EISPIRATEN

I'm really out of touch with this scene. 'Oaksterdam'?

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinat ... rism_N.htm

hvydrt wrote:

Layne Cantrell wrote: Uh, $$? If it costs them more to smuggle it than they make selling it - they'll stop.

hvydrt wrote:Uhhh, prices must be allowed to drop enough to undercut the prices the cartels sell for. That will not happen once all the fees and taxes associated with permits and licenses are factored into the legal market price. Plus add in the expenses of running a legitimate business like workers comp, insurance, medical etc. The price will be outrageous.

Lets just say I am completely wrong, and the Pro 19 pipe dream of cheap dope comes true. California will be the only place in North America that allows recreational use.

That's already wrong. Seattle and Denver have both decriminalized it to a greater extent than California has - if the "pipe dream" (no pun intended) really does come true in California with all the potential benefits, why would these places hesitate to take the extra step and keep pace with us?

The cartels will use California to purchase the cheap pot and distribute it throughout North America.

I don't mean to be rude but this is inherently stupid. Cartels grow their own so buying "cheap" pot from California makes absolutely no business sense. You don't even get your fear-mongering right, as the REAL danger is that the cartels will simply grow more of it here and then try to sell that elsewhere...

....but where does the violence come into play if they're allowed to grow on their own property and **WARNING: ON TOPIC*** not in places like the Angeles? If they aren't shooting at hikers who accidently wander into their crops, if they aren't fighting off police raids, etc. where is the violence?

Maybe when they "smuggle" it into other states? Drrr...oh, right, they already do that now.

Hint: not every state in the union shares a border with Mexico, so - just taking a shot in the dark here - I imagine they've already figured that part out, so how would there be any increase in violence? In faaaact....

...if other states follow in California's footsteps there won't even be any reason for them to smuggle it elsewhere in the first place. Just sayin'.

Do you really want all that violence going on over control of the distribution points in Mexico to come here to California, just so you can smoke pot and eat Cheetos?

Are you pulling my leg or are you really this fucking myopic? If this were really about me being able to smoke pot and eat Cheetos I wouldn't give a shit about 19 because it's already ridiculously easy to do so.

The silly thing is I'm on your side - I don't want to see violence and I don't want the cartels to have extra revenue. I just happen to think we're enabling both by artificially declaring this plant illegal.

Believe me if any of that slipperly-slope/Faux News/fear-mongering nonsense ever comes true and, I dunno, legal meth hits the ballot I'll be the first to vote it down. If it doesn't literally just grow out of the ground it isn't the same.

Layne Cantrell wrote:The silly thing is I'm on your side

I am glad you agree with me.

hvydrt wrote:

Layne Cantrell wrote:The silly thing is I'm on your side

I am glad you agree with me.

Always have - the difference is I've got a clue.

Layne Cantrell wrote:

Bill wrote:Admittedly, it is not the same as alcohol with respect to violencel, but it will have it's own unique problems. It impairs judgement (driving, or what ever requires full attentiveness) whatever. Why expose society to another layer of problems, on a gamble?

Impairing someone's ability to drive, operate heavy machinery, etc. isn't any different than alcohol - what's unique about that?

I swear I'm not trying to pick on you, but what unique problems?


Apply all laws concerning alcohol to pot and you're covered. Don't drive, do it in public or buy it for minors.

The affect of Pot is different than alcohol, as you may or may not be aware sometimes the user becomes a little paranoid which can magnify their impairment. Does that answer your question?

Bill wrote:The affect of Pot is different than alcohol, as you may or may not be aware sometimes the user becomes a little paranoid which can magnify their impairment. Does that answer your question?

Many people become belligerent when drinking alcohol. I would expect that would be an even bigger problem when driving.

Outlawing a drug because some people will irresponsibly drive while under the influence makes about as much sense as outlawing the automobile itself (since without that 3,000 lb death machine, hardly anyone is going to die from the drug).

Driving under the influence is already a crime.

simonov wrote:

Bill wrote:The affect of Pot is different than alcohol, as you may or may not be aware sometimes the user becomes a little paranoid which can magnify their impairment. Does that answer your question?

Many people become belligerent when drinking alcohol. I would expect that would be an even bigger problem when driving.

Outlawing a drug because some people will irresponsibly drive while under the influence makes about as much sense as outlawing the automobile itself (since without that 3,000 lb death machine, hardly anyone is going to die from the drug).

Driving under the influence is already a crime.

