Lawmakers To Discuss Legalizing Marijuana!!

Do you own yourself?

Do you believe that as an extension of that, you have a right to defend yourself? That your person is inviolate? That you may not be enslaved, imprisoned without conviction, or otherwise forced to do things?

If you believe those things, and I think you should, and if you believe you should have a right to own guns for self-defense, I would hope if you're here you think that...

I would like to see you or anyone make an argument against the right to pick the flowers of a plant and then smoke those flowers - your own mouth to smoke with, your own lungs to inhale with, and your own bloodstream to fill with intoxicants.

The only argument I've heard in response to this is something along the lines of, "but you can't think rationally on weed," which is by itself ridiculous and indicative that someone has no experience with it, but even if true, then you must also support the prohibition of alcohol.

Alcohol which was once prohibited but, because everyone made it or drank it anyway, and because prohibition led to violent organized crime...they made legal again.

Violence, ineffectual law...

Just like the drug war.

Besides, the question of intoxication isn't the intoxication, but *what you might do* in that state, right?

Kind of like for gun control advocates, the question is *what you might do* with a gun.

If you believe that the government ought to have sovereignty over your body - over your right to take a drug, then it is not particularly difficult to make a case for why you have no right to own guns. Because after all, that's for the government to decide, right? The way they decide now that no one's allowed to smoke pot.

Dominion over the individual -- that is all the drug war is.

If you support the Drug War, you believe the government has sovereignty over the body and minds of individuals. That is the definition of what prohibition is. And remember, we're not talking about people going on robbery sprees to get money for drugs (itself obviated by legal and therefore cheaper drugs - the same way alcohol-related crime went into decline as Prohibition ended), or people doing dangerous or otherwise rights-infringing things under the influence of drugs: those are and will always be illegal and prosecutable.

We are talking about some guy sitting on his back patio smoking a joint, and how that's somehow the government's business.

It isn't. And if you believe it is, you obviously don't have the same sense of what freedom means that I do.

Maybe you have never smoked pot and never will. Maybe you consider it a frivolous, pointless activity.

Gun control advocates have exactly the same perspective on gun ownership, and rationalize their statism by the question we've all heard so many times: "Why do you NEED a gun?" -- you must prove to them your "need" to exercise a right.

Which is what many drug prohibitionists demand of pot smokers.

As marshaul discussed, these are all manifestations of the same issue.

Who owns you, and what is the extent of the government's sovereignty? That many pro-gun people don't see them as a same issue (and many do not - the same way a hell of a lot of pot smokers don't see what guns have to do with pot legalization), is their failing.

When we get to the point as a society where we insist that government has no dominion over our private lives, but only our actions that impact others, rather than "yes, government, you're mommy and daddy and I bow to your authority...just please let me do this one little thing that is important to me please." -- well, maybe then we'll have a truly free society.

Until that point, we have a government that considers itself omnipotent, and from which we beg for favors and privileges.

^^^^^^ +1000

It's all about self determination.

As long as no one harms me do what ever they want to themselves. I don't smoke pot or do any other drugs, detest smoking of any kind. But who am I to tell someone else what to do or not to do.

Who is the government to use "loopholes" to get around the constitutionality of prohibition costing us "Billions" of dollars and peoples lives. Have encouraged blood in our streets by putting value on things that can be produced for very little.

Shrink shrink shrink the government get out of my life, monetarily and morally.

I met a guy using the stuff medically. He was one of the nicest most polite people I have met. Black, gay, and middle aged ( 50's). He even likes guns. He grew up with legally owned guns around him.

Stoners ( non medical users) I have known in the past were almost all very mild people, and fun to hang out with too. Alcoholics on the other hand- YUCK! I can't stand heavy drinkers. They do stupider things than stoners, hands down! The one who wasn't mild was a HS bully I had a few problems with, he and his pal were just a-holes from the get-go. I stood up to him one day, and he left me alone after that.

So, when was the last time you heard of a terrible car accident where a stoner ( using ONLY pot) rammed his/her vehicle into another and killed a bunch of people? How about the last time you heard of a stoner ( using ONLY pot) who got crazy angry at some social gathering and got his gun and shot some people? How do you tell who the stoner driver is? Easy, they are the one going 10mph LESS than the slow old lady!

XD40coyote said:

I met a guy using the stuff medically. He was one of the nicest most polite people I have met. Black, gay, and middle aged ( 50's). He even likes guns. He grew up with legally owned guns around him.

