Obama: Pot 'not very different' to cigs

**rebbu** · 20-01-2014, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Originally Posted by rebbu

I personally don't agree with Mary Jane "gateway" theory. First time I was offered acid was in a pub same as ecstasy. Why do people have a problem with what herbs/plants I want to injest into my body.

Because it [like numerous things] has been strongly suggested to them.

Good point.

TO ALL NON SMOKERS OF HERB I STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT YOU FCUK OFF AND MIND YOUR OWN BUSSINESS.

I Hope this suggestion helps.

**Rural Surin** · 20-01-2014, 10:02 PM

Yet, pharmaceuticals, which lead to thousands of unnecessary deaths and injury annually, are perfectly acceptable. And not frowned upon nor attached with an evil negativity.

Remember: It's THE WAR ON SELECTED SUBSTANCES.
Look into the history and real reason why all this is so.

**robuzo** · 20-01-2014, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by barbaro

Originally Posted by Necron99

How does the Prez get away with encouraging the breaking of a federal narcotics law?

Because he is the Prez.

I presume he does not agree with the federal law and classification of pot as a class "A" drug. Nixon did that.

There are people sitting in federal prison for selling medical marijuana in California. Legal under CA law, but against fed law, so the feds prosecuted and the jury was not allowed to be told that this pot in CA was legal under CA state law.

That was under GWB. Prick.

O's been as bad or worse.
Obama: Marijuana Dispensary Busts by Feds Aren't About to Stop | The Informer | Los Angeles | Los Angeles News and Events | LA Weekly
Here's how he wiggles out of that one:

What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana ...
That's what he told Rolling Stone this week when the magazine asked him "what's up" with his administration's heavy prosecution of marijuana businesses in medical-legal states like California, where Oaksterdam University was raided by agents earlier this month.
---
No more pettifoggin' sophists as president would be a good start.

**harrybarracuda** · 20-01-2014, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Pot is a gateway drug, and the damages and social effects is huge, not in the way Alcohol stands out, but then Pot was also illegal so less openly abused.

That's such a load of bollocks, akin to an old wives tale. You only have to look at Holland, where less young people gravitate to hard drugs than countries where weed is illegal.

Scientists long ago abandoned the idea that marijuana causes users to try other drugs: as far back as 1999, in a report commissioned by Congress to look at the possible dangers of medical marijuana, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences wrote:

Patterns in progression of drug use from adolescence to adulthood are strikingly regular. Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana — usually before they are of legal age.
In the sense that marijuana use typically precedes rather than follows initiation of other illicit drug use, it is indeed a “gateway” drug. But because underage smoking and alcohol use typically precede marijuana use, marijuana is not the most common, and is rarely the first, “gateway” to illicit drug use. There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.
Since then, numerous other studies have failed to support the gateway idea. Every year, the federal government funds two huge surveys on drug use in the population. Over and over they find that the number of people who try marijuana dwarfs that for cocaine or heroin. For example, in 2009, 2.3 million people reported trying pot — compared with 617,000 who tried cocaine and 180,000 who tried heroin.

With legalisation will come a host of problems they haven't prepared for, like a lot more DUI cases, that is if they do what they are supposed to, namely start looking for it on the same level as DUI alcohol since it now is legal and thus needs regulating in the exact same way.

You've been in Thailand too long Lardarse. Most countries now realise they can't stem the flow of all sorts of drugs, and have long since incorporated Driving Under the Influence to include either Alcohol or Narcotics. You can even be done for being impaired by prescription drugs.

Again same for work places, company's will need to up the drug testing, not that they want to, but because they risk huge lawsuits from injured employees if it turns out the offender was high, and the company policy/control lax, in the crazy US lawsuit system, you can bet this will become an issue.

We do not need more legalised drugs, alcohol is plenty bad enough as most of the pro free pot crowd constantly drone, so why would adding one more legal mindfvuck-drug be any better if not twice as bad

.
.

