SWAT Team invades home and kills dog for a joint.

[radonc73]

Gun crimes would dimish. Gangs wouldn't be shooting eachother over "owning" a corner to sell. Showing that not all gun owners are gangtas with the gun cocked to the side.
Less people would OD from injecting too strong of heroin or phentanal what ever is out there. Potencies of drugs could be more standard instead of what you could get is what they shoot up.
HIV/ AIDS would dimish from less needle sharing between users. Injection site infections and therefore hospital visits could be reduced. Just a few things to consider about the healthcare of these people reducing the strain on ERs somewhat.

 

[rambone]

Here's the other angle that is not being talked about; states' rights.

The tenth amendment says that states have the right to make up their own laws on matters that are not specifically reserved for the Federal Government. States are empowered to regulate things within their own borders, as long as they have consent of the people and their laws are not breaking state or national constitutions.

It should be fairly easy to see that for this reason, the War On Drugs is unconstitutional on a national level. The authority of the Feds does not encompass the right to make these kind of laws. Similarly, abortion laws, gun regulations, health care laws, welfare laws, education programs, drug & alcohol laws, etc., are all breaking the 10th amendment when done by the Feds.

We are supposed to be a union of sovereign states with our own laws, not one nation under Federal control. That alone should be reason enough to repeal the national program known as the "War on Drugs." Whether we would support our own state to individually ban drugs is another discussion entirely.

Does anyone take issue with what I just said? Do the states have any rights still? If they don't, I suggest we disband state congress and the governor, and let the Feds just control us directly. It would be more honest.

 

[downzero]

States do not have rights. They have sovereignty, power, or authority, whatever you want to call it. No arm of government has "rights." The rest of what you have to say is sound, but it does not rest on rights.

 

[downzero]

How do you know he was not a drug dealer that was out of product by the time the cops busted in his door?

How is someone who is "out of product" a drug dealer?

If I was a gun dealer, but I didn't have any guns to sell, would I still be a gun dealer? Obviously not. I'd be a failed businessman if nothing else.

A drug dealer who can't produce more than a gram of marijuana after his house is ripped apart and his dog killed isn't a drug dealer. He also sucks at life.

 

[RachelMarie]

I might not side with the police if they had not "discovered a grinder, a pipe and a small amount of marijuana." But since they did discover that stuff, go go police, getting a little bit of drugs off the street is better than getting none at all.

WOW...You are a genius. All I can say is, I sure hope you don't carry a badge!

 

[kingnereli]

How is someone who is "out of product" a drug dealer?

If I was a gun dealer, but I didn't have any guns to sell, would I still be a gun dealer? Obviously not. I'd be a failed businessman if nothing else.

A drug dealer who can't produce more than a gram of marijuana after his house is ripped apart and his dog killed isn't a drug dealer. He also sucks at life.

If you sold guns quickly enough to run out you would be a darn good gun dealer. The man in the video had previously pleaded guilty to distributing. He's a convicted drug dealer. Though I'm sure now he's just another bleeding heart recreational user.


I actually agree that legalization would make certain problems go away. Though they would be replaced by others. I have personally seen the effect that marijuana has on people and their families. It tears families apart. It causes death from either lack of judgement or impaired driving. It's always the innocent that suffer. Again, if you haven't experienced this you have no business commenting.

Pot effects the memory and reasoning part of the brain. These effects can last for up to a week after the initial high has worn off. That's why pot heads are generally known as losers. Habitual pot smokers put themselves in a constant state of stupid. They're unpleasant to be around and unpleasant to work with.

My place of employment is an inherently dangerous job. People get burned, have appendages smashed, they fall off of platforms, have bones broken on a pretty regular bases. There is also a big problem with potheads where I work as well because there is no required drug test as a condition of employment. One thing that, with very very few exceptions, that all of these people who get injured have in common is that they are fired after the incident when they fail the drug test. For example, a couple of weeks ago a guy on my shift, in my department made an absolutely stupid decision and got two of his fingers cut off by a hydraulic trim press. He failed the drug test and was subsequently fired. He is out of a job. He received no money for his injuries and he's down to eight fingers. Why? Because he's a pot head. I can't imagine how much neglect of loved ones and personal injury/death will increase if drugs are legalized.

We also have to acknowledge that there are moral ramifications here. Laws effect moral perception. If we look at Roe v. Wade we see how abortion was viewed as almost exclusively as immoral. That court case changed the law and the perception of abortion change. If we look at the rise of no fault divorce in the 70's we see that divorce rates and cohabitation rose significantly. People lost the sense of permanence in marriage. There will undoubtedly be people who read this that will disagree with my conclusion of what is morally right in the examples I'm using. That's not what I'm arguing here. Though we may draw different conclusions my premise still stands. Laws change moral perception.

The drug laws, as they now stand, are saying that addictive, destructive lifestyles are bad/immoral. If those laws were to be reversed and, God forbid, the cultural perception of rabid drug use change we WILL see more lives damaged because of it. The hypothetical example of a single man who goes home and smokes a joint before bed hardly justifies the repercussions our society will pay when more children are neglected and people hurt themselves and others simply because they have easy access to drugs and the skewed moral perspective that will inevitably follow relaxing the nations drug laws.

