Badmovies.org Forum

Please vote!

I'm not trying to get into a debate about marijuana and if it should be legalized.
I'm simply curious to see the results of this poll.

Do you think marijuana should be legalized in the United States?

If you have an opinion on this issue, by all means, please share it if you're willing.
(you can still vote but not voice your opinion if you don't wish to)

It's hard to make a decision without the parameters. Age limits? Legal levels of intoxication while driving? Public exposure? Taxation? Regulated or unregulated sources? Foreign or domestic sources?

That's the problem with this question, and thus the debate that it brings is that the parameters are rarely set.

If there's no mention of age limits and legal/illegal levels of intoxication for people driving on public roads, , then the answer is a big No, as most (sane) people would agree.

For arguments sake, let's say the parameters are the same as they currently are for alcohol in most U.S. states.
21 to buy.  Same penalties as if you were caught driving while intoxicated (as they are now) etc...
No commercials or any other types of advertising marijuana allowed by state law.  (unlike alcohol)  I can't imagine TV commercials or billboard ads for packs of these:
(http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/1222/386733551985e10044mea3.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

Essentially, the laws governing marijuana purchasing and consumption would be very similar to U.S. liquor laws.

(Sorry, I should've covered this in my original post)

I've had friends who started smoking pot and went completely to s**t.  I've also had friends (not to mention myself) who started drinking and went completely to s**t.

I don't know if one is worse than the other.  If the age restrictions and penalties for intoxication were the same, I would say legalize marijuana.  I truly don't think people need to be arrested and spend any time in jail for carrying around a few joints.

In a perfect world, people wouldn't WANT either of them.  It's not a perfect world, though.

Quote from: Ash on September 03, 2008, 11:42:56 PM
Please vote!

I'm not trying to get into a debate about marijuana and if it should be legalized.
I'm simply curious to see the results of this poll.

Do you think marijuana should be legalized in the United States?

If you have an opinion on this issue, by all means, please share it if you're willing.
(you can still vote but not voice your opinion if you don't wish to)

The powers that be in South Africa are debating whether or not to legalize it here, Ash: I voted yes but only if it is prescribed for medicinal purposes.

Ash, didn't you post this in the past?  Seems like we had a very similar post a couple of years back.

Anyway, I voted yes along with was is apparently the majority.  When it comes to marijuana, I don't believe it should be illegal.  It's not nearly as bad as alcohol, and the government stands to make a killing off of it.  Tax it at a huge amount, and you WILL make a huge amount.  Easy enough.

Not only that, but a huge section of the "War On Drugs" could be shut down.  The amount of money that would save each year is staggering.  We have drug dealers killing each other over marijuana, something I just cannot understand. 

Legalize it, absolutely.  I smoked pot for 10 or 12 years.  In the average year, there would be 3 or 4 times when you had to wait an extra week to buy some, because none was available at that moment.  For all the huge amounts of money and time spent on the war on drugs, all they accomplish is to cause a slight inconvenience for people.

I voted yes, not because I particularly approve of marijuana use, but just because I don't believe the laws in their current state are effective anyway. Much like during Prohibition, when speakeasies were common and people pretty much ignored the law, today we see much the same behavior with marijuana (among other, harder drugs). I've never smoked it myself (I grew up in a small town with a teacher for a mother and a policeman for a father--I couldn't get away with anything anywhere), but I am tired of reading about a prison system overcrowded with minor offenders, most of whom are caught just because they are the easiest to find, while the ones who should be behind bars are free just because they hide better.

Quote from: Derf on September 04, 2008, 07:33:28 AM
I've never smoked it myself (I grew up in a small town with a teacher for a mother and a policeman for a father--I couldn't get away with anything anywhere

:teddyr: :smile:

I agree with medicinal use, although I got a report just this week of a guy who got raided because his medicinal crop exceeded his permit by about 40 plants. I can also see some benefits if it is strictly regulated, like alcohol.

However, I voted no, simply because there is no way to regulate it. Liquor can be made at home, but not without considerable difficulty, and the quality is not so great. Marijuana is dead easy to produce in any forest, cornfield or basement. Cops would still be hunting the stuff down, but also have the added burden of distinguishing the legal stuff from the illegal.

Myself, I've smoked the stuff on a couple of occasions, when somebody was passing it around at a party. To be honest, I was too drunk to know what effect, if any, it had on me.  :teddyr:

I'm extermely mixed on the issue. Unfortunately, , there is SO much BAD info out there, from BOTH sides that it's hard to really know what to believe. Stoners claim it's NOT addictive, that it doesn't lead to further crimes, people DON'T want to fight, blah blah blah, , but I find most of that to be rhetoric. I work in a Maximum security prison, and I know of more people than most would believe that are there because they smoked a bunch of WEED and blasted someone, or killed someone in a car accident, robbed a place for weed money. Stoners don't want to admit it happens, but it happens ALOT. Weed is a factor in the comission of non-drug crimes MUCH more than the stoners want people to believe. Anti-weed people make claims like "there are 647 KNOWN carcinogens in MJ, compared to only 23 in cigarettes", , of course, then the anti-tabacco people say crap like "There are over 2400 carcinogens in tabbaco".

