Inappropriate topic 420?

[majortom]

because if I am in Disney and smelling it then that means my children are breathing it too.

Actually, your smelling it does not necessarily mean that your children are breathing it (unless they are exactly your height standing exactly where you are). Even so, unless they are right next to you and blowing smoke in your face, there is no measurable affect.

I will see if I can find the study, but when I was in college there was a study to see if second hand smoke would trigger a drug test and the answer was no, even for the more sensitive tests, even sitting in a room with people smoking.

/carmi

 

[soupy11]

I think if pot were legal, the incidence of smoking and driving would go way way way up, and people would get hurt and hurt others.

Interesting point, but not really accurate. From what is seen in other countries that have decriminalized drugs, their studies do not show any higher usage of drugs than what is currently going on on our streets.

They already are out their driving cars under the influence. Well, at least those with a lot of ambition. Most stoned people I see can't be bothered to get off the couch. This can be combated with ad campaigns as you see with anti-drunk driving programs. In Canada, we are already seeing trends in advertising towards educating people that getting high and driving is just as unacceptable as getting trashed and driving is.

A slight misconception with drug decriminilization is that everyone will start smoking dope and getting high. It's just not true and is not seen in real world studies.

I will see if I can find the study, but when I was in college there was a study to see if second hand smoke would trigger a drug test and the answer was no, even for the more sensitive tests, even sitting in a room with people smoking.

This is partially true...there is 0 THC in second hand smoke, however, smoke coming off of the lit end of a joint will contain it and if in sufficently enclosed spaces, could trigger a high or trip a drug test. (although most drug tests have tolerances built-in to avoid such small amounts) This should not excuse people from lighting up at Disney, though.

 

[GeologyRocks]

...re: driving while impaired

I think it would be a good use of public funding to put a little time into studies regarding impaired driving, as well as quick, accurate, inexpensive measuring devices. If .08 (I believe that's the local BAC level here) is impaired for alcohol, find out what the corresponding levels are for common drugs - if any use leads to impairment for some drugs, get the studies and show people, and you'll have the medical requirements to back the case up in courts. Tell drivers about the levels on billboards. Every town should have that drunk driving wreck in the police station front lawn. Let them know that cops can now easily test and convict people. People make particularly bad decisions when they don't truly understand the effects of their actions.

 

[majortom]

I am virtually certain that neither the 18th amendment nor the Volstead Act prohibited the DRINKING of alcoholic beverages, for what it's worth. In short, contrary to popular belief, it was not a crime to drink during prohibition.

True. The Volstead Act prohibited, the manufacture and sale of products with greater than 0.5% of alcohol.

Elliot Ness, however, had not stockpiled large quantities of alcohol and so was either buying (or from most of these stories taking some of what was confiscated) that which he was drinking.

/carmi

 

[majortom]

But, if the problem were ongoing and not able to be resolve without calling the police, I have no qualms answering questions and becoming "involved".

No need to fear, the Orange County Sheriffs do not typically respond to calls like "I think I smell someone smoking pot in the room next door to me." Too many other things to do. Too many false reports (clove cigarettes, incense and other legal things).

/carmi

 

[majortom]

I believe most reasonable people would agree that defending use of illegal drugs (which is, of course, what we're talking about in this thread) by calling such laws "unjust" would be a rationalization.

You might want to read Marihuana, the New Prohibition (World Publishing Co, NY, 1970) before you make statements like that. SCOTUS ruled that even though a large majority of voters in Arizona and California wanted to allow medical use of Marijuana, it should still be illegal. That seems pretty clearly unjust to me.

From a letter in support of the Farr/Rohrabacher Medical Marijuana Amendment:

The public is strongly in favor of allowing the use of medical marijuana. In a 2001 Pew Research Center poll, 73% of Americans were in favor of medical marijuana and a 2002 Time/CNN poll found that 80% of Americans support it. Medical studies have concluded that marijuana has medical value in treating patients with serious illnesses such as AIDS, glaucoma, cancer, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and chronic pain. The Institute of Medicine in 1999, in the most comprehensive study of medical marijuana's efficacy to date, concluded "Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety . . . all can be mitigated by marijuana." Marijuana is one of the safest medical substances known. No one has ever died from an overdose.

Seems pretty unjust to me.

/carmi

 

[idinagirl]

Holla!

Hey I just found my old password and can finally post... and this seems like a worthy topic.

Umm I didn't read the last gazillion posts, as I assume it just dgenerated into debates over marijuana, etc notttt gettin' involved, bahahaha

Anyhow, marijuana never hurt anybody (guns do though!) and I think if you want to be baked out of your mind on Splash Mountain- go for it! You're not hurting anybody... and plus it's good business for Disney... spendin' all that money money money all munchies! ahahah *please note use of tongue-in-cheek*

peace my friends

 

[majortom]

This really bears no relevance to the arguement. The law is the law, and will be used (enforced) regardless of the morality. You can argue that the law is useless, because it is superceded by what is morally "right" but that won't play out in the real world.

Actually, the law is not the law and laws that 12 or fewer members of the public feel are unjust are often not enforced in "the real world" through a process called "jury nullification".

Just because an individual's morals object to the law, doesn't necessarily invalidate the law. This is proven over and over again because people go to jail all the time, thinking that their actions were right at the time of the crime. Most of us would steal food to feed our starving family...but we would still be in violation of the law if caught. It makes good fodder for philosophical debate, but in the end it won't fly in the real world.

Actually, even when most people in an area support a law in principle, they often do not ever support its application. For example: Oakpark, IL passed a law banning possession of handguns. Residents were overwhelmingly in favor of this law. When a gas station owner was robbed and used his (illegal) handgun to shot his robber, he was arrested and tried for his crime. Even though it was clear that he was in violation of this law, he was acquitted.

There are many other cases just like this one.

/carmi

 

[lark]

True. The Volstead Act prohibited, the manufacture and sale of products with greater than 0.5% of alcohol.

Elliot Ness, however, had not stockpiled large quantities of alcohol and so was either buying (or from most of these stories taking some of what was confiscated) that which he was drinking.

/carmi

Buying it wasn't illegal either. Could a person have been charged with solicitation for purchasing it? Doubtful. Aiding and abetting the sale? Almost certainly not and virtually certainly unconstitutional if convicted.

 

[lark]

Interesting point, but not really accurate. From what is seen in other countries that have decriminalized drugs, their studies do not show any higher usage of drugs than what is currently going on on our streets.

They already are out their driving cars under the influence. Well, at least those with a lot of ambition.

I think attempting to apply the european experience to the United States on anything related to drug or alcohol usage is pretty soundly unsound for about a zillion reasons. I don't think that heroin use would necessarily increase if it were legalized, but pot? Absolutely. I think I know dozens of people who would try and use it who don't now, or rarely do, because they could never afford to get caught.

Anyone can cite whatever studies they like, but I will never be convinced that legalization of marijuana would not cause a considerable increase in driving while impaired. Yes, it may be true that it already occurs, but the day you can buy Marlboro Blues at the 7-11 it will go up by a considerable order of magnitude. It's just a matter of common sense to me. I think only the most willfuly blind would deny that, as a matter of fact, more people will in fact die on the roads if marijuana were legalized. Maybe one believes the harms associated criminalization outweigh this fact. I guess at least they think that way until it's someone they love that gets hurt.

 

[rejobako]

This is totally untrue and a poor attempt at scare mongering.

I would have to agree with this. It seems there are many on both sides of the debate in this thread who post conclusory predictions as fact without any attempt to justify it. I can perceive the argument that pot should remain illegal because decriminalization would lead to increased DUIs, etc. I'm not sure I buy that premise, but I can understand it intellectually.

What has yet to be addressed in any tangible way is my question: what is the difference between alcohol and marijuana that justifies one being illegal and the other not?

 

[disneynewbee]

Some of you guys are not getting the big picture. You are saying make drugs legal and only punish people who hurt others while on the drugs. Drug abusers do not care about who they hurt or what the punishment will be, all they care about is there next fix. So by creating harsh punishments for people who hurt others under the influence you are not going to stop people from getting hurt. Drug abusers don't say hey I better not do that I might go to jail they work on impulses and deal with the consequences later. I don't want my family to be the ones hurt by someone strung up on drugs no matter what there punishment will be. When they are not high they think they will never hurt someone no matter if they are high or not so it won't stop anyone from doing it and when they are high they don't give a crap who they hurt or if there are consequences until they come down from there high and it's too late for some innocent person.

 

[disneynewbee]

There is still violence and death due to alcohol and it is legal so making pot or other drugs legal will not stop the violence. There may not be violence in the manufacturing and distribution but that's not the only thing we are talking about here. There will still be violence and murders by the abusers of the product. So making drugs legal will not eliminate violence or death in the slightest. More people will likely use it since it is legal and we will have half the world brain dead and drugged up.

This is one of the most ridiculous things stated on this thread. How much violence do you see in the alcohol manufacturing and distribution industry????

Maybe the odd guy gets p/o'd that his pension fund got hijacked and takes it out on the skinny guy in HR....


Come ON!!!!

 

[Bouncing4Tigger]

Nope, never have thankfully

 

[Yookeroo]

Legalization has been an abject failure for the countries that have gone that route. The cost to those governments has been astounding, as has been the cost to their citizens health and well being.

You're going to have to back that up. Saying it doesn't make it true.

Here's what happened in Holland:



So much for the "gateway drug" myth. Everyone who has done hard drugs has used H2O. Is water a gateway drug?

Reading the whole thread, GeologyRocks is saying it better.

 

[majortom]

Buying it wasn't illegal either. Could a person have been charged with solicitation for purchasing it? Doubtful. Aiding and abetting the sale? Almost certainly not and virtually certainly unconstitutional if convicted.

SEC. 3. No person shall on or after the date when the eighteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States goes into effect, manufacture, sell, barter, transport import, export, deliver, furnish or possess any intoxicating liquor except as authorized in this Act, and all the provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed to the end that the use of intoxicating liquor as a beverage may be prevented.

That is the text. I would say that you are wrong.

/carmi

 

[pinchy]

Why is it rediculous to compare marijuana and alcohol

And please don't BS me and say because alcohol is legal because that is such a cop out answer

I think there is a consensus that marijuana is probably a better drug for societies to deal with rather than alcohol because of the effects of each drug. To highlight this during the football (soccer for you guys) world cup in lisbon a few years ago the police deliberately relaxed laws on consumption of marijuana because they knew that a high crowd was a pleasant and relaxed crowd where as a drunk crowd was prone to hooliganism and violence.

 

[pinchy]

And yes, they largely report (over 90%), their gateway into drug use was marijuana. I'll apologize now for how upset this will make you, but after literally hundreds of interviews, it is so (in my not so limited expereince).

The trouble is with this sort of 'fact' is that it is open to so many interpretations.

You seem to be saying that because most hard drug users took marijuana first that marijuana is likely to make people take hard drugs.

But really to assess the information correctly you would have to look at a number of other factors.

Firstly, you would have to take non hard drug users as a control and find out what proportion of them had taken marijuana without moving on to other drugs.

Secondly you would have to assess the reasons that people do or don't take certain drugs. If marijuana didn't exist I think the people who use hard drugs would still take hard drugs. There are different types of hard drugs users and some of them are just occasionally recreationally experimenting.

My morality revolves around not hurting others. If someone takes coke in their spare time and doesn't commit crime that hurts others in the process then I don't see why they shouldn't take coke. Not all drug users are addicts.

Of course the problem is that illegal drugs result in massive organised crime. I agree with what has been said about legalising drugs reducing organised crime. In this country, I am pretty certain that is what the police are really interested in stopping.

 

[stemikger]

Originally quoted by Bicker
True, however, it is illegal in Florida, medicinal or not. I do agree that terming it "inappropriate," as wdwlvr629 did, is misleading: It's illegal, and anything illegal is inappropriate, of course. However, it isn't any more or less inappropriate than a second offense of reckless driving. (Both crimes are misdemeanors in Florida, punishable by incarcertation of up to one year and a $1000 fine.)

Hey Man, your brining my head down. I didn't know it was illegal. Man don't ruin my head. You are really bumming me out. Hey man, don't bogart the joint, pass it already.

By the way what was I saying.

 

[TCPluto]

I think there is a consensus that marijuana is probably a better drug for societies to deal with rather than alcohol because of the effects of each drug.

Consensus among whom? The pot heads maybe.


Here are a couple links about marijuana:

http://www.ndaa-apri.org/pdf/alsobrooks_letter_nov_1_2002.pdf

The 2004 DAWN estimates that cocaine was involved in 383,350 visits to emergency rooms; marijuana was involved in 215,665 visits; heroin was involved in 162,137 visits; stimulants, including amphetamines and methamphetamine, were involved in 102,843; and other illicit drugs such as PCP, Ecstasy, and GHB were involved with much less frequency.

This report was released 5/10/06, and can be found here for the full report:
http://www.pushingback.com

Marijuana should stay where it is, ILLEGAL.