caffine, viagra, blood pressure medication and in some people's cases, dust and mold.

In addition, your second source is dated 19 years prior to the study I cited from Johns Hopkins. The latter study contradicts the earlier study and provides for a longer study term. The second posting goes on to conclude they have not conclusively linked memory loss to MJ.

It also indicates that if a portion of the brain is removed that is generally associated with the transfer of memory from short to long term (the hippocampus), that memory transfer is affected. I'm certainly no brain surgeon, but this makes sense to me. In fact, I would catagorize this under "Duh!". The study then goes on to conclude that "The cognitive drawbacks of cannabis-caused impairment are not inconsequential. They affect driving a car, operating a plane, or employing a complicated piece of machinery. In such skilled activities, one's undivided attention, recall, quick visual-spatial mapping, and split-second timing, are required at every second. " or put another way, you shouldn't do any of these activities while impared.

Since you don't seem willing to consider any points but those that you make, I'm sure this is moot:

1. You are 100% correct in asserting that MJ affects a body's ability to function as designed while someone is stoned. It's for this very reason that it's illegal to operate a car while impared (regardless of the what substance causes the imparement). It's this same reason that pilots aren't supposed to operate planes while impared, construction workers aren't allowed to operate machinery while impared and kids shouldn't take drugs (including cigarettes and booze) at all.

2. The gallop poles never indicated whether someone impared should be allowed to fly a plane, so I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion based on my post.

3. The economic impacts of legalizing MJ far outweigh any moral issues in my opinion. If morality is the basis for concluding that MJ should be illegal, then booze and cigarettes should be outlawed as well. Obviously outlawing booze didn't go over so well. Outlawing cigarettes wouldn't even be considered, given the economic impacts this would have.

4. Since MJ is currently illegal (regardless whether it should be or not), indivuals who smoke pot are responsible for any consequences of their smoking.

5. I don't, nor will I ever contend that I know everything there is to know about anything. Much less everything there is to know about marijuana. I suggest that you too don't know or understand everything there is to know about it, yet this lack of knowledge doesn't preclude you from offering us your opinion. I simply don't have a moral objection to legalizing it and I think the US Government is missing out on a HUGE revenue source while spending billions of dollars of our money in what even law enforcement agencies think is a lost cause (not illegal drugs as a whole, but strictly MJ.)

6. You seem to be willing to jump to the conclusion that if MJ were legalized that people would be out there stoned and putting others lives at risk by driving, flying, operating heavy equipment, performing brain surgery, etc. The simple fact is that there is current legislation prohibiting these actions while impared. I don't (and it doesn't appear that anyone other than you) is suggesting that legalizing MJ should be an open book, do what you want, dogs and cats living together, chaotic influence on society. I think what people are suggesting is that MJ would be treated basically like liquor. So take any legislation that containes the word "alchohol" and replace it with THC or marijuana. It would still be illegal to do anything currently illegal while impared. It would still be illegal for kids to possess it. It would generate billions of dollars in tax revenue while saving billions of dollars in enforcement, judical, legislation, and incarceration expenses.

Ken


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*Sorry, my bad...*



Dr.Faustus said:


> You went and threw in a logical, well-reasoned argument and backed it up with information and even cited sources! That takes all the fun out of this mud fight.
> 
> Yeesh!
> Dr.(I'd even popped a batch of popcorn for this one)F.


Should it go to waste, I owe you a bag of popcorn when we hook up and ride our bikes. Somehow though, I think you'll still be able to enjoy it with your feet propped up on your desk.

Ken


----------



## Drewdane (Dec 19, 2003)

Ken in KC said:


> Um... I think what I said was impared is impared, regardless of how you get there. Whether you're drunk or stoned, you shouldn't be flying a plane. If you weren't so staunchly anti-pot, I might think that your cognitive skills were impared by the long term affects of MJ.
> 
> (edit: further text cut for brevity's sake - Drew)
> 
> Ken


Hear, hear!


----------



## Wheelie (May 17, 2004)

Excellent post Ken! Apparently you have done your MJ homework and for that you get an A+.

Jm., on the otherhand, likes to argue for argument's sake. He certainly didn't read and comprehend anything from Ken's post. Ken's post clearly stated that driving under the iinfluence of MJ should be penalized under current DUI laws. Jm.'s response indicates that he hasn't fully comprehended Ken's well written post.

"... I still don't think it's a good idea for me to get high and fly a plane." 

Obviously, Jm. missed the point and for that he's receives an F for reading comprehension.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Ken in KC said:


> My $1.02:
> 
> The actual problem of this thread revolves around..............


Great post. I don't think anyone is going to change their opinion though, but you gotta try  .

Either people have the ability to reason and to think beyond their personal experiences & preconceived notions, or they don't (shrug).


----------



## Wheelie (May 17, 2004)

Jm. said:


> ... I still don't think it's a good idea for me to get high and fly...


Well, that depends on what type of flying you are talking about. I was quite high on reefer when this pic of me was taken.


----------



## Halloween (Dec 30, 2003)

Jm. said:


> I've known a lot of people that smoke the stuff, but I can't think of any of those that are exceptionally motivated, focused, or leaders within their field.


How about Carl Sagan?

Oh, and wasn't Rockwell a World Champion at one point?


----------



## Fuelish (Dec 19, 2003)

mtbberzrkr said:


> WOW! for only being 25 you sure know a lot about everything.
> Do you have any idea what it's like to smoke pot, or do you just believe everything you read on the internet? Far more damage is done by alcohol than weed. Personally I think anything that occurs naturally should be legal.


 Just for the record, alcohol is as "natural" as weed.....it's simply a fermented sugar water/beverage of sorts (to make it simple for simple minds) I ain't arguing it's better or worse than weed, just making a point that alcohol can be/was produced "in the wild" just like weed (And, the high quality weed that gets bought and sold is NOT just "ditch weed" that grows on it's own)...how the hell do you think it's (alcohol) been around for thousands of years ??? But, like it or not, alcohol, and homebrewing, is legal....cannabis use/cultivation isn't.....go work on changin the laws instead of whining about a former dh dude getting busted....boo hoo... For the record, I've been there, done that.....get over it, kiddies !!!


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

zachdank said:


> all i got to say is jm got schooled by ken. sweetness. suck on that jmboy


Oh yeah, schooled by a subjective response and literature, that makes a lot of sense. As is usual, he's acting like what I posted is the ONLY article ever written, or science ever performed, on MJ. It was just an example that anything someone can come up with in terms of "supporting it" (legalization, whatever), can be countered with other scientific knowledge and evidence. If you think that's being "schooled", oh well, but what I posted was just the first article that I found. Now, if Ken wants to spend the days, or years, taking every single article that has been written and can objectively disprove them, then he might be on to something and "schooling" people.


----------



## Wheelie (May 17, 2004)

Jm. you've been owned with regard to internet debate 101. 

Ken's post is original with supporting documentation properly referenced, whilst your rebuttal is nothing more than a mindless cut and paste job.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Wheelie said:


> Jm. you've been owned with regard to internet debate 101.
> 
> Ken's post is original with supporting documentation properly referenced, whilst your rebuttal is nothing more than a mindless cut and paste job.


nodding head in agreement.


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

Damn, I wasn't aware that Ken in KC was a scientist that has tested THC and really understands what it does to people, as well as the real implications of legalization. That's why he must be right! 

My point wasn't to come up with something original, my point was to easily prove that the claims that it is "harmless" are bunk, and that they can be easily countered. Need I pull up more evidence? I'm sure I can find, and quote, site, or paraphrase (whichever you like) some pretty good reasoning against leagalization as well...

Good thing you guys missed the point though, it wouldn't have provided for as much entertainment if you had not.


----------



## mtbberzrkr (Jan 12, 2004)

Now getting caught smoking dope is no reason to be handed a life sentence, but 52 plants is not a personal stash.

Now--all you dopers feel free to tell me how wrong I am.......  

OK. You're REALLY wrong.
How do you know it's not a personal stash? Harvest once a year. Then you won't have to go find it from someone else and possibly get caught. Also, I think their estimate of its street value are ridiculously high (no pun intended). Maybe $10,000 if each plant produced a quarter-pound of product.


----------



## skeeter (Dec 30, 2003)

all this dope talk is pretty entertaining. To the "legalize it" crowd.....try harder. lay off the doobs for a while and formulize a better plan. personally, i don't really give a $hit whether it is legal or not, but currently, it is pretty well know that weed is illegal, and if you get caught with it, that's the breaks. if weed being illegal is so wrong, you'd think there would be a national uprage. demonstrations and such. i mainly hear people whining AFTER they get caught with it. 

my personal weed experience? i've probably been stoned about 30 - 40 times. enough times to know that if i toked up some each day, or every other day, i wouldn't feel as sharp as if i stayed sober. my wife used to smoke daily for a span of about 5 years or so, and she can't remember $hit, same with one of my college buds who still smokes daily 15 years after college. he's the one dude out of the group of us who smoked frequently, and oddly enough, he's the one dude who can't remember $hit when we rehash the old stories. not a big cross-section of stoners, but those are the two i know.

driving stoned? i'll skip it. it ain't so bad in the day, but totally sucked at night. i'd rather be slightly over the legal alchohol limit, if i could pick. if i had to drive farther than 3 blocks i'd say "where the firetruck am i?" about 10 times per half hour. and it may just be me, but i could only vaguely remember what i did while i was stoned, and would usually feel kindof sleepy the next day. "what'd i do last night? let's see....i watched a movie i can't remember and i ate 3 arby's beef-n-cheddars. i laughed alot at something that was funny, can't remember what, but it was funny. then i fell asleep. it was awesome." 

now i don't get near as fogged up if i drink a few beers and catch a slight buzz, but maybe that's just me. what does any of this matter? not much, i just get the impression that the pro-weed folk are pissed that they can't legally enjoy the "benefit" of smoking weed, and therefore try to promote it as something good. well, i don't consider not being able to remember what you did or talked about while you were stoned a good thing. that doesn't mean i think it should be illegal, if you want to get messed up and forget a lot of $hit, fight for that right, but you aren't going to gain my support by telling me how pot doesn't contribute to anything really negative, and that it is natural and good. that's straight up horse$hit.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Jm. said:


> My point wasn't to come up with something original, my point was to easily prove that the claims that it is "harmless" are bunk....


Please, get some perspective. I could do a study that shows that mountain biking isn't harmless. People suffer all sorts of physical injuries why getting their adrenaline hi. Not to mention the environmental damage etc, etc. Look at the spending habits of mountain biking addicts. $200 or more to loose a 100grams. That money could have gone to their kids education. But instead, these adrenaline addicts spend the money getting hi.

