Go, Willie!

I debated whether to even put this in the news section, because really, is it even news that Willie Nelson has drugs on his tour bus?
FROM CNN.COM

LAFAYETTE, Louisiana (AP) -- Willie Nelson and four others were issued misdemeanor citations for possession of narcotic mushrooms and marijuana after a traffic stop Monday morning on a Louisiana highway, state police said.

The citations were issued after a commercial vehicle inspection of the country music star's tour bus, state police said in a news release.

"When the door was opened and the trooper began to speak to the driver, he smelled the strong odor of marijuana," the news release said.

A search of the bus produced 11/2 pounds of marijuana and 0.2 pounds of narcotic mushrooms, according to state police.

A call to Nelson's publicist wasn't immediately returned.

Also cited were Tony Sizemore, 59, of St. Cloud, Florida; Bobbie Nelson, 75, of Briarcliff, Texas; Gates Moore, 54, of Austin, Texas; and David Anderson, 50, of Dallas, Texas.

Each was released after being issued a citation.

Nelson, 73, has recorded songs including "On the Road Again" and "City of New Orleans."

Apparently he got lucky it was in Louisiana:

http://www.la-legal.com/marijuana.htm

Quote:

---

Unlike most states, the amount of marijuana in possession, as long as it is less than sixty pounds, does not matter

---

Here in Florida, that’s a felony with intent to distribute charge.

The amount of money and resources spent on keeping marijuana illegal is ridiculous. Someone needs to sack up and get these laws changed. And I don’t buy the gateway drug bullshit. You could say the same about caffeine, nicotine, or alcohol.

I'm with you, Hex. Weed is so prevalent by now that it is as ridiculous as the prohibition of alchohol in the 1920's. You simply can't tell your people not to do something they really want to do unless you want to put them all in jail.

Here in California, more than an once and they can get you for being a drug dealer, even though your not selling it.

This link popped up in a thread over at Metafilter about this:

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015767.html

Quote:

---

Enforcing marijuana prohibition costs taxpayers between $10 billion and $12 billion annually and has led to the arrest of nearly 18 million Americans. Nevertheless, some 94 million Americans acknowledge having used marijuana during their lives. It makes no sense to continue to treat nearly half of all Americans as criminals for their use of a substance that poses no greater - and arguably far fewer - health risks than alcohol or tobacco.

---

Its hard to disagree.

I know this issue is off topic for this site, but it's something that has been on my mind for quite some time. I'm not sure what can be done to change these laws, but imprisoning non violent drug users does nothing to help society (unless you count the $$ going to lawyers and law enforcement).

I know I would much rather have my tax money going to preventing things like 9/11 then keeping the next door neighbors 19 year old son in jail for 6 months for having a couple onces of weed on him at a traffic stop.

Forget about the weed(damn random drug tests) I'll take the shrooms. :smiley29:

...they found a pound and a half of marijuana on willie's tour bus... Willie's cutting back.


...they found mushrooms on the bus. Willie's really worried about this. He's afraid he's going to have to spend the rest of 1969 in jail.

I wrote Willie a letter one time. Cool thing about was he wrote me back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hex1848

I know this issue is off topic for this site, but it's something that has been on my mind for quite some time. I'm not sure what can be done to change these laws, but imprisoning non violent drug users does nothing to help society (unless you count the $$ going to lawyers and law enforcement).

---

In a similar vein, I've become annoyed with every state creeping its legal blood alcohol level lower and lower and lower. I'm much less concerned about the guy that had 2 drinks on his way home from work... I'm concerned about the guy driving down the wrong side of the sidewalk.

It seems we're so obsessed with "getting tough on ____" that we fail to apply logic...

He should have told them it was just for the Bio-Diesel on his bus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperChuck

In a similar vein, I've become annoyed with every state creeping its legal blood alcohol level lower and lower and lower. I'm much less concerned about the guy that had 2 drinks on his way home from work... I'm concerned about the guy driving down the wrong side of the sidewalk.