Drugs are already incorporated into most OHS legislation, you are living in the past you silly old fart.

Light yourself a spliff and stop getting so worked up about nothing.

**stickmansucks** · 20-01-2014, 11:22 PM

<3 OBAMA <3

**Albert Shagnastier** · 20-01-2014, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by rebbu

Good point. TO ALL NON SMOKERS OF HERB I STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT YOU FCUK OFF AND MIND YOUR OWN BUSSINESS. I Hope this suggestion helps.

Fvckers wanna take drugs before commenting.

(I believe in 3)

**Albert Shagnastier** · 20-01-2014, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Light yourself a spliff and stop getting so worked up about nothing.

**BaitongBoy** · 21-01-2014, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by BaitongBoy

Good to see an honest approach right from the top...Unprecedented...

I stand by my statement...And I expected some flaming...

But it is a very general statement...On a very controversial subject...

Would you rather he said, "I never smoked it,"or "I smoked it, but never inhaled," like some other liars before him?...

**larvidchr** · 21-01-2014, 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Pot is a gateway drug, and the damages and social effects is huge, not in the way Alcohol stands out, but then Pot was also illegal so less openly abused.

That's such a load of bollocks, akin to an old wives tale. You only have to look at Holland, where less young people gravitate to hard drugs than countries where weed is illegal.

Scientists long ago abandoned the idea that marijuana causes users to try other drugs: as far back as 1999, in a report commissioned by Congress to look at the possible dangers of medical marijuana, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences wrote:

Patterns in progression of drug use from adolescence to adulthood are strikingly regular. Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana — usually before they are of legal age.
In the sense that marijuana use typically precedes rather than follows initiation of other illicit drug use, it is indeed a “gateway” drug. But because underage smoking and alcohol use typically precede marijuana use, marijuana is not the most common, and is rarely the first, “gateway” to illicit drug use. There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.
Since then, numerous other studies have failed to support the gateway idea. Every year, the federal government funds two huge surveys on drug use in the population. Over and over they find that the number of people who try marijuana dwarfs that for cocaine or heroin. For example, in 2009, 2.3 million people reported trying pot — compared with 617,000 who tried cocaine and 180,000 who tried heroin.

With legalisation will come a host of problems they haven't prepared for, like a lot more DUI cases, that is if they do what they are supposed to, namely start looking for it on the same level as DUI alcohol since it now is legal and thus needs regulating in the exact same way.

You've been in Thailand too long Lardarse. Most countries now realise they can't stem the flow of all sorts of drugs, and have long since incorporated Driving Under the Influence to include either Alcohol or Narcotics. You can even be done for being impaired by prescription drugs.

Again same for work places, company's will need to up the drug testing, not that they want to, but because they risk huge lawsuits from injured employees if it turns out the offender was high, and the company policy/control lax, in the crazy US lawsuit system, you can bet this will become an issue.

We do not need more legalised drugs, alcohol is plenty bad enough as most of the pro free pot crowd constantly drone, so why would adding one more legal mindfvuck-drug be any better if not twice as bad

.
.

Drugs are already incorporated into most OHS legislation, you are living in the past you silly old fart.

Light yourself a spliff and stop getting so worked up about nothing.

Who is worked up Harry

FFS Harry

, yes of-cause Drug driving/working (that include certain prescription drugs) is illegal and has been for years in most Western Country's, but the fact is that there has been no easy way to detect it on the spot, and the Blood tests was very expensive, consequently up until now most places there has been no drug driving policing policy comparable to the efforts to curb drunk driving, so essentially it has largely been a freebie on the highways unless you where involved in a serious accident.

That is about to change drastically with new detection systems that can be used on the spot, and gives an instant indication on Substances such as opiates, cocaine, cannabinoides, amphetamines as well as designer drugs and tranquilizers based on benzodiazepines.