How many people die in cars each year? Please, compare for me the ill effect of cars vs pot.

Don't you see how silly it is to point out the obvious and put a spin on it to give your argument credibility?

Of course there are ill effect to pot. FFS there are ill effect to just about everything. Heard of post-natal depression? Well how about we out law child birth. I know this one mother who gave birth and then drowned all her children. If she had never given birth, this would have never happened.

The fact is there are millions upon millions of people who smoke pot and figure that the benefits out weigh the negatives. Sure there are people who can't control themselves, but that has a lot more to do with them as individuals than with the drug. Hint - it is not addictive.

The single most damaging thing about pot is that fact that it is illegal and if you get caught, you may never live it down.


----------



## Wheelie (May 17, 2004)

Like I said before, I really don't care if is illegal. I never possess more than a misdemeanor amount of weed anyway. I certainly know the "war on drugs" is working because I'm still paying the same $$$ for a little sack of weed that I was twenty years ago.  I'm sure the price would go up the government got involved and started taxing it.

I just don't understand why people are so concerned about what I do in the safety of my home after I've finished my daily responsibities as a productive member of society. There are way bigger issues currently on our nation's plate. Things like education, the economy, war and, of course, diminishing personal feedoms. 

BTW, life is dangerous. Four roadies have been killed this year alone in the Dallas area. There aren't very many roadies in Dallas to start with so the odds of ending up in a pine box are pretty good if you ride your bike on the street there. People still do it and that is their perogative.


----------



## Bortis Yelltzen (May 18, 2004)

*Pick a fight?*

It seems to me that many of you are far more interested in flexing your mental strength and aurguing over opinion than haveing a decent discussion on the issues. And those of you enforcing the law seem to see things in black and white, in reality there is a grey area, and that is where the judges come in and generally do the right thing. I the police and the FBI had the final say, most all of us would be in jail at some point in our lives.

I have been know to sample some high grade homegrown from time to time. I do not drink alcohol. I feel alcohol causes many more problems than pot. I am well educated, meaning I have many degrees, which does not necessarily make me smart, as you can see from my spelling, but I have been told by my peers that I am a damn fine engineer, so seeing people argue over opinion cracks me up. And I find that pot does not interfere with the highly analytical thinking my job requires, unlike alcohol. And in my OPINION, laws are an opinion that the majority chose to vote into law. I happen to disagree with some of those opinions/laws, so I choose not to obey them in the privacy of my own home and at some concerts and what not. I am a law obiding citizen for the most part, yes I speed, yes I don't always come to a complete stop at stop signs and red lights.

So waht was all that blather about? Nothing, Myles screwed up, he was greedy, he got out of control, and he will be punished. Moderation is the key, if you are trying to make money off an illegal product, your plan is flawed. Worry about your own personal needs, and let others worry about theirs.

Arguing over opinion is like having sex with your sister for practice. You may feel better in the during and right after, but in the end you are just wasting time better spent on more productive activities.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Bortis Yelltzen said:


> Nothing, Myles screwed up, he was greedy, he got out of control, and he will be punished. Moderation is the key, if you are trying to make money off an illegal product, your plan is flawed.


Not trying to argue here, and I'm sure you'll agree to some extent, but I would just like to poin this out.

Unless you grow your own, someone has to suppy it. So as much as I think smokers and professional dealers are (for the most part) worlds apart, you can't really condem someone for supplying a product you use. I mean you are supporting them in their endeavors, like it or not.


----------



## Fuelish (Dec 19, 2003)

zachdank said:


> now i no why your name is foolish


 Lookie here.....First off, I suggest you go reread my post...the part where it says "for the record, I've been there, done that".....What, you can't understand what that means ?? I've probably smoked more weed than you'll ever dream of....I've been busted twice for possession...but guess what ??? I suffered the consequences, paid my fines.... I've since I grown up, have priorities, AND I can spell (do you "no" what I mean ??) and read and understand the meaning of a pun (Fuelish does not = foolish...it's a fvckin' pun...do they teach y'all anything in school these days ???) I never claimed that weed was evil, nor alcohol good..just stated the facts - one is illegal, the other is not, and both are naturally occuring intoxicants....bad boy downhiller got popped for doing something illegal...boo fvckin' hoo...he took his chances and he lost....grow up and get over it...who really cares ???


----------



## Bortis Yelltzen (May 18, 2004)

zachdank said:


> Arguing over opinion is like having sex with your sister for practice. You may feel better in the during and right after, but in the end you are just wasting time better spent on more productive activities.


why is an educated man like yourself having sex w/ his sister? [/QUOTE]

You like throwing rocks don't you? I can see arguing with you in not worth my time. My point is that I too smoke grass. It does not effect my professional life. I am in the top of my feild, I choose not to drink. I have been through a lot of school, I am well educated, and I respect others opinion, even yours. I think many poeple inthis forum are wasting their time and energy arguing about this. Worry about yourself, and respect others and you will go far in life. Otherwise, save your breath for that long climb.

How old are you Zachdank? You argue at the 3rd grade level, so depending on your answer that is a complement or I too am throwing rocks.

And no, I don't have sex with my sister, don't have a sister, and I don't quite see how you interpreted that from my response. But if you have a sister send me her number, I could always use a new "riding" partner.


----------



## Bortis Yelltzen (May 18, 2004)

Steve71 said:


> Not trying to argue here, and I'm sure you'll agree to some extent, but I would just like to poin this out.
> 
> Unless you grow your own, someone has to suppy it. So as much as I think smokers and professional dealers are (for the most part) worlds apart, you can't really condem someone for supplying a product you use. I mean you are supporting them in their endeavors, like it or not.


Lets just say Bortis is self supplied, and does not supply others. Fair enough? And I do not try to push my beliefs onto others. I'll respect you as you have shown me respect. Much appreciated in this ugly forum. Wish I had never posted. Little zachdank is quite the antagonist. And Zachdank, mine is better than yours! Guranteed.


----------



## kitchenware (Jan 13, 2004)

This thread is a total buzzkill.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

mtbberzrkr said:


> Personally I think anything that occurs naturally should be legal.


My personal opinions on whether pot should be legal or not are rather conflicted, so I'll refrain from getting into that argument because I'm sure everyone will have something to argue with.

However, the quoted statement just made me smirk and I just have to be a smarta$$.

Please, consider your definition of "natural".

Now, do you suppose that humans are part of, or removed from nature? Now, this isn't a question of our culture's belief of its connectedness to nature; it's a question of reality.

If you feel that humans are removed from nature, then you can end here, and move on. However, if you believe that humans are a part of nature, then doesn't it logically follow that our activities are also part of nature, and therefore natural?

A professor of mine pulled that on my ecology class once. Ever since then, I try to avoid the term "natural" because of its underlying ambiguity.


----------



## skeeter (Dec 30, 2003)

zachdank said:


> your whole story is staight up horse$****. have you ever known someone that can drink a few beers and be happy, mellow, and nice to be around? now, have you ever known someone that drinks a few beers and acts like a complete a$$hole by getting agressive and violent.
> just because you get stoned and drive a few blocks and don't know where the firetruck you are doesn't mean that that's how the majority of pot smokers are. come on. wake up bud. you do know that there are doctors lawyers scientists and politicians that smoke alot of weed. but they probably can't remember $hit right?


are you saying that someone that got stoned can remember what went on while they were stoned well? i'm saying they can't, at least not as good as someone who just caught a buzz drinking. half the time you don't even know why you are laughing at $hit. for me, pretty much most of the time i've been stoned is like time that doesn't even exist. i watched "the wall" stoned, and i remember i thought i had it all figured out while i was watching, but the next day, once sober, i had no idea, at all, what the hell it was about. now if i had only slugged down about 3 beers, i am sure i would have remembered the movie.

so yeah, ask these stoner doctors what they did while they were stoned. i'm sure you'll get a fantastically detailed account. probably similar to what i wrote in my original post. love the beef-n-cheddars.

and pretty much every time i've been stoned, with the more modern blends of weed, it isn't subtle. one second i'm sober, the next second i'm stoned off my gourd. not much in between. it isn't gradual, in my experience, like intoxication.

have you been stoned, zachdank? i can't remember if you mentioned that.


----------



## Fuelish (Dec 19, 2003)

zachdank said:


> WHOA! calm down foolish. sownds like some needs a b-rip. oh, i mean sounds. you almost got me again, didn't ya? if anyone needs the herb it's you buddy.


LOL...well, ya got me there...heh...had a bad day, could probably use a little "something" to get me through the night .... I'm all in favor of it being legal, and all...I just don't feel particularly sorry for people that get caught, knowing that's the law, unfortunately (just as I never expected anyone to have a pity party for me when I got popped - I knew exactly what I was doing). No biggie, no hard feelings, I hope...I'm an excitable old coot, sometimes...hehheh


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

skeeter said:


> and pretty much every time i've been stoned, with the more modern blends of weed, it isn't subtle. one second i'm sober, the next second i'm stoned off my gourd. not much in between. it isn't gradual, in my experience, like intoxication.
> 
> have you been stoned, zachdank? i can't remember if you mentioned that.


If you don't smoke it every day, it'll hit you real hard. I don't like being stoned to the point I can't do things I could normaly do (for the most part). Just sitting there being really f-ing stoned is not for me. I don't like being rolling drunk either, but I have a glass or two of red wine with dinner most nights.

Sounds like you had a dosage issue and I can't blame anyone for not enjoying that  . A bit like drinking a whole 750ml of vodka in one gulp. A wold of difference between that and a few beers with the mates.


----------



## Bortis Yelltzen (May 18, 2004)

zachdank said:


> You like throwing rocks don't you? I can see arguing with you in not worth my time. My point is that I too smoke grass. It does not effect my professional life. I am in the top of my feild, I choose not to drink. I have been through a lot of school, I am well educated, and I respect others opinion, even yours. I think many poeple inthis forum are wasting their time and energy arguing about this. Worry about yourself, and respect others and you will go far in life. Otherwise, save your breath for that long climb.
> 
> How old are you Zachdank? You argue at the 3rd grade level, so depending on your answer that is a complement or I too am throwing rocks.
> 
> And no, I don't have sex with my sister, don't have a sister, and I don't quite see how you interpreted that from my response. But if you have a sister send me her number, I could always use a new "riding" partner.


how did you know i was in the 3rd grade? chill bro. i'm not a rock thrower. i just thought it was strange hearing about your sister sex. i'll send my sister your way. she's about 260. you'll have a great time. [/QUOTE]

Damn, for someone that was born in 74' you sure act like a little kid, hell, you are 3 years older than I am. Sorry your sister is so fat. Maybe you should start taking her on rides. Hope it is not genetic.