It seems we're so obsessed with "getting tough on ____" that we fail to apply logic...

---

Dude, logic holds that the difference between 2 drinks (the universal answer to any policeman's inquiry) and driving down either side of the sidewalk DOES NOT EXIST WITHOUT THOSE FIRST TWO DRINKS HAVING BEEN CONSUMED FIRST. :smiley22: Hopefully, they'll creep the BAC all the way down to Zero Tolerance. Right now, people drinking and driving are wiping out more lives than all the other drivers under the influence of all the other drugs combined. Rarely, if ever, is anyone stopped and cited for DUI/DWI after 2 drinks (unless s/he is a minor, for whom zero tolerance laws do exist. In Texas, anything detectable [even the smell] may warrant a DUI, which is a class C misdemeanor. At the officer's discretion, they may demand sobriety tests, and cite for DWI, the more serious offense). It just does not happen. Those who say it has happened to them are lying/in denial. :smiley24:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhiteWidow

He should have told them it was just for the Bio-Diesel on his bus.

---

Good one. :smiley36:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basil

Right now, people drinking and driving are wiping out more lives than all the other drivers under the influence of all the other drugs combined.

---

This is a problem. However, accessibility must be considered. Sure other things are readily available, but many won't take the chance because of legal issues....yet they'll drive intoxicated. Go figure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by designwise1

While we are on (kinda) this subject... why is it more illegal to smoke an ISOM than a jo!nt? I mean, is someone has a pipe big enough to hold an island.... they should be allowed to smoke it. :smiley3:

Ok. That was just stupid. Forgive me...

---

Because by smoking an ISOM you are supporting the "enemy" (lol)
You are only supporting drug dealers, growers, gangs, meth cookers, etc by smoking pot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drew_goring

Because by smoking an ISOM you are supporting the "enemy" (lol)
You are only supporting drug dealers, growers, gangs, meth cookers, etc by smoking pot.

---

Yep, ISOM comes from communists. I believe General Jack D. Ripper put it best: Mandrake, have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water? Case and point, Commies don’t drink water, hence they don’t know squat about the Essence of life and purity. Actually you can find a whole litany of reasons why commies are bad by consulting Dr. Strangelove. Now while ISOM's come from commies, drugs come from terrorizing, manipulative drug lords, unless its weed or shrooms, then it comes from hippies, college kids or entrepreneurs(god bless free economy). But getting back to where all this started, I don’t like driving around people who have been drinking, but I really don’t like driving around generally bad drivers. With all the focus on stopping drunk drivers, people have forgotten about the other hazard on the road, bad drivers. I wish there was something as aggressive for them as for the drunks. Now I'm not saying I'm a perfect driver, but I strive to be. It seams, and I'm reminded of this on a daily basis, that not everyone strives to be a better, considerate and safe driver. Taxi drivers, diplomats, old people, fast people, 'king of the road people', young people, etc...

I always loved Willie....:smiley27: As for the drug problem in the USA, my vote is legalized all of it and tax it. Put the control back in to our hands with a well educated sociality that differed from before the 1914 Harrison ACT. Make some rules like you can not buy it until your 21 and have past a drug and alcohol pharmaceutical coarse of some kind that can be given in the last year of high school. Yes maybe more will become addicted to things they may normally would not have been addicted to, but we can build more hospitals and treatment programs with the money we make on taxes and the money we save jails police etc. Treat us all like adults, let us make our own decisions on what we place in our bodies. I know a lot of people would disagree with this and it is only my opinion. I see that the guide lines around the sale of it would have to be as strict as the sale of alcohol and the use of it may be limited to only in your private home. I just do not think it can get any worse and those who will abuse it are those who would have abused it anyhow. I rarely drink I do not smoke and the only drugs I take are given to me by a Doctor but my mind is open to another way of resolving this problem. If it doesn't make someone a lot of money there are not going to reproduce it in large quantities. Some how it needs to be devalued monetarily. OK I know I am going to get yelled at.......:smiley3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cinda

