Make Peace With Pot

NY Times ^ | April 26, 2004 | ERIC SCHLOSSER

[A CA Guy]

Well your might refer to the preferred vices as an addiction. I think some people do treat them like religion. Pro-illegal drug folks sure seem to.

[philman_36]

Well your (sic) might refer to the preferred vices as an addiction. I think some people do treat them like religion. Pro-illegal drug folks sure seem to.
Everything you've got there is pure conjecture.

[A CA Guy]

If you had an arrow in one ear and out the other you would say that isn't proof of an arrow being there.

[philman_36]

If you had an arrow in one ear and out the other you would say that isn't proof of an arrow being there.

Arrow Thru the Head.
Need we say more?

[A CA Guy]

Yes, I said proof of an "arrow being there", the arrow is still there.

You made my point for me again, thanks. We need not say more.

[William Terrell]

I though so, too. I'm trying to figure out how to do it more efficiently, though.

[philman_36]

Yes, I said proof of an "arrow being there", the arrow is still there.
There is no arrow.

[philman_36]

I'm trying to figure out how to do it more efficiently, though.
Good luck. Will you ping me if you find a way?

[William Terrell]

Will you ping me if you find a way? I'll certainly try to remember. I have to have a single concantenated file of all the FR pages of output from a poster search to input to the program. I want the program to connect to FR's server as a client, like any browser, and send the URL and command itself, and process the HTML stream send back.

Maybe you know somebody that knows how to do that.

[tdadams]

Because it hasn't perhaps been glorified everywhere by subcultures and in films like pot has with great regularity.

Or perhaps, by not banning it, it's not being seen as a "fobidden fruit".

There's also the cynical belief among most who favor the WOD that everyone is a potential junkie, and we only have the laws prohibiting drugs to thank for preventing everyone from running out and getting stoned.

Those of us with a little better reasoning skills realize this is not the case, and the fact that there is no massive problem of spray paint sniffing only verifies that.

[The kings dead]

since rape and murder have real victims that resist the crime and help punish it, my logic does not apply to those real crimes.

(Just wanted to note here that you didn't respond to my argument.)

Legalizing drugs would end up turning more Americans into losers and dead people at the publics expense.

Dead people don't cost much; and while these increased expenses are speculative, and along with drug criminalization are part of the Nanny State that I oppose, the costs of drug criminalization are real.

Drugs are total crap basically, and your thoughts are that the way a problem goes away is to make it legal.

Legalization is not the answer to the problem of drug use, but it's now clear that criminalization is also not the answer. Legalization is the answer to the problems created by criminalization.

All that would do is make the problem spread more and give people the impression it was safe

Does keeping alcohol and tobacco legal give people the impression they are safe? If so, should we for that reason make alcohol and tobacco illegal?

You sound to me like the drifter who offers candy to children that is laces with razor blades or Satan himself who pushes evil while attempting to pose as the light of truth.

You're funny. I'd use that as my tagline if I didn't already have one I liked.

There are drug lords, terrorists and other criminals profiting from drug crimes

They couldn't profit from drugs if drugs were legal.

[The kings dead]

High-energy particle theory.

[cinFLA]

They couldn't profit from drugs if drugs were legal.

Exactly what your Soros wants. But he knows he can profit.

[cinFLA]

Or perhaps, by not banning it, it's not being seen as a "fobidden fruit". There's also the cynical belief among most who favor the WOD that everyone is a potential junkie, and we only have the laws prohibiting drugs to thank for preventing everyone from running out and getting stoned.

You mean like how at one time over 60 percent of males smoked cigarettes?

[cinFLA]

I think the author of this article has some agreement with you.

"Schlosser says the '60s marked the birth of our national addiction to consumption, whether of pornography, drugs or Happy Meals. "It's a complex legacy. A lot of what is best in our culture did spring from that time, from the environmental movement to women's rights and civil rights," he says. "But the darker side would be the drug culture and the spread of this culture. Even though I really believe that the marijuana laws are absurd, the culture surrounding drug taking is a very unhealthy one. I think a lot of the social causes of the '60s petered out into drugs and the drug culture."

[AxelPaulsenJr]

I offered one, but you weren't interested in hearing it. I believe your words were "I don't care". I made my position, and reasons for it clear, and politely invited you to tell me what you disagreed with, and why.

Gettting beyond the fact that I disagree with you that my posting a link to a thread from an anti-wodder on the potential dangers of excessive mj usage links me to the RJWF. I have this comment and question.

You have said that you only consider issues concerning the commerce clause of the Constitution to be relevant here in our discussion of the wod. Which then brings the question: If the wod is unconstitutional under the commerce clause, has the issue ever been brought before the Supreme Court for its consideration?

One would think that if it is as unconstitutional as you claim, the wod would have long ago been declared null and void. It is at this point that, (LeRoy, No King But Jesus, The King is Dead) would then jump in and say that all the justices had been influenced years ago by seeing, "Reefer Madness".

"Reefer Madness" or not, the fact remains, the public by and large still wants nothing to do with legalizing illegal drugs. The issue when brought to the polls is defeated time and time again.

We are a free people with the power to vote our opinions and reason tells me that if the public truly wanted the unfettered freedom that you "strict" conservatives claim, the issues long ago would have been voted into law.

[jmc813]

You are one of those drug pushing education crowd liberals.

Hey tkd, I realize you're new around here, so I felt it would be appropriate to point out that the dude lecturing you on being a liberal was one of (R)nold's biggest supporters here on FR during the recall. He also believes in a "resonable amount" of gun control.

[jmc813]

"Reefer Madness" or not, the fact remains, the public by and large still wants nothing to do with legalizing illegal drugs. The issue when brought to the polls is defeated time and time again.

So when the next Columbine happens, and the "public" decides that they don't want anything to do with legal guns, you'll be cool with that?

[tacticalogic]

The WOD has not been challenged in the USSC on violation of Commerce Clause grounds. Since the initial acceptance of FDR's "New Deal Commerce Clause" by the USSC (under threat of the Court Packing Bill), it has only been in recent years that the court has found any limit on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause - the Safe Schools Act, and the Violence Against Women Act. Prior to that a liberal majority on the court has deferred to Congress the authority to decide what does, and doesn't constitute "interstate commerce".

"The majority opinion correctly applies our decision in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), and I join it in full. I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

-Justice Clarence Thomas

[AxelPaulsenJr]

So when the next Columbine happens, and the "public" decides that they don't want anything to do with legal guns, you'll be cool with that?

First place I am not even sure what you mean by this. When has the public said that it doesn't want to do anything about illegal guns in the wake of Columbine? I believe there are already plenty of laws on the books to deal with the possession of illegal guns.

Am I to take it that you want all guns to be confiscated by the government?