Chico eh? I'll make sure to ask around for you on my next visit there. We'll continue this face to face, then we'll see how much you like throwing rocks.


----------



## pdirt (Jan 12, 2004)

oohhh what a tough guy! Threatening people on internet forums is a sure way to encourage all the other readers to beleive you have a small penis, and are an idot with low social/coping skills...

good going tough guy!!!!


----------



## Bortis Yelltzen (May 18, 2004)

You got me there, my last comment was a bit foolish. But you were throwing rocks with the sister comment.


----------



## singletrack (Feb 19, 2004)

*Ya know....*

A couple of days ago I was reading this thread about how Myles Rockwell got busted for growing..... I can't seem to find it anymore....


----------



## Bortis Yelltzen (May 18, 2004)

I think there is some confusion. If anything I figured zachdank would agree with some of what I said seeing as we are both "users" of the sweet sweet sheeba. My comments got out of line, but I am rational enough to realize that. It is amazing how easy it is to get carried away in these forums.

Last word from me, I use it, I use it responsibly, I use it regularly, it does not effect my work, in fact it COULD be responible for a lot of the creative ideas that I have come up with in the past. If anything it allows me to see things differently than others in my profession, and in most cases to date, that has been a benefit. I don't go to work high, but I have had a lot of innovative ideas in the aerospace and automotive design engineering arena that were conceived "under the infuence" and finalized and designed sober. Many are products in vehicles many of you own and drive daily.

Myles got greedy, he was worried about more than just his head stash, he blew it up and probably did well on several harvests (no way was this his first), and he got busted. Now he will have pay the piper.

"when the going gets weird, the weird go pro"


----------



## Wheelie (May 17, 2004)

I think you guys make a great couple!  

BTW, 5,500 views is rediculous. Why so much interest?


----------



## Sapper (Jan 22, 2004)

Just got done with a weeks worth of working/training and thought I'd check out the thread...

1. The Federal Threshold for taking over a criminal case involving Marijuana is 1,000 lbs. That means that if you're in Federal Prison on Marijuana charges that you were involved in transporting, manufacturing, selling a mininum of $70,000(Mexican ditch weed) - $600,000 (BC Bud) of weed. If you need to have that much weed for "medical" purposes you might need something a little stronger. In contrast the Federal limit on Crack or Meth is 50 grams. You don't do time for having a dime bag in your car, you generally get a citation, pay a $50 fine/$100 court costs, and go to a "treatment" clinic for 8 hours.

2. If people who use/sell marijuana are "non-violent" why do so many of them also carry weapons? Obviously this does not apply to all of you who get weak-kneed and lose bladder control at the sight of an evil, demonic gun.

3. I know that I should be spending my time arresting "real" criminals, like gang members, thieves, drunk drivers, murderers, rapists, instead of chasing down harmless cancer patients smoking a bud to ease their pain. But why is it that when I arrest a "banger" they always seem to have a bag of (pick drug) on them? Where do these gang members get the money to buy their guns from? Isn't it equally as dangerous to drive stoned as it is to drive drunk? Why did I just have to deal with 10 shootings and 3 murders over one weekend, ALL OF WHICH WERE DRUG-RELATED?

4. If legalization/treatment is the answer, why do we,as a Nation, have such a large alcohol abuse problem? I don't have the answer to this one.

5. Legalization would do nothing to stop the violence assiciated with the illegal drug trade. There is so much profit being made right now that we would have to interdict 90% of the drugs coming into the U.S. to affect the profit margins of the producers. It is a $400 Billion a year industry, most of which ends is spent right here, and then is sent back overseas. Most of the money we sieze heading out are $20 bills and smaller. It really sucks counting $100,000 in small denomination bills.The people making that money are not going to be taxed or regulated.

6. The majority of that money comes from recreational users, who smoke, snort, inject, on the weekends. Hardcore drug users who use everyday are the minority because they usually don't live very long. Some people remain recreational users forever, some go straight into being hardcore addicts. Everyone's different, and you can't know until it's too late. 

7. Short of building a fence, laying minefields, and stopping international trade, it is impossible to stop the flow of drugs into our country. The dealers expect to lose over half of what they try to import.

8. Simple economics, supply and demand. We can't stop the supply, so we have to reduce the demand. This means stiffer penalties for users. No we don't need more prisons, there's plenty of hot, heavy community service that needs doing. I hate potholes.

Some of you are obviously able to have usefull, productive lives and smoke a little weed after work and on the weekends. If you think that this has no negative impact on society then I'm sorry but you're wrong. Most of you buy your weed, you don't grow it, and you support the drug industry. I really don't care if you smoke weed, or snort coke, or get falling down drunk on the weekends. Personally it doesn't bother me in the slightest when you drive your car into the back of a semitruck because you're high and you get decapitated. I could care less when you fall down and do the "funky chicken" because the guy who made your "X" screwed up a batch and now your blood is boiling your brain. I have no sympathy for you because your teeth have rotted, your hands won't quit shaking, you've been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic and declared 100% disabled because you're addicted to (pick drug and insert here). If you get shot in the kneecap for messing up a "package", well you should learn to count or stop stealing. It's Darwinism at it's finest.

I do care about the family you left behind, your children that now become wards of the state, the children who have to live in the same house where your crack/meth/whatever lab is, or the kid who can't have a new bike because 1. Dad wanted a 1/4 bag, 2. Mommy has to pay a fine/bond, or 3. the addict next door just stole it to pay for HIS dope. I care about the fact that now all of our taxes are higher because now you expect the government to house, clothe, and feed you because you are unable to get/keep any kind of job because of your chemical dependency. I know that it will be extremely hard for your children to break out of the cycle of poverty that your drug use has condemned them to. I know that my health insurance will cost more because I indirectly pay for your health care that you need but can't pay for, including the treatment program that the Judge has sent you to 5 times already, with such great success.

I realize that I'm more than likely wasting my time and energy. Many of you probally believe that the government should provide you with free housing and healthcare. I know, Socialism is the answer to the world's problems, just ask the Russians. I'm not going to change anyone's behavior or political beliefs. You will continue to justify your actions and attempt to shift responsibility for your decisions onto the rest of society. Have fun, be safe. Hopefully one day you'll wake up and decide to change your life, because you want more out of life. If not, I'll be looking for you. And when I catch you with a felony amount I'm going to sieze your money, your car, your house and everthing else that you own that MIGHT have been purchased with drug money or used in the drug trade, and give it all back to the society that you're destroying. And just so you know, and can feel better about losing everything, most of that $$$ will go to the school system. Drugs are illegal because the majority of Americans (with the exception of alcohol, which is also a drug) don't use them or condone their use, because they realize the huge costs we all pay for the actions of a minority.

"we're fighting a war we can't win, but it's a war we can't afford to lose..." -Slap Shot


----------



## irieness (Feb 22, 2004)

Sapper said:


> Just got done with a weeks worth of working/training and thought I'd check out the thread...
> 
> 1. The Federal Threshold for taking over a criminal case involving Marijuana is 1,000 lbs. That means that if you're in Federal Prison on Marijuana charges that you were involved in transporting, manufacturing, selling a mininum of $70,000(Mexican ditch weed) - $600,000 (BC Bud) of weed. If you need to have that much weed for "medical" purposes you might need something a little stronger. In contrast the Federal limit on Crack or Meth is 50 grams. You don't do time for having a dime bag in your car, you generally get a citation, pay a $50 fine/$100 court costs, and go to a "treatment" clinic for 8 hours.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but you're such an idiot!!!! You don't seem to get that not ALL drug users come from the inner city, carry guns or need to steal to supply their drug habit...pull off your "Iceman Aviator's"....grow out your crew cut...shave your mustache...and open up your eyes my friend...we're not ALL black/white/hispanic/asian/what have you GANGSTERS!!!!! Just because that's what you see and deal with out of your black and white doesn't mean all drug users need/want or have used gov't assistance or come from the ghetto...Seriously...pull your head out of your A**....and maybe you're the one that needs to grasp some reality outside of five-O world...Peace...


----------



## Wheelie (May 17, 2004)

More stereotyping and generalizations from the other side of the fence. This thread is about weed. Not meth, coke, acid, angel dust or whatever hard drug the next wacky chemist comes up with. Those drugs certainly are dangerous to the user and the general public but it is total BS to associate MJ with those illicit drugs. The only reason reason the criminal element is associated with MJ is because it's illegal status makes it profitable to supply the demand. Guess what? That demand is never going away. Just like the demand for alcohol continued during the alcohol prohibition of the 1920's. What did alcohol prohibition accomplish? It single handedly financed the huge growth of the mafia. Now, instead of Italian mobsters we have Mexican mobsters. Decrimilize weed and make it legal for me to grow a couple of plants for myself and then you eliminate one of the Mexican mafias primary sources of revenue. Also, those dollars that where previously finding their way south of the border stay here in Americas' pockets. If we make it legal to grow your own, then the gateway from soft drugs like MJ to hard drugs like coke and meth is eliminated. 

Sapper, I hope you continue your work with regard to policing hard drugs. It is common knowledge that drugs like cocaine and methamphetamines ruin lives and I would love nothing more than to disassociate MJ from that dark part of society. The only reason there is a link between MJ and harder drugs is because the laws created this situation. I'd like to see law enforcement agencies divert their attention and resources from MJ and use those additional resources to really wage a war on the hard drug trade and especially drunk driving. A drunk driver killed my best friend's wife and their three children so that is an issue that really stings with me.


----------



## frank n. beans (Jan 19, 2004)

Sapper said:


> Legalization would do nothing to stop the violence assiciated with the illegal drug trade. There is so much profit being made right now that we would have to interdict 90% of the drugs coming into the U.S. to affect the profit margins of the producers. It is a $400 Billion a year industry, most of which ends is spent right here, and then is sent back overseas. Most of the money we sieze heading out are $20 bills and smaller. It really sucks counting $100,000 in small denomination bills.The people making that money are not going to be taxed or regulated.


Alcohol and nicotine cartels push their products without much obvious violence. Those are big profit (and legal) drugs. Remember prohibition? Do we still have a big problem with bootleg liquor and related gang violence?


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

Sapper said:


> Just got done with a weeks worth of working/training and thought I'd check out the thread...
> 
> 1. The Federal Threshold for taking over a criminal case involving Marijuana is 1,000 lbs. That means that if you're in Federal Prison on Marijuana charges that you were involved in transporting, manufacturing, selling a mininum of $70,000(Mexican ditch weed) - $600,000 (BC Bud) of weed. If you need to have that much weed for "medical" purposes you might need something a little stronger. In contrast the Federal limit on Crack or Meth is 50 grams. You don't do time for having a dime bag in your car, you generally get a citation, pay a $50 fine/$100 court costs, and go to a "treatment" clinic for 8 hours.
> 
> ...