I always loved Willie....:smiley27: As for the drug problem in the USA, my vote is legalized all of it and tax it. Put the control back in to our hands with a well educated sociality that differed from before the 1914 Harrison ACT. Make some rules like you can not buy it until your 21 and have past a drug and alcohol pharmaceutical coarse of some kind that can be given in the last year of high school. Yes maybe more will become addicted to things they may normally would not have been addicted to, but we can build more hospitals and treatment programs with the money we make on taxes and the money we save jails police etc. Treat us all like adults, let us make our own decisions on what we place in our bodies. I know a lot of people would disagree with this and it is only my opinion. I see that the guide lines around the sale of it would have to be as strict as the sale of alcohol and the use of it may be limited to only in your private home. I just do not think it can get any worse and those who will abuse it are those who would have abused it anyhow. I rarely drink I do not smoke and the only drugs I take are given to me by a Doctor but my mind is open to another way of resolving this problem. If it doesn't make someone a lot of money there are not going to reproduce it in large quantities. Some how it needs to be devalued monetarily. OK I know I am going to get yelled at.......:smiley3:

---

:smiley32: :smiley32: :smiley32: :smiley32: :smiley32: :smiley32: :smiley32: :smiley32:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cinda

I always loved Willie....:smiley27: As for the drug problem in the USA, my vote is legalized all of it and tax it. Put the control back in to our hands with a well educated sociality that differed from before the 1914 Harrison ACT. Make some rules like you can not buy it until your 21 and have past a drug and alcohol pharmaceutical coarse of some kind that can be given in the last year of high school. Yes maybe more will become addicted to things they may normally would not have been addicted to, but we can build more hospitals and treatment programs with the money we make on taxes and the money we save jails police etc. Treat us all like adults, let us make our own decisions on what we place in our bodies. I know a lot of people would disagree with this and it is only my opinion. I see that the guide lines around the sale of it would have to be as strict as the sale of alcohol and the use of it may be limited to only in your private home. I just do not think it can get any worse and those who will abuse it are those who would have abused it anyhow. I rarely drink I do not smoke and the only drugs I take are given to me by a Doctor but my mind is open to another way of resolving this problem. If it doesn't make someone a lot of money there are not going to reproduce it in large quantities. Some how it needs to be devalued monetarily. OK I know I am going to get yelled at.......:smiley3:

---

Sounds like a good plan, now if we can get Cinda to run for office...

I'm with ya girl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cabaiguan Juan

Sounds like a good plan, now if we can get Cinda to run for office...

---

:smiley36: :smiley36: :smiley36: I really have some power !

I don't think legalizing drugs will stop any problems except you won't have jail punishment for drugs. I think there will still be corruption, still be addiction...demand would probably increase. Crime would increase overseas to meet the demand if narcotic production is illegal. I was thinking it is similar to guns. Guns don't kill people, it is the people who kill. Same with drugs. It is the people who choose to use. So the problem is with people, and solutions should start at the problem.
Edit - I think that one of the problems is that America is too lenient. We claim we want to have a war on drugs, yet all the punishment is is a slap on the hand, jail time, prison time...when the person using gets out they can go right back to what they were doing and hope not to "go back" to jail. If we want to stop drug usage, and I mean stop, then punishment must be more severe. First determine what is illegal. Since it is defined, if someone gets caught the first time, cut off their arm. If they get caught again, cut off their other arm. For a third time, kill them. I guarantee you will see a drop in drug usage in America. I know that this punishment is extreme and would never fly, but think about what my message is. If you still don't want to see that, check out this scenaro. Say children in school are getting sent to the principal's office because they are cussing. To stop the problem, do you make it ok for them to cuss so they won't get sent to the principal's office?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cls515

I don't think legalizing drugs will stop any problems except you won't have jail punishment for drugs. I think there will still be corruption, still be addiction...demand would probably increase. Crime would increase overseas to meet the demand if narcotic production is illegal. I was thinking it is similar to guns. Guns don't kill people, it is the people who kill. Same with drugs. It is the people who choose to use. So the problem is with people, and solutions should start at the problem.

---

It's already been shown that it REDUCES drug use, not increase it. Crime also goes down. It's just our Government that refuses to see the reality of the situation. Besides, it's been well established that prohibition of anything doesn't work.

Increasing the punishments will only make selling more lucrative. Bigger punishments, bigger payoffs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cls515

I don't think legalizing drugs will stop any problems except you won't have jail punishment for drugs. I think there will still be corruption, still be addiction...demand would probably increase. Crime would increase overseas to meet the demand if narcotic production is illegal. I was thinking it is similar to guns. Guns don't kill people, it is the people who kill. Same with drugs. It is the people who choose to use. So the problem is with people, and solutions should start at the problem.
Edit - I think that one of the problems is that America is too lenient. We claim we want to have a war on drugs, yet all the punishment is is a slap on the hand, jail time, prison time...when the person using gets out they can go right back to what they were doing and hope not to "go back" to jail. If we want to stop drug usage, and I mean stop, then punishment must be more severe. First determine what is illegal. Since it is defined, if someone gets caught the first time, cut off their arm. If they get caught again, cut off their other arm. For a third time, kill them. I guarantee you will see a drop in drug usage in America. I know that this punishment is extreme and would never fly, but think about what my message is. If you still don't want to see that, check out this scenario. Say children in school are getting sent to the principals office because they are cussing. To stop the problem, do you make it ok for them to cuss so they won't get sent to the principals office?

---

I am talking about adults who would be well versed though even higher levels of educations on drugs and made well aware of the general stigma that would be attached to it. As for limb removal for punishment? I think that will increase the need for our SSD budget and give the punished more opportunity to be unemployed and collecting. :smiley27:

I agree with Ben Stein on this one. Just like our government should help to curb the sale of anti-depressants and ridilin which are being sold like tic-tacs, we should never legalize any narcotic. Why, because our society already spends too much time avoiding real life and real issues by trying to smoke or drink them away. Now, why not prohibit beer then, since it is used for the same purpose?

Well, if all there were in our country were Anheiser and Miller, then I'd say fine, prohibit it, I can get just as much beer from my toilet or hose out back. But, because there are true culinarily great beers that serve a wonderful culinary purpose, much like wines, I say alcohol stays. (Though we should look in to making water-beer illegal :smiley2: )

Seriously though, our country uses TV and so many other things to avoid our own reality and problems (why do you think we want to know so bad when celebrities eat lunch or have babies, stuff we do everyday?), that making narcotics legal will only intensify this problem. Our world isn't getting any better and the solution isn't to smoke, shoot, snort the problem away, it's to wake up from our drug induced (pfizer or good ole' maui wowie) slumber and start facing reality and working on a solution.

I used to be for pot legalization, imagine the tax revenue, etc... But, Ben is right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cinda

As for limb removal for punishment? I think that will increase the need for our SSD budget and give the punished more opportunity to be unemployed and collecting. :smiley27:

---

Then just make an amendment. Drug related charges nullify the rights.

The simple fact that convinces me we should not punish the weed-heads out there is this: you cannot force the US populace to stop doing something with legislation and punishment, if they really, REALLY want to do it, and a large percentage of the populace is doing. The result of attempting to legislate against something like this is you criminalize their behavior and have to punish a huge number of Americans with all the costs, financial and other, involved.

I think a very large minority of Americans either have used weed, or do use it regularly. Even if it is only 5% who use it regularly, they continue to use it regularly in spite of it being illegal iwth consequences. For arguments sake let's say it is only 2% - that is six million Americans you have turned into criminals who you now have to punish if you catch them.

