Should marijuana be legalized?

[Dasquian Belargic]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/23/BAO416354C.DTL&type=politics&tsp=1


(02-23) 17:50 PST SACRAMENTO -- California would become the first state in the nation to legalize marijuana for recreational use under a bill introduced Monday by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco.

The proposal would regulate marijuana like alcohol, with people over 21 years old allowed to grow, buy, sell and possess cannabis - all of which is barred by federal law.

Ammiano, a Democrat in his third month as a state lawmaker, said taxes and other fees associated with regulation could put more than a billion dollars a year into state coffers at a time when revenues continue to decline.

He said he thinks the federal government could soften its stance on marijuana under the Obama administration.

"We could in fact have the political will to do something, and certainly in the meantime this is a public policy call and I think it's worth the discussion," Ammiano said. "I think the outcome would be very healthy for California and California's economy."

A spokeswoman for the Drug Enforcement Agency in Washington, D.C., declined to comment on the proposal. A White House spokesman referred to a statement on a question-and-answer section of an Obama transition team blog that says the president "is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana."

While Californians have shown some tolerance for marijuana, such as use for medical conditions with voters' passage of Proposition 215 in 1996, the proposal will face tough opposition in Sacramento.

A lobbyist for key police associations in the state called it "a bad idea whose time has not come."

"The last thing our society needs is yet more legal intoxicants," said John Lovell, who represents the California Peace Officers' Association, California Police Chiefs Association and California Narcotic Officers' Association. "We've got enough social problems now when people aren't in charge of all five of their senses."

But Ammiano's proposal has the support of San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey, who said the idea "should be the subject of legislative and public debate."

It also has the backing of Betty Yee, who chairs the state Board of Equalization, which collects taxes in California. An analysis by the agency concluded the state would collect $1.3 billion a year in tax revenue and a $50-an-ounce levy on retail sales if marijuana were legal.

The analysis also concluded that legalizing marijuana would drop its street value by 50 percent and increase consumption of the substance by 40 percent.

A spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, which advocates for reform in marijuana laws and is backing Ammiano's proposal, said any expected increase in consumption is a "false notion."

"They are making an intuitive assumption that a lot of people make that really does not have that much evidence behind it," said Bruce Mirken, the group's spokesman, who predicted it could take up to two years before the idea wins legislative approval.

"Don't tell me that doing something like (this) proposal is going to introduce another drug into society. That's a load of bull."

Yes, no, drugs are bad?

[Charley]

Even my very conservative parents say the stuff should be legalized. I really can't think of a good reason why it shouldn't be.

[Morgan Evanar]

bbbbbut reefer madness!

[Xavier Synik]

I think it should be in the same stream as alcohol.

Legalized, controlled to some degree, and users have to follow the same laws around smoking it as you do around drinking too much (ie. Driving while impaired, etc)

I was actually making the tax raising argument to someone a week or so ago after seeing a news report or 60 Minutes report or something... anyway. They were throwing out numbers like that the government was spending $25 Million annually to fight pot (just pot not other drugs) and meanwhile it was a multi-billion dollar business of selling the stuff....

So how can governments not look at NOT spending $25 Million, plus MAKING Billions of dollars in tax revenue on something that doesn't result in much more then anything but a fine these days, and come up with how legalizing it is a bad thing...?

I don't get it. Mind you, your going to have a hell of a time for a while with black market pot even if you legalize it because there is such an underground of it already, but I get the feeling that a lot of people will find it a lot easier to walk down to the corner store to grab some weed rather then having to find the underground dealer.

[Razielle Alastor]

Absolutely.

[Mandy with an I]

As far as I know, you're allowed to have less than four ounces in your home for personal use (link!) (http://www.lawyersontario.com/news.cfm/Article/66146/NEW-MARIJUANA-LAWS.html) in Ontario.

I don't smoke, but I know tons of people old and young who do. I only have a problem with people who do nothing BUT get baked (IE. people who live off welfare and just smoke pot all day instead of getting a job, etc. Know a few of those people too).

[Nathanial K'cansce]

Wow, am I the only one to vote no? Awesome.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

You are not alone Snacky!

[Dasquian Belargic]

For those interested, here are links to full HTML and PDF versions of Bill 390:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0351-0400/ab_390_bill_20090223_introduced.html
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0351-0400/ab_390_bill_20090223_introduced.pdf

For those of you who voted 'No', what are your main reasons for objecting?

