Man Tells Cops that his Pot was Stolen!

[Willem]

Originally posted by Frogman
Too bad you can't get high on dandelions.

So I take it you've never heard of dandelion wine? I've never tried it, but I know it can be done.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Apparently he was high and things got out of hand. Stuff like that happens when you're high.

Things get out of hand when people are perfectly straight. If someone's a hot head to begin with, it doesn't matter if he/she is taking anything or not, there's going to be trouble. But I think you'd find that there is a definite tendency for people to lose it a lot more when they're under the influence of alcohol rather than marijuana.

[Berzerker]

Zylka -

They were chewing raw leaves with the coca solution naturally diluted - A difference of high and potential for abuse in comparison to modern administrations in the thousands of percent

True, but they did have ways of concentrating coca in beverages and there are people today who've used modern administrations without becoming addicted, so it still depends on the user.

This little bit makes about as much sense as saying "a 12 gauge metal slug to the face isn't harmful, it all depends on the user!"

Oh c'mon, how many people can take a 12 gauge metal slug to the face and survive? You really want to compare that with the millions who've used coca or cocaine and lived?

Strangelove -

(1) Sorry, people do actually murder other people to get pot. We had a case around here recently where a young man murdered another because he thought his pot had been stolen.

Sorry, that wasn't someone committing murder to get pot, that was someone committing murder because he thought someone ripped him off. That can happen when the laws don't respect property rights. If you thought someone stole your car and the legal system didn't give a rat's a$$, you'd be more prone to seek justice yourself.

People have also been murdered haggling over the price or in the process of stealing weed.

First, it isn't murder if you kill someone who is trying to steal your property. If you killed a burglar, would you call that murder? Second, provide an example of someone committing murder over price haggling.

People have also committed murder while under the influence of marijuana.

Did the pot cause the murder or was there a catalyst like attempted theft? People who don't use drugs have murdered people, but I don't see you claiming sobriety is a cause of murder.

(2) Marijuana definitely impairs coordination and judgement.

Old age impairs coordination and judgement, you want to imprison old people?

It clearly interferes with the user's ability to operate vehicles and machinery.

So does fatigue, jail tired people too? Btw, this "interference" depends on the user as well, I've driven plenty of miles under the influence of pot and never caused an accident.

While impairment by alcohol generally parallels blood levels, and alcohol has a simple linear excretion rate that makes it possibler for a user to reasonably temper his consumption to avoid impairment, marijuana's effects don't simply parallel either blood or urine levels, and its elimination is not linear, making moderation more difficult.

And yet alcohol-related traffic fatalities far outnumber all other drug related deaths.

Nailing stoned drivers would be harder than nailing drunks because testing for marijuana in the field would be more difficult.

Ah! But according to you, it should be easy for a cop to tell if someone is too stoned to drive with a simple coordination test. But you know that's much more difficult because pot doesn't impair coordination nearly as much as alcohol. Ever wonder why the government will do tests by inviting people to drink booze and drive on a closed course but not with pot? It isn't because pot's illegal, it's because those tests would blow the claims of the drug war pushers out of the water.

(3) The results of one radio program is hardy a scientific survey.

And yet you portray your personal experience as a valid criterion.

Here in the US during the last election a number of pro-weed propositions were offered in a variety of states, and every single one was defeated.

And? Several have passed in prior elections.

In the past the minions of NORML have succeeded because no one made an effort to counter them.

Nonsense! What do you call all the government propaganda we've been subjected to over the decades?

Prior to the last election a concerted effort was made to counter their propaganda. The results were gratifying.

The results were immoral. We saw politicians and bureaucrats go to Nevada and tell people there would be more traffic fatalities. In other words, all the people who don't drive under the influence are still being punished because of those who do.

(4) What kind of arguement is: "well if alcohol is legal then pot should be too"?

It's an argument that exposes the hypocrisy of banning one and not the other.

We've got one legal intoxicant already. why do we need another.

It's called freedom. Why should the people who like booze be allowed to legally enjoy their drug while others who don't like booze can't legally enjoy a drug they do like? You think anyone wanting to catch a buzz should be required by law to use only alcohol? Who the **** died and made you king?

Do you honestly think that legalising pot will reduce the number of drunks?

Who made that argument?

Legalising dope just adds to our problems.

How? Criminalising pot has added to our problems, not reduced them. Can you cite actual evidence showing that pot consumption is lower with prohibition? And when you're done supporting your position, we can look at all the problems you've helped create with prohibition.

Oh, wait, I need the work. You know business has been slow because more people know that they don't need antibiotics to treat their common colds. Go ahead, legalise pot, and I'll fix you up when you need it....for a price.

Why would we need you to get pot?

Apparently he was high and things got out of hand. Stuff like that happens when you're high.

"Apparently"? Yup, stuff can get out of hand when someone steals your property and the courts don't care. The reason vigilante justice is frowned upon is because the safeguards put in place to prevent mistakes aren't in place because of prohibition. That's why we no longer hear about alcohol dealers having shootouts in turf wars but we see that happening with illegal drugs. Think about that... With voters like you trading our freedom for "security", it's no wonder crime rates are so high.