The reason that legislating against other kinds of behavior workwell - like theft, murder, rape, robbery, etc - is that the vast majority of us don't want to do those things and consider them reprehensible. They are an integral part of our social contract. I think the number of people using weed vastly outnumbers all other criminals combined, so we have to ask - is it worth all the resources we commit to the war on drugs such as weed?

I don't put hard drugs into the same category as weed. I think we're losing the war on weed, and will always lose it, we'll just keep pissing money away and millions, if not tens of millions of Americans, will continue to use it and take the risks involved.

Baka, I don't buy that logic because it cannot be applied universally. Murder/genocide was built into the social contract of the Weimer Republic as reprehensible. Didn't matter though did it, and Hitler legalized it. The majority of people were cool with it. So, it was right for Hitler to legalize it, and anytime the majority of people start committing a specific crime, we should legalize it.

My guess is that more people cheat on their taxes than smoke weed. So, by your logic, let's legalize cheating on taxes. More people steal in this country than smoke weed, so let's legalize it.

If you don't believe the number of people who steal I cite a few things: 1) Ask any internal auditor at a company about legitimate employee expenses , 2) ask any lawyer whether or not a 15 minute phone call counts as a billable hour, 3) ask how many people have tried the grapes at a grocery store before buying the bag. Yet, no one really considers these things "bad," they do them willingly, knowingly, and many even smile.

Edit: Forgot to add Drunk Driving, Speeding, Jay-Walking, etc...

Finally, if that's not enough to convince you, I give you slavery!!! The majority of people in our country considered it perfectly fine, they owned slaves willingly and knowingly. Yet, while the majority of people in this country still owned slaves, the federal government sought to make it illegal. Now, the civil war was the result of many things, but according to your logic, slavery should have stayed legal.

The question shouldn't be, how many are doing it that grants its legality, it should be, what kind of effect does this have on our society? And ask anyone in general if they're pro-doping away all of our problems, be they through "legal" pharma-coms or illegal drugs?

As I wrote earlier, I'm against all types of doping, be they "legal" or illegal. Unless there really is some crazy chemical imbalance in your body that cannot be regulated with supplements, and your kid really is overactive (and not because you've used the TV to babysit them up till this point, thus teaching them no attention span and giving them no physical energy outlet), then the govt. should prevent it all. Personally, I'd like to see the government go after the pharma-coms more than the do mary jane pushers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigMacFU

Baka, I don't buy that logic because it cannot be applied universally. Murder/genocide was built into the social contract of the Weimer Republic as reprehensible. Didn't matter though did it, and Hitler legalized it. The majority of people were cool with it. So, it was right for Hitler to legalize it, and anytime the majority of people start committing a specific crime, we should legalize it.

My guess is that more people cheat on their taxes than smoke weed. So, by your logic, let's legalize cheating on taxes. More people steal in this country than smoke weed, so let's legalize it.

If you don't believe the number of people who steal I cite a few things: 1) Ask any internal auditor at a company about legitimate employee expenses , 2) ask any lawyer whether or not a 15 minute phone call counts as a billable hour, 3) ask how many people have tried the grapes at a grocery store before buying the bag. Yet, no one really considers these things "bad," they do them willingly, knowingly, and many even smile.

Edit: Forgot to add Drunk Driving, Speeding, Jay-Walking, etc...

Finally, if that's not enough to convince you, I give you slavery!!! The majority of people in our country considered it perfectly fine, they owned slaves willingly and knowingly. Yet, while the majority of people in this country still owned slaves, the federal government sought to make it illegal. Now, the civil war was the result of many things, but according to your logic, slavery should have stayed legal.

The question shouldn't be, how many are doing it that grants its legality, it should be, what kind of effect does this have on our society? And ask anyone in general if they're pro-doping away all of our problems, be they through "legal" pharma-coms or illegal drugs?

