Anything to be elected

What is your point?

That personal irresponsibility should be criminalized?

You argue that legalization would put people in danger because they would be free to smoke when they want. I hate to break it to you, but they already are.

But besides that, they are also free to drink when they want. If you place marijuana in the same class as alcohol, then your entire argument is moot.

Sure, this guy may just be making a political move to try and rally a particular group of voters. As those people have every right to vote, more power to him. But your position that legalization would do more harm than good is based on an incorrect and uneducated understanding of the issue.

Just to make one thing clear Ox; your childrens bus driver, the president, and wal-mart grocery sacker all smoke marijuana. Snort, inhale or shoot heroin, coc aine, meth, (imput your drug here). Maybe not specifically YOUR childs bus driver, but I think you get my point.

Since you have allowed this discussion on this thread, I will continue.

Of course it would free up some enforcement folk to help in other enforcement areas.
Like lets say, oh I don't know...airport security? I don't know the exact number of officers and such in the drug war, but I'm sure it is in the neighborhood of 10,000. That's alot of manpower.

Inhale heroin? ... uhm.... ow... I think...

And you shouldn't imply that the majority of people use illegal drugs of some kind. Sure, most people have smoked marijuana or tried other drugs, but that doesn't mean that most people are using at their present point in life. I'm pretty sure Bush quit the blow a long time ago. Etc.

You missed my point. You also overlooked '(insert your drug here)' and 'maybe not YOUR kids bus driver'.

Admittedly the statement was greatly compacted, but I thought my point was obvious.
I'll do better next time.

:edit: and yes you can smoke heroin.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by nextguyinline]

Originally posted by Ox
But you have to admit that I'm right.

You have typed nothing but a series of logical fallacies to justify a government policy that you know does not work, but you don't want to fix because it would be difficult and inconvenient for the government. A few years back the government made the same mistake with an 'alcohol war', but when it became clear that this prohibition cost too much and created more problems than were solved it was brought to an end. Ending the drug war should be an easier task, because we have ending the prohibition as an example to follow.
.

Originally posted by Ox
Show me in the constitution where it says that drugs should be legalized.

USA Constitution

I dont see it anywhere.. And the war on drugs hasnt been lost.. And legalization wouldnt clear up any man power to focus on anything else.. There are specific units assigned to certain types of crime, and lets not forget our friendly DEA agents. Kinky Friedman isnt a politician no, he prefers to be called a "visionary" I prefer to call him a hippie.. Over the hill, no talent, last ditch for fame effort hippie.. I think he should crawl back into his hole and step aside, let the real liars and hypocrits play the politics..

Read my post carefully. I said it was illegal for the FEDS to make a law about MJ. This is something that should be left up to state's rights. It is covered in the clause about "all other issues will be left up to the individual state." How can you say the War on Drugs hasn't been lost? Just as many people as ever are doing drugs, meth is being made in ever-larger numbers and we've been at War with Drugs for the last 26 years. This isn't the way to resolve the drug problem. And, as I implied before, far too many resources are allocated to something that hasn't worked for 26 years.

Fair enough ForestLady.. Youre right... And I must agree with you that it should be left up to State Laws... but then wouldnt that infringe on the DEA? and their investigations and what not?
And as I said earlier.. There would have to be regulations, but there would be someone that ignores those regulations, I mean you couldnt legalize someone moving 150lbs of marijuana from one state to another.. which happens daily .. all over the world

Im an anti drug law person. No I don't do any drugs, and refuse to do any. I will never smoke weed, or do any other more serious drugs. That doesn't change the fact that I think drugs need to be legalized.

The fact is it is these peoples choices whether they want to kill themselves with drugs. Fact is this, what happens to a drunk driver that kills some one. He gets treated like any criminal, that killed somebody. Thats how we should treat the people on these drugs. If they get high, fine. If they get high and kill some one, well charge him with the crime, murdering somebody.

Why is it that a drug dealer gets more time in jail then a rapist?

further more, if a guy is smoking a cigarette and eventually his kid gets lung cancer because of being around the guy too much, shouldn't we charge him with a crime too. I mean since he was smoking and hurt somebody in doing so, obviously it should be illegal. Second hand smoke kills, or at least thats what they tell us. So why should cigarettes be any more legal then weed or any drug?

[edit on 18-9-2006 by grimreaper797]

Grimreaper... But that's my arugement.. Kinky Friedman wants to release marijuana offenders... but if they smoke.. their judgement is impaired, they kill someone.. where do they go? Jail... So.. My point is, is that these people are going to go jail at one time or another, if a life can be spared because someone under the influence isnt on the road and doesnt kill someone, then that's how it should be.. Do you see my point? It's a catch 22... Someone is release from jail... smokes.. drives, kills someone.. goes to jail.. If that person wasnt released.. then they wouldnt have killed someone and they money would have been saved on trials, appeals and everything else involved

Originally posted by Ox
Grimreaper... But that's my arugement.. Kinky Friedman wants to release marijuana offenders... but if they smoke.. their judgement is impaired, they kill someone.. where do they go? Jail... So.. My point is, is that these people are going to go jail at one time or another, if a life can be spared because someone under the influence isnt on the road and doesnt kill someone, then that's how it should be.. Do you see my point? It's a catch 22... Someone is release from jail... smokes.. drives, kills someone.. goes to jail.. If that person wasnt released.. then they wouldnt have killed someone and they money would have been saved on trials, appeals and everything else involved

then they go to jail for MURDER not for smoking. That is my point. Sure some one can get killed by a person with impared judgement. But so can a drunk guy, should we make drinking illegal?