1. People who want to use drugs have to get their drugs from somewhere, that somewhere is a dealer. Most people incarcerated for marijuana are in state prisons, not federal, so what's your point? We know it's illegal.

2. The vast majority of people who use/sell marijuana do not carry weapons. Do some big time dealers? Sure, so do many legitimate businessmen who carry around large amounts of cash or valuable product. Why? You know why, and it has nothing to do with drugs. And ain't you cool, you like guns. Some people are scared of guns, neat. 

3. If you don't want "bangers" making money from the drug trade, you better pray for legalization. How many of those shootings were also alcohol related? Do you think all marijuana trade involves bangers and lowlifes?

4. If prohibition/incarceration is the answer, why do we, as a nation, have such a large drug abuse problem? Well, I guess people are going to do what they are going to do regardless of what the law is, so maybe it's time for a new approach.

5. OK, maybe this concept is too complicated for you, but when a product is legal, the business and trade involved in supplying that product is also legal. Why would American farmers be unable to produce marijuana, or any other drug, for Americans? Remember, most of the South American countries which are torn apart by the drug trade outlawed these drugs due to pressure from the United States.

6. So, you're saying the majority of users do so responsibly. You're right.

7. There's no stopping the drug trade. Again, you're right.

8. Hmmm, yeah, "Get tough on crime", "mandatory minimums". Haven't we tried this approach before? The vast majority of users are never caught, no one expects to be caught, so these ways of "scaring" people into compliance with your way of thinking will not work. We would have to get so strict and invasive for this to work that this would no longer be "America", but a clone of Singapore or Saudi Arabia.

Again you make the point that black market trade can involve violence, untested/manipulated products and cash going to people you deem undesirable. The only way to eliminate that black market is to allow it to function legally, out in the open. You don't want your tax dollars going to people who use drugs, yet you feel good about putting them in prison, which is the most expensive and counterproductive way of helping someone who may have a problem. Now, if they are murderers, rapists, thieves, etc., then jail is appropriate. And about "your tax dollars" going towards supporting these users (because only users are on govt. assistance, right?) if you are a cop, you don't make all that much. You may not even pay enough taxes to cover the cost of educating your children, let alone pay for police/fire/national defense, farming subsidies, prisons, etc. Most of this is being paid for by people (like me) who earn many times your salary, so don't stress over the cost of public assistance and rehab programs too much. Now I know, if we were to legalize drugs and thus divert the funds currently used for drug enforcement to other more worthy causes, your department may not have as many cool toys to play with, but this isn't about you. I also know your day may not seem as exciting or glamorous if instead of busting drug dealers you just had to haul in drunk vagrants, write traffic tickets and play marriage counselor to that F'in drunk couple in the trailer park for the 5th time this month, but again, this isn't about you. Sorry.


----------



## skeeter (Dec 30, 2003)

frank n. beans said:


> Alcohol and nicotine cartels push their products without much obvious violence. Those are big profit (and legal) drugs. Remember prohibition? Do we still have a big problem with bootleg liquor and related gang violence?


man, i am so effin' wasted! dude, i drank a dr. pepper, and i'm at work. i hope by boss doesn't notice, because i'm thrashed. the dude i saw taking a cigarette smoke break, damn, he couldn't figure out the door was a "pull" instead of a "push", and it took him ten minutes to get back in the plant. i can't believe this $hit is legal.


----------



## frank n. beans (Jan 19, 2004)

skeeter said:


> man, i am so effin' wasted! dude, i drank a dr. pepper, and i'm at work. i hope by boss doesn't notice, because i'm thrashed. the dude i saw taking a cigarette smoke break, damn, he couldn't figure out the door was a "pull" instead of a "push", and it took him ten minutes to get back in the plant. i can't believe this $hit is legal.


I can't believe it is legal either. Cigarettes do not benefit our society in any way at all.

Also I'd be willing to bet that high fructose corn syrup causes more health problems than MJ does.


----------



## skeeter (Dec 30, 2003)

frank n. beans said:


> I can't believe it is legal either. Cigarettes do not benefit our society in any way at all.
> 
> Also I'd be willing to bet that high fructose corn syrup causes more health problems than MJ does.


i just like how they both get me so high, just like the weed.


----------



## frank n. beans (Jan 19, 2004)

skeeter said:


> i just like how they both get me so high, just like the weed.


It is difficult to understand what point you are trying to make. Obviously, cigarettes and soda pop do not get you "high" in the same way as weed. No kidding.

Valium and morphine have legal applications, but using them while you are working isn't appropriate either.

So what are you trying to say? Do you think that if MJ was legal, then all of the sudden everyone will think it is OK to start burning a doobie while they are at work?


----------



## STrackMike (Jan 6, 2004)

*Just goes to show you......*



singltraxx said:


> In Durango. The cops seized 52 plants in a hydro operation at his house and arrested him. Here is a link to the Durango Herald.
> http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type=news&article_path=/news/04/news040513_11.htm


that the cops always do have the best stuff and if they don't, they take yours!


----------



## skeeter (Dec 30, 2003)

frank n. beans said:


> It is difficult to understand what point you are trying to make. Obviously, cigarettes and soda pop do not get you "high" in the same way as weed. No kidding.
> 
> Valium and morphine have legal applications, but using them while you are working isn't appropriate either.
> 
> So what are you trying to say? Do you think that if MJ was legal, then all of the sudden everyone will think it is OK to start burning a doobie while they are at work?


i won't look through everything, but while arguing the pros and cons of weed, the pro weed folk frequently use the "well nicotine and caffeine are legal and they're just as bad, worse, blah, blah, blah." like what has been said, someone can probably prove that everything is bad for you. what i'm noticing is that society has a problem with lines (not coke lines). some people either want all or none. they can't accept a middle ground. either every drug or potential drug should be legal, or they all should be illegal. boo effin hoo you can smoke a cig but not a doob legally. that is where american society draws its line. weed, alchohol, nicotine, cocaine, and caffeine are not the same, and don't affect people the same, and therefore, society has them separated, some are totally legal, some are legal to an extent, and some are flat out illegal.

let's say we now include weed as a legal substance. well $hit, i like acid. i never robbed nobody on acid. i just sat at home and marvelled at the way my berber carpet looked like one of those 3d porpoise paintings that made costanza forget about his shirt. anyway, i think it should be legal also. "well weed is legal, blah, blah, blah, here we go again".

i should probably read over my first paragraph, but i'm so toasted on dr. pepper, i wouldn't be able to improve my sentence structure and flow anyway.


----------



## Wheelie (May 17, 2004)

skeeter said:


> let's say we now include weed as a legal substance. well $hit, i like acid. i never robbed nobody on acid. i just sat at home and marvelled at the way my berber carpet looked like one of those 3d porpoise paintings that made costanza forget about his shirt. anyway, i think it should be legal also. "well weed is legal, blah, blah, blah, here we go again".


I can tell you from experience that there is absolutely no comparison between LSD and weed so that analogy doesn't hold water. I don't think you'll find anyone here that's been around the block arguing to legalize LSD. There are, however, a large percentage of people here that believe the current laws regarding weed are counter productive. Sapper said that weed is illegal because the majority of us don't use or condone it's use. I have to ask how he would know? I have never been able to vote on the matter so there's no data to back up this claim. Because it is currently illegal, most people will not publicly voice their opinion without some sort of anonymity. An internet forum is an excellent means of putting issues like this on the table to see where the chips fall.

I wish this forum had a polling feature so that we could find out with an anoynomous poll how many people think that pot should be decriminalized. Based on the responses from this thread I believe it would be close to a split decision. If that is indeed the case, how can that many people be wrong?


----------



## Ebo (Dec 30, 2003)

Are you sure you're not stoned right now. Or are you just stirring the Pot around here.


----------



## Wheelie (May 17, 2004)

Ebo said:


> Are you sure you're not stoned right now. Or are you just stirring the Pot around here.


Who me? I haven't smoked pot for a couple of weeks, mostly because I've been too busy with business responsibilities. I'm just trying to have some reasonable dialogue about an issue that I think the government is in error.


----------



## Ebo (Dec 30, 2003)

No. Not you Wheelie. I'm more on the legalize side. Skeeter seems a little out there. Loved his helmet parody though.


----------



## Erok (Jan 2, 2003)

Sapper said:


> Just got done with a weeks worth of working/training and thought I'd check out the thread...
> 
> 1. The Federal Threshold for taking over a criminal case involving Marijuana is 1,000 lbs. That means that if you're in Federal Prison on Marijuana charges that you were involved in transporting, manufacturing, selling a mininum of $70,000(Mexican ditch weed) - $600,000 (BC Bud) of weed. If you need to have that much weed for "medical" purposes you might need something a little stronger. In contrast the Federal limit on Crack or Meth is 50 grams. You don't do time for having a dime bag in your car, you generally get a citation, pay a $50 fine/$100 court costs, and go to a "treatment" clinic for 8 hours.
> 
> ...


This is the best post in this thread so far. Your's is not a popular stance... people don't like the truth thrown in their face while trying to defend fallacy.


----------



## skeeter (Dec 30, 2003)

Wheelie said:


> I can tell you from experience that there is absolutely no comparison between LSD and weed so that analogy doesn't hold water. I don't think you'll find anyone here that's been around the block arguing to legalize LSD. There are, however, a large percentage of people here that believe the current laws regarding weed are counter productive. Sapper said that weed is illegal because the majority of us don't use or condone it's use. I have to ask how he would know? I have never been able to vote on the matter so there's no data to back up this claim. Because it is currently illegal, most people will not publicly voice their opinion without some sort of anonymity. An internet forum is an excellent means of putting issues like this on the table to see where the chips fall.
> 
> I wish this forum had a polling feature so that we could find out with an anoynomous poll how many people think that pot should be decriminalized. Based on the responses from this thread I believe it would be close to a split decision. If that is indeed the case, how can that many people be wrong?


actually it does hold water. it is the next rung, well maybe a few up, on the drug ladder. we just need to move the line. i was in no way saying the two were about the same. once we legalize weed for all the pro weed whiners, we can move on to the harder $hit.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Erok said:


> people don't like the truth thrown in their face while trying to defend fallacy.


You must have missed Black Bart's post  .

What's your experience with pot? Could you pls identify this "fallacy" in the pro-pot argument? Exactly what is the fallacy that you seem so sure of?


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

skeeter said:


> ..... once we legalize weed for all the pro weed whiners, we can move on to the harder $hit.


Why  Did I miss that part of the argument? I thought we were only talking about pot. Why does everyone keep bringing other illegal drugs into the argument? A red herring perhaps?


----------



## Wheelie (May 17, 2004)

Erok said:


> Your's is not a popular stance...


Who are the laws supposed to represent if not the majority of the populace? If the views of the majority do not shape the laws that our government enforces, then we are headed towards a totalitarian government and away from the democracy that our forefathers created over 200 years ago.

Pot should be decriminalized if the majority of Americans believe it should. It's as simple as that.


----------



## Erok (Jan 2, 2003)

Steve71 said:


> You must have missed Black Bart's post  .
> 
> What's your experience with pot? Could you pls identify this "fallacy" in the pro-pot argument? Exactly what is the fallacy that you seem so sure of?


You must have missed Sapper's post  . He did a better job of debunking the pro-pot argument than I can.

My experience with pot has nothing to do with anything in this thread. This thread is about a pro bike racer getting busted for growing 52 pot plants, and the subsequent whining from all the pro-pot advocates who feel that it is un-just. I just posted a reply in agreement of Sapper, the same as you and many others have posted the opposite. Nobody is going to be swayed one way or the other in this argument, but for now, the law is not on your side, no matter how much you disagree with it.


----------



## Erok (Jan 2, 2003)

Wheelie said:


> Who are the laws supposed to represent if not the majority of the populace? If the views of the majority do not shape the laws that our government enforces, then we are headed towards a totalitarian government and away from the democracy that our forefathers created over 200 years ago.
> 
> Pot should be decriminalized if the majority of Americans believe it should. It's as simple as that.


I agree with you. Did I say anything to the contrary? I happen to agree with Sapper, but if the majority of people in this country vote to decriminalize pot, then so be it...but untill then, it is not legal. By the way, our forefathers did not create a democracy, they created a republic.


----------



## Ebo (Dec 30, 2003)

skeeter said:


> actually it does hold water. it is the next rung, well maybe a few up, on the drug ladder. we just need to move the line. i was in no way saying the two were about the same. once we legalize weed for all the pro weed whiners, we can move on to the harder $hit.


Sorry, but next up is booze, and it is already legal and abundant.


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

Erok said:


> You must have missed Sapper's post  . He did a better job of debunking the pro-pot argument than I can.
> 
> My experience with pot has nothing to do with anything in this thread. This thread is about a pro bike racer getting busted for growing 52 pot plants, and the subsequent whining from all the pro-pot advocates who feel that it is un-just. I just posted a reply in agreement of Sapper, the same as you and many others have posted the opposite. Nobody is going to be swayed one way or the other in this argument, but for now, the law is not on your side, no matter how much you disagree with it.


Yeah, we all know it's against the law. You're pretty quick, ain't ya? 

Could you tell me what part of Sapper's "debunking" of the pro-pot argument I didn't debunk myself?


----------



## frank n. beans (Jan 19, 2004)

skeeter said:


> once we legalize weed for all the pro weed whiners, we can move on to the harder $hit.


Once we allow mountain bikes on all forest trails, next thing you know we are going to open them up to motorbikes and jeeps.

I ask you to consider that we don't necessarily make laws right the first time around, and that is why our system is designed so that we can change them later. We have made some *huge* mistakes in the past. Women, african americans, and native americans (think about that one for a second) didn't have the "right" to vote until fairly recently in this country.

I think if not now, very soon it will be time to rethink laws against MJ consumption in this country. It's ok to re-evaluate current laws and figure out if they still apply.

Times change. Just because it is "the law" doesn't mean it still makes sense, and it will be "the law" forever.

Sometimes primitive thinkers have difficulty with the concept of change.


----------



## Erok (Jan 2, 2003)

Black Bart said:


> Yeah, we all know it's against the law. You're pretty quick, ain't ya?
> 
> Could you tell me what part of Sapper's "debunking" of the pro-pot argument I didn't debunk myself?


I really don't care if you managed to debunk all of Sapper's post, I still agree with him. Both sides could come up with arguments for and against pot for another 70 pages of this thread. Like I said, no one on either side of the issue is going to be swayed to the other side by any debate on a mtn. bike forum. You pro-pot guys/gals are preaching to the choir on this. I personally couldn't care less if it is made legal or not.... and yes, sometimes I am pretty quick  .


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

Erok said:


> I really don't care if you managed to debunk all of Sapper's post, I still agree with him. Both sides could come up with arguments for and against pot for another 70 pages of this thread. Like I said, no one on either side of the issue is going to be swayed to the other side by any debate on a mtn. bike forum. You pro-pot guys/gals are preaching to the choir on this. I personally couldn't care less if it is made legal or not.... and yes, sometimes I am pretty quick  .


I see, you're one of those, "Don't confuse me with the facts" kind of guys...

BTW, "Preaching to the choir" would imply that everyone reading and replying to this thread had the same POV, clearly they don't. So, how am I "Preaching to the choir"?

The lack of critical thinking and reason from some of you never ceases to amaze me.


----------



## skeeter (Dec 30, 2003)

Steve71 said:


> Why  Did I miss that part of the argument? I thought we were only talking about pot. Why does everyone keep bringing other illegal drugs into the argument? A red herring perhaps?


all i'm trying to say is sell me on the beneficial qualities of weed, instead of whining and saying alchohol and cigs are worse, and therefore weed should be legal. i only brought up acid because, as a pro pot supporter said themself, it is different from pot, just like alchohol is different from weed, so trying to equate pot to alchohol is quite similar to comparing weed to acid. similar, in that it doesn't work well.

some of the information posted, from both sides, is pretty informative.

one thing i thought of, it was pretty easy to swipe booze from the folks, so it should be a piece of cake for my kids to snag a doob from my my wife's pack-o-reefer after the dope smokers of america unite and change the laws.


----------



## Erok (Jan 2, 2003)

Black Bart said:


> I see, you're one of those, "Don't confuse me with the facts" kind of guys...
> 
> BTW, "Preaching to the choir" would imply that everyone reading and replying to this thread had the same POV, clearly they don't. So, how am I "Preaching to the choir"?
> 
> The lack of critical thinking and reason from some of you never ceases to amaze me.


Your right, I should have said that the only people agreeing with your sermon is the choir.

It is not I who has a problem with the facts... It does not matter wether you are for or against pot being legal... the fact is, it is not. Both sides can come up with "facts" to substantiate their side of the argument, but in the end, neither side will get anywhere in convincing the other. I suppose I could Google up all kinds of "facts" in my favor, and you could do the same, and we could cut and paste all night... but to what end?

This thread needs put to rest...it's a dead horse.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

skeeter said:


> .....it's different from pot, just like alchohol is different from weed, so trying to equate pot to alchohol is quite similar to comparing weed to acid.


Can you, in your own words, tell me the difference between Alcohol/weed & then weed/acid? Not to be rude, but do you even know about the drugs you're talking about? Or just what you've seen on TV?


----------



## frank n. beans (Jan 19, 2004)

skeeter said:


> one thing i thought of, it was pretty easy to swipe booze from the folks, so it should be a piece of cake for my kids to snag a doob from my my wife's pack-o-reefer after the dope smokers of america unite and change the laws.


I'm not going to tell you how to raise your children, but if you are going to raise them around drugs, alcohol, firearms, fast food, and / or cars, please consider also teaching them about responsibility and appropriate use. It's the least you can do.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Erok said:


> Both sides can come up with "facts" to substantiate their side of the argument, but in the end, neither side will get anywhere in convincing the other.


True, but only one side of the argument is holding their opinions accountable. You're yet to substantiate yours.


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

Erok said:


> Your right, I should have said that the only people agreeing with your sermon is the choir.
> 
> It is not I who has a problem with the facts... It does not matter wether you are for or against pot being legal... the fact is, it is not. Both sides can come up with "facts" to substantiate their side of the argument, but in the end, neither side will get anywhere in convincing the other. I suppose I could Google up all kinds of "facts" in my favor, and you could do the same, and we could cut and paste all night... but to what end?
> 
> This thread needs put to rest...it's a dead horse.


Retreat again to the "it's illegal". You already said that, remember? I said "Yeah, we all know it's against the law. You're pretty quick, ain't ya?" If you argue that it is illegal, YOU ARE preaching to the choir. Show me one post where someone said "hey, it's not like pot is illegal". You can't, so why do you keep harping on it?

Googling up facts? Cut and paste? With a topic which is so simple? Not me Erok, my posts are all original. See, some of us can form thoughts on our own, and can come to a conclusion by looking at all sides. Others, I see, would rather blindly hold tight to what they have been told and refuse to consider other viewpoints or listen to reason.


----------



## skeeter (Dec 30, 2003)

Steve71 said:


> Can you, in your own words, tell me the difference between Alcohol/weed & then weed/acid? Not to be rude, but do you even know about the drugs you're talking about? Or just what you've seen on TV?


take an hour and a half to read back through the thread. pro pot supporters themselves have stated that the three mentioned are different, as have i. and i did explain some of the differences between weed and alchohol, based on my own personal experience. just read back through, i ain't gonna rehash it all for you.

and yeah, to answer part of your question, i do know about the drugs i am talking about. i wouldn't talk about them if i didn't.

oh, here's a good question. i may be reading the tone of your message wrong, but the way it is asked makes it sound like you don't believe there is a difference. if that is the case, can you explain to me how they are the same, you know, since they aren't different, in your own words? if that isn't the case, then don't worry about it.


----------



## Erok (Jan 2, 2003)

Steve71 said:


> True, but only one side of the argument is holding their opinions accountable. You're yet to substantiate yours.


How do you hold an opinion accountable? If you go back and read Sapper's post, that is how I feel about the issue also. I responded in agreement to his post. What is it that I need to substantiate?


----------



## skeeter (Dec 30, 2003)

frank n. beans said:


> I'm not going to tell you how to raise your children, but if you are going to raise them around drugs, alcohol, firearms, fast food, and / or cars, please consider also teaching them about responsibility and appropriate use. It's the least you can do.


damn, that's a helluva good idea. why you chose to say that right now is kindof unclear, but it's still a helluva good idea. nah, GREAT idea.

did all the weed smokers parents, just curious because the above statement brings up another aspect, tell you that weed was good, and you should smoke it? or did they tell you it was illegal and bad for you? frank n. beans comment kind of made it sound like if i was doing my job, my kid wouldn't try to score a doob from mom's pack, so the dopers out there either had parents that approved of weed, or they went against their parents wishes and stepped up to grass, thus negating the guidance that was the least their parents could provide them.


----------



## jasonwa (Dec 30, 2003)

Speaking about debunking......BlackBart is Gonzostrike....


