Congressional spending deal blocks pot legalization in D.C.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree re strength issue allthough tell that to a 10 year old offered a doobie by his school buddies to 'read the label'. Yeah right...

You say legalization cures the problem. Did you know Monsanto has already patented a GMO version of pot? Yes, big pharm already does that but doesn't-so far- delve into the illegal market place. Legalize it and introduce new profit potential to that crowd? The promotional abilities, the lobbyist abilities in a drug legal environment??

No thanks.

a reply to: r0xor

I live in Baltimore and I spend many days wishing I didn't live in Maryland. Cost of living is too high here. I want to go to west, possibly to Colorado or Washington State for... reasons.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree re strength issue allthough tell that to a 10 year old offered a doobie by his school buddies to 'read the label'. Yeah right...

With legalization means that kids under 21 will have a harder time obtaining marijuana. Look at alcohol, it is tightly watched by the police and a liquor store or bar can have its liquor license revoked if they get caught serving someone underage. The same would be true for marijuana. Meanwhile with it being illegal, you can just go to your friend down the street, give him $20 and you get a bag of weed, no questions asked.

You say legalization cures the problem. Did you know Monsanto has already patented a GMO version of pot? Yes, big pharm already does that but doesn't-so far- delve into the illegal market place. Legalize it and introduce new profit potential to that crowd? The promotional abilities, the lobbyist abilities in a drug legal environment??

Who cares what Monsanto has done to marijuana? Do you know how easy it is to grow pot? If I want to smoke a non-GMO marijuana strain then it is as simple as growing my own.

Also why do you care who makes money off of marijuana? Do you prefer the cartels making all that money? Cartels being outside the law and all? Pick your poison, cartels make all that money or big corporations (subject to federal legislation) make all that money. There is no other choice.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your 'data' is selective and agenda driven. I ignore it. Counter it. Doobie yourself to your heart's content...please..

a reply to: nwtrucker

Ok, why would anyone, ANYONE risk those consequences that you refer to?

Because that is what kids do, they take risks. Yours are not special in this regard.

No, I don't agree to any lifetime criminal record either. However, there is a shortage of jobs. Yes? If your an HR person responsible for hiring and you have six apps for one job, who are you going to take? It's not rocket science.

see last example.
Why should the president get his position because he wasn't caught?

I have no doubt you just quit pot with zero problem, so did I. Booze as well, again no problem. So your saying alcoholism doesn't exist?? That people who, perhaps indulged far more than you, for far longer, with lesser abilities don't succumb to those impulses?

You are deflecting the Mj convo with alcoholism. Alcohol actually has real physical withdrawal side effects.
Not too many have indulged as much, for as long or as high of quality as me. Not bragging, but that's irrelevant.
I smoked because it's relaxing. I quit for monetary reasons.

You talk about my narrow-mindedness? Bah.

Yes, arguing for continued life destruction because it should be illegal is extremely narrow minded. Especially using the excuse of physical addiction or because there are laws.

You won't understand this until your family is affected. You can believe you can raise them right and they will never try it, but in reality, it's everywhere and going nowhere. They are playing Russian roulette. Kids will be kids, they will end up president or criminals depending on being caught or not. If you want to play the Angels card, you're just burying your head in the sand.

^^
This covers the rest of your stated ideals.

a reply to: Mandroid7

I refer to the drug. Euphemize it all you want by calling it a plant. In this context it is being used as legalized as a drug.

Apparently a very powerful one at that.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Yes, I see you ignore it. Because it paints a picture that you are uncomfortable with. I see you haven't posted ANY links of your own that back up ANY of the claims you've made. Though you have provided your fair share of anecdotal evidence. Can't say I'm surprised, you've employed all the standard tactics of one who doesn't want to open their mind to new possibilities.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Do some research.
What percentage of teens will try it?
Not the ones who have admitted to it.
Now ask yourself if you are comfortable with your grandkids gambling their futures?
If you really cared, you would be against drug use AND permanent records from it.
But hey, some people are just stuck on their ideals.
Carry on the fear propaganda.

I will be there to tell you "I told you so," when their parents have to provide for them if they get caught.

I am against legalization....decriminalized yes,legalize no.
If gas goes up and food goes up and everything else goes up,what do you think will happen here?
Don't legalize and give government a single piece of control,they will just screw it up like they do everything else.

a reply to: accuroman

Legalization laws are being modeled after alcohol laws. Do you disagree with and think that the government has mishandled those?