I agree with what this guy is saying 110%.

All nonviolent drug offenders should be released, those who can be shown to have addiction problems should be released from jails and put in treatment programs.

The "Drug War" is an authoritarian farce, and causes far moe crime than it prevents.

I'm particularly peeved that one poster seems to support it because he has a personal economic interest in it...

My point is, is that these people are going to go jail at one time or another, if a life can be spared because someone under the influence isnt on the road and doesnt kill someone, then that's how it should be.

And what about those who smoke weed but don't drive under the influence?

By your "logic" everyone who drinks alchohol should be jailed because some will drive under the influence.
We're going to have to build a lot of jails..
Which I guess for you at least provides some job security lol.

[edit on 9/18/06 by xmotex]

As I said in a most earlier on in this thread.. Drinking doesnt affect someone else.. If youre drinking at a table and I'm not.. I'm not being affected.. you are.. If youre in a restaurant... and someone lights a joint for an after dinner smoke.. and its affecting you, would that be ok? if your kids are there.. is that ok? If your school bus driver smokes on the bus on the way to pick up your kids.. or waiting while the kids are on a field trip?? I dont think so.. If that second hand smoke affects you.. even minutely and you're given a random drug test at work and lose your job.. Would you change your mind on legalization? Then you would say.. well it has to be regulated.. ok.. people break regulations on a daily basis.. drinking is regulated.. Youre not allowed to drive while you've been drinking OR while you ARE drinking... How many DUI arrests are made daily? how many open container arrests are made daily? Quite a few..

and someone lights a joint for an after dinner smoke.. and its affecting you, would that be ok?

A false example - smoking in restaurants is already prohibited in many places despite the fact that smoking itself is legal. Driving drunk is illegal even though drinking itself is legal.

You're mixing up seperate issues here...

I'm using them as examples.. And ok.. it's illegal.. Because everyone in the country.. or.. how about.. Everyone in the state of Texas abides by the law completely... The law has NEVER been broken in Texas right? uh huh.. right.. Someone is going to do it no matter if it's illegal or not.. period..

Well it's a poor example.

Again, since some people are going to drive while drunk despite the fact that it's against the law, should we bring back Prohibition and ban alchoholic beverages, yes or no?

Because some people are going to smoke cigarettes in places they're not supposed to, should we imprison anyone possesing cigarettes, yes or no?

I'm not the only one using poor examples here.. I mean.. cigarettes and alcohol.. ok.. how about we up the stakes.. lets use heroin as an example shall we?
Lets legalize heroin.. Some Greyhound driver is smoking heroin before his shift, you get on his coach and he kills everyone.. Cause his judgement is impaired.. Is it a good idea? He's allowed to smoke heroin now.. cause it's been legalized.. But regulated.. and he broke that regulation.. Is it right?

Alchohol and tobacco are two of the most harmful drugs out there, and they're 100% legal.

Alchohol is legal and regulated - should the bus driver be allowed to go out and drive the bus around drunk as a skunk? Of course not.

Your arguments aren't making any sense... are you high or something?
(JUST KIDDING )

No.. but funny ... I'm trying to make sense.. believe me..
And no, no one behind the wheel of any vehicle should be drunk.. But thats my point, people do it anyway, legalizing mairjuana isnt going to change that.. how about tougher laws, minor possession? 30 days State Penitentiary.. 2nd time offender? give them a year..

I have to run for now..but i'll be back to continue the debate..

how about tougher laws, minor possession? 30 days State Penitentiary.. 2nd time offender? give them a year..

It still doesn't make sense.

Would you support the same penalties for someone caught drinking alchohol, yet not operating a vehicle?

Marijuana use and DUI are separate issues.
By all means, arrest those driving under the influence of alchohol/drugs.

But why punish people who are not?

Besides, many police won't arrest anyone for posession of small amounts of pot, no matter what the law says. There simply wouldn't be enough room in the jails.

So in effect, marijuana has been decriminalized in most places anyway.

Back when I lived in Philly, you know what the cops would do if they caught you outside smoking a joint? They'd tell you to put it out and go home and smoke it. They wouldn't even bother to take it from you - unless of course if you were dumb enough to give them grief about it, when they're giving you a break...

Why? Because the cops there had better things to do - like dealing with actual violent criminals. This would be an awfully oppressive society if it wasn't for the restraint and good sense of the average beat cop.

On the subject of 'substance legislation' , we should follow the Dutch idea and instead of legalizing pot etc. which would neccessitate a change in the legal statutes, simply decriminalize the 'personal possession/use' aspects of the law. The legal statute remains unchanged, but is chosen not to be enforced, with the exception of trafficking and commercial production (much like tobacco and alcohol).

Alongside that, adopt a zero-tolerance strategy toward those individuals who are caught driving, or engaged in other activities where being under the influence would lead to arrest/job dismissal; and make available for sale from age-restricted licenced premises, much like the present pubs and off-licences for alcohol

The upshot of such a strategy would be:
1) An immediate reduction in the number of prosecutions for personal use/possession, freeing up huge amounts of judicial and enforcement resources for other areas of social policy
2) A vast reduction of financial income currently funding the commercial-criminal-industry and the attendant social problems it creates
3) An increase in treasury revenue generated by taxation of narcotic substances, and the licencing of premisis, some of which can be used to tackle the root causes of the associated negative social factors
4) A guaranteed legislated quality of narcotic, so the consumer knows exactly what they are buying.
5) Education of narcotics; how they affect the mind and body, how to help someone who has taken too much, and how many 'units' of a given substance can be taken, and how long the body takes to process those substances