OT: Dak's dad busted for weed? Sheesh...

[johnson86-1]

I'm not coming after you on this, but it did raise a few thoughts in my mind.

What I find interesting are those that hem and haw about how the government should stay out of their private lives when there's a whisper of regulating sugar, e.g., limiting the availability of sugary drinks to children, sizes of soft drinks that are sold, or whether the FDA should regulate sugar levels in commonly available foods (like breads, "granola bars", etc.). Sugar is objectively more damaging to this country than marijuana. Tax payers spend roughly $1 trillion annually on health costs that are closely tied to excess sugar consumption. But when you discuss marijuana, the government is welcomed with open arms. It's not about the negative effects of a controlled substance or intoxicant. If that's the way things worked, sugar would be treated like heroin. It's puritanical, social conservatism.

I don't use cannabis or any derivative products. But it is beyond debate that it is no worse than alcohol and that high functioning people use it regularly. At a minimum, it has created an enormous burden on tax payers when it comes to DEA and state agency enforcement, prison populations, and opportunity costs for our judiciary and local law enforcement.

I'd rather not burn my tax dollars by attempting to outright ban marijuana. It simply has not worked and will not work. I'd rather regulate it, tax it and use the untold millions/billions to do something constructive, like fixing a ******* road or building a school.

Anyway, my two cents.

In fairness, a lot of the sugar consumption is caused by marijuana consumption.

 

[DAWG61]

Haha, you are wasting your time. That guy was a mod on ED's political board until the site owners yanked his mod status and banned him from the board......and keep in mind that pretty much anything goes on that board because it is private and none of the site owners want the hassle of moderating it. He is just incapable of discussing anything remotely related to politics without being belligerent and inflammatory.

PM him or me if you want to discuss another board on here. Per Dawgstudent. Btw you don't have a 17ing clue what you're talking about Sandy.

 

[DAWG61]

Not sure what you want to call it when they're intentionally using a loophole in the 13th amendment for cheap labor. Prisoners get paid dog ****. Drug wars started to drastically increase the prison populations for the business of prisoners for profit. Look up the ridiculous increase in prison populations since Nixon/Reagan/Clinton started arresting half the ghettos in America. Also the CIA funneled crack and cocaine into these areas in the first place. Look that one up too. They've only made about a dozen movies about it now.

 

[MeridianDog]

The simple fact is that it will stay illegal at the federal level for the same reason that the status quo remains in other aspects of law....the lobbyists will it to be so. The private prison lobby is one of the largest and most powerful in DC, and they stand the most to lose from legalization of anything, but especially marijuana. Nothing will ever happen until a lobbying group on the scale of the private prison lobby and others develops to press forward with marijuana rights im DC and pours millions into the pockets of congressmen to advance their agenda. Pretty 17ing sad that we have people in this country who actually stand to gain from more people being locked up, but it is what it is.

I blame the crooks in congress totally for this. Not one honest person in Washington DC. They sell their souls to the highest bidder each and every day, and I guess retire for their time there with a huge pension and a stuffed full bank account.

Don't ever try to tell me crime doesn't pay. Just depends on what kind of criminal you are.

 

[Lettucexxxx]

There is no practical difference that I can see in what you listed above and weed.

Your opinion, with chinked social warrior armor, has hit a wall. Please stop typing. It’s not becoming.

I will embarrass you with stats and story’s. Please just stop.

 

[JungRebel]

Having one thing in common (legal status) is not being 'exactly the same,' except in the most narrow sense of 'legal status' (as the legal status varies and is not uniform throughout our country). Ask someone addicted to benzos if the difference between everyday Xanax abuse and everyday marijuana abuse is purely theoretical because their legal status is (somewhat) equivalent. I think everyone here understands that if you break the law you are subject to consequences, but does anyone here think they are morally obligated to obey what they believe to be an unreasonable law? When someone points out what seems to them is hypocrisy in the law, it isnt an argument to say, "Yes, but it's the law."

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Your opinion, with chinked social warrior armor, has hit a wall. Please stop typing. It’s not becoming.

I will embarrass you with stats and story’s. Please just stop.

I think that you would be hard pressed when my point was that MJ can be prescribed just like opioids can be prescribed. Again, I don't care what is done with the MJ law, I just often find the "reasoning" behind why it should be legalized to be interesting and rarely (<---I would've used "never", but never is never the truth) about any benefits, nor with any facts. It is often just comparative about how it's not as bad as something else out there and therefore should be legal, etc. In this case, the legal status is very similar to what was stated. It can be prescribed and so can opioids.

I made no statement about the effects of someone who abuses opioids vs the effects of someone who abuses MJ. If you have stats and stories about MJ NOT being able to be prescribed then I will learn something, but I most assuredly won't be embarrassed. I KNOW that my grandfather had it prescribed in MS in the late 70's in the form of injectable THC to treat symptoms of chemo and cancer. I would have to assume that we are not more restrictive today than then, but this is MS...

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Contextually, he used "legal" to describe prescription drugs. Implicit in that assertion was that it was different than MJ in the legal context. It is not, to my knowledge. I'm no legal expert, but as someone who really doesn't much care about the legal status, I will say that arguments for legalization will need to be better formed, have some supporting facts, or at least reasonable data, that suggest that something somewhere in my life gets better if it is legal. At present, arguments generally come across as someone who likes being stoned wanting to make it easier and less risky to do so and usually the only thing held up is a comparative argument about how its not as bad as something else for people. I just ask that they bring facts, well formed opinions, something specifically positive about it, anything of substance really...

 

[Lettucexxxx]

I think that you would be hard pressed when my point was that MJ can be prescribed just like opioids can be prescribed. Again, I don't care what is done with the MJ law, I just often find the "reasoning" behind why it should be legalized to be interesting and rarely (<---I would've used "never", but never is never the truth) about any benefits, nor with any facts. It is often just comparative about how it's not as bad as something else out there and therefore should be legal, etc. In this case, the legal status is very similar to what was stated. It can be prescribed and so can opioids.

I have no clue of what you type. It reads like spin. Just a bunch of words, running about.


Sincerely,

Lettuce

I made no statement about the effects of someone who abuses opioids vs the effects of someone who abuses MJ. If you have stats and stories about MJ NOT being able to be prescribed then I will learn something, but I most assuredly won't be embarrassed. I KNOW that my grandfather had it prescribed in MS in the late 70's in the form of injectable THC to treat symptoms of chemo and cancer. I would have to assume that we are not more restrictive today than then, but this is MS...

My comment was directed at you because of a quote you made. "There is no practical difference that I can see in what you listed above and weed". How are you going to give opinions and insight on something you obviously have never experimented with? That statement tells me all I need to know about your expertise into this subject. It's your opinion and you are entitled to it but I just think this one is ****. As for the stats, I'll spare you. Nothing personal.

P.S. I usually enjoy your content, however. Please don't change......just eat a brownie every now and again and think of me

 

[Lettucexxxx]

nm