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

skeeter said:


> and yeah, to answer part of your question, i do know about the drugs i am talking about. i wouldn't talk about them if i didn't.
> 
> oh, here's a good question. i may be reading the tone of your message wrong, but the way it is asked makes it sound like you don't believe there is a difference. if that is the case, can you explain to me how they are the same, you know, since they aren't different, in your own words? if that isn't the case, then don't worry about it.


you said, "...trying to equate pot to alchohol is quite similar to comparing weed to acid."

To my mind, they are WORLDS apart, but your sentance implies that the differences btwn. alcohol and pot are somehow similar to weed and acid. Which makes me doubt you know this first thing about LSD, or did I miss something


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

jasonwa said:


> Speaking about debunking......BlackBart is Gonzostrike....


Don't know him. What would convince you otherwise? I know (because it's not true) that you have nothing to support your claim. I also am not sure what me being Gonzostrike implies.


----------



## mcgrupp (Jan 19, 2004)

*Will you tell the truth and nothing but the truth so help you God*

I have tried it, and will admit to using it but I have never inhaled it.

So, please refill and pass the bong again, and again.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Erok said:


> How do you hold an opinion accountable?


By backing up your facts when called on them, rather than dodging the questions. 
Sappa was called on his facts by black bart, but where's his/your response to that?


----------



## Gregg K (Jan 12, 2004)

*Um*

Like wow man. This post is way too long. It sucks that Myles got busted. It sucks that pot is illegal. Basically life sucks. Unless you're stoned. 
I just want to say that I've probably smoked more weed than anyone in this forum. Maybe that's what this post should be about. Who's smoked the most pot. Pot was great. I loved it. It was an integral part of riding. It gave me that enthusiasm to ride. I would take a bong hit, and go for a long stoned ride. It was great. The saddest thing happened, though. I quit. I recently quit. I don't know what happened, but for some reason I lost the urge. But then, I'm 48 years old. I guess it was inevitable. And besides, I started when I was 12. That's a hell of a long time. And a lot of bong hits. I suppose it was Myle's encouragement as well. Man, I'm pissed they don't just lay off of us. The man really sucks. Well, so much for a funny post. Ever since I stopped, I seemed to have matured. See what maturity will do for you? It's those damned mature people who've phucked up the world. Go Myle's Go!


----------



## frank n. beans (Jan 19, 2004)

skeeter said:


> damn, that's a helluva good idea. why you chose to say that right now is kindof unclear, but it's still a helluva good idea. nah, GREAT idea.


You sounded nonchalent about providing easy access to drugs (alcohol included) to your kids. I said what I felt I had to say.



skeeter said:


> did all the weed smokers parents, just curious because the above statement brings up another aspect, tell you that weed was good, and you should smoke it? or did they tell you it was illegal and bad for you? frank n. beans comment kind of made it sound like if i was doing my job, my kid wouldn't try to score a doob from mom's pack, so the dopers out there either had parents that approved of weed, or they went against their parents wishes and stepped up to grass, thus negating the guidance that was the least their parents could provide them.


Well if mama is a drug user and leaves her stash out in the open what do you expect? Same thing if the parents are heavy drinkers. Are you going to lead by example?

But you are right, no matter what you do, kids are curious, and a lot of them will end up trying different drugs at some point in their lives. You just do what you can do and hope for the best. More education and open communication is generally a good thing.


----------



## Erok (Jan 2, 2003)

Black Bart said:


> Retreat again to the "it's illegal". You already said that, remember? I said "Yeah, we all know it's against the law. You're pretty quick, ain't ya?" If you argue that it is illegal, YOU ARE preaching to the choir. Show me one post where someone said "hey, it's not like pot is illegal". You can't, so why do you keep harping on it?
> 
> Googling up facts? Cut and paste? With a topic which is so simple? Not me Erok, my posts are all original. See, some of us can form thoughts on our own, and can come to a conclusion by looking at all sides. Others, I see, would rather blindly hold tight to what they have been told and refuse to consider other viewpoints or listen to reason.


When did I say that I didn't consider your veiwpoint? I just don't happen to agree with it. I posted a response in agreement with Sapper, thats all, simple as that. I agree with him 100%.

BTW... why the sarcasm? I haven't thrown any at you.


----------



## Erok (Jan 2, 2003)

Steve71 said:


> By backing up your facts when called on them, rather than dodging the questions.
> Sappa was called on his facts by black bart, but where's his/your response to that?


You said "hold your opinion accountable", not facts. I gave no facts to be accountable for, other than pot is not legal. I posted a reply to an "opinion" that I agree with, thats all.


----------



## skeeter (Dec 30, 2003)

Steve71 said:


> you said, "...trying to equate pot to alchohol is quite similar to comparing weed to acid."
> 
> To my mind, they are WORLDS apart, but your sentance implies that the differences btwn. alcohol and pot are somehow similar to weed and acid. Which makes me doubt you know this first thing about LSD, or did I miss something


you missed something. i AM saying they are pretty far apart. that's why whining about alchohol when trying to support a legalize pot movement is pretty lame. same with tobacco.


----------



## skeeter (Dec 30, 2003)

frank n. beans said:


> You sounded nonchalent about providing easy access to drugs (alcohol included) to your kids. I said what I felt I had to say.
> 
> Well if mama is a drug user and leaves her stash out in the open what do you expect? Same thing if the parents are heavy drinkers. Are you going to lead by example?
> 
> But you are right, no matter what you do, kids are curious, and a lot of them will end up trying different drugs at some point in their lives. You just do what you can do and hope for the best. More education and open communication is generally a good thing.


i was just trying to visualize how easy it will be for kids to get weed. they aren't supposed to smoke cigarettes now, but i'll see teeny boppers all over the place lookin' cool with their smokes. my parents had a few bottles of booze they'd keep around for parties, and it was absolutely no problem to nab a little out of each bottle when they weren't around. so now ma and pa can legally indulge in some weed. mom has a pack in her purse. it's no problem to slip a single out of the pack unnoticed. not that it appears to be incredibly hard to get dope these days, but it'll be way, way, way easier for your teeny boppers and pre teeny boppers to get stoned.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

skeeter said:


> you missed something. i AM saying they are pretty far apart. that's why whining about alchohol when trying to support a legalize pot movement is pretty lame. same with tobacco.


I'm saying that pot and alcohol are very similar compared to the vast difference pot and LSD. Not that I'm saying LSD bad, but they aint even on the same page, not even the same book.

I don't think that Is what you're saying


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

Erok said:


> When did I say that I didn't consider your veiwpoint? I just don't happen to agree with it. I posted a response in agreement with Sapper, thats all, simple as that. I agree with him 100%.
> 
> BTW... why the sarcasm? I haven't thrown any at you.


To show how you arrived at a decision, and considered what others posted, try something along the line of this..."I read your post and disagree with XXX because XXX.".

You say things like, "...people don't like the truth thrown in their face while trying to defend fallacy." but can't back it up.

You say, "It is not I who has a problem with the facts...". Just a problem coming up with any?

You cling to your, "the law is not on your side" argument, which is not an issue for debate. As I said, we all know that, everyone agrees on that, we are debating why, and does it make sense to continue with the prohibition of pot.

You said, "I really don't care if you managed to debunk all of Sapper's post, I still agree with him." which sounds like you can't refute anything I said, as I did with Sapper. Yet you still cling to your beliefs.

If I resort to sarcasm, it is to entertain myself, as I can't get any kind of intellectual debate from you.


----------



## SILVERHUFFY (Jan 13, 2004)

skeeter said:


> actually it does hold water. it is the next rung, well maybe a few up, on the drug ladder. we just need to move the line. i was in no way saying the two were about the same. once we legalize weed for all the pro weed whiners, we can move on to the harder $hit.


WTF is a "drug ladder"?
I'm not pro weed or anti-weed- but I have never understood the "pot will lead to crank or heroin" theory.
I can agree that it should stay illegal-the government gets enough of our money...
WEED IS NOT LIKE COKE OR CRANK!
it's like saying advil is like morphene, or vitamins are like steroids.

P.S. that cop sounds brainwashed- I knew alot of people that had that weirdness when I was in the Navy...


----------



## skeeter (Dec 30, 2003)

Steve71 said:


> I'm saying that pot and alcohol are very similar compared to the vast difference pot and LSD. Not that I'm saying LSD bad, but they aint even on the same page, not even the same book.
> 
> I don't think that Is what you're saying


i guess i just don't agree.


----------



## SILVERHUFFY (Jan 13, 2004)

skeeter said:


> i was just trying to visualize how easy it will be for kids to get weed. they aren't supposed to smoke cigarettes now, but i'll see teeny boppers all over the place lookin' cool with their smokes. my parents had a few bottles of booze they'd keep around for parties, and it was absolutely no problem to nab a little out of each bottle when they weren't around. so now ma and pa can legally indulge in some weed. mom has a pack in her purse. it's no problem to slip a single out of the pack unnoticed. not that it appears to be incredibly hard to get dope these days, but it'll be way, way, way easier for your teeny boppers and pre teeny boppers to get stoned.


Does mom carry a flask of whiskey in her purse also?
If it's legal or not does not mean I will have my liquour or weed where my daughter has access.


----------



## ditchdiver56 (Feb 10, 2004)

Erok said:


> When did I say that I didn't consider your veiwpoint? I just don't happen to agree with it. I posted a response in agreement with Sapper, thats all, simple as that. I agree with him 100%.
> 
> BTW... why the sarcasm? I haven't thrown any at you.


don't worry erok, I think bart likes to argue for arguing's sake.
I think's its funny how defensive people can get when the subject of marijuana legalization comes up (myself included). I'm against legalization of drugs for reasons all my own. I shared them and my reasoning earlier in this post, but arguing with these guys is pointless.

DD

PS- I too think Black Bart is Gonzostrike


----------



## skeeter (Dec 30, 2003)

SILVERHUFFY said:


> WTF is a "drug ladder"?
> QUOTE]
> 
> the heirarchy of drugs, from what's acceptable up to what isn't acceptable. for example, first rung: caffeine, second rung: nicotine, third rung: alchohol, fourth rung: pot, fifth rung: ecstasy, and so on up to something like heroine on the top rung.
> ...


----------



## skeeter (Dec 30, 2003)

SILVERHUFFY said:


> Does mom carry a flask of whiskey in her purse also?
> If it's legal or not does not mean I will have my liquour or weed where my daughter has access.


damn dude, you're right. i guess it won't be easier for kids to get weed, should it be legalized.

if you buy a six of brew, do you put it in a refrigerated safe? are all the pro weed people going to keep their packs of doobs in a special teen proof vault after the revolution is successful?