Hopefully some of the recommendations on blood level for THC - its half-life etc. will soon be agreed on and adopted, so that people wont loose their jobs and driver licences via the present zero tolerance on a positive that is in effect in many Country's.
But it is recognised as a rising big problem, for-instance in the UK they now estimate that drug impaired drivers (including prescription drugs) outnumber alcohol impaired drivers.

So what I posted was - that the age of being able to more easy get away with drug impaired driving is coming to an end, and the risks of getting caught will at some point in the not to distant future be as great as if you drink drive, and that will be a nasty surprise for quite a number of people.

It is complete rubbish that drug legislation is failed everywhere, we will never be able to completely eradicate negative human behaviour, be it violent crime, murder, theft, drug crime etc. it is about keeping it at an "acceptable" low as possible level.
Or maybe according to the anti prohibition religion we should legalise it all since we clearly have failed there too

A lot of European Country's have a quite successful approach to Drugs, with balanced distinctions between soft drugs and hard drugs, education, warnings, Heroin or Methadone stations, social/treatment initiatives for known users (some involuntary for repeat offenders), and criminal prosecutions for the harder stuff/dealers etc., and where the drug problem as a result has been kept very manageable and acceptable compared to other crimes and alcohol problems, and that is without legalising any drugs.

But what happens here on TD and in the pro pot press and blogosphere, is that we are all measured by the yardstick of some spectacular failed States when it comes to drug crimes, like the US, but that has failed society/social economy causes much more than it is "Judicial war on drugs" issues.

So just because the Americans and some others have fvucked up, we do not need to import their failure, and we should resent their burgeoning cowardice surrender, which will have a massive negative eff. on other Country's efforts to stay on top of these problems.

Instead maybe US and others should overcome their megalomaniac superiority complex, their failed social and economic policy's etc., and start looking elsewhere to learn, how to avoid such huge divides in society that creates such rampant squalor, nutters, crime and civil disobedience.

In Sweden the drug problems is about par with Holland, but in Sweden they have a Zero tolerance policy, so the fact is that Hollands giving up and bending over to take it up the arse, and becoming Europes drug distribution central nr. one, is no more effective than Sweden's Zero tolerance policy, apart from the significant fact that Sweden is not compounding the problem for the rest of Europe like Holland is.

And in any-case the Dutch is drastically revising their policy and halving the number of coffee-houses due to crime and drug tourist problems.

For the record I could not care less what responsible adults do privately, I have several very good friends that smoke pot, they also know that they can light up in my house (in the garden

) when they want, it is not even an issue I consider as regards to private relations.

What I am on about is official Government policy, the protection of the weak, our young, and our children, and that has to "ideally" measure up to much higher moral standards than any of us as individuals.

IMHO.

**khmen** · 21-01-2014, 04:27 AM

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Pot is a gateway drug

Stopped reading at that. Because, if you mindlessly regurgitate idiotic propaganda in your very first sentence there's not much of worth you're going to have to input to a discussion.

I dare say if you did a questionnaire of 100,000 heroin addicts you'll find the vast majority, or at least a large percentage, had their first experience of a mind altering psychoactive substance with alcohol.

Does that make alcohol a gateway drug too?

Nope, of course it doesn't, don't be such a mindless mug.

Some people, be it down to genetics, upbringing, whatever, will naturally gravitate toward drugs. Some will use them moderately for years with no real adverse effects, others will go deep down the rabbit hole and end up fucked up.

It ain't the first substance they happen to try which leads them down this path, it's their personality type.

**robuzo** · 21-01-2014, 05:53 AM

Originally Posted by khmen

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Pot is a gateway drug

Stopped reading at that. Because, if you mindlessly regurgitate idiotic propaganda in your very first sentence there's not much of worth you're going to have to input to a discussion.

I dare say if you did a questionnaire of 100,000 heroin addicts you'll find the vast majority, or at least a large percentage, had their first experience of a mind altering psychoactive substance with alcohol.

Does that make alcohol a gateway drug too?

Cigarettes are a gateway drug to alcohol, also, too.