If I were to list all the people I know according to SUCCESS in life, , it would near perfectly mimic their MJ use. I have a friend that is absolutely the MOST talented pipefitter/plate fitter/welder/leadman I've ever met. He is SO talented it's amazing, I've seen him lead work crews of 75 people on HUGE projects that lasted 8-9 months without breaking a sweat, but now that he's back to the weed, he's making about half of what my semi-crappy job pays. He SHOULD be working for BP like another friend of mine is, who as the crew leader of an 8-man crew, made $106,000 a year a few years back, likely MORE now. It is fundamentally unjust that my friend that uses MJ makes less than ME, in all honesty he's twice as talented and twice as knowledgible. In the town I live in, I know at LEAST 10 people that are really, trash, , and they all happen to be stoners. I'm talking people 45 years old, making $10.00 an hour living in a rented trailer, with a piece of junk truck, no insurance, in a town where milk is $3.79 a gallon and gas $4.79. I just don't see it as coincidence that the family that allows their 15-year old son to smoke pot, in the house even, is supported totally by both parents driving taxicabs seasonally, in a town that is two miles by a quarter of a mile. Yes, that sounds like isolated incidents, but I have a fistfull of examples that would bore you. It's quite pathetic.

Now, I'm not saying there isn't any people like that who DON'T do drugs, or the EVERYONE that smokes weed is useless, , it's just from my experience, it shows a distinct overall pattern. I think about MYSELF in high school doing that crap and although I had alot of FUN, I have TONS of regrets. I read once that when polled in public, over 80% of people polled were FOR MJ being LEGALIZED, , but no official ballot has ever realized more than 40%. That to me speaks volumes towards MJs supression of motivation and ambition if it is true. I tend to give it some credit from hearing official ballot resulys that have shown MJ legalization to have around 35% support, yet knowing that the majority of people I know, users and non-users alike, support legalization. 

With that being said, I think the amount of money spent of fighting that crap is a phenominal waste. Add to the the fact that if a person is 65 years old, I really can't see what issue there could be with it's use, which tells me there is SOME age, between 16 and 65 that the line should be drawn, and it doesn't nessisarily have to be 18 or 21. Of course that's what gets automatically brought up, ,'21', , that's the asnwer for everything here in America, , I think this issue requires some thinking outside the box. (for the record, I think the drinking age in the ARMY should be RAISED, , but that's another story altogether). MJ is just like alcohol, , some people should be allowed to use it, , some people shouldn't be allowed, and for various reasons. I am not one that feels we need any more laws than is absolutely nessisary, , but when the actons of people adversely and negatively affects others, something should be done.

But, either way, until we figure out a way to measure INTOXICATION, un-intrusively like a breath-a-lizer does for alcohol, and a standard for level of intoxication, , it shouldn't happen. And NO, being high does NOT make you drive BETTER.

I voted "yes", although in reality I wouldn't go that far, at least not yet.  I favor decriminalization of simple possession, and de-emphasizing the police resources committed to stomping out the trade.  Perhaps simple possession for personal use could be a small fine, and sale a minor felony.

I don't find Ghouk's explanation of the link between MJ and crime convincing, though, because correlation does not equal causation.  The fact that most criminals smoke weed doesn't mean that pot CASUSED these otherwise upstanding human beings to become criminals.  It seems more likely to me that someone who sees no reason to refrain from breaking and entering or from beating someone's head in with a pool cue will see no reason to refrain from smoking grass. 

When you talk to many many people, , and being high is THEIR explanation, what else is one supposed to conclude? I'm talking about people that in every other way seem like intelligent, normal people with tons of positive accolades in their past, , and no hint of a criminal history beforehand. Your stance on the issue is typical, but when someone is imprisoned for stabbing someone to death during a drug deal gone wrong, and that drug was MJ, it's hard to feel otherwise. I could just as easily say that all the drunk drivers out there would have caused accidents/injured people even WITHOUT the alcohol, , but we know how false that would be. When a person says "I robbed that guy because I thought he had weed on him, , and when I realized he DIDN'T, I took his wallet and beat the crap out of him", you can see the conclusion is easy. It's easy to put a blanket over it and say "weed didn't cause this, people did", , but when you get down to individual issues, , often times the weed WAS a huge factor. It's a truth that it hard to fathom without working directly with the people involved.

QuoteIt seems more likely to me that someone who sees no reason to refrain from breaking and entering or from beating someone's head in with a pool cue will see no reason to refrain from smoking grass. 