As I wrote earlier, I'm against all types of doping, be they "legal" or illegal. Unless there really is some crazy chemical imbalance in your body that cannot be regulated with supplements, and your kid really is overactive (and not because you've used the TV to babysit them up till this point, thus teaching them no attention span and giving them no physical energy outlet), then the govt. should prevent it all. Personally, I'd like to see the government go after the pharma-coms more than the do mary jane pushers.

---

I see your point, but there are victims in all of the crimes you listed above. Where are the victims in drug use, specifically weed? I can take mind altering substances such as alcohol and damage myself, as long as I cause no damage to others, correct? So why can I not do so with other mind-altering substances? The benefit of banning such behavior far, far outweighs the costs. And remember, I am only speaking about weed, which is far less insidious and not addictive like drugs such as coke, heroin, etc.

A law is only as good as the people who uphold it.

A more common quote: A lock door keeps honest people out....:smiley27:

What we have here is some interesting hypocritical opinions.
Everyone wants to keep their drug of choice (nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, whatever) legal, while punishing everyone else for using their drug of choice.

As for drug use not hurting anyone, that's arguable, even with weed. But, we don't even need to go that far. The stealing doesn't technically hurt anyone, jay walking doesn't hurt anyone, speeding doesn't hurt anyone. It's only when these things go wrong that they hurt people. So, just like weed, these things aren't bad because in most cases they hurt no one. If every time somebody sped or jay walked they'd be hurt, we'd all be dead in this country.

As for DVM's point, he has a point, we all want certain "drugs" to stay legal while others do not (I don't think alcohol should be illegal, but believe pot should, caffeine as an additive too probably, most pharma-com "well-being" drugs, etc...). Is this hypocritical? Maybe, if we all end up being wrong about this issue and come to find it is a black and white issue, not a grey issue, then it is hypocritical. If it is a grey issue though, it's not hypocritical, it's just trying to find our best way through the fog.

As for Wise's idea that punishing and fines haven't worked yet, then we should never make anything illegal, in fact, eliminate any idea of punishment or social/civic justice because there has not been one society to ever be completely free of crime. Therefore, no punishment works, so why punish anything at all.

I'm not saying the solution to this problem is easy, I don't think we're all going to agree. I just want to make sure that whatever side you fall on, you're logically valid even within your own premises.

Who does weed hurt?
Stealing hurts people by depriving them of personal property.
Jay-walking hurts people by causing accidents. Speeding the same.
Weed only makes people want to call the pizza guy. Besides, the real problem with marijuana prohibition is the drastically disproportionate severity of the penalty when compared to the crime. When we take a look at the lack of crimes or accidents where marijuana use is actually involved, it makes no sense to jail, and otherwise fuck up the rest of someones life over it.

Possession or use of any drug should not be illegal. Driving under the influence...illegal. Why, because it potentially endangers someone elses life.

Edit: Totally forgot and haven't seen anyone mention this, but... Barry, this is a neo-con position you know. Granted it's been around with libertarians and other non-official party types. You my friend are surfin' in pure neo-con bliss on this one. Sorry, though it was funny. Not saying you can't hold this view because of that, just noting your bed fellows.

You said any drug. What about the hallucinogenic drugs that cause people to freak out and get violent on a consistent basis?

As for weed, does it cause damage, yes, ask people who run companies what happens to employees and their abilities that consistently smoke weed, look at statistics for driving under the influence of weed.

Percentage wise, more people speed and less people get hurt than people smoke and people get hurt. How is this true, anything over the limit, including 1 MPH is speeding, this occurs all the time, statistically if someone wanted to figure it out, I'm sure speeding is one of the least lethal things in the world. Sure, when something does go wrong, it usually goes pretty darn wrong. But, the majority of the time, nothing goes wrong, yet speeding is illegal in every case.

The question of enforcement is an whole other deal. Just ask the Netherlands, technically pot is illegal in all but one way (I believe consuming), to sell or purchase though I believe is illegal. The law is really funky whatever it may be. Either way, clearly the law isn't enforced. Just like jaywalking. I'm not saying let's just ignore it as if it were legal.