Stoners ( non medical users) I have known in the past were almost all very mild people, and fun to hang out with too. Alcoholics on the other hand- YUCK! I can't stand heavy drinkers. They do stupider things than stoners, hands down! The one who wasn't mild was a HS bully I had a few problems with, he and his pal were just a-holes from the get-go. I stood up to him one day, and he left me alone after that.

So, when was the last time you heard of a terrible car accident where a stoner ( using ONLY pot) rammed his/her vehicle into another and killed a bunch of people? How about the last time you heard of a stoner ( using ONLY pot) who got crazy angry at some social gathering and got his gun and shot some people? How do you tell who the stoner driver is? Easy, they are the one going 10mph LESS than the slow old lady!

Click to expand...

I knew a stoner in HS that almost got in one of those crazy accidents. Basically he was approaching a stopsign, but mistook the reflection of the stop sign on the other side of the road for his. Due to this he ran his stop sign, had to slam on the brakes to prevent t-boning a truck with a trailer, and then had to punch the gas to prevent getting t-boned himself due to traffic from the other direction.

I'm all for the legalization of marijuana (and by that token all drugs so long as they are properly regulated in a way that allows consumers to know just what they are getting and the potential effects), but asking for people to find these kinds of stories can be dangerous. What this can do is cause the antis to latch on to those stories (regardless of how rare they are). A better tactic is to instead talk about the statistics of those under the influence of the drug compared to the stats of those either sober or drunk. But asking for stories can backfire.

I think everyone here is missing the point. Don't legalize marijuana so everyone can smoke it, legalize it so we can make fuel with it, make lubricants with it, make paper with it, make bullet proof clothing and plastic with it.

It seems to me everyone can only think of smoking marijuana but that's only one of the millions of benefits which can be had by allowing America to industrialize the strongest, easiest to grow, natural fiber in the world.

KennyB said:

Don't give me that ****.....I fought for freedom.

Click to expand...

Just your's? Or everyone's? Just the Freedoms currently recognized?

Sometimes I wonder what license to dominate others some Soldiers think they earned....

HandyHamlet said:

Party at your house!
:monkey

p.s. Doritos or Cheese Puffs?

Click to expand...

Here's the sick part about that...

Frito-Lay (the makers of Doritos) is the largest corporate contributor in the USA to "Partnership for a Drug-Free America"...

Talk about working against your own biggest demographic...

That's like Glock contributing to the Brady Campaign.

clarkebar said:

I think everyone here is missing the point. Don't legalize marijuana so everyone can smoke it, legalize it so we can make fuel with it, make lubricants with it, make paper with it, make bullet proof clothing and plastic with it.

Click to expand...

As a printmaker, bookbinder, and historical printing scholar, I can attest to the superiority of hemp-based paper, compared with cotton, linen, wood-pulp, rice, or bamboo. It takes ink better, folds better, is more stury in hand-stitched bindings, does not get brittle with age, and is just all-around superior to all other fibers as a paper stock.

Strathmore is currently marketing Hemp paper for charcoal sketch pads. It is 25% hemp, and 75% post-consumer waste. I've used in it a few projects and it is WONDERFUL stuff, if a little spendy. Gotta love the cover art on the pads though...

elixin77 said:

...... We'd be able to tap a completely new and original 'reusable materials' market through the marijuana plant - make hemp rope, paper, clothes, oil.......

Click to expand...

Nothing new about it, hemp has been used for many many years for such things.

The original US flags were made of hemp, the first drafts of many of our founding documents were printed on hemp paper. George Washington is attributed to a quote saying "Make the most of the hemp seed, sow it everywhere".

There is a USDA film called "Hemp For Victory" that was released in the 40's.

On a side note, the plants used for industrial hemp and the ones used for recreational or medical use are actually different. You can smoke an industrial hemp plant all day long and will get a headache before you get stoned. It may be the same species but so is the Chiwawa and the Saint Bernard. Same species, but try using a Chiwawa for Alpine rescues.

clarkebar said:

I think everyone here is missing the point. Don't legalize marijuana so everyone can smoke it, legalize it so we can make fuel with it, make lubricants with it, make paper with it, make bullet proof clothing and plastic with it.

It seems to me everyone can only think of smoking marijuana but that's only one of the millions of benefits which can be had by allowing America to industrialize the strongest, easiest to grow, natural fiber in the world.

Click to expand...