That's just it, , most of them DO see what is wrong with those crimes, and don't do them when they're NOT on drugs. Your implication that people that commit crimes all feel there was nothing wrong with what they did is largely false.

Quote from: ghouck on September 04, 2008, 02:13:25 PM
When you talk to many many people, , and being high is THEIR explanation, what else is one supposed to conclude?

You could conclude that they're trying to shift blame for their crimes to something other than themselves.  I remember being highly sceptical when Ted Bundy tried to blame his serial-killiing ways on hardcore pornography for precisely that reason.

Quote from: ghouck on September 04, 2008, 02:13:25 PM
I'm talking about people that in every other way seem like intelligent, normal people with tons of positive accolades in their past, , and no hint of a criminal history beforehand. Your stance on the issue is typical, but when someone is imprisoned for stabbing someone to death during a drug deal gone wrong, and that drug was MJ, it's hard to feel otherwise.

Can't say as I've run across anyone like the people you describe.  However, I would point out that advocates of legalization argue precisely that it's the huge drug profits made possible by the contraband status of drugs, not the drugs themselves, that is the major cause of drug violence.  Your example of someone stabbing someone else in a drug deal falls into that pattern. 

Quote from: ghouck on September 04, 2008, 02:13:25 PMI could just as easily say that all the drunk drivers out there would have caused accidents/injured people even WITHOUT the alcohol, , but we know how false that would be.

When a person says "I robbed that guy because I thought he had weed on him, , and when I realized he DIDN'T, I took his wallet and beat the crap out of him", you can see the conclusion is easy. It's easy to put a blanket over it and say "weed didn't cause this, people did", , but when you get down to individual issues, , often times the weed WAS a huge factor. It's a truth that it hard to fathom without working directly with the people involved.

QuoteIt seems more likely to me that someone who sees no reason to refrain from breaking and entering or from beating someone's head in with a pool cue will see no reason to refrain from smoking grass. 

That's just it, , most of them DO see what is wrong with those crimes, and don't do them when they're NOT on drugs. Your implication that people that commit crimes all feel there was nothing wrong with what they did is largely false.

I would never argue that MJ couldn't be a factor in particular crimes; any valuable commodity can motivate a property crime, such as the mugging you mentioned.  Nor would I say that one could never find an instance where someone committed a crime under the influence of pot that they wouldn't have committed if they'd been straight.  But as a general rule or trend, I don't see it.

Certainly the fact that you work in the criminal justice system gives you a different perspective than me.  But dealing with criminals every day actually could bias your view; you're exposed to the problem cases, the exceptions to the rule, day after day.  I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a huge percentage of the prison population indulged in marijuana, just as I wouldn't be surprised to find a huge portion of them were hard drinkers.  I still question the causal connection between marijuana and crime, without more.   

It wasn't my intent to imply that criminals didn't know their acts were wrong; I was being imprecise.  My larger point is that criminals tend to lack impulse control.  I'm not surprised that someone who can't obey major societal rules, such as "don't bust a cap in someone cause they dissed your wheels", also can't muster the willpower to obey a minor rule, like "don't smoke weed."

Part of the reason I likely won't ever be convinced on this issue is that it contradicts my personal experience.  I toked up as a collegian, and the last thing I would ever want to do under the influence would be to go out and commit a crime.  It would have been a huge buzzkill, taking valuable time away from playing hacky-sack, eating Cheetos, and listening to Floyd.  Plus, there's that paranoia to deal with, which to me would dampen the enthusiasm for violating the law. 

On the other hand, I once drank too many vodka gimlets and sucker-punched a guy because I didn't like the look of his face.  But I would never claim that responsible alcohol use should be illegal, despite that fact that alcohol lowers inhibitions and therefore clearly creates more crime. 

Also, note that I only dispute the link between marijuana and crime: I'm fine with your other observations that marijuana isn't particularly good for your lungs, is psychologically addictive, and encourages the "loser" syndrome you describe.  I just don't think that criminalization has been an effective way to deal with these social problems, or ever could be.

Having lived in Holland, I think it would make little difference 5 years down the line.  Society would not fall, we would not become a whole pack of weedheads or anything.  That is, if all the alcohol regulations are as stated earlier in the thread.  It still impairs your ability to drive and such.

I was amazed to see how little marijuana effected life in the Netherlands.  You see the Coffeeshops, some folks use them and many don't.  Once you leave Amserdam and the stoned college kids, you just see the odd place that seels it.  You can go in or not, just like a bar.  I did feel that the decent folks looks down on those who went to those places too often.  Can any Dutch friends comment? Do we have Dutch friends here?


Of course reefer makes you go crazy and kill people, so maybe not the best idea:
http://www.badmovies.org/othermovies/reefermad/

-Ed

P.S. speaking of siezed medical marijuana. I saw this in the paper 30 seconds after hitting "post"  http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10380112

For sure there's some blame-shifting, but you would have to see the situation first-hand to understand. Baised view because I work with these people, no, that's not it, because I can see the same traits in others and their actions with and without the drug OUTSIDE the prison environment. No matter how you chalk it up, people always try and deflect the issue, , and the issue is, MJ makes peopel conduct themselves differently than they conduct themselves without it, the same as alcohol, heroin, meth, cocaine and about any other drug does. Some people do so in an acceptable way, others NOT.
I don't doubt you've never run into people like that, because you've probably not ran into many people that are FORCED to abstain, and you've surely not know the details of a person's life like can be gleaned from my point of view. You've likely never talked to someone that got into a fight and beat someone to death because their perception was so altered they didn't know when to stop after a small scuffle started. You've not seen the life that person HAD, , and threw away. This is what people don't get: I talk CASUALLY with these people on a daily basis, , and they have NO reason to lie to me. They tell me all the time about fights and drugs and all kinds of crap going on, , and it's not my business, not my place. I don't have any say in how soon they get out, or what the parameters they get out under are, they can't gain ANYTHING from lying to me, , and more often than not, they're telling me something they did WRONG rather than hiding it. When you speak of MJ motivating a crime, , I don't think you get what is meant: A guy stabbing someone over a drug deal where one guy's scale said 1lb, the other's says 0.996 lb including the bag, and a fight ensues. The thing many mental health professionals notice, is the when a drug, ANY drug, INCLUDING MJ is injected into any situation, , things escalate moreso than without. A comment turns into an arguement turns into a shove, , but throw in drugs, INCLUDING WEED, and it more often escalates into a punch, , a stabbing, , a shooting than it does without the presence of weed. The other stance many take is that since THEY get all mellow and laid back after smoking up, , that everyone does. Why do people think this when it obviously doesn't apply to Alcohol or any OTHER drug? Some people get mellow, , some want to fight, , some want to sing, , some get agressive in a sexual way, , all kinds of different reactions. Weed is no different. I find it humorous how the paranoia that WEED brings on is used as a reason that weed should be LEGAL, , ok, , what about the paranoia METH brings out? Paranoia is NOT a good thing. Maybe to someone in the right environment it's not a terribly BAD thing, , but it's rarely, if ever a good thing.

Like I said, people don't want to believe weed is responsible for anything, , but it often is, same as alcohol is. Every once in a while in Alaska they make a previously dry village wet, or vice-versa, , and the crime rate shows dramatically. Somehow people are convinced that this phenomenom is strictly an alcohol issue, , and doesn't apply to weed. That's just not true. You mentioned smoking in college, , I can't imagine a BETTER setting for smoking weed, , now lets get realistic and realize that huge portions of the population are in a much different setting.

Quote from: Jeez, that Ed Guy on September 04, 2008, 04:12:30 PM
Having lived in Holland, I think it would make little difference 5 years down the line.  Society would not fall, we would not become a whole pack of weedheads or anything.  That is, if all the alcohol regulations are as stated earlier in the thread.  It still impairs your ability to drive and such.

I was amazed to see how little marijuana effected life in the Netherlands.  You see the Coffeeshops, some folks use them and many don't.  Once you leave Amserdam and the stoned college kids, you just see the odd place that seels it.  You can go in or not, just like a bar.  I did feel that the decent folks looks down on those who went to those places too often.  Can any Dutch friends comment? Do we have Dutch friends here?


Of course reefer makes you go crazy and kill people, so maybe not the best idea:
http://www.badmovies.org/othermovies/reefermad/

-Ed

P.S. speaking of siezed medical marijuana. I saw this in the paper 30 seconds after hitting "post"  http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10380112

I've been to Holland, and I have to say that it works VERY well for them, , but when you see people over THERE vs people in the US using, , it's two completely different situations, just the same as our violent crimes rates are vastly different. One couple I talked to in Amsterdam said they questioned how long it was going to remain legal, because of, ,and I quote "Idiots from all over the world coming here and F-ing it up for everyone". I took for granted that many of those "Idiots" were Americans.

I used to be for the legalization of pot, but when I sat down and thought about, I changed my mind. The last thing I need is Uncle Sam harshing my buzz by taxing my joints and watering down my sweet leaf with a "regulation high". I don't drive when I'm high (I get too paranoid to leave my house), I don't hurt anybody but my supply of snacks when I smoke, and if you ask my friends, I'm even more entertaining when I'm fogged up. (http://www.scooternos.net/forums/style_emoticons/default/joint.gif)

Ghouk, we're just drawing inferences from different sets of life experiences.  I don't think anyone in the prison is really lying to you.  I just don't think the prison population is a good, representative sample to draw inferences about the effects of marijuana from.  Can you isolate the effect of MJ?  Don't lots of them drink and do other drugs as well, and have underling psychological problems to boot? 

Sure, every drug effects people differently, and any drug's likely to encourage anti-social behavior in some people. 

I would be shocked if crime rates didn't rise in dry counties that went wet.  But, speaking as someone who drinks responsibly,  I wouldn't want to live in a dry county.  I don't want me teetotalling neighbors to tell me what I can and can't do in my spare time because of some damn statitstics.  I find it hard to have a different rule in regards to MJ, which I find to have less of a violence-inducing effect than alcohol.       

I find the fact that college students smoke weed and lie back and giggle, while gang members smoke the same weed while executing drive-bys, as evidence that other environmental factors are more improtant to crime than MJ use.  And like I say, your view of the drug doesn't jive with my personal experience, or the experience of otters I've known.  But I do agree with you about the other effects: the effect on driving, the potential waste of potential, etc.  I'm not an uncritical defender of the drug.

Someday we'll have to go to Amsterdam and continue this discussion over a nice, peaceful joint. 

Quote from: Rev. Powell on September 04, 2008, 05:50:08 PM
And like I say, your view of the drug doesn't jive with my personal experience, or the experience of otters I've known.

The otters where you live smoke weed?! Damn Rev, you're lucky. The otters around here just glare at me threateningly and tell me to "keep walking".  :wink:

Quote from: Rev. Powell on September 04, 2008, 05:50:08 PM
I just don't think the prison population is a good, representative sample to draw inferences about the effects of marijuana from. 

You live in one community within your state. A Prison is representative of my entire state, as people in it are from all over the state. The control group of YOUR community in no better of a representation of your population than any other. Like I said, your college experience tilts the board WAY into your favor being idyllic. How often do you visit the nastiest ghettos? The ultra-plush rich neighborhoods? The Projects? The closest loving community to downtown in the biggest city? The smallest suburban hick town? Not just VISIT, , but spend long periods of time dealing closely with those people.

QuoteI find it hard to have a different rule in regards to MJ, which I find to have less of a violence-inducing effect than alcohol.

You, , maybe, , on others, I have proof otherwise. For that matter, few truly understand the effects of ALCOHOL, even though it's much more widely used. Ever had any experience with someone experiencing a psychotic effect due to alcohol? I've seen it quite a few times. You point out that our experiences are different, probably true, , but I'm willing to bet that the major differences are that I've experienced more people of vastly greater backgrounds, without the opportunity to just pack up and leave when the going started getting rough, which makes a huge difference.

Now, with that said, I have never implied that criminalization was a perfect cure, ,or even a relatively good one, my main point is that so few people really understand it's effects on society and such. We have a guy that works for me that went on some "dope fueled rampage" and everyone assumes it was Meth. Nope, , it was MJ.

Quote from: ghouck on September 04, 2008, 06:28:52 PM
We have a guy that works for me that went on some "dope fueled rampage" and everyone assumes it was Meth. Nope, , it was MJ.

Was his sh!t laced with PCP or something?! I've never known anyone on straight pot who ever did anything beyond eat Cheetos, play Mario Kart, and have stupid ideas that sounded good at the time. What are you guys growing up in Alaska, G?!

I voted no, I never have smoked MJ nor will I ever (go ahead and make fun of me!) so I am not the best source for opinion, however, a lot of bad crap has happened to people and I for one would like to prevent it, even though a lot of other people seem to have enjoyed it.

Quote from: AnubisVonMojo on September 04, 2008, 06:40:46 PM

Quote from: ghouck on September 04, 2008, 06:28:52 PM
We have a guy that works for me that went on some "dope fueled rampage" and everyone assumes it was Meth. Nope, , it was MJ.

Was his sh!t laced with PCP or something?! I've never known anyone on straight pot who ever did anything beyond eat Cheetos, play Mario Kart, and have stupid ideas that sounded good at the time. What are you guys growing up in Alaska, G?!

I read the test results as a part of his conviction packet. Nothing but THC. I'm telling you, this happens more than people think. It's just one of those things that people don't talk about because they don't want to admit it's true. I'm not saying it's as common as someone freaking out on meth or anything, , ,but it DOES happen, and more than most people know, , and when they're told about it, , it's almost always blown off with some "Back when I was a pac-man playing teenager" analogy.

Quote from: ghouck on September 04, 2008, 06:28:52 PM

Quote from: Rev. Powell on September 04, 2008, 05:50:08 PM
I just don't think the prison population is a good, representative sample to draw inferences about the effects of marijuana from. 

You live in one community within your state. A Prison is representative of my entire state, as people in it are from all over the state. The control group of YOUR community in no better of a representation of your population than any other. Like I said, your college experience tilts the board WAY into your favor being idyllic. How often do you visit the nastiest ghettos? The ultra-plush rich neighborhoods? The Projects? The closest loving community to downtown in the biggest city? The smallest suburban hick town? Not just VISIT, , but spend long periods of time dealing closely with those people.

QuoteI find it hard to have a different rule in regards to MJ, which I find to have less of a violence-inducing effect than alcohol.

You, , maybe, , on others, I have proof otherwise. For that matter, few truly understand the effects of ALCOHOL, even though it's much more widely used. Ever had any experience with someone experiencing a psychotic effect due to alcohol? I've seen it quite a few times. You point out that our experiences are different, probably true, , but I'm willing to bet that the major differences are that I've experienced more people of vastly greater backgrounds, without the opportunity to just pack up and leave when the going started getting rough, which makes a huge difference.

Now, with that said, I have never implied that criminalization was a perfect cure, ,or even a relatively good one, my main point is that so few people really understand it's effects on society and such. We have a guy that works for me that went on some "dope fueled rampage" and everyone assumes it was Meth. Nope, , it was MJ.
[/quote]

My experience is not geographically limited, as I've been a bit of a nomad my whole life, but it is largely limited to the middle and upper-middle classes.  But, if the middle class folks I encounter don't experience the supposed crime inducing effects of MJ, while the lower classes who make up the bulk of the prison population supposedly do, that suggests to me that the effect is more class-based than drug based.

I have seen someone have a psychotic reaction to alcohol, but that was just a random encounter and I don't draw any inference from it.  I've never see someone have a psychotic reaction to marijuana, but I don't draw any inference from that, either.

As I said, our experiences are different, and it's hopeless to argue from anecdotal evidence.  It would be stupid of me to argue that marijuana had never been a factor in a single crime, but I find it hard to believe.

I base my opinion of marijuana's non-effect on crime both on my personal experience and on the studies and reports I have read or heard of.  The committee ironically commissioned by Nixon to drum up support for the War on Drugs famously b***h-slapped him by failing to find a link between marijuana use and violent crime.  I'm not aware of any study since that refutes the notion, even though the government has put a lot of money into trying to prove the opposite.

Really, I don't want to argue.  One of the reasons I don't like to get into these kinds of discussions is they take up time, can cause hard feelings, and neither side end up convincing the other.  There's nothing wrong with a little friendly debate, but I sense we've reached the point where we're both spinning our wheels on this issue.

I think that ideally people would not make a single self-destructive choice...  no batter-fried onions, no drinking a fifth in one night, no meth, no coke, no hitting children, no rape...

In the real world?  I think that in the real world, marijuana should not be legal.  To argue it has benefit is iffy at best.  I think a stronger argument, for harm, can be made.  Likely harm, no significant benefit?  Outlaw it.  But the problem is that outlawing something is really not the question that one should ask.  To quote good old Hannibal:  What need does it serve?

I think the survey is pretty pointless and divisive.  Ask a better question.

QuoteMy experience is not geographically limited, as I've been a bit of a nomad my whole life, but it is largely limited to the middle and upper-middle classes.  But, if the middle class folks I encounter don't experience the supposed crime inducing effects of MJ, while the lower classes who make up the bulk of the prison population supposedly do, that suggests to me that the effect is more class-based than drug based.

That's always the NEXT step, , and it's also wrong. That would fly if you believe that the entire prison population was of lower classes. Not true.

This is the exact type of deflection I encounter, , blame it on everything else, , don't admit MJ is a major factor. It is, , but people won't admit and are adamant in their excuses, , even though their experience is limited and from a distance.

QuoteReally, I don't want to argue.

You take all the fun out of it. .  :twirl:

Quote from: Zapranoth on September 04, 2008, 10:13:30 PM
I think the survey is pretty pointless and divisive.  Ask a better question.

I dunno. Seems like a pretty civilized and mature debate so far, and the topic is certainly, well, topical. I'm finding it quite enlightening, if not with regard to the subject itself, then with regard to the views and experiences of people on the board. Looking at Ghouk's picture, I'm particularly surprised that he's against marijuana.  :teddyr:

Seriously, we have a few people who smoke it, a prison guard, a couple of people who have been to Holland, a reporter (myself) with experience on the crime and court beats, and so on. A nice diversity of experiences and opinions that have so far been expressed without any needless hostility, or any moaning about the cops needlessly spoiling people's fun. I'm impressed, so far.

Quote from: ghouck on September 04, 2008, 11:56:36 PM

QuoteMy experience is not geographically limited, as I've been a bit of a nomad my whole life, but it is largely limited to the middle and upper-middle classes.  But, if the middle class folks I encounter don't experience the supposed crime inducing effects of MJ, while the lower classes who make up the bulk of the prison population supposedly do, that suggests to me that the effect is more class-based than drug based.

That's always the NEXT step, , and it's also wrong. That would fly if you believe that the entire prison population was of lower classes. Not true.

