Alaska Measure 2 : Legalizing Marijuana

[badtz]

Alaska | Measure 2: Legalizing Marijuana
Would legalize the cultivation, use and sale of marijuana for persons 21 and older; the state and local government would regulate marijuana like alcohol and tobacco; doctors would be able to prescribe @#$% to all patients, including children; public use laws could be enacted by the government as well as laws in the interest of public safety.


It lost, but it was (relatively) close.

57% = no
43% yes


Interesting.

[Ebby]

[Homer] D'oh [/Simpson]

Holland is sooooo far away...

[rageous]

As Chris Rock said:

The only reason coke and weed are illegal in America is because the best coke and weed aren't made in America.

[badtz]

I seriously don't understand how alcohol is legal and marijuana is not.

:err:

[bunge]

Originally posted by badtz
I seriously don't understand how alcohol is legal and marijuana is not.

:err:

Historically, paper mills in the North West wanted to eliminate the competition from hemp paper so the (in essence) bribed congress to pass laws making marijuana illegal. Most people knew the product as hemp and didn't realize was was happening until it was too late.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by badtz
I seriously don't understand how alcohol is legal and marijuana is not.

:err:

Because marijuana is more likely to lead to harder drug use and is more crime related.

[Scott]

We had a "medical" marijuana decriminalization on the ballot in my county (or was it city). It passed.

[running with scissors]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Because marijuana is more likely to lead to harder drug use and is more crime related.

dumb ass people are more likely to go on to other drugs regardless if they try pot or not. as far as crime related goes, when was the last time you heard of someone high on pot knocking over a convenience store? my guess would be not very often. they're more concerned with scoring a pizza from papa johns.

[rageous]

The idea that pot is a gateway drug is a severly distorted look at the facts.

This message is pushed by people who say "X number of people who use cocaine and heroine started off abusing marijuana."

Well no fucking shit. By the very fact the are abusing hardcore drugs they have proven to be excessively experimental people. So it's totally obvious that abusers of hard drugs started off with less potent ones.

However, that does not mean that people who smoke pot are more likely to move to harder drugs. Everyone who has tried Coca-Cola has undoubtedly started off drinking water. Does this mean everyone who drinks water is going to drink Coca-Cola?

If you legalize pot, the same number of people are going to abuse harder drugs. No more, no less.

[Scott]

What % of people that smoke cigarettes go on to use coke et. al.?

[BRussell]

We passed a medical marijuana initiative in Montana yesterday.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
What % of people that smoke cigarettes go on to use coke et. al.?

What percentage of people that have used coke have also smoked a cigarette? Does that make a cigarette a gateway drug?

What percentage of heroin users have eaten pizza? Is pizza a gateway food?

[timmy o'tool]

I started out with Domino's and then slowly moved on to the harder stuff and now I am a hardcore toad licker...God save me :smokey:

[Scott]

Originally posted by bunge
What percentage of people that have used coke have also smoked a cigarette? Does that make a cigarette a gateway drug?

What percentage of heroin users have eaten pizza? Is pizza a gateway food?

We are making the same point. Correlation does not equal causal correlation.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by SDW2001
and is more crime related.
That's because it's illegal. :rolleyes: During the prohibition, there was much crime pertaining to the trafficking of liquor; it's not like it's specific to weed.

[Wrong Robot]

I can't verify this because I've never seen marijuana legal, but it seems to me that the reason people would move to harder drugs from marijuana(which in and of itself is mostly untrue) is because they're getting their marijuana from someone who also has harder drugs.

If you could go down to a smoke shop and get a gram of weed(paying the smoke shop who gets from a legitimate source, and pays an additional tax to the government), I don't think you'd find yourself in a situation where you'd be moving onto harder drugs, because well, you'd have to go out of your way to get them, whereas now, it'd just be a question of asking the guy who is already supplying you with weed.

:\

I also don't think it's very fair to juxtapose cigarette smoking with marijuana smoking.

[timmy o'tool]

I guess the emperor still wears no close.
Someone really should send him down the Salvation Army or something, that just plain disturbing.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
We are making the same point.

Gimme a kiss.

[Jim Paradise]

Originally posted by bunge
Gimme a kiss.

That might lead to sex. :p

[tonton]

Originally posted by Jim Paradise
That might lead to sex. :p

Which might lead to marriage, except...

1. Gay marriage is illegal.
2. So is polygamy, and Scott is married.

[badtz]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Because marijuana is more likely to lead to harder drug use and is more crime related.


WWEEEEAAAKKKK argument.