If you really think drug prohibition/allowance is a black and white issue, then I just won't agree, because I don't think all drugs should be legal, nor should they be all illegal. If that makes me a hypocrite in your view that's fine, I just find one of your premises false and so it doesn't matter to me.

As I wrote very early on, I'm against the numbing of our country through any type of mental anesthetic (not using the word technically), why, because I don't care to watch our society sink itself even further into its own hole. Terrorists and other countries would love to see this happen. Get a society hopped up enough on the right stuff, it's easy to control them, either through propaganda or force. And these terrorists could be our very own politicians or media conglomerates who want to control our every move that they may retain their power and wealth. Only way to fight the power is to be vigilant, and that ain't gonna happen if we buy into the corporate (formerly hippie) sentiment that it's okay to fight/ignore problems by doping them away. (hippies thought they were fighting the power by smoking up, but that didn't produce anything, clearly the problems of the 60's and 70's in govt./society still plague us today, thus I consider the doping effect to have effectively ignored attaining any solution).

Telling people they can not do something that they feel doesn't hurt anyone put themselves only makes them more proficient at hiding their behavior . It also creates tighter bonds and deeper secrets with the people making it all possible. The same people that are making all the money, and as you move up that ladder of secrets, ending in the same countries that we blame lots of our problems. The world you're so afraid of is all ready here. People are all ready knee deep in prescription drugs helping them cope with reality. The reality that the media on a daily bases keeps pumping into our heads desensitizing us right to the bone. I need to stop... anyhow it is not up to me so you do not have to worry. Willie keep singing!!!!!!!

:smiley36: I think it would be more a Libertarian view than neo-con. The neo-cons are staunchly against any legalization of marijuana, or any other "drug", including for medicinal use.
You'd be surprised by many of my political views. I'm also a gun owner, and am against most laws regulating ownership and use. I have several others, most of which can be attributed to my being raised, and living most of my life, in the Midwest.

Anyway, having some intimate knowledge of controlled substances, both from professional and personal experience, I find most of the hype and propoganda pushed by the Government/DEA to be complete bullshit. I know MANY professionals, in varied fields, who are regular users of marijuana. They continue to excell in their respective careers.

Let's look at the Netherlands and their treatment of marijuana as an example of harm reduction when sensible laws are in place. Marijuana use is actually lower than in the U.S.
LINK

Don't get me wrong, their are some really nasty drugs out there, but their prohibition, and the "War on Drugs", don't help, and there's ample evidence showing that it actually increases use.
Make the problem a social one, not legal, and stop disrupting the lives of innocent people unnecessarily.

At least stop fucking with old hippies.:smiley2:

It was my understanding that neo-cons were the south park republicans, the new generation, literally, of republicans. Not those in power right now, but the 18-35 year olds who are not in power but are voters. And, according to most 18-35 repubs, these neo-cons, they want marijuana legalized. The "neo-cons" who are in power now I really don't consider "neo," they aren't all that different from 80's repubs or 90's repubs.

My point about employee ability with mary jane is not to be taken by the stand out cases of those who have resistance or a body that isn't easily affected. I had many friends who were fine mentally while high. On the other hand, I had many more friends who could barely lift a finger except to reach for taco bell. Point is, I wouldn't want my surgery being performed by a high doctor. I don't want my finances done by a high accountant. Not because there doesn't exist anyone who can do these things perfectly well under the influence, but because I don't have the time to check everybody out I deal with every day. This problem becomes exacerbated with driving under the influence, especially because there is no such thing as a mary jane breathalyzer.