I'm not suggesting that (Pot) is necessarily worse, just different and impairs at least as much. Your earlier posts seem to indicate that pot was harmless. My contention is that if it is legalized it's potential increased use will magnify the problem of impaired driving. You bring up good points about alcohol though. It reminds me of a bit by George Carlin, "Anyone driving faster than you is a maniac, anyone driving slower than you is a moron".

Bill wrote:I'm not suggesting that (Pot) is necessarily worse, just different and impairs at least as much.

So? Then we already have remedies for driving under the influence.

You seem to think that mere laws keep people who want to from smoking pot. Yet you challenge the efficacy of laws we already have on the books that prohibit driving under the influence (of any drug).

It doesn't add up.

Bill wrote:Your earlier posts seem to indicate that pot was harmless.

It seems to be, at least when compared to alcohol.

What causes harm is the negligent use of automobiles.

Got to luv both Richard K and Ze's archival contribution to the thread!
8)

simonov wrote:

Bill wrote:I'm not suggesting that (Pot) is necessarily worse, just different and impairs at least as much.

So? Then we already have remedies for driving under the influence.

You seem to think that mere laws keep people who want to from smoking pot. Yet you challenge the efficacy of laws we already have on the books that prohibit driving under the influence (of any drug).

It doesn't add up.

Bill wrote:Your earlier posts seem to indicate that pot was harmless.

It seems to be, at least when compared to alcohol.

What causes harm is the negligent use of automobiles.

What does'nt add up? What is your evidence to the contrary? Is there a comparative study, contrasting the ruined lives of one verses the other? The fact that alcohol is legal and therefor more widely used would suggest there is a bigger problem, and my contention is that pot's use will increase, which means it's problems will increase.
Those who want us to vote to make something legal that has been illegal need to provide evidence that it will not do harm. You, or those supporting prop 19 have not provided any such evidence.
No, I don't believe we have remedies for the driving under the influence problem. Inspite of increase penalties driving under the influence remains a huge problem and contributes to thousands of deaths per year.
While it is true some are not detered my mere law from consuming pot, most of us are law abiding and are detered by law. It is really unknown whether or not it's use will increase, but it has to be at least probable that it will increase. To deny that is intellectually dishonest. If it is made legal, it will therefor be considered exceptable by society, removing at least any secular version of immorality.

I think people should be allowed to smoke, legally. If it's such a bad thing, I think it's the individual's choice to smoke and "ruin" or otherwise detract from the quality of their life.

Again, it could be taxed, bringing more money into the Gov't's hands to help take care of debt (or to be squandered uselessly on stupid shit, since politicians are, well, politicians).

Personal choice, dammit. I don't want someone telling me I can't smoke weed, or whatever.

anarchist!

Bill wrote: The fact that alcohol is legal and therefor more widely used would suggest there is a bigger problem, and my contention is that pot's use will increase, which means it's problems will increase.

The problem is not caused by pot or alcohol any more than it is caused by cars. The problem is irresponsible or negligent drivers.

Your thesis is that the mere legalization of marijuana will somehow substantially increase the number of irresponsible and negligent people in the population.

We will have to agree to disagree on that one.

Regarding your suggestion that it is up to the state to legislate moral choices: holy cow will we have to disagree on that.

simonov wrote:

Bill wrote: The fact that alcohol is legal and therefor more widely used would suggest there is a bigger problem, and my contention is that pot's use will increase, which means it's problems will increase.

The problem is not caused by pot or alcohol any more than it is caused by cars. The problem is irresponsible or negligent drivers.

Your thesis is that the mere legalization of marijuana will somehow substantially increase the number of irresponsible and negligent people in the population.

We will have to agree to disagree on that one.

Regarding your suggestion that it is up to the state to legislate moral choices: holy cow will we have to disagree on that.

The state legislates moral choices all the time. Murder, robbery, and rape are all moral choices that are illegal. Not comparing smoking pot to any of these, but you see my point.

TacoDelRio wrote:I think people should be allowed to smoke, legally. If it's such a bad thing, I think it's the individual's choice to smoke and "ruin" or otherwise detract from the quality of their life.

Again, it could be taxed, bringing more money into the Gov't's hands to help take care of debt (or to be squandered uselessly on stupid shit, since politicians are, well, politicians).

Personal choice, dammit. I don't want someone telling me I can't smoke weed, or whatever.