**ENT** · 21-01-2014, 09:28 AM

Similarly drinking milk from a bottle as a child leads to drinking anything from a bottle, thus to alcoholism.

**sabang** · 21-01-2014, 11:10 AM

I have personally smoked weed with (ex) politicians, lawyers & magistrates, military officers, medical specialists and other 'pillar of society' type people. Policemen too. I've shared a toke with plenty of bottom feeders as well, like bankers and dole bludgers. At the 'pillar of society' level, as a group they have many more issues with alcoholism (and I should know) than being in any way marijuana dependent, which is mainly used as a relaxant after work or on weekends- a better one, imho, than the ridiculous amount of artificially synthesized chemical Happy pills people pop these days. It is ridiculous and hypocritical to criminalise it, when many of the people involved in the 'criminal supply chain'- lawyers, judges, journalists, court reporters etc- are no strangers to the weed themself. But nobody could really say anything for self preservation reasons, or their career, reputation and future might fall victim too to the same hypocrisy. And it chafed. I suppose it was much the same in prohibition days.

Marijuana prohibition/ enforcement has been a joke for many years, at least in the more liberal or free countries. Even where possession of a private supply is still treatable as a criminal offence, it is mostly just used as an 'option'- the cops will pull you for it if they think you are up to no good, but if they think you are kosher they will ignore it, or not even bother checking. That seems a pretty cavalier way to treat someones future to me, and it makes me wonder how many peoples futures have been compromised or even ruined, on the basis of a cops whim.
In the US, in many if not most states it is easy to get a 'medical marijuana card'. The doctors are highly compliant- heck, many of them can tell you where to get the best stuff. In my limited experience, many doc's like a toke (not on the job, of course).
In China, weed grows wild in Yunnan province (and elsewhere). There is a whole hillside covered in the stuff outside the town walls of Dali, for example. You are free to pick it and smoke it to your hearts content. But you are not allowed to sell it, ie traffic in it.
Here in Isaan and surrounding regions, marijuana and chicken soup is a traditional dish- it's been eaten for centuries. But under US pressure, it is now illegal- and under archaic Thai laws, can be treated as draconian as if you are found in possession of yaba, how ridiculous. But the 'authorities' tend to overlook it unless they are out to get you. Once again, a rather arbitrary way to carry on law enforcement and deciding someones future.
In South Australia, the laws have varied widely, but as I understand it you are currently allowed to grow one plant for personal consumption- it used to be up to five plants, and even hydroponics were allowed (as 'anyone' can tell you, five plants under lights is a whole lot more than personal consumption!). They caved to pressure from the eastern states, who resented the flow of good weed going in one direction- and cash in the other. But thanks to the residual effect of this liberalisation, there is still a lot of weed going east from Adelaide- and it has benefited the Sth Australian economy (which needs it).
In many states and nations, possession of a personal quantity is treated as a non-criminal offence, like a speeding ticket. And then there are the places that are ahead of the curve- Colorado, Uruguay etc, that have fully legalised.

Larv is right, in one regard- the floodgates have opened. Not to marijuana consumption (that has been here all along), but to legalisation, vs. the ridiculous economic and social costs of criminalising it. And what government couldn't benefit from the revenue raised. I'd rather see the profits from this huge trade being used for the common good, rather than in the pockets of biker gangs or mafia types. I'd also like to see the general public wean themselves off these Happy pills- I believe most (not all) users don't really need them at all, or at least can substitute them for a better, safer, natural alternative.

As marijuana legalisation inevitably expands, expect Big pharma and Big tobacco to be getting into the game. It's big business.

**harrybarracuda** · 21-01-2014, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by larvidchr

What I am on about is official Government policy, the protection of the weak, our young, and our children, and that has to "ideally" measure up to much higher moral standards than any of us as individuals.

IMHO.

What a load of sanctimonious bullshit.

If you want to protect the weak and the young, ban alcohol.

In fact, ban cigarettes as well. And greasy fried breakfasts.

Take away all these harmful decisions from people, that's what governments are for, eh?

