If drugs are legalized, then what would happen to all the money and resources spent fighting against them? Knowing us, we’ll probably use that money to build homeless shelters and help the poor. (It’s kind of hard to write sarcasm. Ah, just did it. S-a-r-c-a-s-m. That was easier than I thought).

It would still need to be regulated. I wouldn’t want someone high behind the wheel of a car with slow reaction time. Medicinal usage I have no problem with. It’s some of the “recreational” people that give it a bad name. I’ve seen long term users become very dependent upon it; can’t seem to function (nor be pleasing to be around) unless they are high.

What someone does to their own body is their business; just when it negatively impacts others I have a problem with.

Though it is funny when people talk about potheads as addicts while they are drinking their coffee because they “just can’t start the day without their morning cup!”

Actually, with the Taliban being funded from opium sales, I’m also prepared to argue that heroin should also be legalized. Let’s see them organize terrorism when they’re broke.

@ Jeremiah: I think laws against driving while intoxicated would cover (and, in fact, do cover) people who drive high.

Advocates seem to always hide behind the “someone think of the children!” excuse to further their agendas. I went through the D.A.R.E. program when I was in school and actually that program made kids MORE knowledgable about drugs and where to get them. Talk about a waste of taxpayer dollars.

I’m not for banning alcohol or cigarettes but it’s rather hypocritical to legalize substances with severe short term and long term effects but ban others. There’s a reason no drinking or smoking should occur during pregnancy - it spawns those that impose such double standards.

If you’re harming yourself, I could care less. When it affects others, that’s when I take issue.

Though I think these crusaders lose some of the high ground when they tell their kids to not use any mood-altering substances but then pump their kids full of meds to keep them docile.

Though pot may be the less hazardous of drugs, no way should heroin or some of the others be legalized. One thing to be mellowed out for a bit, it’s another matter to think you can fly and try.

It’s the area right between a rock and a hardplace. Legalize it, and no, America won’t go apeshit, but, who is to say accidents and the like won’t rise? No one would know unless we try. Now I ask this, because I’m just not as informed as I’d like to be. What is the law in nations across the pond? I know (obviously) in Amsterdam (thank you Vincent Vega) it’s cool to smoke pot, in designated bars, etc… and that makes for a certain atmosphere. It’s hard to imagine the America I grew up in ever pulling the stick out of it’s own ass long enough to legalize pot though. Every argument you make it certainly sound to me.

I don’t smoke cigarettes, or anything really… and if I have 1 cocktail in 6 months, it’s pushing it…. So certainly I’m not the target audience… But I’d be remiss to say I wouldn’t chuckle a bit to see the Marlboro Man just laying on a couch eating funions.

Some of the “harder” drugs that some partake in also have negative impacts upon others (e.g., someone shooting up and going nuts on those around them) so restricting access to those would be protecting others.

Marc, I would laugh if the Marlboro Man waved his hand in front of his face and went “Duuuuuuude!”

@Marc: “What is the law in nations across the pond?”

UK Marijuana Policy Reform Takes Effect
Thurs, Jan 29, 2004

In what CNN called “the biggest shake-up of Britain’s drug laws in 30 years,” a new marijuana policy took effect Thursday, January 29 in the UK, making possession of small quantities of cannabis a minor offense. The new law will bring Britain in line with the majority of Western European nations where marijuana laws continue to be eased. The UK’s law re-classifies cannabis from a class “B” to a class “C” drug. Instead of arrest – and possibly jail – most people found in possession of small quantities of marijuana will be given a warning, a caution or a summons to court. The reform, recommended by a parliamentary committee in May 2002, follows a 2001 report by the Police Foundation that concluded that marijuana possession penalties in Britain — the harshest in Europe — did more damage than the drug itself by wasting police resources and saddling otherwise law-abiding citizens with a criminal record.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/01_29_04uk.cfm

@ Mike, Keu, Martha, Jeremiah, Marc: Well, Bill Clinton smoked but never inhaled–right.
Obama admitted to earlier drug use as well.
Bushette appeared to have been on Quaaludes his entire regime. There’s the last two and current admins.

If the modern drug use era started in the 1950s (yes, I know drugs been around in so many forms as long as people but ‘m using America’s modern times here where a majority of all classes and vocations had access to them), we are now seeing elected officials all the way to the top who grew up where drugs were readily accessible–and some of these people even admit to recreational use. Think this will stop soon? I’m betting the under.
Think that this will start relaxing tAmerica’s draconian laws? Hmmm…
Laws have changed in New York City, Massachusetts, California, among others and are under consideration in CT.

I don’t see many people in law enforcement or drug education using 1930’s-era “Reefer Madness” perspectives any more. A pack of fantastical lies, fear mongering and complete bullshit won’t work any more. It’s a Puritanical, anti-pleasure thing. Tim Leary as the anti-Christ. So we punish the tokers rather than cure the real problem–America’s fear of adult fun. Consider all the time, money, and energy spent on stopping the pot trade at all levels. I used to live in Mexico and no one ever blinked at the officially-sanctioned corruption–from the local federales to the highest reaches of government. The “mordida” IS a way of life.

Exorcise that by dealing with the reality of the situation rather than creating a never-never land where no one raises the plants, smokes or sells it. The reality is that millions of Americans smoke pot. And just like the Volstead Act, this latest Prohibition has worked out real well, right.
This just in: The government couldn’t legislate morality then and can’t now.

Obama wants a greening of America? Wants to save millions of dollars and stimulate the economy? Simple plan here. Want to help the environment? Go green.

I have never used an illegal drug, but I have inhaled marijuana fumes–either directly or indirectly.

I worked the drive through window in a fast food restaurant some years ago. On Friday and Saturday nights, the odor and effects could not be avoided. Many of the customers had smoked within the past half hour or were actively smoking as they waited for their food.

So, to be blunt, worrying that impaired driving might increase because of the legalization of marijuana is just plain dumb thinking. It’s already happening.

Calling someone’s opinions “dumb thinking”, that’s really classy. I know it’s happening, just saying there are enough idiots out there as it is and could not care less if they harmed themselves. Just when more idiots taking the more serious drugs, that’s a problem - less of a conscious decision to partake. Most potsmokers can decide to either do or not smoke. Heroin and other substances remove that decision making process, that’s why I think those should not be as accessible.

When the withdrawals kick in, that’s where some of the problems arise, if the person doesn’t die from the symptoms.

I saw people I went to high school and college with fall from grace when getting hooked on drugs and making poor decisions. Trying to reason with them was a waste of time.

A lot of the government’s idiocy is that if you go to jail for a drug offense, they turn their back on you. You’re ostracised and that leads people down a dangerous road. Instead of punishment, maybe rehab or some other treatment first to get someone down a decent path. As opposed to the current mentality of “I’m here to help you, until you screw up and then you’re on your own”.

Though it’s amusing when blowhards like Rush talk about “personal responsibility” when they themselves are addicts.

ct Alan - “So, to be blunt” - HA!

ct Jeremiah - “Though it’s amusing when blowhards like Rush talk about “personal responsibility” when they themselves are addicts. ”

Rush was the head of a multimillion dollar media empire and doing a daily radio show (and for a while a TV show) while he was an addict. If more addicts were that capable, addicts might have a better image…

The main reason things like heroin (and most other recreational drugs) are illegal and booze and tobacco aren’t is they are “new” and the others aren’t. The Church of the Sub-Genius has an essay where it’s noted that if sugar were only discovered twenty years ago, it’d be illegal.

Pot (to be more correct, hemp) itself has a major history in america. It’s only with the invention of the Decorticator (the “Cotton Gin” of pot) and the potential of making hemp’s use in industry cheap and efficient did it become an issue. William Randolph “I was NOT Citizen Kane” Hearst, owner of many lumber forests and paper processing plants, was threatened by the idea that hemp could become a cheap replacement for regular wood-pulp paper, and pretty much single-handedly started the anti-pot crusade in America.

My father in law (the one who knew a GREAT number of the people upon which “Casino” was based) started smoking pot to help with the nausea from his chemo treatments. It was fun taking him out for ice cream and chinese food. There’s no arguing that it has beneficial and medicinal properties.

However, it’s of my opinion that that the VAST majority of people who tout the benefical and medicinal aspects of pot are not interested in using it to heal their glaucoma or reduce their nausea, if you know what I mean.

This is another one of those “Just admit it” situations that always amuse me, like the people who are claiming they download music or movies of (shudder) comics because they’re striking a blow for the freedom of knowledge, and not just because they’re cheap.

IMHO, if pot became legal, you’d see an EXPLOSION of use as people finally get the chance to try what they’ve heard about all these years. Kinda like when all the Krispy Kremes opened. That would drop off damn quick as most people would realize that it’s not for them.

Tobacco companies would immediately try to monopolize the industry (the old theory that they have brand names and ad campaigns ready to go is a classic) and possibly even try to get laws passed limiting or restricting the home-grown market. At the very least they’d try to get across the idea that their pot is in some way “safer” than the amateur stuff (tho considering how long some of those gardens hav been in operation, one could debate who, indeed, the amateurs are)

I’ll warrant that the alcohol companies would get in on the act, with pot-infused adult beverages. I’ll lay odds that a drink named “Bongwater” would be on the market in under six months.

Ironically, the pot growers and dealers in Mexico and other areas would not be driven out of business - they’d become respectable businessmen overnight. The tobacco companies would sign deals with them - the manufacture system is already in place, why re-invent the wheel? Odds are pot growing would become MORE profitable, since all the cost of mules and subterfuge would go away. I can imagine MORE fighting, as rival manufacturers vie for favor with Big Pot.

I have a feeling that a few years down the line, things wouldn’t be all that different from where they are now. Some people would be addicted, some people would be making money, and Some people would be trying to come up with the next way to make things better.

I do not forsee pot being fully legalized any time soon. No politician would dare be associated with it, or at least not one that wants to remain a politician. plus, after decades of “Just Say No” and “This is your brain”, trying to convince the American People (that nebulous mass known as “they”) that suddenly pot is okay would be a challenge.

I just think it’s a waste of our time and resources. Jobs, education, pollution, new energy resources - these are good and efficient uses of our time. Pot, Gay marriage, these are things we can work on when we have more free time. Guiliani didn’t start going after Jaywalkers and pictures of the Virgin mary made from elephant poop until he had fixed/addressed the big issues like Crime FIRST. Not everybody can be first in line.

@Vinne,
I agreed with your comments until I hit this:”Pot, Gay marriage, these are things we can work on when we have more free time.”

Whether you’re straight or gay, I’m guessing that if you suggest that gay marriage doesn’t have importance to LGTpeople and our supporters I think you’d get a look of shock. I understand not everyone can be first in line but in just the last week, after long legal battles, two states legalized gay marriage. More to follow. This issue may not be as important as dealing with America’s financial, job, banking and environmental crises but that doesn’t mean it is not important and undeserving of the consideration and attention it is currently getting.
Any minority’s lack of equality is as deserving of redress as the rights of the majority.

@Vinnie,
PS: In the 1960’s when he joined the anti-Vietnam War movement, MLK heard the same argument you stated. Some Civil Rights leaders and supporters accused him of muddling their crucial issues and their cause was a priority. Some in the anti-war movement thought the same. I believe history has proven King’s actions to be decisively clear and true. His thought: no is free until we are all free.

If the the current administration is “guilty” of anything, it is trying to address “too much” at once. There are so many areas that need attention, I can hardly fault Obama for his efforts. I applaud them
Queer equality is looooong overdue–in America, as long as this country’s founding. The time is now.

Marijuana (pot) and hemp are 2 different things. You’d have to smoke a semi load of hemp to get high.

Hemp can also be used to make clothing, ropes, and paper. Just imagine how many trees could be saved by printing books on hemp paper.

You get the same amount of paper from an acre of trees as you get from an acre of hemp, and the hemp can be grown year after year. Trees take a lifetime to grow.

Alan - this is all true, but Hearst saw it as easier to connect hemp with pot, and get the baby thrown out with the bathwater.

All told it was one of the most impressive pieces of marketing of the 20th century, right up there with the razor companies creating the fashion of ladies shaving their underarms out of whole cloth, solely to create a new market for razors.

“Ah, the Hearst argument.”

It wasn’t really an argument as much as more detail to the history of the debate. I’m not arguing with you per se - I don’t see a real reason not to legalize pot (compared to alcohol and tobacco they’re about on the same level), I’m just not of the opinion that it’ll happen any time soon, nor that it’s something we should be spending inordinate time on the issue right now, while there are more important issues still on the table. in short, let’s pick the drapes for the living room AFTER we’ve put the fire in the kitchen out.

“First of all, Charles Foster Kane wasn’t entirely made up of the Chief . ”

I’m well aware of that, that was just a good nickname to throw in there. It was Welles that specifically told Ruth Warrick to drop Heart’s name in interviews, telling her to say the film was about “magnates LIKE Hearst and many others”. It wasn’t until he dropped the name that the digging started. Hearst was so vain, he prob’ly thought the film was about him, and so his reactions (and the general mindset) occurred.

It all but killed the film in its initial release, but it helped add to its cachet as years went on, the old “what they don’t want to you to see” vibe.

There was just as much a witch-hunt over LSD when it become more prevalent in the 60’s. Robert Anton Wilson discusses it in Cosmic Trigger to a great degree - Timothy Leary was a well-respected doctor when he appeared before congress and suggested that LSD could be a vital tool for psychiatry if used by a professional and in a controlled environment. All Senator Kennedy, looking for a political cause he could hitch his wagon to wanted to get him to say was that it was “dangerous” - do you want to keep it limited to psychiatrists because it’s dangerous, do you want to keep it a prescription medicine because it’s dangerous, etc. After the railroading he got is when he started adapting his hippie guru persona and started the whole “turn on tune in drop out” mantra. Dragnet did their famous “Blueboy” episode that dealt with the period when LSD was becoming popular but there was not yet a law on the books making it illegal. So pot is hardly the last drug to get steamrolled. I’m not equating the two, to be clear - LSD is a far more aggressive drug and doesn’t compare to the effects of pot. Leary, as mentioned, originally advocated its use in very controlled conditions under the guidance of a trained professional.

@Mike: “LSD is dangerous…But people do not tend to drive on the stuff…”

So that heavily dosed New Year’s Eve Dead concert that turned into morning when I staggered from backstage and was asked to drive Sammy (born with polio) back across the Golden Gate to Marin in his old Renault and somehow wound up driving around fog-shrouded Mt. Tamalpias…yeah that time. Does that count? }’;>)
This is one girl with a posse of angels…