I don't think most people are missing the point, but rather are talking about the main (sole?) reason it's banned. And it's banned because of antis not liking the effects when it's smoked; just as how anti-gun people don't like the crimes commited with guns.

Making something in high demand illegal only leads to fat profit margins for organized crime. Drug gangs wouldn't exist if there was no money to be made importing contraband.

How many people are victims of the increased crime associated with the illegal drug trade? How much of our tax money is being poured into this problem which was created in order to send the message that drugs are bad? It increases both real crime and fake crime. The drug gangs won't think twice about committing real crimes like murder if it helps them profit, and at the same time people are serving hard time for mere possession of a plant, and we are footing the bill for both of them.

Dreamer said:

Here's the sick part about that...

Frito-Lay (the makers of Doritos) is the largest corporate contributor in the USA to "Partnership for a Drug-Free America"...

Talk about working against your own biggest demographic...

That's like Glock contributing to the Brady Campaign.

Click to expand...

Actually I think Frito-Lay is being pretty smart about it, it has been speculated that if a previously Illegal substance is made legal the use of that substance will go down, if the use of Mary-Jane goes down then not as many people will have the munchies and Frito-Lay will lose some of their buyers.

I read an article recently that claims Portugal has seen a decrease in drug use since they decriminalized possession and use of drugs.



"The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled."

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html for the full article

Guido said:

I read an article recently that claims Portugal has seen a decrease in drug use since they decriminalized possession and use of drugs.

"The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled."

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html for the full article

Click to expand...

I couldn't possibly be less surprised.

Prohibition ignores human nature.

marshaul said:

Why do you hate freedom?



Edit: But seriously, legalizing drugs, ANY drugs, is of indirect benefit to gun rights.

Follow me here:

Prohibition incentivizes violent behavior (I hope I don't need to spell this out). This leads to our relatively high murder rates, the overwhelming majority of which are perpetrated by gang members on gang members, over drugs, drug money, drug-selling territory, snitching over drugs, or in retaliation for murder committed for one of those reasons. These murder rates fuel the fire of the Brady campaign, both by enabling their rhetoric, and by convincing some Americans to accept their agenda.

Without these murder rates, it would be very easy to point out the statistical rarity of non-gangsters being murdered by guns (even including rampages and massacres).

If we ended prohibition, we'd take the wind out of gun-grabbers sails.

Not to mention that prohibition of drugs has the same inherent problems as the prohibition of guns: it doesn't, can't, ever work; it criminalizes people for nonaggressive acts; and it serves as a perpetual boon to power-grabbing tyrants of every shape and color.

Click to expand...

While I agree with the premise, and I really don't personally care if idiots snort cyanide and remove themselves from the genepool, I can't endorse absolute legalization. Certain drugs don't just kill people eventually. They turn them into dependents. Not only on obtaining more drugs due too addiction, but since they become non-functional oxygen thieves. They will still fall into the welfare class if they didn't start there to begin with. So before we legalize dope, we need to enforce drug testing on the dependency class. The left wing will allow that to happen just as soon as they give up all ambition to turn the world into a soviet "utopia".

PrayingForWar said:

we need to enforce drug testing on the dependency class

Click to expand...

While I have no reason to disagree with the operative clause I quoted here, as to the necessity of waiting for this unlikelihood before legalizing:

What about the fact that, as discussed in the last couple posts, drug use rates go down when prohibition is eliminated? Might, therefore, ending prohibition be a good way to decrease the dependency burden even before such drug testing could be implemented, or handouts to addicts otherwise curtailed?

PrayingForWar said:

we need to enforce drug testing on the dependency class.

Click to expand...

Who created the 'dependency class?' Yes, we know who funds them, but who created the dependency? Who stands on their backs? Who benefits from them? Who declared war on them and appropriates billions to throw them in jail for literally doing nothing?

It's circular. Welfare is an inevitable result of a Cannibalistic Society. Until this nation goes back to doing something productive, instead of a skill set suited for nothing but preying on each other, the money the Government has will be the only real money. Welfare is the only way that money makes it to the People.

We can't all be Pirates. Someone, somewhere has to do something useful and non-destructive. It hasn't happened in the USA for several decades, and we now reap the consequences. The dependency class is now the largest demographic. The neighbors we've victimized haven't got anything left to plunder. All we can do it print more money.

The question isn't "How did this happen?" The question is "How could you think it wouldn't?" The inevitability of human arrogance.

marshaul said:

While I have no reason to disagree with the operative clause I quoted here, as to the necessity of waiting for this unlikelihood before legalizing:

What about the fact that, as discussed in the last couple posts, drug use rates go down when prohibition is eliminated? Might, therefore, ending prohibition be a good way to decrease the dependency burden even before such drug testing could be implemented, or handouts to addicts otherwise curtailed?

Click to expand...

I love the opening "what about the fact". Are you sure it's a fact, or are you simply trusting a source that reinforced your belief? The US is a completely different culture than the few euroweenie countries that allow (or even subsidize) their addicts to use without legal repercussions. Like I said, I agree with the premise that taking away the finances of the cartels is tantamount to crushing them, but we still have a problem with dependency. If they can suddenly find no more crack, heroin, meth, PCP or whatever idiots consume, how sure are you these people will suddenly seek productive lives and start to care for themselves let alone the children they inadvertently produced along the way?

As far as I'm concerned, the first movein the legalization strategy is to cut off the free flow of money to the dependency class, meanwhile arming the productive class so they can defend themselves during the inevitable riots that will ensue.

ixtow said:

Who created the 'dependency class?' Yes, we know who funds them, but who created the dependency? Who stands on their backs? Who benefits from them?

Who "stands on their backs"? They're contortionists I suppose, because they refuse to do work millions of illegal from south of the border risk their lives and life savings to acquire. Therefore they're standing on their own backs. Who benefits from them, it's obviously not those infinitesimal political figures who propose to take the bloat pig's tit out of their mouths.

It's circular. Welfare is an inevitable result of a Cannibalistic Society. Until this nation goes back to doing something productive, instead of a skill set suited for nothing but preying on each other, the money the Government has will be the only real money. Welfare is the only way that money makes it to the People.

Welfare is a mean used by politicians since the days of Rome to buy votes. We actually produce a lot, we're still one of the most productive people in the world. Not sure what you mean by "a skill set suited for nothing but preying on each other" unless you're talking about the lawyers who sue everyone they can, for the most insipid reasons. I.E. environazis suing to stop real estate development in the interests of creatures like salamanders, who have no interests above staying moist. Welfare IS NOTthe only way money makes it's way to the people...

I can't even believe you said that.


We can't all be Pirates. Someone, somewhere has to do something useful and non-destructive. It hasn't happened in the USA for several decades, and we now reap the consequences.

You're kidding right? I hope I do something at least a little useful everyday. I have to think most people, even %50.1 are doing something useful everyday. What we're reaping is the expense of bread and circuses for the plebs who've been led into dependency, even though the plebs had the choice to fend for themselves. It's a significant difference from thye roman civilization that wasunable to employ their own people. We (obviously) have a glut of working people, hence the need to press #1 for english. This could easily be reloved by cutting off the free $hit.

Click to expand...

PrayingForWar said:

I love the opening "what about the fact". Are you sure it's a fact, or are you simply trusting a source that reinforced your belief? The US is a completely different culture than the few euroweenie countries that allow (or even subsidize) their addicts to use without legal repercussions. Like I said, I agree with the premise that taking away the finances of the cartels is tantamount to crushing them, but we still have a problem with dependency. If they can suddenly find no more crack, heroin, meth, PCP or whatever idiots consume, how sure are you these people will suddenly seek productive lives and start to care for themselves let alone the children they inadvertently produced along the way?

Click to expand...

You're ignoring the persistent and long-term effect which prohibition has in incentivizing the creation of new addicts.

There are a variety of mechanisms by which this effect is accomplished, the most obvious of which is the fact that, while pharmacists are not known for pushing cough syrup on children to get them high, nor are liquor stores, drug dealers are known for pushing (often free) drugs on just about anyone to create new (addicted) customers. And then there's the child-like tendency of things to become more exciting and popular just because they're not allowed... Etc etc etc.

Consider the prohibition of alcohol. Would you suggest making alcohol illegal, since alcoholics get lots of welfare?

My meaning is that not a soul does more good than harm. 'Work for the sake of working, no concern for the consequences as long as one gets paid. It's a loss proposition.

Destroying your neighbor and taking the scraps to the bank nets you less than what you destroyed every time. Repeat until there's nothing left to destroy. It's a fiscal and social process that cannot sustain itself.

One cannot **** where he eats forever... But that behavior is what passes for 'productive member of society' today. As a social entity, we don't do anything else. Passing the burden around has no different outcome from sharing it collectively.

No, I'm not kidding. It's staring me in the face. We can't all be Pirates.