Marijuana arrests approach record high in US

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-10-29 04:28pm

Stormbringer wrote:Hoepfully sooner, it's harmful health effects (while pretty serious) don't justify the cost of the continuing prohibition of marijuana.

And banning it based on harmful effects to the user is kind of silly. We don't make cigarettes illegal, even though they contain significant amounts of nicotine which make them powerfully addictive (unlike marijuana, which doesn't cause chemical dependancy, just the same sort of psychological addiction that masturbation enthusiasts have), or hundreds of different nasty chemicals and material designed to get the nicotine into your system faster, but also happen to be toxic, like cyanide, ammonia, et cetera. People have said that marijuana is harder on your lungs than cigarettes. This is an amazing half truth. It is true that in fresh rolled tobacco versus fresh rolled Mary Jane, tobacco does less damage to your lungs on account of the fact that you don't hold the tobacco smoke in your lungs as long as you have to in order to get the effects of THC in your body. BUT that doesn't account for the myriad of other shit put into cigarettes, nor does it account for the fact that pot heads only need one doobie to really get the effect and they are set for an evening of finding things REALLY funny, while cigarette smokers may down a pack of sigs or more to prevent them from going into nicotine withdrawl. Which is more harmful, one doobies worth of smoke in the lungs versus twenty-four cigs worth of smoke? Hrm.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-10-29 04:29pm

Stormbringer wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:I know potheads who are apathetic losers. I also know potheads who are friendly, industrious, and intelligent.

Well if marijuana is harmful to the user why do you want it to be legal? since you admit it is harmful. You know what the difference between all of those crimes is? nothing they are ALL illegal.
There has never been a single recorded death due to marijuana use in the history of the United States. Tobacco, on the other hand, kills about four hundred thousand each year. Another fifty thousand people die each year from second-hand smoke. How many people die from 'second-hand cocaine'?
If you want to record deaths of secondary to smoking, there are plenty of car accidents (including the one that killed a cousin of mine) that have involved people that are high. Not to mention a life long marijuana habit stands to do more harm than tobacco given the greater levels of carcinoigens and other toxins.

It's hardly as harmless as the pro-pot crowd make it out to be.

Pot isn't harmless, but when used responsibly its effects are relatively mild. Pot may have high carcenogines then tobacco, but you smoke much less pot typically. As for car accidents, I agree that people should not be driving high (duh). But alchohol is the much bigger problem from a driving under the influence standpoint and I doubt that legalization of marijuana will change this much.

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2003-10-29 04:32pm

Pot isn't harmless, but when used responsibly its effects are relatively mild. Pot may have high carcenogines then tobacco, but you smoke much less pot typically. As for car accidents, I agree that people should not be driving high (duh). But alchohol is the much bigger problem from a driving under the influence standpoint and I doubt that legalization of marijuana will change this much.

my opinion is that, if cigs and alcohol are legal why isn't pot?

its no worse, it isn't much better, but its certainly no worse.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-29 06:49pm

Stormbringer wrote:If you want to record deaths of secondary to smoking, there are plenty of car accidents (including the one that killed a cousin of mine) that have involved people that are high. Not to mention a life long marijuana habit stands to do more harm than tobacco given the greater levels of carcinoigens and other toxins.

Let's look at it realistically, though. Why do people drive and smoke? Lots of times, it's because they can't smoke in their rooms or outside their homes, because it's illegal. Do you think nearly as many people would drive around and try to find an isolated spot to smoke pot if they could just step outside and light a joint up without fear of being arrested?

This of course, has no bearing on people who smoke pot like cigarettes, but a good deal of people who drive and smoke do so because they don't have any other place they can do it without risking getting busted.

It's hardly as harmless as the pro-pot crowd make it out to be.

It can certainly be harmful when abused, but the threat level of a casual pot smoker decreases significantly when he doesn't have to go to extremes to get high to avoid being arrested, like drive around looking for an isolated spot and then drive back.

I'd have no problems with a legal limit for smoking while driving, like there is for alcohol. It's a substance that has impairing effects on the user, so it should be regulated when it comes to operating heavy machinery. Hell, cell phones are.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-10-29 07:21pm

Death from the Sea wrote:As Jim Carey so brilliantly put it in the movie LIAR LIAR "STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSHOLE!" really that is as simple as it gets it is illegal so the folks possessing the stuff are breaking the law. Breaking the law is breaking the law you can't pick and choose what crimes to enforce and which ones not to, speeding, drinking underage, stealing or possessing illegal narcotics are all illegal and those 600,000 people knew it when they bought the drugs so they pay the price.

Can you say tautology? I knew you could. The argument isn't that they're not breaking the law--it's obvious that they are. THE LAW ITSELF IS WRONG.

Victimless crimes??? do you ever watch COPS ? the children of the dope-heads are the victims, the neighbors are the victims, random people walking down the street are victims.

Wow, so your evidence is a TV show. Why don't you come back to me with some numbers next time, and you might have something that bears a passing resembelence to an argument.

