Woman gets 10 Years in Prison for Selling $30 Worth of Weed in Oklahoma

[GVC]

...including demonizing Milton Friedman over his legalize mj stance. If that wasn't pure hypocrisy then I don't know what is.

Except the Democratic Party is not for legalization. The Current Governor of California (Jerry Brown), and both California senators (Feinstein and Boxer) were in opposition to Prop 19 in California last year, for example. Both sides use the issue because of existing stereotypes about cannabis (and other drug) users.

 

[franklin]

Except the Democratic Party is not for legalization. The Current Governor of California (Jerry Brown), and both California senators (Feinstein and Boxer) were in opposition to Prop 19 in California last year, for example. Both sides use the issue because of existing stereotypes about cannabis (and other drug) users.

I said that's why they are hypocritical. The left is all for freedoms until they are not, as is the right. However, the point is the right has been singled out and attacked here for not supporting legalizing mj, and the left has gone untouched.

**Edit**

It's a nice change to see you getting into something.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

This whole post is absolute ********. It's hard to know where to start.

Why don't we ban TV, fast food, carbonated beverages, fat, sugar, cars, etc. These are all more harmful than cannabis, and most of them are more addictive. Further, they provide an "escape", which, as far as I can tell, is completely healthy. Do you watch TV? Are you not a basketball fan? Is idle recreation really so bad? If so, 100% of the world population should be thrown in jail.

As for what she teaches her kids" Maybe she's teaching them that liberty matters, that people ought to be free to enjoy their lives and ease their pain any way they choose, so long as they aren't hurting anyone else. Maybe she's teaching them that fascism and the rise of the police state should be fought against unrelentingly.

And, I can assure you, many people's quality of life is enhanced by cannabis. I was a miserable, unproductive mess before being introduced to cannabis. Religion had nearly killed me (now that's a harmful substance of ever one existed). Maybe you should shut the **** up about things you know nothing about, and allow people to live their lives as they see fit. I'm not pounding down your door and harassing you for doing things that I don't do because you're probably not hurting anyone with your actions. I expect the same level of respect.

My focus was on the law in general, not specific laws or things that "should" be banned.
I do think anything that controls your life has a negative impact, but I never drew a line as to what should be "banned", or what the punishment should be for breaking a specific law. Recreation is not bad, unless it takes over your life and all you do is "recreate". My personal opinion is that any substance, recreational or not, that changes who you are is not good for you.

Your idea of liberty is interesting. I don't find it liberating to be looking over my shoulder for police officers, or knowing what I am doing could result in fines or jail time.
I find it more liberating when for example, I drive down the freeway at the speed limit. I am more relaxed, I am not checking every on ramp or spot that a cop car could possibly be clocking me. Any argument that breaking the law is teaching "liberty" is weak, wrong, and an attempt to rationalize what your angle is. I can use the same argument to defend my stance. Keeping the law even if I don't like the law is teaching my kids about "liberty".

I have found religion can be whatever you want it to be. If you want to use it as a reason for why you are not happy you can do that, if you want to use it as a reason why you are happy, you can do that too. I must have touched a sensitive nerve with you because you are very defensive. I quoted your post just as a jumping off point, not as an attack as you seem to have taken it. Chill out. You don't know anything about what I know, so maybe you should tone it down a bit before saying you know what I know nothing about. I'm also not pounding on your door or harassing you.
I have not resorted to name calling, so I would expect the same level of respect.

 

[GVC]

It's a nice change to see you getting into something.

I'm afraid I'm just as ignorant and apathetic as everyone else who posts on the General Board. On this subject, however, I feel I can actually add something of an informed opinion about something I care about.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

That's an oversimplification (which you are prone to). You can pick and choose laws based on societal effects. It's fair to say that actions between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home(s) shouldn't be readily punished. If you're out breaking into people's homes, raping them, then stealing their dog, that's something entirely different.

No?

I'm not prone to it, I do it on purpose. Clear communication through posts is nearly impossible, which is why there are so many discussion/arguments. There are so many scenarios and nuances to laws. If the two consenting adults agree that one should kill the other, it still should be punishable. Then you get into if the consenting adults made the decision when they were themselves, or if a decision was made when one was drunk, on drugs, not themself. You also have scenarios where a person changes his/her mind about it later. If you want to "oversimplify" too as you must be prone to as well, then I have no argument with what you said in the post. If you want to talk about the complexities involved with every situation then I reserve judgement until I have all the facts for each case.

 

[GVC]

I'm not prone to it, I do it on purpose. Clear communication through posts is nearly impossible, which is why there are so many discussion/arguments. There are so many scenarios and nuances to laws. If the two consenting adults agree that one should kill the other, it still should be punishable. Then you get into if the consenting adults made the decision when they were themselves, or if a decision was made when one was drunk, on drugs, not themself. You also have scenarios where a person changes his/her mind about it later. If you want to "oversimplify" too as you must be prone to as well, then I have no argument with what you said in the post. If you want to talk about the complexities involved with every situation then I reserve judgement until I have all the facts for each case.

Killing someone is too extreme an example to consider, especially when discussing recreational cannabis use, which has been linked directly to 0 deaths. Talking in vague generalities about "society" and "morals" is likewise meaningless. I'm interested in rational discussions. You avoid them at all cost, instead injecting irrational religious and moral ideals.

This is my life, not yours, not your god's. Mine. As a member of society, I am obligated to act in a way that respects that same principle as it applies to others (IMO), but otherwise should be free to act as I see fit. What's wrong with enjoying life? Why do I have to work toward going to the heaven you've invented?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Killing someone is too extreme an example to consider, especially when discussing recreational cannabis use, which has been linked directly to 0 deaths. Talking in vague generalities about "society" and "morals" is likewise meaningless. I'm interested in rational discussions. You avoid them at all cost, instead injecting irrational religious and moral ideals.

This is my life, not yours, not your god's. Mine. As a member of society, I am obligated to act in a way that respects that same principle as it applies to others (IMO), but otherwise should be free to act as I see fit. What's wrong with enjoying life? Why do I have to work toward going to the heaven you've invented?

My religious ideas are just as "rational" as your opinions.
I was giving my opinion just as you were. Is there a law against that? (cmon that was funny)
I'm not stopping you from enjoying life as you see fit, and I have no problem with you pretending there is no "heaven" so you don't have to work towards something.
By all means enjoy life, but go ahead and allow someone with a different opinion to air it, just as you are allowed to air yours.
I'm fine if we agree to disagree, and it won't bother me at all.
I think you're a pretty decent guy even if I don't agree on this and other issues.

 

[GVC]

I think you're a pretty decent guy even if I don't agree on this and other issues.

Now we might actually be getting somewhere.

So, you're in favor of the current War on Drugs? Why?

 

[GVC]

One thing that making it illegal does is it makes it harder for people to get it who would otherwise not go looking for it. Obviously if you are set on it, you can find a dealer, but I think if drugs in general were legalized, you would see an uptick in teens using various drugs as they try out dad's stash or whatever, just like they get into their parent's booze now.

It has already been pointed out that studies show no statistically significant uptick in use post-legalization/decriminalization. Further, as I've already posted in this thread, surveys of teens have consistently shown that teens have an easier time acquiring illegal substances (cannabis, etc.) than legal substances (booze, tobacco).

 

[moevillini]

somehow the last few exchanges reminds me of that old song:

In heaven there is no beer
that's why we drink it here
and when we're gone from here
our friends will be drinking all our beer



perhaps someone who's more poetic can figure out how to adapt it to pot/weed/dope or whatever

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Now we might actually be getting somewhere.

So, you're in favor of the current War on Drugs? Why?

I'm all in favor of keeping substances that alter people's decision making, numb their minds, and change who they are.
I think prescription abuse is as bad as many of the illegal drugs.
I think something has to be attempted, but I also don't think it is, or will be very effective.
Mainly I think this because on an individual level, there are too many people who want these drugs, and will do whatever they can to get them.
It is interesting how creative and clever people can be when breaking the law and avoiding detection.
The only thing that could actually stop the issues we have with drugs is if people decide to stop buying and using them.
Catch 22, because many of them are so addictive that people can not, or will not ever willingly stop using them.
They are not free, they have given up their liberty for an addiction, and it takes an outside force to mediate.

Long story short, I don't know that I am for or against the "War on Drugs" as it is set up presently, but I know something has to be done.
When i was a kid in Cali, I was friends with some of the dealers in the area, and I've had friends lives ruined by drugs, and yes pot in its varied names an forms was one of them, actually it was usually the starting point. Marijuana is the least dangerous of the drugs out there as far as I know, but here's the catch, it also could be viewed as the most dangerous because it is a starting point for the others, and it is often a jumping off point to use other more addictive and "harder" drugs.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

In heaven there is no beer
that's why we drink it here
and when we're gone from here
our friends will be drinking all our beer

In heaven thee are no 420's
here's where we have our Tea Party
if a Squirrel takes us away
our buddies will smoke our Homegrown Hay

 

[GVC]

Cheese contains opiates, rendering it extremely addictive. What should we do about cheese, especially since there are actual fatal diseases that can be attributed to overeating, whereas with cannabis there are none?

Besides, cannabis is not physically addictive. By choosing to consume cannabis, I am exercising my liberty, not giving it up.

And the gateway theory? Really? Study after study comes back showing no pharmacological or statistical link between cannabis use and other drug use. Milk might as well be considered the most dangerous drug because it is often the jumping off point to use hard drugs. And, to further argue the point, one of the big problems with the current prohibition is that the market for soft (cannabis) and hard (opiates, amphetamines, etc.) drugs are mixed. That is, the dealer of cannabis is often also dealing in hard drugs, and thus the cannabis user is exposed to more options that he may not be exposed to in a legalized and regulated cannabis market.

Beyond that, cannabis prohibition has been a boon to organized crime, just as alcohol prohibition was. Virtually all cannabis-related violence is gang/organized crime violence. Legalizing takes organized crime out of the equation, and thus would almost certainly cut down on the casualties in the worldwide War on Drugs.

Harm reduction strategies, like those being undertaken in Portugal, have been shown to lead to better outcomes, both in terms of public health and safety and financial cost. There is no rational reason for non-violent recreational drug users to be treated like violent criminals. None.

It's going to be difficult to continue this conversation with someone who makes unsubstantiated claims that also are false nearly 100% of the time. I've posted links to studies earlier in this thread, and can post more to support my point of view, but would like to see someone support the prohibition side.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Where you look at studies that back you up, I am going off of my life experiences.
I cant control what people do in a study, or how they go about it, or what their aim is.
I can state what I have experienced, and tell you that many friends started with pot and moved on from there.
Is pot the only factor involved, no, but it is involved.
It is weak to say it has not been proven to be a contributing factor... that is just rhetoric.

Forget the studies, I have seen it in someones actual life.

What you mean to say is it's going to be hard to continue this conversation with someone that does not agree with you.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm just throwing another point of view out there so you know not everyone will think you are a genius for talking big and throwing studies around. There are tons of studies and most of them are crap... meaningless. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
Studies come and go, and stories change all the time. I take most studies with a grain of salt, because there are always multiple factors in situations and a study only looks at one or a few.
Carry on, like I said before, lets agree to disagree, but don't try to pretend you are smarter than me because you think you have "science" on your side.

 

[GVC]

What you mean to say is it's going to be hard to continue this conversation with someone that does not agree with you...There are tons of studies and most of them are crap... meaningless. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

You respond to none of my points, and then insult me. Bravo.

I am willing to listen to those who make actual counter-arguments and support them with more than anecdotal evidence, as I've shown in this thread.

So because science can only provide evidence to disprove bad theory, even when overwhelming evidence is provided that contradicts your unsupported opinion, you balk at it? Do you expect to be taken seriously? Why even enter this thread if you don't take the time to consider anyone else's point of view?

 

[JohnStockalypse]

Why even enter this thread if you don't take the time to consider anyone else's point of view?

I think he has...and the offered his...

 

[GVC]

I think he has...and the offered his...

If he actually considered what I was saying, he'd respond intelligently to my points instead of dismissing them in lieu of his self-serving anecdotes.

The questions: Should people be locked up at great expense to the tax payer for recreational drug use? Do the benefits of such approaches justify the costs? Why should people be punished at all for harmless actions undertaken in the privacy of their own homes? Why is it the business of anyone other than myself and my family what I choose to consume?

 

[JohnStockalypse]

I think he has answered those questions, from his viewpoint. He considered what you said and chose to put more faith in what he's seen in real life rather than studies none of us know the participants of, or motivation for. Doesn't seem that ridiculous.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

This whole post is absolute ********. It's hard to know where to start.
Maybe you should shut the **** up about things you know nothing about, and allow people to live their lives as they see fit. I'm not pounding down your door and harassing you for doing things that I don't do because you're probably not hurting anyone with your actions. I expect the same level of respect.

That's an oversimplification (which you are prone to).

Talking in vague generalities about "society" and "morals" is likewise meaningless. I'm interested in rational discussions. You avoid them at all cost, instead injecting irrational religious and moral ideals.
This is my life, not yours, not your god's. Mine. As a member of society, I am obligated to act in a way that respects that same principle as it applies to others (IMO), but otherwise should be free to act as I see fit. What's wrong with enjoying life? Why do I have to work toward going to the heaven you've invented?

It's going to be difficult to continue this conversation with someone who makes unsubstantiated claims that also are false nearly 100% of the time. I've posted links to studies earlier in this thread, and can post more to support my point of view, but would like to see someone support the prohibition side.

You respond to none of my points, and then insult me. Bravo.

I am willing to listen to those who make actual counter-arguments and support them with more than anecdotal evidence, as I've shown in this thread.

So because science can only provide evidence to disprove bad theory, even when overwhelming evidence is provided that contradicts your unsupported opinion, you balk at it? Do you expect to be taken seriously? Why even enter this thread if you don't take the time to consider anyone else's point of view?

I have not insulted you, but I have taken the tone of the "conversation" in the direction you have taken it, but not as far. Who has insulted who?
I don't see the point in responding to you. In fact there have been plenty of points I have made that you have not addressed. Double standard here? I have considered your points... they have been measured, and they have been found wanting. You are entitled to your view, I have no problem with that, I just do not agree at all.

Maybe we can agree more when talking about basketball?

 

[GVC]

I don't see the point in responding to you. In fact there have been plenty of points I have made that you have not addressed. Double standard here? I have considered your points... they have been measured, and they have been found wanting.

Which points have I not addressed?

Which of my points have "been found wanting"? It sounds like you just dismiss every question/point someone makes that doesn't jive with your world view. Maybe you should open your mind a little bit and actually consider the possibility that you're wrong on occasion.

I'm waiting for a response to my questions. I won't be responding to any more of your posts that avoid them. "Drugs are bad" is not an "argument" worthy of serious discussion.