Should the DEA shutdown marijuana dispensaries?

[Saint_of_Me]

...Oh..and pot CAN be a gateway drug. It was for me...

The very concept of "gateway" drug is an invention of prohibitionists.

There is no such thing.

There is NO drug that when taken makes taking another drug more likely.

There are only people, like yourself, that seek to alter their consciousness in many ways and will seek out many ways to do it. They are only limited by availability.

And with people like that, marijuana is the safest choice.

No such thing?

Wrong.

How do I know?

From experience.

And seeing dozens of friends from back in the day, as well.

Look: I have done more partying and have lived more or a "sex drugs and rock and roll" lifestyle than 98% of the population. I have practically devoted my life to it. I am still in a real rock band; even though I have not smoked dope in years I still have it around me sometimes and I see the repurcussions.

Nothing trumps experience, amigo. I have lived the life and know the drill. I am a mental health professional. Thus I have both experience and education on the matter of substance abuse. You are not gonna win this argument. Go ahead and state you opinion, fine, but that's all she wrote, pally.

Marijuana is a potentially harmful and addictive drug and nothing good will come from it being legalized and the increased usage which that will foment. I just hope I some day get a chance to vote against or lobby against it.

This will be my final post on the subject. Thanks for the convo, guys.

- - - Updated - - -

Drug Dealers should spend life in prison. Drug Dealers to kids, or caught near a school zone should be executed. In a public square. Yeah..that's right.

What if the drug dealer is 12, dealing his mother's medication in the bathroom of the school he attends? Execution or life in prison?

Straw Man!

LOL

 

[Keith&Co.]

Drug Dealers should spend life in prison. Drug Dealers to kids, or caught near a school zone should be executed. In a public square. Yeah..that's right.

What if the drug dealer is 12, dealing his mother's medication in the bathroom of the school he attends? Execution or life in prison?

Straw Man!

How is that a straw man? You offered no wiggle room for your sentencing. Same as a Massachusetts law, we found out.

They arrested a 14 year old selling weed within 100 yards of a school a few years back. He broke a law that was written expressly to keep 'liberal' judges from letting drug dealers off, forcing them to levy heavily punitive sentences. The law as written gave the DA and the Judge no options but to prosecute and to convict, with mandated sentencing.

Sponsors of the legislation looked all sorts of surprised that their law affected people OTHER than hardened mature criminals who deserved to be locked up and the key thrown away...

 

[Blahface]

Why is he arguing as though a plain, vanilla Act of Congress is a higher ranking law than the Constitution?

I don't think it is the job of the executive to determine whether or lot legislative laws clash with the constitution. That gives the President way too much power. He could interpret the constitution any way he wishes and he could effectively have an absolute veto power that can't be checked by the legislature during his term. There would be radical law changes from one President to he next and the law would be extremely inconsistent. Whether or not the elderly are going to get their social security checks or if we are going to have an active EPA or FDA would be dependent on who has the presidential office.

 

[KeepTalking]

The very concept of "gateway" drug is an invention of prohibitionists.

There is no such thing.

There is NO drug that when taken makes taking another drug more likely.

There are only people, like yourself, that seek to alter their consciousness in many ways and will seek out many ways to do it. They are only limited by availability.

And with people like that, marijuana is the safest choice.

No such thing?

Wrong.

How do I know?

From experience.

And seeing dozens of friends from back in the day, as well.

Look: I have done more partying and have lived more or a "sex drugs and rock and roll" lifestyle than 98% of the population. I have practically devoted my life to it. I am still in a real rock band; even though I have not smoked dope in years I still have it around me sometimes and I see the repurcussions.

Nothing trumps experience, amigo. I have lived the life and know the drill. I am a mental health professional. Thus I have both experience and education on the matter of substance abuse. You are not gonna win this argument. Go ahead and state you opinion, fine, but that's all she wrote, pally.

Nothing like declaring victory before the argument has even had a chance to get started.