[alva]

A couple of good points Berzerker, but one still shouldn't drive while under the influence of pot, the same rule as with alcohol applies here.
Yes, I have done so too and 'survived', but that doesn't mean you should.

[alva]

(1) Sorry, people do actually murder other people to get pot. We had a case around here recently where a young man murdered another because he thought his pot had been stolen. People have also been murdered haggling over the price or in the process of stealing weed. People have also committed murder while under the influence of marijuana.

Are you saying hat if this person wouldn't be smoking, he would be a sain, agreeable, lovable person?

[Frogman]

Originally posted by alva
A couple of good points Berzerker, but one still shouldn't drive while under the influence of pot, the same rule as with alcohol applies here.
Yes, I have done so too and 'survived', but that doesn't mean you should.

The problem isn't surviving, its remembering where you're going

[Willem]

Originally posted by Frogman


The problem isn't surviving, its remembering where you're going

Especially after you pass a 7-11 store or a MacDonald's.

[Dis]

Is illegal property still not property?

[Ben Kenobi]

willem

There's barely enough money to support the enforcement laws as it is.

Perhaps we need to spend less on 'bilingualism' boondoggles.

The money's there if we make this a priority.

It's a gateway drug only in the sense that the people who control the trade in cocaine and heroin also have their hands in the marijuana business. Seperate those ties to the black market, who have a vested interest in getting people addicted to more dangerous drugs, and you remove the temptation.

So where do we draw the line? Look at what the government has done with alcohol and cigarettes. Making the government responsible is not going to reduce the harms, it merely reinforces the addiction the government has to these particular revenue streams.

Well for one thing, it's not physically addictive, or at least if it is, it's very mildly so. I just had proof of that myself recently. I'm a daily toker and I just spent 10 days at my sisters with nothing to smoke. And I didn't feel one bit of discomfort at not having my "fix", physically or psychologically. I just didn't care.

So personal testimony should equate with public policy? People vary in their tolerance, and addiction to drugs.

Plus it doesn't destroy families the way alcohol and other addictive substances do.

Perhaps pot use is simply not as widespread so the problems are less noticeable. I've seen a friend toss away his life when he started to use pot. No motivation whatsoever.

Berzerker

Which means less law enforcement to catch murderers, pedophiles, rapists, robbers, and terrorists. Did Jesus tell you to run around caging people for using pot?

Does Jesus teach us to approve of what is wrong? It's not a question so much of enforcement, because a little bit of enforcement can lead to a much larger deterrent effect. Legalise pot, and many who are not users will begin to use.

No, it means the kind of person who is attracted to dangerous activities will try different dangerous activities and the person who avoids dangerous activities will likely continue avoiding them.

Assumes people are fixed. People can change their minds, occasionally being risk-takers while generally avoiding risks. These are the people likely to suffer from legalisation.

If you advocate punishing a million pot smokers because there are 10,000 pot smokers who "harm society", then you are punishing a million innocent people for the "crimes" of 10,000.

We pay through the nose for our medical system. Yes, we already pay for the drug use and needles of other people, through our socialist medical system here in Canada.

Neither is harmful, it all depends on the user.

So why regulate any substance, such as alcohol, tobacco, marijuana or cocaine? Do you advocate ending all controls?

[Straybow]

Ever wonder why the government will do tests by inviting people to drink booze and drive on a closed course but not with pot? It isn't because pot's illegal, it's because those tests would blow the claims of the drug war pushers out of the water.

Wrong on all counts. There have been coordination tests with marijuana. Tests don't show it to be harmless.

The Airline Pilots Association (or whatever their proper name is) did one about 20 years ago, very rigorous. Quantifiable measures of loss in coordination, attention span, etc., and the duration of effects after use, convinced them that off duty use of mj should grounds for removing pilots.

That's the test that usually gets cited in these arguments, and I find it difficult to believe that you haven't heard of it many times. Or perhaps you read these kinds of things and don't remember? A little too much weed, hmmm?


Thirdly, a local police department and news might stage a cone course test on alcohol effects. But clearly no such public demonstration can be made with pot because it is illegal. If you think otherwise, again I'd say your intake might be effecting your reasoning processes.

(On second thought, a few years ago the police department here did a breathalizer demonstration. One of the volunteers disappeared into the bathroom and allegedly smoked a little weed, just to show that pot doesn't affect the diffusion of alcohol from the blood into the lungs. Not quite the same…)

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18

The money's there if we make this a priority.

And what other priorities will we have to scarifice in order to increase the enforcement of something that obviously can't be enforced? Education and Health Care? They're already under strain. Shall we take money from those areas in order to stamp out something that does minimal damage to society?

So where do we draw the line? Look at what the government has done with alcohol and cigarettes. Making the government responsible is not going to reduce the harms, it merely reinforces the addiction the government has to these particular revenue streams.

Do alcohol users and smokers automatically become cocaine or heroin addicts? Your argument was that marijuana is a gateway drug. Prove it! Why is it that I, and many people I know, have smoked it for decades but aren't junkies at the same time? If that argument is as valid as you seem to insist, I would have been sticking needles in my arm a long time ago. I don't and have no intention of doing so.

So personal testimony should equate with public policy? People vary in their tolerance, and addiction to drugs.

My personal testimony only corroborates the findings of the LeDain Commision of the Government of Canada, who's findings were released in 1972, and by pretty much every study since then. The bottom line of their findings was that the harm done by marijuana was minimal and that there is no reason why it should be illegal, from a both a medical and societal viewpoint.

Perhaps pot use is simply not as widespread so the problems are less noticeable. I've seen a friend toss away his life when he started to use pot. No motivation whatsoever.

You're spending to much time in church these days. Believe me marijauna use is widespread. Go to almost any bar and you'll find someone who has some or knows where to get it. In fact if you hang out long enough, you'll probably see a few people heading out to the back alley to have a few tokes. And as I mentioned, there's now three stores here, in a city of about 400,000, that deal exclusively with grow equipment and supplies.

[Ben Kenobi]

And what other priorities will we have to scarifice in order to increase the enforcement of something that obviously can't be enforced?

Can it be enforced? You assume that it cannot be enforced.

Look at it from this perspective. How can the government have any credibility whatsoever with regards to restrictions, when they clearly want to get into the business of selling pot? They are even starting their own grow operations. Who is going to listen to them when they say that it is wrong to toke?

That's why it's a joke to consider the current environment as 'restrictive.'

Shall we take money from those areas in order to stamp out something that does minimal damage to society?

How much will it cost to enforce? I suggested using some of the money earmarked for 'bilingualism'. We are spending lots of money on social programs beyond health care. The problem is not the money, but the lack of desire from a government more inclined for tax income.

Do alcohol users and smokers automatically become cocaine or heroin addicts?

No. But this is off-topic for two reasons. One, we are discussing marijuana, and not alcohol and tobacco. Secondly, my argument rests upon the percentage of cocaine and heroin users who also used marijuana.

This is a better indicator of marijuana use as a gateway drug, than to ask for the number of marijuana users who do not use cocaine and heroin.

Proof? See the end of the post.

The bottom line of their findings was that the harm done by marijuana was minimal and that there is no reason why it should be illegal, from a both a medical and societal viewpoint.

Please cite the source if you can.

You're spending to much time in church these days.

Aaah. Ad hominem. Glorious.

Believe me marijauna use is widespread.

As widespread as tobacco and alcohol? I don't think so.

http://www.connectwithkids.com/archives/113_feb26/pot.html

Here's a good site.

http://www.samhsa.gov/centers/csap/csap.html

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Straybow

Ever wonder why the government will do tests by inviting people to drink booze and drive on a closed course but not with pot? It isn't because pot's illegal, it's because those tests would blow the claims of the drug war pushers out of the water.

Wrong on all counts. There have been coordination tests with marijuana. Tests don't show it to be harmless.

The Airline Pilots Association (or whatever their proper name is) did one about 20 years ago, very rigorous. Quantifiable measures of loss in coordination, attention span, etc., and the duration of effects after use, convinced them that off duty use of mj should grounds for removing pilots.

That's the test that usually gets cited in these arguments, and I find it difficult to believe that you haven't heard of it many times. Or perhaps you read these kinds of things and don't remember? A little too much weed, hmmm?


Thirdly, a local police department and news might stage a cone course test on alcohol effects. But clearly no such public demonstration can be made with pot because it is illegal. If you think otherwise, again I'd say your intake might be effecting your reasoning processes.

(On second thought, a few years ago the police department here did a breathalizer demonstration. One of the volunteers disappeared into the bathroom and allegedly smoked a little weed, just to show that pot doesn't affect the diffusion of alcohol from the blood into the lungs. Not quite the same…)

The DOT has done such tests, and has demonstrasted that marijuana can indeed impair driving as much as alcohol. Pro-weed advocates don't quote them because......... well, honestly, what do you expect?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by alva

Are you saying hat if this person wouldn't be smoking, he would be a sain, agreeable, lovable person?

You don't have to be any of those three things not to kill someone. Marijuana impairs judgement and removes inhibitions, which may be enough to tip the scales in someone who isn't sane, agreeable and lovable but still has enough presence of mind to restrain himself from doing something that he'll regret for the rest of his life.

[alva]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


You don't have to be any of those three things not to kill someone. Marijuana impairs judgement and removes inhibitions, which may be enough to tip the scales in someone who isn't sane, agreeable and lovable but still has enough presence of mind to restrain himself from doing something that he'll regret for the rest of his life.

If pot can throw him off balance then just about anything could. The moment that person get's fired/dumped/drunk the outcome is likely to be the same.
No need to ban pot for this. We can't just ban everything bacause of a (few) instable people.