 

[clt46910]

I have one question. If the laws was changed tomorrow to allow the use of some drugs, would you run out and buy some and smoke it? Would your parents? Your friends?

I personally don't think anything will change except we would get rid of most the dealers and drug cartels. Drugs are readily available and easy to get now.

Why spend so much money fighting against something we can not control?

I think we need to go back and look at history to see how well prohibition worked.

 

[MinuteMan47]

...(snip)... I have personally seen the effect that marijuana has on people and their families. It tears families apart. It causes death from either lack of judgement or impaired driving. It's always the innocent that suffer. Again, if you haven't experienced this you have no business commenting.

Pot effects the memory and reasoning part of the brain. These effects can last for up to a week after the initial high has worn off. That's why pot heads are generally known as losers. Habitual pot smokers put themselves in a constant state of stupid. They're unpleasant to be around and unpleasant to work with....(snip)

Did you get that from this video?? You must have alot of "experience"... My "experience" was during college, it must have helped my memory and reasoning because the only thing I got from it was a Bachelor's Degree.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0-dMgB_T-k"]YouTube - Why Do Drug Warriors Always Lie About Marijuana?[/ame]

 

[rambone]

I actually agree that legalization would make certain problems go away. Though they would be replaced by others.

I think any problems that people predict will be created are already dealt with, in terms of dealing with alcohol abuse. Employers do not tolerate alcohol use on the job, and neither would they drug use. All these issues already exist, because the laws are largely ignored by people already. I really don't see the surge of new users happening. The same people who poison their body now will poison their bodies when drugs are legal. The difference is that you and I will be paying for one less Big Government program.

I have personally seen the effect that marijuana has on people and their families. It tears families apart. It causes death from either lack of judgement or impaired driving. It's always the innocent that suffer. Again, if you haven't experienced this you have no business commenting.

I have known several recovered addicts. And I know a plethora of drug users whom I went to school with. Drugs certainly do destroy families and lives. Nobody is denying that. But notice how the current laws aren't stopping anybody from using, that's the issue at hand. I've never heard anybody giving up their habit because it was illegal. They give it up because they finally want to give it up when they see that their family and friends are disowning them and they are going nowhere in life. The current laws, the expensive, Government-empowering laws, are not saving anybody, but they are causing all sorts of "unintended" consequences in the meantime.

Pot effects the memory and reasoning part of the brain.

So does drinking, so does sniffing glue, so does abusing over-the-counter drugs, and eating paint chips. The point is that no employer tolerates drunk/high people right now under current laws, and still wouldn't without government nanny-state laws. Furthermore, drunk/high people are already subject to all sorts of other laws the minute they infringe another's rights. The Government cannot protect us from the reality that any stranger could be potentially dangerous. Even with Big Government in place all around us, this holds true. Nothing about society would change without Big Government, except we wouldn't be having this discussion about murdered pets, and our taxes would be a lot less. Lowlifes will be lowlifes, they will just have a harder time getting rich without the profitability of trafficking something that is 'illegal' in the eyes of the law.

My place of employment is an inherently dangerous job.

Again, they don't tolerate abuse of alcohol, and wouldn't tolerate the use of drugs either. Nor should they. Nobody is advocating a society full of high people. We just want to reduce the power of the Government.

Laws change moral perception.

An astute supporter of liberty will tell you that it is not the duty of Government to enforce morality. The only legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of other by punishing guilty parties. Morality is different to everyone. Eating pork is immoral to some. Working on Sunday is immoral to some. Drawing Mohommad is immoral to some. Drinking alcohol is immoral to some. Sex before marriage is immoral to some. Disrespectful speech about various topics or God is immoral to some. Birth control is immoral to some. Smoking cigarettes is immoral to some. Vaccinations are immoral to some. Organ transplants are immoral to some. On, and on, and on, and on.

Who do you want deciding your moral code? Uncle Barack? The guy who replaces him? Or should government just stay away from this type of nanny state laws and only step in when one person actually violates another's rights, and not a moment sooner?

 

[theweakerbrother]

I guess everyone in this thread is ignoring the part where marijuana (Marinol) has helped my family and not torn us apart. I even had access to a firearm while using it. OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[j706]

I guess everyone in this thread is ignoring the part where marijuana (Marinol) has helped my family and not torn us apart. I even had access to a firearm while using it. OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!!!!!!!

So have you ever purchased a firearm from a dealer? What do you put on the 4473 form?

 

[MinuteMan47]

So have you ever purchased a firearm from a dealer? What do you put on the 4473 form?

Well, since it was PRESCRIBED by a doctor that would make him a lawful user.

I was prescribed Marinol last year and this year by a doctor. Marinol (Dronabinol) is synthetic THC...

