The Drug War and the erosion of rights

[Jobber of the Week 0]

If I'm in the car, I'm running.

You drive while stoned? Holy crap, stay away from my neighborhood.

 

of course when a policeman does lose his life just doing his job because the legislators think it's a SIN to smoke dope, it's going to because there aren't ENOUGH police on the street..and drug laws aren't tough enough.

 

The question has been how many cops are needed and how tough a law has to be made to, if not wipe out the drug culture entirely, at least send it back underground. Right now people from all walks of life are doing drugs. So the problem for them is that the answer is, "more than is feasible."

 

I don't do any drugs myself, but it's amazing they've made pot use such a strong offense and I *STILL* see lots of people ages 15-70 doing it.

[NoCalMike 0]

It does stand to be said that Busch(the beer, not the prez) is one of the leading advocates to keep marijuana illegal and fund the effort with a lot of money because they know how much cheaper it would be to get stoned, then to buy overpriced beer.

[Dr. Tom 0]

I'm disappointed that a thread with a good and timely topic turned into a comparison of marijuana prices.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Did you honestly think anyone was going to disagree with it?

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

I'd imagine that those loggers in the Pacific Northwest would kind of have a problem with weed being made legal again since it would cut into their business. No pun intended. Regardless of the fact that fields of pot are quicker to grow and regrow for things like say... paper manufacturing. Anyone know if the loggers have any big lobbying groups in DC?

 

 

For me it all goes back to Bill Hicks: "I realised that I could do everything high just as well... I just realised it wasn't worth the fucking effort."

 

and...

 

"Isn't it funny how that the two drugs that do NOTHING for you alcohol and cigarettes, those drugs are legal. But the drugs that make you see how you are getting fucked everyday of your life... THOSE drugs are illegal"

 

 

So I guess its all about keeping us going to work. See how THE MAN works?

 

[Guest Vitamin X]

Shut up.

[Justice 0]

Shut up.

Isn't that my line?

[MrRant 0]

I'm disappointed that a thread with a good and timely topic turned into a comparison of marijuana prices.

Darth Tom's thread has been turned into fluff.

 

Ha.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Shut up.

Isn't that my line?

I haven't posted in CE regularly enough to know if it was or not, but let's not let our disagreement get in the way of the fact that CheesalaIsGood is a terrible poster.

[Justice 0]

Shut up.

Isn't that my line?

I haven't posted in CE regularly enough to know if it was or not, but let's not let our disagreement get in the way of the fact that CheesalaIsGood is a terrible poster.

Fair enough.

[Guest Ether]

I'm disappointed that a thread with a good and timely topic turned into a comparison of marijuana prices.

I feel bad. I thought about taking the anti-legalization side, but didn't feel like arguing with 10 other people on what was my only day off in a span off 2 weeks.

[Crimson Platypus 0]

Last year, Pennsylvanian Keith Emerich had his license revoked by state authorities after he revealed to his doctor during an emergency room visit that he sometimes drinks a six-pack of beer per day. His doctor reported him. Emerich wasn't accused or charged with drunk driving. In a bizarre twist on the principle of "presumption of innocence," Emerich must now prove to the state that he doesn't drive after drinking before he can get his license back.

 

The saddest thing I have read in weeks.

 

 

RE: Gateway drug arguement - Horseshit. I've smoked pot for 12 years now on and off. Tried shrooms and acid a few times. I have never, and will never, do coke, crack, etc. Bottom line is: people with addictive personalities will get addicted. End of arguement.

 

 

RE: Legalization - I'm all for the legalization of weed, and the decriminalization of every other drug. It's an absolute travesty that alcohol is legal and pot isn't.

 

 

 

Oh and damn... 20/gram? Nice..

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

If I'm in the car, I'm running.

You drive while stoned? Holy crap, stay away from my neighborhood.

 

of course when a policeman does lose his life just doing his job because the legislators think it's a SIN to smoke dope, it's going to because there aren't ENOUGH police on the street..and drug laws aren't tough enough.

 

The question has been how many cops are needed and how tough a law has to be made to, if not wipe out the drug culture entirely, at least send it back underground. Right now people from all walks of life are doing drugs. So the problem for them is that the answer is, "more than is feasible."

 

I don't do any drugs myself, but it's amazing they've made pot use such a strong offense and I *STILL* see lots of people ages 15-70 doing it.

My examples are all hypothetical. I used myself mostly as a visual aid.

 

What this should boil down to is, boldface, that smoking pot just isn't that bad of a thing for a person to do to themself, and thus shouldn't so viciously illegal, if at all. Hell, I'd live just with it being a ticketable offense across the boards for possessing meager quantities...but to have it as a friggin' schedule I narcotic..COCAINE is a schedule II for christ's sake...is ridiculous. Mandatory minimum sentencing is asshole posturing from moral high horse cocksuckers that probably drink like fish or cum with jesus before they write these dumbfuck laws.

[Guest BDC]

Honestly, having marijuana as a Schedule 1 narcotic is just absurd. I won't disagree there at all.

 

Other schedule 1s: heroin, LSD, mescaline and peyote. Where exactly does pot fit in this?

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

The other three aren't that dangerous in the grand scheme of things either. It's pretty clear who the counterculture was when these things were decided. Heroin'll kill you, obviously. I still don't agree with it being there, though.

[Crimson Platypus 0]

Can someone point me to a link that lists this Schedule I, Schedule II, etc stuff? Would be an interesting read I think. Also does anyone know what the definitions of Schedule I, II, etc are?

[Guest Vitamin X]

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/ has all you'll ever need to know on these types of things. I'd imagine the Drug Enforcement Agency's website would have it as well.

[Crimson Platypus 0]

(1) Schedule I. -

 

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

 

(B) 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.

 

(2) Schedule II. -

 

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

 

(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.

 

© Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

 

(3) Schedule III. -

 

(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.

 

(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

 

© Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychologicaldependence.

 

(4) Schedule IV. -

 

(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.

 

(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

 

© Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.

 

(5) Schedule V. -

 

(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.

 

(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

 

© Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.

 

 

I'd love to see the reasoning behind marijuana being a Schedule I.

A: They must have a very different definition of "abuse" than I do.

B: It certainly has medicinal treatment uses, just ask anyone in chemo-therapy. C: Is clearly not applicable.

[NoCalMike 0]

Like Bob Marley said, "Alcohol makes you drunk, herb makes you think"

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Are you kidding? It does not.

[iggymcfly 0]

You think alcohol doesn't make you drunk? Are you sure you're not drinking water instead?

[The Metal Maniac 0]

I think he's trying to say that pot doesn't make you think.

 

I'd argue that it does make you think, but not about anything useful.

[Jingus 0]

Pretty much, yah. I've thought up a couple of wacky cool wrestling spots while high, but that's the limit of any utility I've gotten out of weed.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I'd disagree with that. Many great musicians and various other types of artists' work significantly improved when on drugs. See: Beatles, The.

 

This holds true for me as well, I've come up with my best writings or at least ideas for them while high, I guess because I usually have way too many thoughts in my mind to quiet them down, and I experience a larger amount of tranqulity in regards to those thoughts when high, which sometimes allow me to focus.