In your experience, maybe pot was a gateway drug. Did you try alcohol before pot? If for you, like me, that is the case, then why wasn't alcohol the gateway drug?

Of course I tried a lot of drugs after pot, but that doesn't mean I would not have tried them if pot did not exist. I also may not have tried them if pot was legal at the time. Who knows? I was probably predisposed to trying all sorts of drugs as an attempt to self medicate my ADD, for which there was not really any sort of treatment at the time (it wasn't even called ADD at the time). It probably did not help that my parents never told me that I was diagnosed as ADD in a misguided attempt to keep the knowledge from affecting me. I only found out a few years ago from my older sister. But that is beside the point.

I did not continue using anything other than pot and alcohol for any length of time. As a fairly unrepentant, unapologetic pot smoker, I am often hit up by friends and acquaintances for a smoke, usually when drinking in a social setting. These are people who have never done anything harder than pot, and who only smoke pot when drinking. It has not been a gateway for the vast majority of occasional smokers I know.

Your experience is your experience, and you probably won't have your mind changed by anyone else's experience. But you have to realize that to anyone else, your experience is only anecdotal, just like my experience is anecdotal to you. To claim victory because you have experience in the mental health field, and an anecdote, is just not going to fly with anyone who has an opposite anecdote to share, much less one who may also have similar professional experience (and I know a few of those, though I am not one myself).

Marijuana is a potentially harmful and addictive drug and nothing good will come from it being legalized and the increased usage which that will foment. I just hope I some day get a chance to vote against or lobby against it.

Marijuana is arguably less harmful than alcohol and/or tobacco, depending on the criteria for harm that you want to use. It is definitely less addictive than either alcohol or tobacco, I don't see how anyone could dispute that.

This will be my final post on the subject. Thanks for the convo, guys.

Prematurely declaring victory, and then walking out, the last refuge of the closed minded. One wonders why you bothered to join this discussion at all.

 

[Malintent]

I've got a buddy who has worked in a bunch of dispensary. He says, that what happens is that they storm in and take all the cash (it's a cash only biz) and then no one really gets in trouble. They just want the cash.

It's a "cash only biz" because of the federal prohibition laws keeping the banking industry out of it. How do you run a business without a bank? cash only.

It is the federal government that is breaking the law (the constitution) by waging this war against the people of the united states.

 

[Malintent]

...Oh..and pot CAN be a gateway drug. It was for me...

The very concept of "gateway" drug is an invention of prohibitionists.

There is no such thing.

There is NO drug that when taken makes taking another drug more likely.

There are only people, like yourself, that seek to alter their consciousness in many ways and will seek out many ways to do it. They are only limited by availability.

And with people like that, marijuana is the safest choice.

.. and if it isn't a gateway drug.. then how do we make it one? easy.. enact prohibition so customers are forced to deal on the black market. voila! gateway drug.

Regulate marijuana like alcohol or explain why it shouldn't be. All the bullshit about marijuana is just a regurgitation of 1920s alcohol prohibition nonsense. By 2020 the feds will have dropped their illegal war on marijuana, and all 50 states will have decided how they will regulate it.

 

[bilby]

Drug Dealers should spend life in prison. Drug Dealers to kids, or caught near a school zone should be executed. In a public square. Yeah..that's right.

What if the drug dealer is 12, dealing his mother's medication in the bathroom of the school he attends? Execution or life in prison?

And this is why mandatory minimum sentences are a really bad idea.

There will always be some technically guilty person who a sane judge would sentence to a trivial penalty because of mitigating circumstances. Legislators cannot possibly think of all the possible bizarre situations that might arise, so cases have to be judged individually, and not pre-judged by the law makers.

 

[bilby]

The very concept of "gateway" drug is an invention of prohibitionists.

There is no such thing.

There is NO drug that when taken makes taking another drug more likely.

There are only people, like yourself, that seek to alter their consciousness in many ways and will seek out many ways to do it. They are only limited by availability.

And with people like that, marijuana is the safest choice.

No such thing?

Wrong.

How do I know?

From experience.

And seeing dozens of friends from back in the day, as well.

Look: I have done more partying and have lived more or a "sex drugs and rock and roll" lifestyle than 98% of the population. I have practically devoted my life to it. I am still in a real rock band; even though I have not smoked dope in years I still have it around me sometimes and I see the repurcussions.

Nothing trumps experience, amigo. I have lived the life and know the drill. I am a mental health professional. Thus I have both experience and education on the matter of substance abuse. You are not gonna win this argument. Go ahead and state you opinion, fine, but that's all she wrote, pally.

Marijuana is a potentially harmful and addictive drug and nothing good will come from it being legalized and the increased usage which that will foment. I just hope I some day get a chance to vote against or lobby against it.

This will be my final post on the subject. Thanks for the convo, guys.

You have presented a very weak argument for marijuana as a gateway drug.

You have also presented a slightly stronger argument that playing rock music is a gateway drug.

Insofar as your argument supports banning anything, it supports a ban on rock music.

 

[untermensche]

How do I know?

From experience.

And seeing dozens of friends from back in the day, as well.

First of all, I would have thought seeing friends counted as experience.

I'm not going to dispute your claims of having problems with the drug.

Many people do.

But locking them up for it is insanity.

The people that have problems with the drug should get medical treatment, unless they commit some other crime. And being high is no defense to any crime.

But my experience with the drug and seeing others use the drug is different from yours.

And unfortunately your experience in no way trumps mine.

You just hung with a different crowd.

 

[Godless Raven]

If only ANY of that were based on fact. Gateway? Surgeon's wreaking of pot? Wait...they are stupid and/or lazy...but you're concerned with their low sperm count preventing them from having kids. Interesting. MJ has been used for thousands of years in one form or another...so when you say "who knows...." followed by comments about mild psychosis...we do know, that's rubbish.

It's spelled "reeking." "Wreaking" means to recklessly cause or create something. usually negative. Or perform it. Like wreaking havoc.

You must be a pot smoker. See? LOL. You are helping me prove my point.

Rubbish?

I think not.

Check this out. Want more links" Just ask. I got a million of 'em. Want some VA studies? (I work there). I can do that too.


On sperm count and fertility...

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51663


Other stuff....

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/marijuana-use-and-its-effects

OMDG! Cool guy caught me with a spelling error!!!!! I'm so ashamed1!one!! Obviously that means this drivel must have some credibility to it.

"Wreaking" indeed...as in you're wreaking my buzz with the nonsense you are pedaling.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think what is generally missing in discussions like these are the fact that recreational activity is often therapeutic in and of itself. Getting drunk and having amazing sex in a parking lot is one of my fondest memories. Having a wonderful hours-long conversation while thinking about ice cream and rolling on MDMA has allowed me to finally be able to eat ice cream without sicking up, and as a bonus, I made a great friend that I want to seek a relationship with.

THC has been instrumental in provoking thousands of hours of conversation on ethics and philosophy.

Reason and rationality and 'normal' life are instrumental for survival. They give us the means to make it to tomorrow. But recreation, exploration, and altered states of consciousness, permutations of the experiences we have had, or inspirations to experiences we would not have otherwise had, those are the REASON to make it to tomorrow.

Science and sober work help us build rockets, but we would not build rockets except for the often drug-fueled dreams of dancing in space.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Science and sober work help us build rockets, but we would not build rockets except for the often drug-fueled dreams of dancing in space.

And the ultimate dream of having sex with aliens, of course.

 

[Jarhyn]

Sex itself is a variant of drug intoxication.so it all comes back to drugs.

 

[Jarhyn]

Science and sober work help us build rockets, but we would not build rockets except for the often drug-fueled dreams of dancing in space.

And the ultimate dream of having sex with aliens, of course.

Sometimes you need to use drugs and be insane enough to say, "Fuck it, I'm gonna fuck it"

 

[Bomb#20]

Why is he arguing as though a plain, vanilla Act of Congress is a higher ranking law than the Constitution?

I don't think it is the job of the executive to determine whether or lot legislative laws clash with the constitution. That gives the President way too much power. He could interpret the constitution any way he wishes and he could effectively have an absolute veto power that can't be checked by the legislature during his term. There would be radical law changes from one President to he next and the law would be extremely inconsistent. Whether or not the elderly are going to get their social security checks or if we are going to have an active EPA or FDA would be dependent on who has the presidential office.

Do you apply the same reasoning at the state level? If Alabama's legislature passes a law that effectively stops most black people from voting, do you think Governor Bentley has a duty to enforce that law right up until he's served with a federal court order, because it isn't his job to determine whether the law violates the federal Voting Rights Act?

Be that as it may, if the President obeying the Constitution instead of obeying Congress gives him way too much power, why doesn't the President obeying Congress instead of obeying the Constitution give Congress way too much power? They can pass any law they wish. And they can even make sure it's upheld by their allies on the Court, by passing a Bill of Attainder against the four liberal SCOTUS Justices that directs the President to arrest them. For the President to look at this law, look at "Article I, Section 9: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.", and decide it's not within his job description to decide whether the two clash, is what's going to protect the nation from unchecked power?

 

[bilby]

Sex itself is a variant of drug intoxication.so it all comes back to drugs.

It all comes back to Seratonin and Dopamine. They are the only things anyone really likes.

 

[arkirk]

Have you ever had a job where the boss or bosses kept upping the things required of you, constantly demanding you do more work than you could possibly do? If the president was required to enforce all the laws congress ever passed all the time or get fired, he would be on the corner with other out of work people. This marijuana law was a bogus law passed to control the growing of hemp in America. This was the backbone of the growth of the synthetic fiber industry. Marijuana is not a very toxic material and so if it is a choice for the president to not do less serious things, then so be it.

What makes the issue even less important to the country is that now that the synthetic fiber industry is so well established and very many Americans now regularly smoke pot, there are not enough resources available to enforce this law. It is a weak proposition that just because a law was once passed, it should be enforced. It would be wise for our government to recognize that anti marijuana laws should no longer be enforced in any way whatever. That would free up a lot of federal resources and perhaps we could restore some education and food for the poor programs. The days of Reefer Madness Madness are over.

 

[Blahface]

[Do you apply the same reasoning at the state level? If Alabama's legislature passes a law that effectively stops most black people from voting, do you think Governor Bentley has a duty to enforce that law right up until he's served with a federal court order, because it isn't his job to determine whether the law violates the federal Voting Rights Act?

As much as I dislike the laws and think that they go against legislative and constitutional law, I do think the Governor has the duty to enforce them which is what he is planning to do anyway. And although it doesn't help in this situation since SCOTUS already ruled in favor of the voter ID laws, if there is a court case pending that is challenging the law for the first time, I do believe that he should have the ability to suspend enforcement until the ruling.

Be that as it may, if the President obeying the Constitution instead of obeying Congress gives him way too much power, why doesn't the President obeying Congress instead of obeying the Constitution give Congress way too much power? They can pass any law they wish. And they can even make sure it's upheld by their allies on the Court, by passing a Bill of Attainder against the four liberal SCOTUS Justices that directs the President to arrest them. For the President to look at this law, look at "Article I, Section 9: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.", and decide it's not within his job description to decide whether the two clash, is what's going to protect the nation from unchecked power?

That is a good point, but that is such a huge overreach without the the slightest guise of constitutionality, I don't think they could ever get away with that. With the voter ID laws and the drug laws, there is at least an argument for the constitutionality. The opposing party would also need a super majority to get passed the President's veto. If they can get passed the veto and are really this devious though, they can just get rid of the Justices by impeaching them on specious grounds anyway.

I don't think congress should be passing whatever law they wish until the Judiciary strikes them down. They should be trying to work within the framework of the constitution.