Oh wow, I've never heard this argument before. Quick, tell me the difference between breaking into someone's house or beating the shit out of your wife or getting drunked up and getting behind the wheel and smoking marijuana? That's right--smoking marijuana only harms the user!
Well if marijuana is harmful to the user why do you want it to be legal? since you admit it is harmful.

Because 1) the harm is poses is no more than that posed by alcohol, and 2) human beings have the right to do with their bodies as they wish so long as they don't harm others. If you're going to argue that everything that's harmful should be illegal, I expect that you're also going to argue for banning alcohol, tobacco, junk food, unprotected sex, and network television.

You know what the difference between all of those crimes is? nothing they are ALL illegal.

That's like saying there's no difference between the paint on my car, strawberry Jello, and blood because they're all red. Apparently you've decided to add irrevelant comparisons to your repertoir.

the stoners and pro-marijuana folks spread false rumors and propaganda as well, and why do people believe it? because they aren't the evil government out to get them

Got any evidence of these false claims, other than semanic quibbling over whether "less harmful than alcohol" means harmless?

A DWI is a DWI doesn't matter if it is pot or beer or crank they get booked for driving under the influence.

Then we have no problem then, do we? Well, except for the little matter that if urinalysis is the method used to determine if they're intoxicated, the police could very well be charging someone with DWI for a joint they smoked two weeks before.

And if we let the cost of punishing those who break the law dictate what laws we enforce, then how long before we start letting people off for more serious crimes that cost us more to imprison them for longer terms? I for one am not willing to go that route. The law is the law, break it and you risk being caught and having to pay the consequences.

And this is called the slippery slope, not to mention a little selective comprehension on your part. There are a number of reasons why marijuana should be legal, ONE OF WHICH is the cost of enforcement. Cost of enforcement wouldn't be a factor if smoking marijuana warranted criminal sanction, but it simply doesn't.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-10-29 09:35pm

If the Feds are determined to keep it illegal, why can't they at least make it a profitable venture by making it a non-jailable offense and slapping massive fines on people?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-10-29 10:11pm

RedImperator wrote:
Then we have no problem then, do we? Well, except for the little matter that if urinalysis is the method used to determine if they're intoxicated, the police could very well be charging someone with DWI for a joint they smoked two weeks before.

I doubt this is much of a problem either. A cop can still give a sobriety test which actually can hold up in court in the case of absense of a breathalizer or urine. This would have to be handled VERY carefully of course (maybe video evidence?) but it is possible. It certainly would be cheaper then drug enforcement.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-10-29 10:13pm

Uraniun235 wrote:If the Feds are determined to keep it illegal, why can't they at least make it a profitable venture by making it a non-jailable offense and slapping massive fines on people?

By doing this they would lose the potential profits of taxing the farmers. Besides, it sets the wrong precident which is that smoking pot is somehow harming the community. I don't think I need to point out that pot is a victimless crime, so why should we punish the farmers?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-10-29 10:21pm

A blood test might be able to test for THC directly, or short lived breakdown products, that would indicate intoxication. I'm not sure how possible that is.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-10-30 12:02am

Besides, it sets the wrong precident which is that smoking pot is somehow harming the community.

Um, isn't that precedent already in existance due to the fact you can go to jail for having too much pot on you?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-10-30 01:27am

Uraniun235 wrote:
Besides, it sets the wrong precident which is that smoking pot is somehow harming the community.
Um, isn't that precedent already in existance due to the fact you can go to jail for having too much pot on you?

There's also a precedent in the United States Constitution that says that black people are inferior to white people. Times change no?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-10-30 01:40am

It can certainly be harmful when abused, but the threat level of a casual pot smoker decreases significantly when he doesn't have to go to extremes to get high to avoid being arrested, like drive around looking for an isolated spot and then drive back.

Frankly, I don't buy that arguement. One doesn't have to drive out into the boonies to smoke marijuana. The idea the sole reason or even a significant one for marijuana related accidents is ridiculous.

Face the facts, it's the same thing as acohol most of the time, dumbasses fucked up on their chemical depressant of choice.

And I think a lot of pot-advocates understate the draw backs of legalization. The health care costs are going to eat up most of the savings from decriminalization and the problem of what to do with a crap load of stoners isn't going to be an easy one.

But frankly, it's prohibition all over again at this point.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-10-30 01:45am

The funniest name for pot that I've ever heard:

Bleazies

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-10-30 01:48am

Stormbringer wrote:
It can certainly be harmful when abused, but the threat level of a casual pot smoker decreases significantly when he doesn't have to go to extremes to get high to avoid being arrested, like drive around looking for an isolated spot and then drive back.
Frankly, I don't buy that arguement. One doesn't have to drive out into the boonies to smoke marijuana. The idea the sole reason or even a significant one for marijuana related accidents is ridiculous.

Face the facts, it's the same thing as acohol most of the time, dumbasses fucked up on their chemical depressant of choice.

I can see that you probably haven't smoked too much pot in your life

When you are stoned, the LAST thing you want to do is get off the couch.

And I think a lot of pot-advocates understate the draw backs of legalization. The health care costs are going to eat up most of the savings from decriminalization and the problem of what to do with a crap load of stoners isn't going to be an easy one.

But frankly, it's prohibition all over again at this point.

I don't really buy that health care costs are going to be that high (no pun intended). The truth is that most people that want to get pot already can. I've heard high schoolers say that it is far easier for them to get pot than it is to get booze and I believe them as my pizza guy once offered to sell to me

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-10-30 04:37am

I wonder, what they think about Marin/Mendicino county's ordinances making it a criminal offence to punish someone for mere possession or manufacture for personal/medical purposes?

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-10-30 05:01am

The Kernel wrote:There's also a precedent in the United States Constitution that says that black people are inferior to white people. Times change no?

But that precedent was changed by drafting new laws and amendments to the Constitution. I'm not seeing many decriminalization-of-pot laws being passed, and my point was that if the Feds want to continue to discourage marijuana use, they should do so in a fashion which is profitable to them by throwing around big fines rather than burn money on prison space.

The Feds reinforce their position that smoking marijuana is bad for you every day by enforcing the laws against pot; changing the penalties from jail time to fines won't do much more in that respect.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-10-30 05:59am

I may not be a pro-pot advocate, but the current state of the fairly ludicrous war on drugs is baffling. So much money and resources is being wasted on a mild drug when the likes of heroine and cocaine are being shipped about still. Even if the efforts to stop pot smoking weren't put into something useful like education, they could still pump that cash into fighting the hard drugs, as futile as that task seems.

I've seen the ad campaigns the gov't in America uses against pot and they strike me as over zealous in their execution. Even relaxing laws on the drug would be something.

Can't see it becoming legal anytime soon though, the gov't admitting defeat like that? Doesn't seem like an idea even the most radical Washington guy would think up. Just have to wait and see, but I don't expect this tug-of-war to end this decade.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-10-30 06:42am

Uraniun235 wrote:
The Kernel wrote:There's also a precedent in the United States Constitution that says that black people are inferior to white people. Times change no?
But that precedent was changed by drafting new laws and amendments to the Constitution. I'm not seeing many decriminalization-of-pot laws being passed, and my point was that if the Feds want to continue to discourage marijuana use, they should do so in a fashion which is profitable to them by throwing around big fines rather than burn money on prison space.

The Feds reinforce their position that smoking marijuana is bad for you every day by enforcing the laws against pot; changing the penalties from jail time to fines won't do much more in that respect.

This is true, but consider the latest Ninth Circut Court decision about this. It established some precedent that states can define their own drug laws and that the Federal Government has to stay the hell out if a state wants to legalize or decriminalize marijuana use. This is bound to be passed in some state someday (probably starting with Nevada or Arizona) and when that happens, others will follow. The only people who are pushing an agressive war on drugs right now is the Feds and without the support of state governments, their entire war wont be worth shit.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-10-30 06:43am

Shouldn't they try something bit more pre-emptive? Like campaigns to get people to not do pot for example?

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-10-30 06:48am

And now that the Ex-hippies are AARP age, it will soon be covered under medicare.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-10-30 06:50am

Zac Naloen wrote:my opinion is that, if cigs and alcohol are legal why isn't pot?

My question is, why aren't they enough?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-10-30 07:26am

You haven't really seen stupidity until you've seen the infamous 'marijuana causes pregnancy' government commercial.

And I think a lot of pot-advocates understate the draw backs of legalization. The health care costs are going to eat up most of the savings from decriminalization and the problem of what to do with a crap load of stoners isn't going to be an easy one.

I always hear about the health care costs, but I'm not really sure why this is. The smoke and tar and shit inhaled from smoking marijuana simply does not compare to the amount of shit inhaled from cigarettes, simply because people smoke about twenty ciggies a day, and I don't think there's a marjiuana user alive who smokes twenty joints a day.

The health care and the 'crap load of stoners' argument assume that there will be a massive upswing in marijuana users the moment its legalized. Why? Is there a massive marijuana health care problem now? Is society straining under the burden of a stoner underclass? Illegalization doesn't stop the spread of marijuana, as indicated by the fact that every single day I have an opportunity to buy it. People who want to use it are not going to wait and twiddle their thumbs for it to be legalized before they try it.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-10-30 07:32am

Not to mention that legalized and TAXED it would do to California and Alabama's economy's?

let's face it, I would love to see the shit taxed, smoke up you wanna-be hippies I need a new school for my Niece and Nephews.

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2003-10-30 08:19am

His Divine Shadow wrote:
Zac Naloen wrote:my opinion is that, if cigs and alcohol are legal why isn't pot?
My question is, why aren't they enough?

i don't know, out of choice i don't smoke, nor do i drink all that much.

They are enough for me.

but some people would rather smoke pot than drink alcohol, as an example.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-10-30 09:15am

Heavy taxation can really help on even potent addictive substances like cigarettes. Most heavy smokers die before they can even collect their pension or take real use of the health care system or other benefits, along with the tax, that helps those still living healthily.

So, paradoxically, I wouldn't mind smoking in public to carry on provided I don't get a cloud of second hand smoke in my face everywhere I go.