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I've seen what it does to people and those around them and I don't like it and I don't think that the government should make money off of it. Also the thought of people on the government's dole laying around getting baked, legally, just irks me as an honest taxpayer.

Of course the welfare system irks me in general. So its mostly the former.

[Dasquian Belargic]

But don't people do that kind of thing with alcohol anyway?

[Istina Chriferre]

I voted no, simply because I've seen what marijuana can do. It's not as malevolent as alcohol I would say, though I've seen some pretty bad things from alcohol as well. My brothers are still very much into the stuff, but what happened was that they didn't stop there. The thing is, marijuana really does lead to other things; I scoffed at the idea of a "gateway drug" at first as well, but I've seen firsthand what drug addiction can do to a person with the proper temperament.

I also disagree with drug culture as a whole. If you're looking for enlightenment or communion with higher beings, there're other ways to go about it without having to use drugs; I consider it a cheap shortcut, and very dangerous when used in that context. And for those just looking to chill, well, I place the same answer: a shortcut to a more fulfilling way of working through to chill-ness of yourself.

[Tear]

It's a tough subject. I live in B.C, Canada which is like one of the pot smoking capitols of the world. So most of my friends (and family) smoke/grow it casually.

I see both points of view, on one hand you have alcohol and cigarettes (literally an addictive poison) that are legal for consumption.

BUT if you had the choice to ban cigarettes, would you? I know I would. I don't smoke and I personally think they're disgusting to even be around. I don't have anything against people who do smoke just don't blow it in my direction.

I do drink though. So if someone banned alcohol I'd be pretty upset about it.

Legalizing cannabis though? People who smoke it already wouldn't really have anything change for them. Other then they could pop down to a corner store and buy it rather then driving over to their dealers.

One bad thing I could see is with it being legal it would also become very easy to obtain. Which gives a trickle down affect. More people getting stoned, kids, parents, people who would normally never try it could become addicted to it.

Is that something we as a society really need? People who want it or need it already get it.

Then again, we are a pretty high strung society...maybe it would be good for us:lol

[Dasquian Belargic]

One bad thing I could see is with it being legal it would also become very easy to obtain. Which gives a trickle down affect. More people getting stoned, kids, parents, people who would normally never try it could become addicted to it.

I just can't help but think that you could say the same thing about alcohol or cigarettes. Underage drinking is ridiculously common here (I don't know anyone who didn't start drinking alcohol when they were about 13). If people want to try something, they will find a way to try it - and at least this way, with the educational elements of the Bill, people would be getting taught openly about the risks involved, and the drugs would get regulated inside of being potential laced with unknown stuff like they can be now.

It's easy to assume that everyone would start smoking, drop out of school/work, and become pot-zombies... but I don't think we give the world at large enough credit when we think like that. It's a very cynical mindset, and I guess it might have been the same kind of thoughts that ran through people's heads when alcohol was prohibited - "Oh god if we give them booze they'll all quit their jobs and become drunks!"

[CMJ]

George freaking Washington grew the stuff(it was a crop they made rope out of), and there is alot of evidence that he indeed smoked it to ease the pain of his famously bad teeth.

If the father of our country smoked it.....

[Morgan Evanar]

If you think it's difficult to obtain well then you're too ignorant to speak on the matter.

I voted no, simply because I've seen what marijuana can do. It's not as malevolent as alcohol I would say, though I've seen some pretty bad things from alcohol as well. My brothers are still very much into the stuff, but what happened was that they didn't stop there. The thing is, marijuana really does lead to other things; I scoffed at the idea of a "gateway drug" at first as well, but I've seen firsthand what drug addiction can do to a person with the proper temperament.
Sharp knives should be banned because some people stab other people with them.

I've seen people who only enjoyed ganja. Gateway drug is a nonsense argument and always falls apart in studies. Alcohol may as well be called a gateway drug. Since weed is more harmless than alcohol and actually has some viable medical purposes...

[Rossos Atrapes]

If you think it's difficult to obtain well then you're too ignorant to speak on the matter.

I voted no, simply because I've seen what marijuana can do. It's not as malevolent as alcohol I would say, though I've seen some pretty bad things from alcohol as well. My brothers are still very much into the stuff, but what happened was that they didn't stop there. The thing is, marijuana really does lead to other things; I scoffed at the idea of a "gateway drug" at first as well, but I've seen firsthand what drug addiction can do to a person with the proper temperament. Sharp knives should be banned because some people stab other people with them.