BTW, you sound less and less democrat with every post now Barry, so quit rooting for them and start rooting for independents and libertarians, you sound a lot more like Goldwater than you do Feinstein.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigMacFU

It was my understanding that Noe-cons were the south park republicans, the new generation, literally, of republicans. Not those in power right now, but the 18-35 year olds who are not in power but are voters. And, according to most 18-35 repubs, these neo-cons, they want marijuana legalized. The "neo-cons" who are in power now I really don't consider "neo," they aren't all that different from 80's repubs or W's repubs.

My point about employee ability with mary jane is not to be taken by the stand out cases of those who have resistance or a body that isn't easily affected. I had many friends who were fine mentally while high. On the other hand, I had many more friends who could barely lift a finger except to reach for taco bell. Point is, I wouldn't want my surgery being performed by a high doctor. I don't want my finances done by a high accountant. Not because there doesn't exist anyone who can do these things perfectly well under the influence, but because I don't have the time to check everybody out I deal with every day. This problem becomes exacerbated with driving under the influence, especially because there is no such thing as a mary jane breathalyzer.

BTW, you sound less and less democrat with every post now Barry, so quit rooting for them and start rooting for independents and libertarians, you sound a lot more like Goldwater than you do Einstein.

---

Don't you still run the risk of a drunk doctor, a drunk accountant and so on? How about your Doc's prescription sleep aide doesn't wear off before he begins surgery? We could go on and on and on the bottom line is someone pick out the "bad drugs" and said they were illegal. My guess is a group of men who decided that somehow they could make more money if certain drugs were illegal. Trust me this is all about money. The best thing about testing someone for marijuana is it is a fat soluble drug. That mean it stores in your fat cells and can remain in your body up to six months! I am sure your Doctor pee test will show how unfit he is for surgery. However, if he is with-drawing from alcohol poisoning you know the sweats the shakes etc. you know the only drug that with-drawing from can kill you. Well luck will have it that he will show up drug free and ready for your operation! Now hold still!:smiley27:

Actually Cinda, a couple beers in my surgeon is fine, snipers have a steadier hand after 2 drinks usually, same applies to doctors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigMacFU

Actually Cinda, a couple beers in my surgeon is fine, snipers have a steadier hand after 2 drinks usually, same applies to doctors.

---

smilessssss well you go first. However I was talking about showing up positive for a drug you might of done months ago and not withdrawing from based on a so called legal drunk that you just was doing the day before but showing up clean of and with drawing from. Over all what that looks like on paper and what the reality of the situation is very different. :smiley27:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigMacFU

It was my understanding that neo-cons were the south park republicans, the new generation, literally, of republicans. Not those in power right now, but the 18-35 year olds who are not in power but are voters. And, according to most 18-35 repubs, these neo-cons, they want marijuana legalized. The "neo-cons" who are in power now I really don't consider "neo," they aren't all that different from 80's repubs or 90's repubs.

My point about employee ability with mary jane is not to be taken by the stand out cases of those who have resistance or a body that isn't easily affected. I had many friends who were fine mentally while high. On the other hand, I had many more friends who could barely lift a finger except to reach for taco bell. Point is, I wouldn't want my surgery being performed by a high doctor. I don't want my finances done by a high accountant. Not because there doesn't exist anyone who can do these things perfectly well under the influence, but because I don't have the time to check everybody out I deal with every day. This problem becomes exacerbated with driving under the influence, especially because there is no such thing as a mary jane breathalyzer.

BTW, you sound less and less democrat with every post now Barry, so quit rooting for them and start rooting for independents and libertarians, you sound a lot more like Goldwater than you do Feinstein.

---

Actually about 75% of Americans think marijuana should be legal, in some way. Interesting how that number is almost identical to the percentage of Americans who've smoked marijuana at least once.
And, the neocons are those assholes in power now. They preach being conservative, but in reality, are anything but conservative.
I would much rather have a Doctor who smokes some weed work on me, than some damn alcoholic.

And, my politics still lean far liberal, even with a few things hitting more in the center. Just my support of things like SS, unions, and not letting complete retards run the Country, keep me firmly on the liberal side. :smiley2: