So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT

[fomenter]

But that won't happen.

But what you all seem to keep ignoring is what I keep bringing up.  The ills you listed can be addressed in policy reforms without legalizing the substance.  

as for "it wont happen!!!" and "it will happen with policy reform !!!"  WHY  both are going to be done by the same incompetent government at the direction of the same apathetic citizens why does "one works" and the other "wont happen"???

?

That's what grassroots movements are for.  It's worked here in Maine.  I'm part of a pretty powerful advocacy group that has managed to be able to work quite well with state government to influence policy decisions.  Hell, the chair in her former position has even been able to sway Susan Collins on a vote on nuclear proliferation.  

so if legalization happened then grass roots movements to secure funding for the kids, and legislation that prohibits advertising and promotion of use, and legislation that ensures harsh penalty's to those that deal to minors could happen? and if they could wouldn't they counteract the increases in use that you fear? ( i think the connection between drug laws and use rates is still up for debate) i don't see there being any more difficulty in doing what is needed with pot being legal, than there are with the challenges you face getting policy reform,
society isn't going to magically be perfect i wont argue that there wouldn't be challenges i just don't see them as necessarily being any bigger than the ones you face now

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Why are you stopping at marijuana?  

Just as you lectured some folks on not reading your posts, so shall I lecture you now:  I have already answered that question.

My apologies, I wasn't referring to you.  I meant others who have said they would not legalize all drugs. 

Neither would I.  Any drug that robs you of your moral sense while leaving you in control of your body should be illegal (LSD, PCP, etc).

[East Coast Hustle]

Argh.

Fuck it, I'm out of this thread. I've made my position known and RWHN has made his known and I'm more interested in not pissing him off and driving a long-time quality contributor off of the forum than I am in convincing someone that prohibition laws are retarded.

RWHN, apologies if you've taken any parts of my argument ITT as a personal slight.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Also, I have to agree that using tax income from weed to combat weed is stupid as hell.

[Requia ☣]

Trading the liberty of millions for safety of thousands isn't a gamble.  That's what really gets me, this isn't even a good trade.  If we could protect thousands at the cost of thousands, then that's a hard decision to make.  But in order to protect your 190,000 kids 4 million 800,000 from each year, 15-19, will go to jail.

[P3nT4gR4m]

On the issue of selling legal substances to minors as opposed to prohibition I'd be surprised if it didn't make a massive difference, here's why. Right now if a drug is illegal the seller is already risking jail time by selling it. There's a saying in scotland - if you're going to get done for stealing the sheep you might as well steal the herd. Basically if selling chemical-x is going to get you thrown in jail then minors are merely an increase in profitability of your core business. If it's legal, however, then you can sell to adults with no risk of jail. Selling to minors means your operation is shut down and criminal proceedings likely to be brought against you. The upshot of this is that, in my neck of the woods at least, it's much more straightforward for a minor to score drugs than alcohol and tobacco. When I were a lad I'd have to get drink and cigs via an older agent. Hash and trips, however were just a trip to the dealer's away.

also this..

Argh.

Fuck it, I'm out of this thread. I've made my position known and RWHN has made his known and I'm more interested in not pissing him off and driving a long-time quality contributor off of the forum than I am in convincing someone that prohibition laws are retarded.

RWHN, apologies if you've taken any parts of my argument ITT as a personal slight.

I'm done now.

[AFK]

Also, I have to agree that using tax income from weed to combat weed is stupid as hell.

We tried it with gambling addiction.  3% of the revenues from the slots in Bangor were set aside for a fund to help Mainers with gambling addiction.  I say were, because Gov. Baldacci raided that fund and used it for who the hell knows what.  

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Also, I have to agree that using tax income from weed to combat weed is stupid as hell.

We tried it with gambling addiction.  3% of the revenues from the slots in Bangor were set aside for a fund to help Mainers with gambling addiction.  I say were, because Gov. Baldacci raided that fund and used it for who the hell knows what.  

The tobacco taxes for combatting tobacco use have met the same fate.

[Lies]

Why are you stopping at marijuana?  

Just as you lectured some folks on not reading your posts, so shall I lecture you now:  I have already answered that question.

My apologies, I wasn't referring to you.  I meant others who have said they would not legalize all drugs. 

Neither would I.  Any drug that robs you of your moral sense while leaving you in control of your body should be illegal (LSD, PCP, etc).

I wouldn't say that LSD robs you of your moral sense, more so that it alters it.
I personally haven't done any "Immoral" things while on acid, and I've done it more times then I care to remember.

But then again, I've seen some people completely lose the plot on it, but that's usually due to a number of factors that can be controlled if you know what you're doing.

That's why the idea of "sitters" is a great one if you've never tried any particular mind altering substance who'll stay sober and can keep you in check with reality.

I've never tried PCP though and have no intentions of doing so, from what I've heard, it can be pretty rotten, IMPO, there are better drugs out there.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I wouldn't say that LSD robs you of your moral sense, more so that it alters it.

Unless you're willing to be locked in a room where you can harm nobody else, I am against legalizing it anyway.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

But the "ruining the lives of people" can be addressed without legalizing the substance.  I absolutely agree that some guy pulled over for speeding with a joint or two should not have his life turned inside out for that.  But I would argue that the solution is reform of the local or state code of law. 

So we'll just ruin their lives a little less?

I have alcohol in my house (though I myself do not drink (for medical reasons), others of age do).  Neither of my children have taken up drinking.  In fact, my son considers it a trap for fools.

So I fail to see why adults cannot use marijuana.  The law, at any level, is routinely ignored, just as the Volstead Act was, and that defiance makes a mockery of the rule of law (bad laws always do), but instead of repealing it (as in the case of the Volstead Act), our government has chosen to use that mockery as an excuse to generate loads of prison labor for Wackenhutt.  In fact, all laws in the USA are tending that way.

If you have a means to get around that psychology, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Well if the law is routinely ignored, I certainly don't want a law in place that allows adult marijuana use.  How confident should I be that the laws around furnishing minors would be any better enforced? 

This argument doesn't seem at all logical. People who ignore the law now, will ignore similar laws in the future, people who follow the  law now, will likely follow the law in the future. Those who break the law now, would continue to do so, but I see no reason to think that those who don't break the law would choose to do so, simply because the law became less restrictive.

And in the end, all of your arguments still seem to boil down to "For The Children" an argument based on appeal to emotion. I may be missing some key comments where you showed the harm to adults, or some other valid reason for prohibition, but thus far it appears that you're willing to impose prohibition to stop some small percentage of kids from smoking pot. Such a position offends me from a political, philosophical and logical perspective.

As for Drug legalization, I think I made my point clear... actions that impact others should be illegal, on drugs or off drugs. Actions that do not impact others should be the business of the individual... or in the cases of children, the child and their legal guardians.

As for your Law of Fives comment, thats flat out bullshit. The closest thing to an answer that I have seen is that you think everyone who gets stopped with a personal amount of pot needs to be sent to counseling...

But, I suppose I should throw in the towel here as well...

[Lies]

I wouldn't say that LSD robs you of your moral sense, more so that it alters it.

Unless you're willing to be locked in a room where you can harm nobody else, I am against legalizing it anyway.

I think that's a little extreme Rog.
I've been to raves where there are hundreds of people tripping their balls off on acid, and I don't hear of them doing anything anymore immoral then stripping off all their clothes and dancing around naked.

Timothy Leary managed to make sermons with everyone fucked up on acid and managed to keep people from doing crazy shit that would harm others.

I dunno, I'd rather be around someone who's tripping then, say, a coke or ice head.

At least the person who's tripping can be controlled a lot easier then a raging meth head that's tweaking like a mother fucker and pissed off that you just looked at his girl.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think that's a little extreme Rog.

You've never seen me on acid.

[trippinprincezz13]

And if the black market went away kids would stop knowing about harder substances?  You really think that? 

Of course not, but it might reduce the number of kids that are interested in pot and end up getting fucked by criminals.

Umm, no.  Just no. 

Um, what I meant was kids that are interested in trying pot would be less likely to be in a position where they end up getting fucked over by criminals.

Your comment on where kids get their weed may be correct in some sense... That is, many adults get their weed from friends (at least that I know of), because one friend has a good connection. So you give that friend money, they go deal  and come back with weed. So if there 6 stoners, maybe only one of them actually went to a dealer.

It wasn't just a comment, it was a citation of a study that indicated social contacts were in the majority as a source for marijuana, bought or borrowed. 

Either way, I'm not claiming its wrong... it appears to mirror what happens in the adult world. Don't start fighting me when I agree with you!

With kids that would be the same... Joey goes to the dealer and picks up for Tommy, Suzy and Bob. Sure 3/4s of the kids are getting pot from a friend... But Joey is still hanging out at a dealers getting exposed to who knows what... and next time, maybe he'll take Suzy with him.

You're starting to reach now. 

How is that a reach? It appears consistent with what I've seen. People picking up for friends is standard procedure, at least in this area.

Going waay back 7 pages, but, since I said I would respond - I pretty much agree with Rat here. Even if you're picking up a bag from one of your friends, your friend is likely getting it from a dealer (unless your friend is the dealer). Not always, but often, eventually it leads to a) as Rat said bringing you along one time to pick up from the dealer or b) giving you the dealer's number so that you can contact them directly. Both, having essentially the same result - putting you closer "up the ladder" to the source, and likely being exposed to anything else that dealer may be selling.

Also, sure even if weed was regulated similarly to alcohol or tobacco, it wouldn't be legal for kids to buy it, so obviously they'd have to obtain it through some illegal means. But, when I was underage, I wasn't going through any sort of black market to get beer. Simply ask a friend that was 21 or over to go for me. In the same sense, if weed were legally sold in stores, likely kids would be asking of-age friends to go grab them a bag at the "weed store", negating the need to seek out a dealer and become exposed to whatever "hard" drugs the dealer may have on hand as well.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

*Cheesy 1960s educational video voice*

Billy met some bad kids.  They wanted him to sample some marijuana.  Careful, Billy!  It's the devil!