**Norton** · 21-01-2014, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

If you want to protect the weak and the young, ban alcohol

Been there done that in the US. Prohibition lasted 13 years (1920 to 1933). Result, organized crime made big bucks producing, smuggling and selling "illegal" alcohol to a large consumer market. Cost of law enforcement escalated with little effect on consumption. Realizing the folly of such a law, Congress passed the 18th amendment ending prohibition.

Marijuana in the US was made illegal in 1937. A mere 4 years after the failed alcohol prohibition experiment ended. Now after 77 years of the same thing that the alcohol prohibition experiment produced, legalization of marijuana is happening.

Given the experience of prohibition, amazing it has taken 77 years for sanity to set in.

**larvidchr** · 21-01-2014, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by khmen

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Pot is a gateway drug

Stopped reading at that.

Am I surprised.........no

**Necron99** · 21-01-2014, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Originally Posted by khmen

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Pot is a gateway drug

Stopped reading at that.

Am I surprised.........no

Pot is only called a gateway drug because it is illegal and users often mix necessarily in an illegal subculture. The same "criminals" that distribute pot also often distribute harder drugs.

There is nothing in the pot experience itself that entices you to upgrade to crack or ice anymore than alcohol use would.

Take pot out of that illegal culture and the faint connection disappears.

**larvidchr** · 21-01-2014, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by larvidchr

What I am on about is official Government policy, the protection of the weak, our young, and our children, and that has to "ideally" measure up to much higher moral standards than any of us as individuals.

IMHO.

What a load of sanctimonious bullshit.

If you want to protect the weak and the young, ban alcohol.

In fact, ban cigarettes as well. And greasy fried breakfasts.

Take away all these harmful decisions from people, that's what governments are for, eh?

Well lets hope you don't have kids then if your idea is to do nothing

eh.

Your reading and comprehension skills are on par with the Devil trying to get a grasp of the bible Harry.

It's not about banning something that is already legal, it is about not adding more crap to the mistakes done already, those mistakes we have to live with and manage the best we can, and yes helping people reduce Smoking, and setting limits for trans fats in food by legislation, is part of the Governments job since company's wont do it by themselves, that is why the fat content of a Mc.Donald's in Denmark is much less than most other places, sensible regulation Harry for the benefit of all.

Since many of the better working Democracy's have a policy of everyone sharing the costs of society, some limits without going overboard, to peoples unhinged behaviour, is only fair and correct since your neighbours has to share in covering for the damages.

In the end it is all about education education education coupled with balanced sensible regulation.

**harrybarracuda** · 21-01-2014, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by larvidchr

What I am on about is official Government policy, the protection of the weak, our young, and our children, and that has to "ideally" measure up to much higher moral standards than any of us as individuals.

IMHO.

What a load of sanctimonious bullshit.

If you want to protect the weak and the young, ban alcohol.

In fact, ban cigarettes as well. And greasy fried breakfasts.

Take away all these harmful decisions from people, that's what governments are for, eh?

Well lets hope you don't have kids then if your idea is to do nothing

eh.

Your reading and comprehension skills are on par with the Devil trying to get a grasp of the bible Harry.

It's not about banning something that is already legal, it is about not adding more crap to the mistakes done already, those mistakes we have to live with and manage the best we can, and yes helping people reduce Smoking, and setting limits for trans fats in food by legislation, is part of the Governments job since company's wont do it by themselves, that is why the fat content of a Mc.Donald's in Denmark is much less than most other places, sensible regulation Harry for the benefit of all.

Since many of the better working Democracy's have a policy of everyone sharing the costs of society, some limits without going overboard, to peoples unhinged behaviour, is only fair and correct since your neighbours has to share in covering for the damages.

In the end it is all about education education education coupled with balanced sensible regulation.

Christ you are full of it aren't you?

Yes, I'm a parent, and NO, I did not do "nothing". I taught my son about the dangers of alcohol and drugs because I knew he'd end up exposed to them no matter what I did. Same goes for porn and swear words and diet.