This is the exact type of deflection I encounter, , blame it on everything else, , don't admit MJ is a major factor. It is, , but people won't admit and are adamant in their excuses, , even though their experience is limited and from a distance.

QuoteReally, I don't want to argue.

You take all the fun out of it. .  :twirl:

I don't believe the entire population is made up of the lower classes, just that they are represented disproportionately, along with the mentally ill, people who were abused as children, etc.

I think MJ may well be a MINOR factor, but how can you quantify it?  How can you isolate it among all the other factors that cause criminal behavior?  Sure, you can cite specific examples and cases, but anecdotal evidence is always weak evidence, even though sometimes it's the best we can come up with.

The problem with this argument that you and I are having is that you are arguing from your personal experience, and there's no way for me to counter that without attacking your credibility, which I wouldn't want to do.  Look, you're implicitly accusing me of making excuses and having limited experience (being naive in the ways of the world), which I find mildly annoying, though not offensive.  That's because as long as the argument is based on personal experience, we don't have anywhere to go but to try to attack the other person, no matter how nice we try to be about it. 

I could cite some studies that found no link between violence and marijuana, but I'm sure there's no way that would outweigh your personal experience. 

And besides, I have no reason to doubt the specific instances that you cite.  I just don't think they can be used to establish the general rule you're arguing for.  In the end, we're arguing about degrees, whether the impact of marijuana on crime is a major factor, as you state, or a negligible one.

Sorry to take more fun out.   :tongueout:         

All I know is all this negativity is bringing me down. I'm gonna go spark up Mr. Happy Pipe and watch some Hong Kong movie about people being possessed by an evil cat ghost. (http://www.myemoticons.com/animated/bad-boys/images/joint.gif)

I'm only going to briefly somewhat add to this discussion here as I'm on borrowed time.  I certainly do have other stories etc to add just not now.

One thing I will mention is that in this country [Australia] we have what they call 'booze buses' which are essentially alcohol breathalyzers in a bit of a convoy.  The purpose is of course to bust drink drivers and be a general deterrent against drink driving.  Now most if not all of these buses in my state are also drug buses, ie, they can test if you have been on drugs.  Now I haven't experienced these myself, only the alcohol testing side, but I imagine they are mainly testing for the usual suspects such as MJ and ecstasy etc.  The 'party drugs' you know.

The first person busted with this was a middle aged business man with a couple of kids who later had his conviction overturned due to a mistake: he had never smoked and fought to clear his name that had been smeared as the first busted by these new buses.

I bring this case up as I have heard that these drug tests can only test if you have drugs in your system, and that it cannot test if you are directly under the influence or not, or even if you had some that day or two weeks ago.  This is probably why they don't automatically screen you for drugs as well as doing the usual 'breath here'.

That alone is probably the only reason why I'd say no to legalizing MJ.  Here in Australia if you give above a .05 blood alcohol content reading you are breaking the law and are punished accordingly.  If what I have heard is correct, then there is no way to adequately regulate marijuana use legally and therefore the system is more open to abuse.

People get hit by drunk drivers all the time, and drug users all the time, but by having this whole .05 bac law it makes most [not all] people more responsible when they drink and drive.  As the ad campaign here says: "if you drink and drive you're a bloody idiot."  More recently the slogan has also added:  "If you drive on drugs you're out of your mind."

Most people generally know how much they can drink and still be responsible to drive.  If there is no way to properly test and punish those using drugs whilst driving adequately then, well, I don't think it's too far fetched to say that some folks will be more inclined to drive then wait it out, just by thinking 'I'm okay' when they are in fact not.

Of course, people still drive on drugs, and still will, but the assumption with making MJ legal is that use will go up, or at the very least the people who already use it will be more open and less concerned with hiding it, especially from the public or the police.  I know people who do smoke, and when they do they are actually responsible in that they make a point not to drive straight away, but I also do think that it's likely that they've driven whilst still slightly 'affected.'

Eh, I've more to say, but that is probably the biggest reason for me on not legalizing marijuana. 

:wink:

Around here we have the RIDE program (Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere). Basically, around the weekends, holidays, etc., the cops set up checkpoints at likely places, talk to drivers, use roadside screening devices, etc. Very effective, both for catching drunk drivers and as a deterrant.

What is interesting is that they also pick up quite a few pot smokers as well, with a pretty obvious smell of smoke lingering around the car, not to mention paraphernalia and usually a stash in the glovebox or the console.

People are smoking and driving. Right now, they can be charged with possession. If that were not the case, it is true that there is no easy and effective way for cops to measure THC in the blood as there is for alcohol, or a definite number that is too much. That, to me, makes legalization impossible.

This study  (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/driving.htm) confirms that THC levels can't be reliably tested in blood samples even when the subject is still impaired.  It also confirmed that the impairment effect of THC on driving was less than alcohol, although still measurable.