Man , I have to bow out of this debate before I snap.
This issue has affected me negatively like no other.

I am just proud that the younger generations are awake to the propaganda war going on and the people who stand to gain and loose profits from it.

We deserve freedom.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
I will be there to tell you "I told you so," when their parents have to provide for them if they get caught.

I will also be there when he develops cancer, crohns, MS etc. and the only thing that relieves his pain is cannabis. I'll be laughing until it hurts when someone tries to tell HIM how to control his illness.

F*CK OFF prohibitionists!!!!!!!!

a reply to: Mandroid7

I'm 29, this topic has been very near and dear to me since I was 17.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes I do think they have handled that wrong....its about cash flow,not concern.
Alcohol is more harmful but its legal....they got it wrong.
If you look at prohibition and alcohol laws you will see the same thing being played out.
Boogey man syndrome and a tax grab....once legal,all the rights go to the taxman.
Again...decriminalize....don't legalize.

originally posted by: accuroman
Again...decriminalize....don't legalize.

The only people I see using this argument are those that grow and sell it themselves because they don't want THEIR profit margin cut by the government.

Much like the gangsters and bootleggers of old.

Do you support organized crime?

a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

Do you support organized crime?

I support what supports me....simple as that.
I don't advocate for gangsters but I am just saying.

originally posted by: accuroman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes I do think they have handled that wrong....its about cash flow,not concern.
Alcohol is more harmful but its legal....they got it wrong.
If you look at prohibition and alcohol laws you will see the same thing being played out.

Right. The war on drugs is prohibition 2.0.

Boogey man syndrome and a tax grab....once legal,all the rights go to the taxman.
Again...decriminalize....don't legalize.

But decriminalization still means that the sellers are arrested and users are fined for using. If anything supports the "taxman", it is this method.

PS: I wouldn't mind stopping at decriminalization for harder drugs like coke and heroin, but marijuana needs to be legal.

If I'm interpreting this correctly, The District of Columbia is funded by the federal government of the United States. Right now, Marijuana is not nationally legalized, so if D.C wants legalized pot they are going to have to use their own tax dollars to enforce it. An equivelant scenario would be if say Prostituiton, which is legal in some areas of Nevada, was to be enforced with Tax dollars from the federal government, when literally in the other 49 states it is not legal, they would still be paying for it. D.C is asking for federal funding to enforce their laws that only the citizens of D.C. want (having the Marijuana division of the D.C government get its money from tax dollars). I can see why this is the case.

a reply to: chuck258

Actually, DC isn't trying to do that at all. DC needs Congressional approval for ALL of its propositions. So this decision was coming down the pipeline regardless of how it was implemented. Methinks that the Republicans figured that using this method was better than flat out voting to overturn the decision since the proposition was put on the ballot with racial reasons being a heavy push towards it getting passed. The Republicans in this case don't want to look like racist asshats by voting it down, so they find a loop hole to stall/kill the issue, hence defund the bill.

You guys on the pro- legalize side, Krazyshot, etc. are some patient folks... what's so hard to grasp about making something (you might personally hate) legal so that a (perhaps) one time mistake will NOT spoil someone's life.

To make it more 'relateable' to some of the 'empathically' challenged, perhaps that person with a life long record or imprisoned for years might be a loved one?

Prohibition doesn't work. Legalizing doesn't mean society approves or supports the use, necessarily, just that it won't punish someone for it. Nobody will make someone use a drug... we just won't collectively throw them in jail for using some arbitrary substance (starting with weed). You know... freedom? Actual freedom with possible repercussions... or not.

It will still be illegal to drive under the influence... one can still get fired for showing up to work incapacitated... you may still educate your children about the dangers of addiction/dependence... or about personal responsibility and clear headedness ... whatever... nothing much will change except the prisons won't have as many non-violent, relatively benign inmates... in fact, not having the legal stigma will enable some to get real help, when they screw up with chemicals, instead of hiding it.

A significant percentage of people will become law abiding, rather than bitter pirates, too.

And... well, I know, or knew, a few bright, kind kids who died from using an unknown black market substance and then, when in trouble, not going to get help because they were afraid of being arrested.... and they died. Pretty final and severe punishment for being experimental, no?

This drug war is a dismal shame and anyone who still supports it is in the wrong... simple.