:\

[Harald]

Portugal recently decriminalised most drugs in order to better reach addicts (for rehabilitation) and to reduce drug-related crime.

Holland, as you know, has far less addicts then UK etc. and cannabis is legal.

This occurred because law makers used good research to back their decisions for the benefit of the population. Facts trumped supposition and dogma. The people benefited.

This is trickier in the US obviously because 'ivory tower liberal intellectuals' do the research, and if the research suggests 'liberalisation' of something then it's never going to happen. So you have more per-capita addicts and a greater per-capita cost due to drug crime. Due to dogma.

[Frank777]

The majority of AI will definitely be in favour of decriminalizing marijuana,
right up until the day one of us get killed by a drugged driver.

When there's any reliable kind of roadside test that can be cheaply and easily administered by a cop, call me.

Until then, no drughead with a souped up Honda gets to threaten my family.

[Ra]

Well presumably it would remain illegal to drive while intoxicated, right?

[tonton]

Originally posted by Frank777
The majority of AI will definitely be in favour of decriminalizing marijuana,
right up until the day one of us get killed by a drugged driver.

When there's any reliable kind of roadside test that can be cheaply and easily administered by a cop, call me.

Until then, no drughead with a souped up Honda gets to threaten my family.

Lol! Have you ever tried to drive a car while stoned? There's no way you'd ever hit anyone or anything driving 5 MPH. :lol:

No, really, smoking an entire joint would not be as dangerous as having two beers. Alcohol impairs motor skill and reflexes. THC does not.

And yes, "driving while intoxicated" includes intoxication for non-alcoholic drugs. If the cop can smell pot on your breath, you're likely to have your body searched as well as your car for posession. If he doesn't find anything and you pass the drink driving test, and conduct yourself well, then obviously you are not impaired and he has to let you go. In most states it's not a crime to smoke pot and drive, as long as you are not in possession when you drive, and as long as your driving is not impaired. Nor should it be.

[Harald]

Originally posted by Frank777
The majority of AI will definitely be in favour of decriminalizing marijuana,
right up until the day one of us get killed by a drugged driver.

When there's any reliable kind of roadside test that can be cheaply and easily administered by a cop, call me.

Until then, no drughead with a souped up Honda gets to threaten my family.

See my post above.

If you want to reduce the amount of people on hard drugs and reduce the cost of drugs to society (crime), then decriminalise them.

See, this is the problem. The evidence is that this works, but it's 'liberal' and so you hate it. Never let the facts get in the way of good dogma.

[badtz]

Originally posted by Frank777
The majority of AI will definitely be in favour of decriminalizing marijuana,
right up until the day one of us get killed by a drugged driver.

When there's any reliable kind of roadside test that can be cheaply and easily administered by a cop, call me.

Until then, no drughead with a souped up Honda gets to threaten my family.

if given the choice, would you rather have alcohol be legal and not marijuana? or the way it is now?


[can you see the ignorance in your post?]

blind-sided. :\

[G2G]

I have been smoking pot for years and dont care if they make it legal or not ....god made pot man made beer who you going trust....genisis 1:12 I have given you all these seed bareing plants and herbs for YOU to use....just dont drive or use heavy machinary :lol: ....dont eat to much junk food or watch TV etc... and grow your own....safe and simple....:smokey:

[crazychester]

Originally posted by Wrong Robot
I can't verify this because I've never seen marijuana legal, but it seems to me that the reason people would move to harder drugs from marijuana(which in and of itself is mostly untrue) is because they're getting their marijuana from someone who also has harder drugs.
Bingo! Go to the top of the class Robot.

Originally posted by Placebo
That's because it's illegal. During the prohibition, there was much crime pertaining to the trafficking of liquor; it's not like it's specific to weed.
And a gold star to Placebo for the correct answer to the other dumb comment. Well done, Popette. What's more if you supply heroin users with heroin at an affordable price, they won't steal your laptop either.

Special Bonus Drug Factoids

1691 In Luneberg Germany, the penalty for smoking (tobacco) is death. (I guess you could say it still is.)

1918 The Anti-Saloon League calls the "liquor traffic" "un-American, pro-German, crime-producing, food-wasting, youth-corrupting, home-wrecking and treasonable." (Well, whaddya know? Seems liquor's crime-producing too.)

1989 When discussing America's commitment to the "war on drugs", President Bush the First promises to rid America of all illicit drugs by 1995. (And now Junior's going to win the War on Terrorism! Waging losing battles must be a Shrub family tradition.)

[groverat]

Originally posted by Placebo
That's because it's illegal. :rolleyes: During the prohibition, there was much crime pertaining to the trafficking of liquor; it's not like it's specific to weed.

Touchdown.

[dfiler]

Well... looks like I'm not moving to Alaska. ;)

Maybe next time.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by bunge
Historically, paper mills in the North West wanted to eliminate the competition from hemp paper so the (in essence) bribed congress to pass laws making marijuana illegal. Most people knew the product as hemp and didn't realize was was happening until it was too late.

And they managed this by claiming that hemp use would cause blacks to go around raping white middle class girls.

Scare tactics and ignorance go back along way.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by Ra
Well presumably it would remain illegal to drive while intoxicated, right?

I've never personally used marijuana, so I can't testify to whether it impairs driving skills or not. But everything I've seen suggests there would be an impact, though not as great as alcohol.

However, the Canadian Federal Liberals, which is headed by geniuses who can't even keep proper logs of incoming calls from other government leaders, is actively pursuing the decriminalization of marijuana.

(Please note that in Canada, 'Liberals' is the party name - and it contains both lefties and righties.)

Everything I've read in the papers suggest that there is no reliable roadside test. (I'll try to find a link later.) Police officers are being 'given the stand on one leg' and other subjective criteria for determining whether to drag a driver to a station for a blood test.

The only people who will do very well with this course of action are trial lawyers.

[MarcUK]

A good roadside test would be to offer them a burger. If they eat it in less than 30 seconds, that proof indeed.

[running with scissors]

Originally posted by MarcUK
A good roadside test would be to offer them a burger. If they eat it in less than 30 seconds, that proof indeed.


or at least probable cause.

[thuh Freak]

Originally posted by Scott
We had a "medical" marijuana decriminalization on the ballot in my county (or was it city). It passed.
hooray!

when this very topic was discussed some time ago (feels like years and years ago) on this forum i looked up getting high and driving. a study (i have a feeling it was many studies actually, but i'll be damned if i'm gonna go searching for it now) showed that getting high before driving improves driving abilities. iirc, the high infects the a user's speed (as in, they go slower), and makes them a bit more fearful (so they are constantly looking around, thus able to notice any dangers all around).

i firmly believe that marijuana is safer in nearly every demonstrable fashion than alcohol. with perhaps the exception of a person's health {smoking causes lung cancer}, but alcohol has deleterious affects on the health as well.

i'm gonna roll a fattie when i get home tonight.

[badtz]

Originally posted by thuh Freak
hooray!
i firmly believe that marijuana is safer in nearly every demonstrable fashion than alcohol. with perhaps the exception of a person's health {smoking causes lung cancer}, but alcohol has deleterious affects on the health as well.

i'm gonna roll a fattie when i get home tonight.


remember that marijuana doesn't HAVE to be smoked. you can eat it also...... a la brownies ;)

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Because marijuana is more likely to lead to harder drug use and is more crime related.


Actually studies have shown the opposite. If marijuana was legalized it would take away much of the money criminals make from it. These same criminals also sell the harder stuff which in turn is sold to the same buyers. If legal they couldn't turn a profit doing that any more. In countries where it has been legalized the crime rate has gone down. If you want a business model look at prohabition in the nineteen twenty's.

[G2G]

Originally posted by MarcUK
A good roadside test would be to offer them a burger. If they eat it in less than 30 seconds, that proof indeed. I would try to get pulled over if it were a HOOTER BURGER:lol: :lol: :lol:

[FormerLurker]

All drugs are listed as controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. The CSA is the legal foundation of the government's fight against abuse of drugs and other substances._ This law is a consolidation of numerous laws regulating the manufacture and distribution of narcotics, stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens, anabolic steroids an chemicals used in the illicit production of controlled substances.

The following is a brief description of the the schedules in which drugs are listed according to there potential for abuse and level of medical use.

SCHEDULE I:
The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Examples of Schedule I substances are heroin, LSD, marijuana, and methaqualone.
Can anyone explain why alcohol is not a Schedule I narcotic, given this criteria?

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Can anyone explain why alcohol is not a Schedule I narcotic, given this criteria?


How else are the Reps gonna reward the big alcohol corporations, if they're not legal?

there ain't a single marijuana producing corporation, cuz i'll bet you $100,000 they'd legalize it in a sec...

[FormerLurker]

Years ago, it was the paper and petrochemical interests.

Today, it comes down to this:
"You can't patent a plant"

The drug companies, however, can and do patent the latest thrill pill, since it was produced in a lab.