The problem with legalization is that we really can't predict what the effect on society would be.  It's all theoretical, extrapolating from studies and from the Dutch experience, which may not translate to other cultures.  That's why I favor decriminalization rather than legalization.

Of course, de facto decriminalization may already be upon us, because the government simply doesn't have the resources to go after millions of American recreational pot smokers.  I doubt most people caught with small amounts of marijuana for personal use suffer much of a penalty in reality; there's no space to put all of them in jail.  So, maybe I'm for the status quo after all.

QuoteThe problem with this argument that you and I are having is that you are arguing from your personal experience, and there's no way for me to counter that without attacking your credibility, which I wouldn't want to do.

All in all, the arguement made FOR MJ is largely "I didn't see it, so it didn't happen" when it comes to the uglier side of the drug, which is exactly the situation you describe. Your lack of the same experiences I have do not discredit mine, as you have pointed out.

QuoteIt also confirmed that the impairment effect of THC on driving was less than alcohol, although still measurable.

Keep in mind that those types of tests removes some key elements, just removing the fear of getting busted makes quite a difference. Also, I didn't see anything comparing levels of intoxication to those of alcohol. For all I know those tests could only show the reactions of a person with the mildest of contact highs, which obviously wouldn't mean much. I read through it, , but didn't see anything describing levels of intoxication or such, or if I did, I didn't understand it. It's a bummer they worded it so damn boring and official, it makes it hard to weed through and make sense of.

Yes, I've felt that pot should have been legalized quite some time ago.

(http://www.code7r.org/inquiz/0502/images/yoda4.jpg)

Quote from: ghouck on September 09, 2008, 04:35:47 PM

QuoteThe problem with this argument that you and I are having is that you are arguing from your personal experience, and there's no way for me to counter that without attacking your credibility, which I wouldn't want to do.

All in all, the arguement made FOR MJ is largely "I didn't see it, so it didn't happen" when it comes to the uglier side of the drug, which is exactly the situation you describe. Your lack of the same experiences I have do not discredit mine, as you have pointed out.

QuoteIt also confirmed that the impairment effect of THC on driving was less than alcohol, although still measurable.

Keep in mind that those types of tests removes some key elements, just removing the fear of getting busted makes quite a difference. Also, I didn't see anything comparing levels of intoxication to those of alcohol. For all I know those tests could only show the reactions of a person with the mildest of contact highs, which obviously wouldn't mean much. I read through it, , but didn't see anything describing levels of intoxication or such, or if I did, I didn't understand it. It's a bummer they worded it so damn boring and official, it makes it hard to weed through and make sense of.

Keep in mind that I'm not arguing FOR marijuana per se, we're only talking about how damaging it is to society, and what kind of social policy we should adopt to deal with its problems.   I'm not some pothead, I haven't smoked any in well over a decade and I don't have any plans or desire to return to it.

The authors of the study are aware that the study can't replicate actual field conditions: "Although THC's adverse effects on driving performance appeared relatively small in the tests employed in this program, one can still easily imagine situations where the influence of marijuana smoking might have a dangerous effect; i.e., emergency situations which put high demands on the driver's information processing capacity, prolonged monotonous driving, and after THC has been taken with other drugs, especially alcohol. Because these possibilities are real, the results of the present studies should not be considered as the final word."

The comparison with alcohol comes from study 3: "For comparative purposes, another group of 16 regular users of alcohol, but not marijuana, were treated with a modest dose of their preferred recreational drug, ethanol, and again placebo, before undertaking the same city driving test... Table 1 shows that a modest dose of alcohol (bac=0.034 g%) produced a significant impairment in city driving, relative to placebo. More specifically, alcohol impaired both vehicle handling and traffic maneuvers. Marijuana, administered in a dose of 100 g/kg THC, on the other hand, did not significantly change mean driving performance as measured by this approach. "

It is hard to read reports like these, though, and even harder to draw real life conclusions from them.  Obviously, no one believes that toking up and driving is a good idea.

I guess what I am asking is where in the grand scale of things are the levels of THC they speak of? I'm not getting a "THIS is a small amount, typical of a casual user, THIS is how much one would expect if they were doing so FOR intoxication, THIS is some frat boy trying to set a record, THIS much scares Kieth Richards" feel for the amounts they describe, which I guess is a hard one to articulate.

I can't answer that.  They talk about blood plasma levels of THC and so on.  But I assume since they were from the US Dept. of Transportation that they used levels they thought would produce useful results.  Anyway, I originally only cited the study because it confirmed that the scientists couldn't detect THC levels in people who were obviously still intoxicated, a point AndyC brought up.

I never smoked weed or did any drug for that matter (Besides beer) but I would legalize it. I remember back in college one of my professors had a huge discussion about how MJ was bad. I just kept thinking "Man alcohol is way worse than this."