True, if it were just the individual who was affected I would agree. (I refer to earlier points) Your right, on your second point as well. Do we really want politicians dependant on tax dollars raised on the sale of marijuana?

Bill wrote:Do we really want politicians dependant on tax dollars raised on the sale of marijuana?

Just another sin tax. Like tobacco, drinking, being rich...

Politicians love sin taxes.

HikeUp wrote:

Bill wrote:Do we really want politicians dependant on tax dollars raised on the sale of marijuana?

Just another sin tax. Like tobacco, drinking, being rich...

Politicians love sin taxes.

Boy that's the truth. Seems like just breathing is sin enough.

HikeUp wrote:

Bill wrote:Do we really want politicians dependant on tax dollars raised on the sale of marijuana?

Just another sin tax. Like tobacco, drinking, being rich...

Politicians love sin taxes.

better than illegal...

Zé wrote:

HikeUp wrote:

Bill wrote:Do we really want politicians dependant on tax dollars raised on the sale of marijuana?

Just another sin tax. Like tobacco, drinking, being rich...

Politicians love sin taxes.

better than illegal...

I guess we may find out.

Time to buy stock in Frito-Lay? Which company makes scooby snacks?

Weedies dude!

'You better eat your whole grain (hemp)...you better eat your Weedies"

Zé wrote:Weedies dude!

'You better eat your whole grain (hemp)...you better eat your Weedies"

If you are going to say with your hiking rep that weed is part of your health and exercise regimin, than you may just have swayed me toward your position.

This should settle the debate. Once and for all.


Credit Edenoch

That is the funniest freakin' video I've seen in years.

HJ

HAHAHAH I love those Chinese 3D things!

holy hell that's funny!

Prop. 19 - Legalize Marijuana in CA, Regulate and Tax
Precincts 4,032 of 24,845 reporting
Yes 900,410 43.6%
No 1,160,836 56.4%

Time to sell my stock in scooby snacks!

HikeUp wrote:

Prop. 19 - Legalize Marijuana in CA, Regulate and Tax
Precincts 4,032 of 24,845 reporting
Yes 900,410 43.6%
No 1,160,836 56.4%

Time to sell my stock in scooby snacks!

There was a time, not too long ago, when the Yes vote would be under 20%. Over 43% Yes is astounding. If there had been some decent advertising money, it would have passed.

In the meantime, medical marijuana is fairly easy to get. Possession of less than 1 oz is not even criminal anymore. You get a civil citation.

RichardK wrote:

HikeUp wrote:

Prop. 19 - Legalize Marijuana in CA, Regulate and Tax
Precincts 4,032 of 24,845 reporting
Yes 900,410 43.6%
No 1,160,836 56.4%

Time to sell my stock in scooby snacks!

There was a time, not too long ago, when the Yes vote would be under 20%. Over 43% Yes is astounding. If there had been some decent advertising money, it would have passed.

Yeah maybe. On the other hand if it does'nt pass in this climate, and in the most liberal state in the union it may never pass.

Yeah, because people are uninterested in facts.

LISBON, Portugal – These days, Casal Ventoso is an ordinary blue-collar community — mothers push baby strollers, men smoke outside cafes, buses chug up and down the cobbled main street.

Ten years ago, the Lisbon neighborhood was a hellhole, a "drug supermarket" where some 5,000 users lined up every day to buy heroin and sneaked into a hillside honeycomb of derelict housing to shoot up. In dark, stinking corners, addicts — some with maggots squirming under track marks — staggered between the occasional corpse, scavenging used, bloody needles.

At that time, Portugal, like the junkies of Casal Ventoso, had hit rock bottom: An estimated 100,000 people — an astonishing 1 percent of the population — were addicted to illegal drugs. So, like anyone with little to lose, the Portuguese took a risky leap: They decriminalized the use of all drugs in a groundbreaking law in 2000.

Now, the United States, which has waged a 40-year, $1 trillion war on drugs, is looking for answers in tiny Portugal, which is reaping the benefits of what once looked like a dangerous gamble. White House drug czar Gil Kerlikowske visited Portugal in September to learn about its drug reforms, and other countries — including Norway, Denmark, Australia and Peru — have taken interest, too.

"The disasters that were predicted by critics didn't happen," said University of Kent professor Alex Stevens, who has studied Portugal's program. "The answer was simple: Provide treatment."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101227/ap_ ... _solutions

Naturally, this, too will be disregarded in the eternal quest for new ways to push Americans around while enriching the industries and unions serving the penal system and law enforcement.