I've seen people who only enjoyed ganja. Gateway drug is a nonsense argument and always falls apart in studies. Alcohol may as well be called a gateway drug. Since weed is more harmless than alcohol and actually has some viable medical purposes...


I don't doubt that you have seen people who have only enjoyed ganja; I have as well. But studies bedamned, I've seen what can happen, and it did lead to LSD (which had been shipped across the US in the Postal Service... Federal Crime, anyone? |I), and cocaine. Marijuana does have medical purposes I will concur, but to allow free use is in my opinion a bad idea. If there had been a "limited legalisation" option, I would have chosen that.

But people don't use things in moderation, even if they should, and I for one wouldn't vote for the full legalisation of another intoxicant. In the end though, my experiences with the stuff have been mostly negative, and that colours my perception of it dramatically.

[Park Kraken]

I'm rabidly anti-drug, so I voted "No", but I can see some good things coming out of this. Black market dealers and smugglers will be out of buisness on the California border, and it may help the problems concerning street gangs in Los Angeles if the black market values and avialability disappear overnight.

Marijuana is probably the least dangerous drug that is illegal right now, but I hope if they do legalize it, that they won't be tempted to somewhat legalize the more dangerous drugs, like coke and meth, etc.

[Dasquian Belargic]

Cocaine, heroin, ecstacy, etc are in a different league to marijuana. There is no reason why they should be considered in the same breath.

[Loklorien s'Ilancy]

It's true, there are going to be those who take things far past moderation, but let's face it. There's always going to be a small group of nimrods in every aspect of life, and the drug culture is no exception. I think that casual drug use is fine personally, and for many people, marijuana is an enjoyable way to decompress after the day's work is done.

Is it for everyone? Not at all. Some folks have an addictive personality and something like pot isn't the best sort of habit to encourage them to take up.

It's also my opinion that if it is legalized, there's not going to be any sort of huge spike upwards in pot use; in fact, I have to wonder if it might go down just a bit seeing as how it would no longer be a viable way to 'stick it to the man' :shrug



edit - ecstasy is an awful grey area for me, and I can't really see it as being as terrible as meth or coke. In fact, it used to be completely legal and was used by psychiatrists years back. The 'zomg X makes holes in your brain' hoopla has been debunked for a long time now, and it's nowhere near as addictive as meth. It's a fantastic for helping two people bond mentally, and many couples use it to feel more in tune with each other. Don't confuse X with rohypnol (date-rape drug) either, as both cause completely different effects in people.

I could go on, but this thread isn't about X ^_^;

[Nathanial K'cansce]

So, my main reason fro saying no is purely based on personal morals and opinions of the following:

Any smoke inhalation + lungs = bad. To be fair, I think cigarettes are 10x worse than the weed, and would like to see them made illegal.

In all honesty, a drug is a drug is a drug, whether it's caffeine, nicotine, meth, pot, alcohol, whatever. The chance for addiction is always there with anything, and is really a person by person measure. If someone is going to consciously put something potentially harmful into their systems, legal or not, it's their choice.

[Morgan Evanar]

I don't doubt that you have seen people who have only enjoyed ganja; I have as well. But studies bedamned, I've seen what can happen, and it did lead to LSD (which had been shipped across the US in the Postal Service... Federal Crime, anyone? |I), and cocaine. Marijuana does have medical purposes I will concur, but to allow free use is in my opinion a bad idea. If there had been a "limited legalisation" option, I would have chosen that.

But people don't use things in moderation, even if they should, and I for one wouldn't vote for the full legalisation of another intoxicant. In the end though, my experiences with the stuff have been mostly negative, and that colours my perception of it dramatically.Why did it "lead" to LSD? Please explain the process.

[Mandy with an I]

I had a friend in HS who smoked pot, went onto LSD and god knows what else. I know other people who only smoke weed, so I think it has more to do with peoples' personalities then anything else.

IMO, if you're an idiot and you want to kill yourself with drugs (or cigarettes, or boozes, or anything), go for it.

My mother worked in addictions for 12 years, so I have met junkies and people who've done far worse than weed. We have a family friend who was a heroin addict - I'd rather him smoke pot then shoot up.

[Crusader]

Sharp knives should be banned because some people stab other people with them.

This might sound funny to you but knives that do not fullfill a normal purpose or are longer than a certain length are not allowed to carry around in public in Germany... but our laws concerning weapons are pretty strict.
I voted NO for legalizing it in general but I think the plant might be usefull in the medical department when it is supervised properly.
Oh and I say NO even though I have consumed a handfull of joints when I was a teenager.

[Morgan Evanar]

Sharp knives should be banned because some people stab other people with them.

This might sound funny to you but knives that do not fullfill a normal purpose or are longer than a certain length are not allowed to carry around in public in Germany... but our laws concerning weapons are pretty strict.
I voted NO for legalizing it in general but I think the plant might be usefull in the medical department when it is supervised properly.
Oh and I say NO even though I have consumed a handfull of joints when I was a teenager.And you sure hurt people other than yourself getting baked.

[Pierce Tondry]

Well, you can if you get behind the wheel of a car while baked. The question is, and has always been, responsible behavior before, during, and after the use of any drug.

Marijuana legalization is primarily a non-issue to my mind. I don't see particularly good arguments/evidence on either side of the do/don't fence. When that's the case, I default to my general perspective of "individual right to choose".

The bottom line: I wouldn't vote it down, but I don't care enough to get it voted on.

[Wyl Staedtler]

I vote yes. :)

As with anything, moderation and common sense (ought to) come into play but I'm of the opinion that marijuana is on the same level as alcohol.

[Figrin D'an]

What I perhaps find most ridiculous about the current US laws banning marijuana is that all hemp is included in the ban.

Cannabis sativa subsp. indica is, essentially, the only variety that is useful in making everyone's favorite recreational drug. Most members of the Cannabis genus, including most forms of Cannabis sativa, do not contain anywhere near the amount of THC to produce a psychoactive effect. Hemp has a crazy number of legitimate and valuable uses, yet the United States is the only industrialized nation that prohibits it's growth for industrial use. Hemp growth was legal in the US during World War II in order to replace the imported hemp that was lost when the Japanese took control of much of the South Pacific island chains.

At the very least, the law needs to be re-written to allow hemp for industrial use. It can grow just about anywhere, grows quickly, and could be used in place of a lot of petroleum derivatives needed for products like certain grades of fuel oil and even certain type of polymer resins (rather than using things like corn, which is needed for food production). Not to mention that it can be made into paper relatively easily and cheaply.

Completely putting the debate over "recreational Cannabis" aside, I think it's pretty easy to see how completely asinine current US law is regarded it.

[Cat X]

No, absolutly not. But not because weed and drugs are evil. There's a real issue that I think needs to be addressed outside of that.

If we knew what smoking does to the body now (if it was a new product), it would be banned in a nanosecond. Dont kid yourself, weed is not this fairly harmless drug - it is destructive to yourself, your brain, your lungs and to others. Especaially something like the hydroponic Aussie gold, that stuff DOES cause mental problems. It's a few orders more potent. And also the social issues of an addict are pronounced. It is in the order of an alcoholic - and alcohol probaly should be better regulated in the first place.

And I add, I would love to see a complete ban on smoking regular cigarettes.

But okay, tobacco is legal. So is alcohol. Weed isnt. Hmmmmm. But okay, that to me isnt the real issue anymore.

What to me the issue is, is not wether weed is a fucked up drug or what order of fucked up it is, it is the policing of said drug. That is truly wrong. Whilst I would say your a idiot if you take it (I'll happily say it to your face too, because you are) it's not a criminal offence to stuff your body fll of other drugs, is it? Alcohol, tobacco, inhalents, glue, horse poo, carbon monoixde, hell come on the list of recreation highs are huge and you dont get thrown in jail for THEM. So why evil weed? Or cocaine? Or heroin? Sure your a right fool, but you can get hit hard by criminal reparations? Sorry, that to me is where it breaks down. Go ahead and stuff your stupid head full of whatever noxious shit in your own home, grow your own, brew it, boil it, mash it, stick it in a stew - what's really wrong with that in your own home?

Okay I can think of a few things but really, if your not bashing the shit out of anyone, driving, whatever but on your bed zonked out or seeing pink bats or OD'ing that's your own problem and I cant see why it's got criminal implications.

From a medical and social prespective? Yes, should remain illegal. There's very good reasons for that.

Criminal implications? Now that's where we have an issue that needs fixing. And we should be dealing with the injustice and hypocricy of it.

[Travis North]

I can see the ads now. "Marijuana - I wasn't born retarded, but with a joint in my hand I'm getting there."

Governments only legalize addictive substances when they see an opportunity to make a whole lot of cash off it. See nicotine and alcohol as proof.

As far as use goes it is all a personal choice. My advise to those curious is to do some research before committing to trying it. May save you a whole lot of money and time.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Here the only way you can buy hard alcohol is if you buy it from the state. So they make all the money on it. I don't want to pay taxes to fund your marijuana addiction by subsidizing the agency that oversees the legal use of it. And I don't want to pay more money to the state for MORE drug and alcohol addiction programs that only work less than half of the time.

And if this was legal, that's what would happen, I'm fairly certain.

[CMJ]

In Oregon you can only buy hard alcohol from the state? That's bizarre.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Oregon Liquor Control Commission (http://www.oregon.gov/OLCC/) baby. Which is too bad, because my husband's line of work is in beer and wine distributing, and if we could sell liquor then he'd make a heck of a lot more money.

[Dasquian Belargic]

If this kind of Bill was passed, marijuana would be subject to taxing, for the people who actually buy. If you actually look at the Bill (I posted links to it earlier), you'll see that this money would actually be put towards education and rehabilitation, so you don't have to worry about your tax dollars going towards something so deviant.


34031. Any amount required to be paid to the state under this
part shall be paid to the board in the form of a remittance payable
to the State Board of Equalization. The board shall transmit the
payments to the Treasurer to be deposited in the Drug Abuse
Prevention Supplemental Funding Account, which is hereby created in
the General Fund. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, the moneys
in the fund shall be expended exclusively for drug education,
awareness, and rehabilitation programs under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, or any successor to that
agency.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

That's how it starts.

I'm just saying. Anyway, why sell something if you're just going to try to convince people not to do it anyway? Seems counter productive to me.

[Morgan Evanar]

Here the only way you can buy hard alcohol is if you buy it from the state. So they make all the money on it. I don't want to pay taxes to fund your marijuana addiction by subsidizing the agency that oversees the legal use of it.

And if this was legal, that's what would happen, I'm fairly certain.Or you could just let it be legal and not spend money on regulating it. Unless you have a debilitating allergy, it can't kill you.

And I don't want to pay more money to the state for MORE drug and alcohol addiction programs that only work less than half of the time. So what do you want done instead?

[Dasquian Belargic]

Why sell cigarettes? Why sell alcohol?

It shouldn't be up to the government to decide what you can and can't do with your own body. What the government should do is provide sufficient education, so people understand the risks involved, and also regulation to ensure that what is being sold is safer for consumption (i.e. not laced with all kinds of crap).

[Mandy with an I]

Yeah, but what about countries where it is legal? If it works for them, why couldn't it work for the US?

People are going to do drugs, legal or not. If the government can tax it or police it, why is that so bad?

Edit - see above post.

[CMJ]

Alcohol and cigarettes are more destructive to the body as well. Those are legal.

And BTW - I don't drink or smoke anything.

[Darth Turbogeek]

Why sell cigarettes? Why sell alcohol?

It shouldn't be up to the government to decide what you can and can't do with your own body. What the government should do is provide sufficient education, so people understand the risks involved, and also regulation to ensure that what is being sold is safer for consumption (i.e. not laced with all kinds of crap).

a) Cigarettes would NOT be legal if they were introduced today. Alcohol has a safe limit so that might pass muster. The reason they are still allowed is cultural - the entire damn planet is hooked on those two and while cigarettes especially should be banned, I cant see how it's gonna work.

b) Oh yes it should. If a governemt is well aware that something is seriously harmful and idiots decide to do it anyway then yes, they should take steps to make sure idiots dont get hold of it - either with the banning or control thereof. Government ban harmful substances all the time and well they should. Why? Social costs, medical costs, burben on societies. If your like one of my ex-mates John who was a bright and good kid, responsible, educated but yet three years later due to weed became a pscytoic wife and child basher then frankly... no actually you dont have the right to decide what you can stuff in your body. Especially when your bloody 6 year old ends up in hospital with compound fractures of the legs, arm and chest.

Now while I said of course in the shelter of your own home, snuff and puff whatever........ there is a balance and a difference of perspective to be had. Of course governments should stop the sale of noxious substances. Of course they should prevent the illegal drug industry - not in the way they are doing it of course, but it's still somethign to be dealt with. But they should not be making it a criminal offence to use.


Yeah, but what about countries where it is legal? If it works for them, why couldn't it work for the US?


Actually, there's real doubts it works at all. Ansterdam has some real problems due to drug use that they are clamping down on. The UK is winding back freedom laws. Australia is also winding back a few laws as well. I'm afraid the drugs = ok experiment may not have gone the way the pro drugs lobby thought it would.

As much as I vehemently disgree with Holly on a range of issues, this one she has it pretty much nailed right in regards to the social and economic costs. Alcohol and tobacco are a very big drain on medical services and the money the gvoerments get from tax collection on them both does not cover the real costs that both inflict on society.

The thing that chills me most about tobacco and why I really cant understand why we arent being a good deal more harsh on that one is seeign someone die due to lung cancer caused by smoking. GG, we actually still allow this damn industry to prosper???? What the HELL are we as a society thinking?????

[Stern]

Maybe they're not. I got to admit, I have never seen since in someone willingly choosing to partake of something that is guaranteed to kill you. Every smoker I have ever met comes along with a "I chose to die of cancer" tag in my head. I also have a hard time taking smokers seriously when it comes to them discussing the things they do for their good health--dieting, exercise, etc.

But on the topic of Marijuana, I don't think it should be legalized. If I remember rightly, the stuff gets stored in your fat cells when you smoke it. And when your body burns off that fat, you get high again. In that case, I don't see how you could control something like that. Sure, people can get high in their own homes, but suppose they work a manual labor job. They get working, they burn fat, they get high, and then suddenly a guy who was sober and operating the crane or the bulldozer is now high on pot and operating the crane or bulldozer. It just seems untenable.

[Morgan Evanar]

As much as I vehemently disgree with Holly on a range of issues, this one she has it pretty much nailed right in regards to the social and economic costs. Alcohol and tobacco are a very big drain on medical services and the money the gvoerments get from tax collection on them both does not cover the real costs that both inflict on society.

The thing that chills me most about tobacco and why I really cant understand why we arent being a good deal more harsh on that one is seeign someone die due to lung cancer caused by smoking. GG, we actually still allow this damn industry to prosper???? What the HELL are we as a society thinking?????Well, if you enforce it like the US does, the healthcare costs are absolutely dwarfed by enforcement costs.

[Cat X]

Well, if you enforce it like the US does, the healthcare costs are absolutely dwarfed by enforcement costs.

I think we can all agree the present enforcement of drugs is seriously fucked up and needs to be rethought from scratch. Weed should be illegal to sell, but to possess and injest, this I am not so sure of. There's a good start in fixing the stupid and that's what Australia is moving to, where it is still illegal but you have a few grams and you are smoking it, your not going to be jailed. Which makes some sense. Get the big dealers, not the users. You can cultivate plants for personal use too. Your treated as an idiot, not as a criminal thence for personal use

It's not legal as I said, but then again, it's got some version of reality to it.

[Liam Jinn]

It's being sold no matter what the argument is, and less harmful than cigarettes, so why not tax it? Legalize it as far as I'm concerned. At least we know it wouldn't be grown with poisonous substances, or have other harmful drugs added to it if the government regulates it.

Yes, THC is stored in your fat cells. No you will not get high because your body breaks the fat down. It's in such small amounts that we're talking about, it just doesn't happen.

[Park Kraken]

Get the big dealers, not the users.

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. The problem for us is that most of the drugs come from outside the country, either smuggled in via land through Mexico, or by boat from Central/South American countries.

It bugs me that those drug lords sit there in mansions with tons of wealth gathered through selling drugs to American youths in something that could be considered biological warfare, and are allowed to get away with it.

I mean sure, we might could assassinate one and make it look like a rival gang did it, but then he would just be replaced by his second in command, who would probably be just as good at it.

And lord forbid a military option, such as firebombing the pot fields. We'd recieve more negative criticism from the world media over than what Russia recieved for teaching Georgia a lesson over territory violations.

[Morgan Evanar]

It seems to me that there is a vast misunderstanding and lumping together of marijuana with other drugs.

It's not that dangerous. It has many medicinal uses. It's healthier than alcohol and cigs.



It bugs me that those drug lords sit there in mansions with tons of wealth gathered through selling drugs to American youths in something that could be considered biological warfare, and are allowed to get away with it.Yeah man the drug war sure has worked.