 

[Phil502]

I guess everyone in this thread is ignoring the part where marijuana (Marinol) has helped my family and not torn us apart. I even had access to a firearm while using it. OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm glad it helped, I know a lot of patients benefit from it. One could say that your usage was truly for medicinal purposes and not recreation. I think we all know a lot of people can handle the ganja but I still am not so sure about the whole legalizing thing myself.

 

[sporty_live]

It causes death from either lack of judgement or impaired driving.

Were you high when you typed this?

Show me documentation where marijuana use specifically caused death. I am betting I can find more substantial documentation to say that there are more deaths related to cough syrup than to marijuana. That statement is beyond ridiculous.

Oh, Im sorry, did you just watch Reefer Madness???

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Similarly, abortion laws, gun regulations, health care laws, welfare laws, education programs, drug & alcohol laws, etc., are all breaking the 10th amendment when done by the Feds.

No, they've found a way around that. They just take all the states tax revenue and dole it back out through VOLUNTARY federal programs. A state can opt out of a program, but then the feds just withhold other money for other programs. We're seeing quite a bit of this right now related to highway funding and the lack of a transportation bill (this is where gas and fuel taxes are supposed to go). Many states that take in more than they get back from the feds are tired of supporting the poorer states and opting out of the plan.

Marinol (Dronabinol) is synthetic THC...

There's another synthetic THC avail. at your local C store, liquor stores and tobacco stores. It's called Spice, but goes by MANY other brand names, it is sold as incense. It has a chemical called "JWH-018" which is synthetic THC minus the cannabinoids. It gives almost EXACTLY the same effect as pot and is NOT a controlled substance therefore it will not cause you to fail a UA. Just something to think about.......Oh, researchers are finding medicinal uses for the chemical daily, but I hope it never goes to the FDA or it will then be a "controlled substance" and likely be tested for

 

[lashicoN]

Tell the mothers whose kids died from heroin OD's that illegal drugs are harmless. Four kids in one weekend I might add. I was at two of them and had the un pleasant task of informing one family that their 16 year old wasn't coming home-ever!

Oh yea illegal drugs are great. I burn and will always burn anyone and everyone that I catch with illegal drugs. Yea even you. Like it or not. Only IDIOTS use illegal drugs!

No one said illegal drugs are harmless. Firearms aren't harmless, neither are automobiles. Firearms and automobiles have killed a lot more people than illegal drugs. Ever heard of World War 1 and 2? Yet firearms and automobiles are perfectly legal to own and use in public. Why don't you tell the mothers whose kids died from auto or firearm accidents that we have a right to own these things?

I'll always burn every Tory who advocates the destruction of personal choice and freedom in the United States. Yeah, even you. Like it or not only TYRANTS try to take away freedoms.

 

[theweakerbrother]

So have you ever purchased a firearm from a dealer? What do you put on the 4473 form?

Have I ever purchased a firearm from a dealer? Of course. What did I put on my 4473? The same thing that people who use painkillers made from opiates and have a legal prescription. Marinol is not a combustible leaf but a refined oil that must be kept refrigerated so that it does not lose potency.

Tetrahydrocannabinol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is an FDA & DEA approved drug

Well, since it was PRESCRIBED by a doctor that would make him a lawful user.

Thank you!

 

[Duncan]

Militarization of Police

" There is a reason why you should separate military and the police.
One fights the enemy of the State.
The other serves to protect the people.
When the military becomes both.
Then the enemies of the State tend to become the people. "

Commander William Adama


This is a problem in the US . This will be one of my planks that I will address in
my campaign for office this fall .

I could bore you and INFO over loadwith links here on the subject .. but you can google them yourself .

I seem to remember in the 90's that the Indiana state police got like 1000 bayonets from the feds .
What was that for ?

I could bore you and INFO over loadwith links here on the subject .. but you can google them yourself .

I put two here .

The militarization of the domestic police

Greg Evensen -- The Militarization of the American Police

As a former state police trooper, I can state emphatically, that I oppose the move away from local policing to a heavily armed “national” quasi-military police force policy.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

As a former state police trooper, I can state emphatically, that I oppose the move away from local policing to a heavily armed “national” quasi-military police force policy.

Yes, the more singular and consolidated the various commands become, the more they come to resemble hitlers SS. The first thing they say to you when you get pulled over has always been "papers please" anyways.....

 

[E5RANGER375]

" There is a reason why you should separate military and the police.
One fights the enemy of the State.
The other serves to protect the people.
When the military becomes both.
Then the enemies of the State tend to become the people. "

Commander William Adama


This is a problem in the US . This will be one of my planks that I will address in
my campaign for office this fall .

I could bore you and INFO over loadwith links here on the subject .. but you can google them yourself .

I seem to remember in the 90's that the Indiana state police got like 1000 bayonets from the feds .
What was that for ?

I could bore you and INFO over loadwith links here on the subject .. but you can google them yourself .

I put two here .

The militarization of the domestic police

Greg Evensen -- The Militarization of the American Police

As a former state police trooper, I can state emphatically, that I oppose the move away from local policing to a heavily armed “national” quasi-military police force policy.

what are you running for? I'm always glad to see police and former police have the views you have.