----------



## frank n. beans (Jan 19, 2004)

skeeter said:


> mom has a pack in her purse. it's no problem to slip a single out of the pack unnoticed.


Well if she is smoking a pack of doobies a day, you are right, she might not notice.



skeeter said:


> not that it appears to be incredibly hard to get dope these days, but it'll be way, way, way easier for your teeny boppers and pre teeny boppers to get stoned.


This is leaning towards the argument that if it is legal, then all of the sudden everyone is going to start using it. Is that all that stops you from being a pot smoker right now, the fact that it is illegal?

Otherwise, you post was a lot better - you got right to the point and said something meaningful for a change; thanks.


----------



## SILVERHUFFY (Jan 13, 2004)

skeeter said:


> SILVERHUFFY said:
> 
> 
> > WTF is a "drug ladder"?
> ...


----------



## Ebo (Dec 30, 2003)

skeeter said:


> damn dude, you're right. i guess it won't be easier for kids to get weed, should it be legalized.
> 
> if you buy a six of brew, do you put it in a refrigerated safe? are all the pro weed people going to keep their packs of doobs in a special teen proof vault after the revolution is successful?


One thing I do know Skeeter is that it is far easier for kids to get their herb that it is for us so called adults. And what's the difference between kids getting their herb from friends or shoulder tapping the guy running into the liquor store. You are naive at best in your understanding of drugs both legal and illegal. Why is it so easy for you to give a thumbs down for pot, yet totally ignore the legal drugs that are so readily available. Open your eyes pal.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

skeeter said:


> i guess i just don't agree.


Then I gotta ask what you know about LSD. How have you formed an opinion about LSD?


----------



## SILVERHUFFY (Jan 13, 2004)

skeeter said:


> damn dude, you're right. i guess it won't be easier for kids to get weed, should it be legalized.
> 
> if you buy a six of brew, do you put it in a refrigerated safe? are all the pro weed people going to keep their packs of doobs in a special teen proof vault after the revolution is successful?


Man I count my beers!
If a beers gone I will know!
I buy my weed from a 15 year old!


----------



## skeeter (Dec 30, 2003)

SILVERHUFFY said:


> good one!
> so I drink coffee, than when thats not enough I'll smoke or chew,than when the nicotine isn't doing it for me... I'll start drinking? and so on till I'm slamming heroin ?
> On what planet?


dude, try reading again. all i said is that those are the levels of acceptability. i never said you had to "climb" the ladder. i never said if you started on the ladder that you would eventually make it to the top. all i am saying is it is more socially acceptable to drink alchohol than smoke weed, and if you disagree with that, you're a moron. it is more acceptable to tell your some of your friends you smoke weed than to say that you shoot heroine. and if you disagree with that statement, you again are a moron. if you finally figure out what the hell i am talking about, without assuming a bunch of stuff, well then, you aren't a moron.


----------



## Wheelie (May 17, 2004)

skeeter said:


> the heirarchy of drugs, from what's acceptable up to what isn't acceptable. for example, first rung: caffeine, second rung: nicotine, third rung: alchohol, fourth rung: pot, fifth rung: ecstasy, and so on up to something like heroine on the top rung.
> 
> they are available at sears hardware stores across the u.s.


I think you have third and fourth inverted. As stated much earlier in this thread, it is impossible to overdose on MJ. It is pretty easy to do so with alcohol. Also, I have yet to see someone smoke so much that they barf, pass out and shiet their pants but I've seen quite a few people do that when they were drinking. They worst part is that some people actually do this while operating an automobile. I've already stated earlier that a drunk driver killed my best friend's entire family. The drunk driver passed out behind the wheel going 70mph on a two lane road and plowed into their car head on killing his wife, 2 year old son, and 7 month old daughter instantly. If you were at their funeral with me you might have a much different opinion about which drug should be illegal.

No one will ever convince me that alcohol is less dangerous than pot. In fact, pot is so much safer than alcohol that this entire debate rediculous.


----------



## SILVERHUFFY (Jan 13, 2004)

skeeter said:


> dude, try reading again. all i said is that those are the levels of acceptability. i never said you had to "climb" the ladder. i never said if you started on the ladder that you would eventually make it to the top. all i am saying is it is more socially acceptable to drink alchohol than smoke weed, and if you disagree with that, you're a moron. it is more acceptable to tell your some of your friends you smoke weed than to say that you shoot heroine. and if you disagree with that statement, you again are a moron. if you finally figure out what the hell i am talking about, without assuming a bunch of stuff, well then, you aren't a moron.


Name caller!
I agree with you that it is more socially acceptable to drink than smoke weed or slam heroin. I must have misunderstood ya!
MEANIE!


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

ditchdiver56 said:


> PS- I too think Black Bart is Gonzostrike


Well, chalk up one more thing you're wrong about...


----------



## skeeter (Dec 30, 2003)

Ebo said:


> One thing I do know Skeeter is that it is far easier for kids to get their herb that it is for us so called adults. And what's the difference between kids getting their herb from friends or shoulder tapping the guy running into the liquor store. You are naive at best in your understanding of drugs both legal and illegal. Why is it so easy for you to give a thumbs down for pot, yet totally ignore the legal drugs that are so readily available. Open your eyes pal.


how you conclude that i'm naive, i don't understand. am i totally off my rocker in thinking that it is easier to get something that is legal and mass produced than it is to get something that is illegal, without clear cut purchase points? it was a hell of a lot easier to get beer in high school than it was to get weed. why? because beer is legally sold in stores, more of my friends parents had beer to swipe than weed. because it was a hell of a lot easier tracking down someone who was old enough to buy the beer than having to whisper around to see who might have some weed for sale.

now if you don't mind more kids smoking weed, than don't worry about it. but if the $hit is legalized, more kids will be getting stoned. if you don't think that will be the case, you're nuts. all in all, it ain't no big deal, because weed has many positive effects. it's good for you.


----------



## skeeter (Dec 30, 2003)

Wheelie said:


> I think you have third and fourth inverted. As stated much earlier in this thread, it is impossible to overdose on MJ. It is pretty easy to do so with alcohol. Also, I have yet to see someone smoke so much that they barf, pass out and shiet their pants but I've seen quite a few people do that when they were drinking. They worst part is that some people actually do this while operating an automobile. I've already stated earlier that a drunk driver killed my best friend's entire family. The drunk driver passed out behind the wheel going 70mph on a two lane road and plowed into their car head on killing his wife, 2 year old son, and 7 month old daughter instantly. If you were at their funeral with me you might have a much different opinion about which drug should be illegal.
> 
> No one will ever convince me that alcohol is less dangerous than pot. In fact, pot is so much safer than alcohol that this entire debate rediculous.


key word: acceptable, as in what most people consider acceptable. it is acceptable to drink a beer in a bar, it is not acceptable to light up some herb.


----------



## skeeter (Dec 30, 2003)

Steve71 said:


> Then I gotta ask what you know about LSD. How have you formed an opinion about LSD?


take a wild guess man, geez. if the $hit were legal, and had no negative side effects, i'd be droppin' it like Uma drops bodies in Kill Bill.


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

skeeter said:


> how you conclude that i'm naive, i don't understand. am i totally off my rocker in thinking that it is easier to get something that is legal and mass produced than it is to get something that is illegal, without clear cut purchase points? it was a hell of a lot easier to get beer in high school than it was to get weed. why? because beer is legally sold in stores, more of my friends parents had beer to swipe than weed. because it was a hell of a lot easier tracking down someone who was old enough to buy the beer than having to whisper around to see who might have some weed for sale.
> 
> now if you don't mind more kids smoking weed, than don't worry about it. but if the $hit is legalized, more kids will be getting stoned. if you don't think that will be the case, you're nuts. all in all, it ain't no big deal, because weed has many positive effects. it's good for you.


When I was underage, and wanted alcohol, I had to search around for an adult who was willing to go through the hassle of going to the store for me to make my purchase. It was often "ok, this one time, but don't bother me again". My dad would have noticed if there were beers missing from the fridge.

If I wanted weed? Quick phone call, sit on my ass, and wait for it to come to me. Often followed up with, "hey, call me anytime".

See, if you are dealing an illegal drug, it's illegal no matter who you sell to. No dealer is worried about their license being revoked, get it?

Also, if you have been to other countries, (like in Europe) where kids are allowed to have a little to drink at an earlier age, there is no "coolness" attached to drinking. Binge drinking is less common among teens there. I remember bringing exchange students to parties in high school, they just didn't get why so many kids would get so wasted. See, drinking was not a thing to do to "prove" anything. But that's a whole other topic, for a whole other thread.


----------



## ditchdiver56 (Feb 10, 2004)

Black Bart said:


> Well, chalk up one more thing you're wrong about...


That's the greatest thing about this country, I can think whatever I like.

DD


----------



## Wheelie (May 17, 2004)

skeeter said:


> key word: acceptable, as in what most people consider acceptable. it is acceptable to drink a beer in a bar, it is not acceptable to light up some herb.


That's the crazy part. People are so attached to their frigin beer, wine and whiskey. That shiet not only ruins the user's life but also threatens my life and the life of my loved ones every time we get behind the wheel.

The only way I could ever respect the opinion of someone that was anti-pot would be if that person is completely and utterly strait edge. That means no chemical vices what-so-ever. I would place a large sum of money that the majority of those that have posted anti-pot sentiments can't say they don't drink alcohol. To those of you, I say you are the worst kind of hypocrites.


----------



## skeeter (Dec 30, 2003)

Black Bart said:


> When I was underage, and wanted alcohol, I had to search around for an adult who was willing to go through the hassle of going to the store for me to make my purchase. It was often "ok, this one time, but don't bother me again". My dad would have noticed if there were beers missing from the fridge.
> 
> If I wanted weed? Quick phone call, sit on my ass, and wait for it to come to me. Often followed up with, "hey, call me anytime".
> 
> ...


so are you saying that, if weed is legalized, it will be just as hard to get weed, if not harder than it is now? for teens, that is.


----------



## Wheelie (May 17, 2004)

Black Bart said:


> Also, if you have been to other countries, (like in Europe) where kids are allowed to have a little to drink at an earlier age, there is no "coolness" attached to drinking. Binge drinking is less common among teens there. I remember bringing exchange students to parties in high school, they just didn't get why so many kids would get so wasted. See, drinking was not a thing to do to "prove" anything. But that's a whole other topic, for a whole other thread.


I've been to europe a number of times and this is the absolute truth.

Tell a teenager they can't do something and they will do it just to spite you. We are so egotistical as Americans that we think we always have it figured out even when we are completely clueless.


----------



## skeeter (Dec 30, 2003)

Wheelie said:


> That's the crazy part. People are so attached to their frigin beer, wine and whiskey. That shiet not only ruins the user's life but also threatens my life and the life of my loved ones every time we get behind the wheel.
> 
> The only way I could ever respect the opinion of someone that was anti-pot would be if that person is completely and utterly strait edge. That means no chemical vices what-so-ever. I would place a large sum of money that the majority of those that have posted anti-pot sentiments can't say they don't drink alcohol. To those of you, I say you are the worst kind of hypocrites.


and this is why it cracks me up when someone wants to base legalizing pot on the fact that alchohol is legal.


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

ditchdiver56 said:


> That's the greatest thing about this country, I can think whatever I like.
> 
> DD


Yes, the greatest thing about this country is your ability to go through life uninformed, uneducated, ignorant, and dead wrong.


----------



## Wheelie (May 17, 2004)

skeeter said:


> and this is why it cracks me up when someone wants to base legalizing pot on the fact that alchohol is legal.


You don't get it. I wish alcohol was the substance that was illegal. If it was, then my best friend's family might still be alive.


----------



## Black Bart (Apr 19, 2004)

skeeter said:


> and this is why it cracks me up when someone wants to base legalizing pot on the fact that alchohol is legal.


Yeah, because we realized that legalizing alcohol was a better way to go than prohibition. Crazy logic, huh?


----------



## skeeter (Dec 30, 2003)

Wheelie said:


> You don't get it. I wish alcohol was the substance that was illegal. If it was, then my best friend's family might still be alive.


i know what you are saying, and i'm sorry about your friend's family. i'd also guess, sad as it may be, that there is a similar trajedy, but the driver was stoned instead of drunk. and just think, if pot was as accessible as booze, than i'm sure we're going to have a hell of a lot more stoned people driving.

i personally don't think pot should be legalized, for a variety of reasons. but if it did become legal, i'd probably buy a pack of doobs. and i probably wouldn't be the only one in the states to do so. with the added number of people who now are getting high, realistically, the amount of stoned drivers is going to increase. how will that make anything better? it won't. maybe it's a better idea to outlaw booze than to legalize pot, based only on traffic fatality evaluations.

holy $hit, it's way late and i am definitely rambling. sorry 'bout that.


----------



## NateH415 (Jun 15, 2004)

skeeter said:


> i know what you are saying, and i'm sorry about your friend's family. i'd also guess, sad as it may be, that there is a similar trajedy, but the driver was stoned instead of drunk. and just think, if pot was as accessible as booze, than i'm sure we're going to have a hell of a lot more stoned people driving.
> 
> i personally don't think pot should be legalized, for a variety of reasons. but if it did become legal, i'd probably buy a pack of doobs. and i probably wouldn't be the only one in the states to do so. with the added number of people who now are getting high, realistically, the amount of stoned drivers is going to increase. how will that make anything better? it won't. maybe it's a better idea to outlaw booze than to legalize pot, based only on traffic fatality evaluations.
> 
> holy $hit, it's way late and i am definitely rambling. sorry 'bout that.


Man, I used to get way stoned with Milos a lot. He would wait on the park bench in Perri Park, outside Fairfax police station, until someone would show up with some herb! Guess he's still blazing. Sorry ya got caught man. P.R. dammit! 420


----------



## dodjy (Mar 3, 2004)

Jm. said:


> While there might be plenty of academics, scientists, businessmen, professionals, that smoke the stuff, I'd wager that within their fields, they are not "leaders".


 That wouldn't be such a good wager. Kary Mullis

http://www.csp.org/chrestomathy/dancing_naked.html

http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/kary-mullis.html

http://www.nobel.se/chemistry/laureates/1993/

Not that I endorse such activity, but some people can defy what most people succumb to.

dd..''


----------



## Ripzalot (Jan 13, 2004)

Black Bart said:


> Also, if you have been to other countries, (like in Europe) where kids are allowed to have a little to drink at an earlier age, there is no "coolness" attached to drinking. Binge drinking is less common among teens there. I remember bringing exchange students to parties in high school, they just didn't get why so many kids would get so wasted. See, drinking was not a thing to do to "prove" anything. But that's a whole other topic, for a whole other thread.


FYI, this is a common misconception. Teen drinking is as much a problem (or more) in Europe as it is in the USA. 
http://www.parent-teen.com/newsreleases2001/eurodrinking.html


----------



## wolfmansbro (May 25, 2004)

wow this is one hell of a debate that has started
This is what i have thought about over the number of years. People say that pot is illegal and there is a reason, right well please prove to me these reason why pot is illegal and alcohol is legal?
proven fact that pot has never killed a single person, yes some actions that have been done while "under the infuelnce" have resulted in deaths but this is no different then someone who is under the infulence of alchohol or even for that matter stress, lack of sleep, or over the counter drugs can make you do the same if not more stupid things
Cigaretts and alcohol have both caused millions of deaths but not one death has ever been reported for pot.
Being drunk is far more dangerous then being high because you do not realise you are drunk but when you are high you know you are and account for your actions when you are high. i know for a fact that when im stoned that i take this into account and accually drive at safer speeds (generally under the speed limit) and pay more close attention to the road
When you say that pot is the reason for many of the petty thefts this is ONLY because pot is illegal, if pot were legal then theft because of pot would be no higher then any other reason to steal because prices would be more reasonable and they would be controled so that there would not be a need to steal because you could grow your own and afford it

Basically they only lagitamate reason that i can come up with why pot is illegal and alcohol is legal is because, if pot were legal then this would make it much easier for someone to grow their own buds as apose to brewing your own beer
and second there would be no way for the government to control pot, you can take subriety tests to determine how drunk you are but there is no way to tell how stoned you are. Lets put it this way if pot were made legal then just think of the millions of dollars the government could pocket for taxes. and with that being set, why not just keep it illegal because then i know they government doesnt have any control over it, and its nice to know that pot is one of the few things left in this world that doesnt have government regulations on it


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

*What is Mr. Rockwell up to?*

What is Myles doing these days?


----------



## cooldaddy (Jan 28, 2004)

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/interview-mountain-biking-legend-myles-rockwell-20635


----------



## topmounter (Jul 30, 2003)

Amazing how things change in 5 years... 13 medical marijuana states, 11 decriminalized states and the feds were told to not override state law.


----------



## HotBlack (Feb 9, 2008)

Since we're allowed to talk about Myles drug charges but not Missys,

the following update is not about Missy:

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12838760

Damn that's a lot of weed.


----------



## nuclear_powered (Apr 18, 2007)

HotBlack said:


> Damn that's a lot of weed.


DEA retirement fund.

Kidding. They destroy it. All of it.


----------



## stephenpaul6557 (Jul 10, 2009)

That really is a lot of marijuana. He should have been much more careful and at least done a better job hiding them!


----------



## topmounter (Jul 30, 2003)

It's amazing the lengths that people will go to save a little money.


----------



## weldo (Jul 21, 2008)

so whats the deal with the link???


----------



## Trek7000rider (Sep 7, 2008)

I think it was just last week that we had a pretty long thread on the exact same topic... cant think of her name now but she was arrested for having a bunch of weed in a truck... point is, this has all been discussed many times over. 

legalize pot, tax it, and spend the extra billions of dollars a year paying off national debt, fighting harder drugs, and finding cures for cancer. as well as get a bunch of people out of jail that we, as taxpayers, are paying a lot of money for.


----------



## mtnwing (Jan 13, 2004)

http://www.awmtv.com/#/home

The partner in crime. He proclaims his innocence in his blog. Can't wait to hear his explaination for 1 Mil in cash in his closet and a ton of pot in his house. (I didn't know it was there . . . )

Also did you see the public defender's explaination in court for the pot in the trailer . . . . "It was planted by the cops" . Sounds like a great defense.


----------



## Fuelish (Dec 19, 2003)

Who cares ??? Everyone's guilty of something .... let's just exterminate the whole human race - our planet would be MUCH better off


----------



## Roger Serafin (Jul 31, 2008)

Wow, first Missy and now Myles. What's up with these early Yeti racers.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

mtnwing said:


> http://www.awmtv.com/#/home


What's with the spam? Don't appreciate clicking on something, thinking it's on topic and finding out it's OT!


----------



## HotBlack (Feb 9, 2008)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> What's with the spam? Don't appreciate clicking on something, thinking it's on topic and finding out it's OT!


Yeah, nice goin, Snedsy.


----------



## CANBONSAN (Nov 20, 2006)

*M & M*

Not saying anything....

Just sayin.


----------



## Dr.Preroll (Jun 2, 2009)

At 4:20pm...That is wicked. Reminds me of the old Syncros T-shirts " High friends in Good places".


----------



## stylie (Jan 6, 2007)

Roger Serafin said:


> Wow, first Missy and now Myles. What's up with these early Yeti racers.


Wow Roger, I assume you are being sarcastic but if not then you are really behind in the times my friend. Myles was busted for pot back in 2004 or 2005. I am pretty sure this thread was recently revived b/c of the situation Missy got herself into.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

stylie said:


> Wow Roger, I assume you are being sarcastic but if not then you are really behind in the times my friend. Myles was busted for pot back in 2004 or 2005. I am pretty sure this thread was recently revived b/c of the situation Missy got herself into.


It was, "recently revived", because I asked about Myles. I could care less about Missy, not that I dislike her, just not a fan.


----------



## Agent-Boltron (Jul 3, 2009)

Zenfrog said:


> I dont think that they have medical in CO. If Miles was back in his home town of Fairfax, CA. there would be no prob.s


Or if he was in Santa Cruz CA, he would just invite the cops in for a nice smoke before dinner. Also seriously, growing it yourself causes a lot fewer problems then importing it from the fed's friends back in mexico...


----------



## krott5333 (Aug 6, 2009)

nothing like tokin in the woods after a nice thrashing on the bike.


----------



## Stumpjumper808 (Dec 27, 2004)




----------



## w00t! (Apr 28, 2008)

hahahaha...I just love it (not) when brainwashed cops regurgitate the propaganda they've been bottle-fed and act like their crappy job makes them some sort of authority on the subject.

hey, buddy...you're a two-bit cop, not a sociologist. go camp out at a stop sign and make sure everybody comes to a complete stop. leave the important stuff to smarter people.


----------



## stylie (Jan 6, 2007)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> It was, "recently revived", because I asked about Myles. I could care less about Missy, not that I dislike her, just not a fan.


So it's all your fault.....


----------



## dundundata (May 15, 2009)

Legalize It


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Sounds like a little more than a dent the rent fund.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

stylie said:


> So it's all your fault.....


F#*c yeah! That's me, always stirring the pot! Pun intended! Dang, that was a good one!


----------

