I'm convinced that only pot smokers support legalizing marijuana

Which one rehab? You don't want to help addicts I'm guessing? I'm also guessing you are more than happy to take their tax money and spend it on things other than helping them. The current system doesn't work. I'm providing an alternative that would save money and has a better chance at lowering addiction rates. If you have another idea I'm listening.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a fantastic idea. We could waste more lives, throw away more money, and in the end not actually stop anything because so long as there is demand the drug trade isn't going anywhere. Legalization is the only realistic option. You can't control something if you keep it underground.

 

Alcohol and tobacco have completely different effects in this regard. People do indeed smoke to enhance eating. It's orders of magnitude better

I myself smoke with friends all the time - at doses which aren't all that noticeable due to my tolerance. We still have good fun though. Chuck on some cartoons, order some pizza - good times. You don't need to be off your face.

If all beer became non-alcoholic overnight I can guarantee more people would be drinking green tea

[hr][/hr]

So yeah, I recognize your point, but I really do think more people smoke in that way than you'd at first expect. No doubt many more would begin to if it were legalized. Those sushi stores specialized towards cannabis in Colarado? The people there aren't getting off their faces, they're just having a pleasant high with friends over food.

 

Another head will pop up. What you drug warriors don't realize is that banning drugs is a fools errand. It can't be done. Humans want drugs. This is known in economics as "demand". Where there is consumer demand for ANYTHING, there WILL be supply. Jail/kill one drug empire, another will rise up. It's an endless game of whack-a-mole, that in the end is much worse for society than the drugs themselves could ever be.

You cannot legislate away consumer demand. It's impossible.

 

There is demand for flying cars. And jet packs.




​

 

So what if there was a huge demand for child porn and pedophilia? Should that be supplied?

And actually, you can. The big corporations are doing it all the time. For example, RIAA's war against downloading. RIAA has successfully taken down huge websites like Demonoid and forced the Pirate Bay to move to North Korea. Making file sharing a crime sure sounds like legislating away demand to me.

 

And when they exist at reasonable prices, there will be supply. There's also demand for warp drives. Drugs exist. As does the demand and supply.

 

So price matters? If you make it costly enough to acquire, you can stifle demand. Good to know.




​

 

Drugs don't victimize children like creating child porn does.

Actually I do not think they're in NORK, but it matters not. They're still up and running. Back in the day I used to download music from Napster. Partially because it was free, but mostly because I wanted my music to live on a hard drive, and not take up many cubic yards of cds that were hard to deal with. Once they started offering 99 cent downloads I went back to paying. The movie Industry needs to figure out in the age of $150 3TB network attached hard disks, movie consumers now want the same.

 

Of course it does. Which explains why NYC has such a large cigarette smuggling issue, they've gone too far with cig taxes.

 

Actually, drugs do. Drugs destroy lives, even tobacco and alcohol. Many addictions can also hurt people, even addictions to things like sugar can cause medical complications to people on diabetes. And so can pot. I just feel its useless to post information on this because it won't accomplish anything because nobody will change their mind on the matter, on both sides of the issue.

There is often a higher rate of crime where illicit drugs are sold. In Los Angels business have higher number of break ins because some idiots think that the pot in those buildings belong to them.

However, I do feel it is the adult's right to destroy their own lives if they so choose. I just balk at when they want to destroy somebody elses' lives with them.

I have a different point of view on suicide than most westerners do. If a person has the right to life shouldn't they have the right to death? It forcing someone to live in a crappy life the real selfishness? Why shouldn't people be allowed to commit suicide if their life is so crappy? Suicide is just a way of escaping pain.


I'm sorry, in looking for some info I ran into an article that says Demonoid is back up and running after two years of being way.

However, I don't think this really changes my initial statement about RIAA legislating away demand.

 

I think most folks would agree with you. And if someone truly is taking a sober, honest look at their existence and choosing to end it — no law is going to stop them. Suicide laws exist to empower authorities to deal with folks who due to illness, trauma, delirium, or intoxication make the choice while less than in their proper mind. If the law didn't exist, they'd have no right to take those pills out of the hand of drunk who is only trying to pop them to get attention and doesn't really want to die.





​

 

Sometimes. Not always. I know plenty of people who do plenty of drugs, both legal and illegal, and have jobs, are good parents, and aside from the legal ramifications should they ever be caught in possession of something other people have determined they're not allowed to possess, have suffered and will likely not suffer any downside.

Not sure I agree. Today there is serious debate about whether or not it should be legalized, to the point it HAS been in 2 states. I don't think 20 years ago it was something that was on the table to even discuss.

That's BECAUSE they're illegal. Legal businesses settle disputes with lawyers, not bullets.

 

Legal businesses might. Addicts are a different story.



​

 

Actually, I think you misunderstand. I am talking about business who do have a license sell have a higher crime rate. I am not talking about the illegal stuff.

Here's the kind of thing I mean:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/u...o-sees-the-downside-of-a-legal-high.html?_r=0

It does say crime is down overall, but there are still incidents that are related to it, such as a child bringing a marijuana cookie to a school.

And then there's this little gem:

So before I saw this I was wavering a bit on the comment of "there's no death while on pot". I'm sorry, but after that paragraph, I think that is a lie.

So you see, pot does destroy lives. I think that if it is legalized across the board, you will probably see an increase in incidents like that one and the shooting death of Kristine Kirk from her husband while high on marijuana.

And perhaps the true reason for the comment was either just ignoring things like this or these things are rare because of the illegality of pot and making it hard to obtain, not because it is "harmless".

 

I don't think you'll see much change whatsoever. I very seriously doubt there is a large amount of people who want to smoke weed but don't because it's illegal. And if you think it's difficult to find, you'd be wrong. I can call at least 2 dozen people who, if they can't hook me up themselves, can themselves make a phone call or 2. And unless you're a homebound hermit, you can, too, even if you don't realize it.

It's actually much more widespread than you think. Here in Florida we have head shops that legally sell "paraphernalia" for using pot. Everybody pretends it's "for tobacco use only", which is what makes it legal, but everyone knows the score. I actually distribute some pipes and other things to my customers, but my business is 90% e-cigarettes so not a lot.

In my social circles, which are 20-40 something YUPPIE types, I'd estimate 50% use regularly and as much as 80% use at least occasionally. And I have a LARGE social network.

I predict now that the camels nose is in the tent, it's just a matter of time.

 

Wow! what an incredible insight. I bet it was boozers who did in prohibition. Go figure. Sometimes this site amazes me.

 

And then there's this little gem:
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/14/local/me-water14

I used to think drinking water was good but after seeing "this little gem" I realize that it destroys lives...

Here's another gem that proves that marshmallows also destroy lives:
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2009/09/the-dangers-of-chubby-bunny.html

 

So your point is everything is potentially toxic and therefore we shouldn't discriminate in what substances we consume?



​

 

So you're a dealer. Now I know why you support the legalization of pot. You have a personal stake in it for money.

Ah well.

 

Nope. Everyone should discriminate "in what substances [they] consume". That's common sense. However, you shouldn't throw other human beings into cages for the substances that they choose to consume.

But, that's neither here nor there since that wasn't the point I was making either. My post was in response to Tram's insistence that "pot destroys lives" because of some kid doing something stupid while high and dying as a result. I think the point I was making should be very clear in that context but if you need me to spell it out then just let me know.

 

I didn't read anything in his post that stated he was "a dealer"...

In my experience most "dealers" want marijuana to remain illegal so that their cash cow doesn't dry up. The anti-marijuana crowd are strange bedfellows. It mainly consists of dealers, cops/prison industry, and holier than thou busy-body types who think that they know what is best for everyone else and have no problem with their desires being enforced through violence.

 

There you go.

 

You don't know what a head shop is do you. The poster is saying that he sells pipes and other stuff related to smoking weed, not weed. This is one of the big issues with the drug discussion is most of the opposition to legalization has no idea what they are talking about and get their information from TV and government propaganda.

 

Sigh. Never assume that a person doesn't know. Sometimes a person does know but chooses not to mention it for various reasons.

And I can easily see hims start selling weed if it should become legal.

 

He probably would. If I owned a head shop I'd sell weed as soon as it was legal. What I'm saying is that there is no reason to assume someone who sells legal products related to smoking weed is selling weed. In fact it's best to assume they are not since they are making money and could lose everything if they were to sell. It's a draconian punishment for something that isn't a big deal to begin with.