He's polite, respectful to women, has a lovely girlfriend, he smokes the odd joint at Uni and he doesn't binge drink. He doesn't eat McDonalds because I taught him that it's shit made out of fat and chemicals and revolting body parts.

I taught him how to catch scorpions when he was three, because I knew the first chance he got he'd try and pick one up. You don't need legislation, you need EDUCATION.

Good luck with your banning your kids from doing everything; as most retarded Victorian-style parents learn, they'll be absolutely gagging to go ape on everything you tell them not to do.

It's the kind of mistakes that stupid intrusive governments and stupid parents make that decriminalising a spliff will correct. Most kids then won't even need to go near a drug dealer in their lives, so they won't get exposed to the drugs that do the real damage (other than alcohol and tobacco).

**stickmansucks** · 21-01-2014, 01:20 PM

So crazy that the world had to ban weed because of US and that now the world is going to make it legal thanks to US..

**larvidchr** · 21-01-2014, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Necron99

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Originally Posted by khmen

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Pot is a gateway drug

Stopped reading at that.

Am I surprised.........no

Pot is only called a gateway drug because it is illegal and users often mix necessarily in an illegal subculture. The same "criminals" that distribute pot also often distribute harder drugs.

There is nothing in the pot experience itself that entices you to upgrade to crack or ice anymore than alcohol use would.

Take pot out of that illegal culture and the faint connection disappears.

This is not entirely correct, yes agreed there is a significant element of the drug subculture with the mix of stronger drugs being available there, and yes successful separation of the two would go part way (but guess who hangs around Dutch coffee shops

), still it does not remove all the the gateway factor which is much more than just faint, so those benefits is not reason enough IMHO to legalise Pot and becoming part of the problem for other country's/states who refuse to go down that route.

If we where to buy the pot fans argument that alcohol is just as much a gateway drug because everyone on hard drugs have tried a beer before the first pot, then that goes for milk too since everyone have had milk before their first beer right

.

The fact is that more hardened pot smokers end up experimenting with hard drugs than hardened beer drinkers, as I have said before I know plenty of alcoholics who have never smoked a joint, but I don't know one single hard drug addict (and I have met a real huge bunch) who did not smoke pot to start with.

I readily admit my views on this is influenced strongly by my 20 year experiences in working with drug addicts and the consequences, I have intimate knowledge of the backside of the coin, a backside so bad that most casual drug users on the other side in the normal world can't really imagine and fathom the scope, and they never really get to see, even though they think they know and they all are experts

.

The last one to openly admit to a problem is an alcoholic, and exactly the same goes for drug addicts.

But the whole discussion is interesting, posters from different backgrounds here on "rebel" TD

and where I as usual end up comprehensibly outnumbered on this issue, but that is no surprise either.

A bit on Holland -
Holland's Half-Baked Drug Experiment.

**larvidchr** · 21-01-2014, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by larvidchr

What I am on about is official Government policy, the protection of the weak, our young, and our children, and that has to "ideally" measure up to much higher moral standards than any of us as individuals.

IMHO.

What a load of sanctimonious bullshit.

If you want to protect the weak and the young, ban alcohol.

In fact, ban cigarettes as well. And greasy fried breakfasts.

Take away all these harmful decisions from people, that's what governments are for, eh?

Well lets hope you don't have kids then if your idea is to do nothing

eh.

Your reading and comprehension skills are on par with the Devil trying to get a grasp of the bible Harry.

It's not about banning something that is already legal, it is about not adding more crap to the mistakes done already, those mistakes we have to live with and manage the best we can, and yes helping people reduce Smoking, and setting limits for trans fats in food by legislation, is part of the Governments job since company's wont do it by themselves, that is why the fat content of a Mc.Donald's in Denmark is much less than most other places, sensible regulation Harry for the benefit of all.

Since many of the better working Democracy's have a policy of everyone sharing the costs of society, some limits without going overboard, to peoples unhinged behaviour, is only fair and correct since your neighbours has to share in covering for the damages.

In the end it is all about education education education coupled with balanced sensible regulation.

Christ you are full of it aren't you?

Yes, I'm a parent, and NO, I did not do "nothing". I taught my son about the dangers of alcohol and drugs because I knew he'd end up exposed to them no matter what I did. Same goes for porn and swear words and diet.

He's polite, respectful to women, has a lovely girlfriend, he smokes the odd joint at Uni and he doesn't binge drink. He doesn't eat McDonalds because I taught him that it's shit made out of fat and chemicals and revolting body parts.

I taught him how to catch scorpions when he was three, because I knew the first chance he got he'd try and pick one up. You don't need legislation, you need EDUCATION.

Good luck with your banning your kids from doing everything; as most retarded Victorian-style parents learn, they'll be absolutely gagging to go ape on everything you tell them not to do.

It's the kind of mistakes that stupid intrusive governments and stupid parents make that decriminalising a spliff will correct. Most kids then won't even need to go near a drug dealer in their lives, so they won't get exposed to the drugs that do the real damage (other than alcohol and tobacco).

"In the end it is all about education education education coupled with balanced sensible regulation."

**harrybarracuda** · 21-01-2014, 03:54 PM

"In the end it is all about education education education coupled with balanced sensible regulation."

And balanced and sensible regulation means adults have access to a spliff if they want one, instead of having to go underground with all the inherent dangers therein.

You just wrap your kids in cotton wool, Lardarse. Tell them all these things are bad and if they touch them, the Bogeyman will come and get them.

**robuzo** · 21-01-2014, 06:39 PM

Just imagine any other "crime" with similar penalties to which politicians and others can fess up and not suffer a loss of reputation. It would cover a broad range, given that marijuana growing or distribution can result in a multiyear or even life sentence. "I robbed a couple convenience stores when I was young and wild." "Broke into a few houses but never armed or while anyone was home." "Yeah, I did a fair amount of shoplifting when I was a teen."

Also, try to imagine a class of crime other than drug crime of which if all the perpetrators were caught society wouldn't be better off. If all the pot smokers were "caught" simultaneously the US would come to a standstill.

Another thought experiment- if pot is so bad, why is the worst thing that can happen as a result of its use is being caught by the cops? Millions of people have used pot and gone to have successful, high-profile careers. How many would be doing so now if they had a criminal record?

The "war on drugs" is nothing more than a culture war. You might want to protect your kids, but considering that the worst thing can happen as a result of pot use is a run-in with the cops, maybe your first priority should be preventing their arrest for doing something relatively harmless to them and completely harmless to others.

**Neo** · 21-01-2014, 11:33 PM

I have to say I totally agree with decriminalization/legalisation because people are going to smoke dope, and decriminalization/legalisation separates them from the criminal elements that sell it. That association with criminality, if anything, is the gateway to harder drugs.

However... I know a person that smoked dope for a long time and when they started you got good quality hashish, home grown weed and stuff like Lebanese Green, Afghan Black, as time went on and dope became more accepted solids became adulterated to increase profits and hydroponic weed became the norm to get a clean smoke with a good high, but that also has been corrupted.

What I do know is that the old adage that smoking dope can't do you any harm is no longer true, sure it still won't kill you, but hydroponics these days can be extremely potent and are known to cause psychological problems, especially when the real high strength stuff is usually consumed by adolescents of all ages wrapped up in the the spiral of youthful bravado. Strains like White Widow and Jack Herer produce a narcotic high that can be psychologically addictive and therefore problematic with long term use.

But... decriminalization/legalisation can help, most obviously by reallocating resources from policing to counseling, and by making a wider range of choices available, such as different weed strains like Haze or Bio, which have a less pronounced high and also hashish that is free from adulteration.

It works, not everyone wants to get totally fried all the time, sometimes they just want to get a little mellow.

Thread: Obama: Pot 'not very different' to cigs

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions