I say legalize them in only one state. Let it be free reign and have all drugs legalized in that state. Then after 5 years let that state decide wehther the rest of the country should legalize them. Or least let the rest of the nation look at the data so we could see their addiction rate, their crime rate, the infant mortality rate, the pregnancy rate, the residency retention rate, the suicde rate, and any decreased or increased expensitures due to doing so. And the overall quality of life.
There are already hundreds of thousands of Junkies in NY. I say do it there, since they have so much experience...?
LOL
I was thinking,,,,,some lovely place like, Iowa. :)
Artemis,
Would you move there because drugs were legalized ? I know you said you'd move their anyway but if they did tomorrow would it be enough of a reason to pick up and move ?
I can see Nevada doing it considering their stance on prostitution and gambling.
Luv- I know you said you'd move their anyway but if they did tomorrow would it be enough of a reason to pick up and move ?
I would move there because I'm enamored with the south west, and I have actually been looking at land in NV, UT, and AZ the last couple years. If I could afford it and the job market looked better I would move tomorrow :) But if drugs were legalized it would be an incentive towards taking the risk and moving, and looking into the possiblity of opening a smokers cafe (there are already a few cigar bars).
I can see Nevada doing it considering their stance on prostitution and gambling.
Yes, it makes sense to me, they're already known as "sin city" might as well take it all the way ;)
Doesn't Alaska already allow you to grow, smoke and carry up to an ounce of dope legally before it's considered dealing? Apparently they need something to do during those long dark winter months. Why not get high and dream about Maui?
look at the data so we could see their addiction rate, their crime rate, the infant mortality rate, the pregnancy rate, the residency retention rate, the suicde rate, and any decreasedor increased expensitures due to doing so.
The O'Reilly Factor had an interesting feature on last night's segment.
They had Gary Thompson and his daughter speaking out against proposition 9 in Nevada.
Gary's wife, a very prominent figure in the community, a person who was liberal minded and open minded in the Marijuana debate was killed in a car accident. The person in the car who hit her was charged with DUI for having been under the influence of Marijuana while operating a vehicle.
Their daughter was formerly an open minded, for the legalization/decriminalization type person with many tatoos, body piercing, and pretty much in line with those in her generation which support such things. Now she is encouraging people to really think about all the implications of marijuana and vote against it.
Quite a few posts ago I mentioned a poster in my pediatricians office which showed the damaging effects of marijuana, heroin, alcohol, cocaine along with a healthy brain.
The question I posed to you was (something like):
If marijuana does in fact damage your brain, would you still want to legalize/decriminalize it. (Based on your claim that it does not damage the brain)
Your response was I need more information. Here is the information.
3D surface views of the brain acquired by SPECT imaging, looking at the cerebral blood flow and metabolism showed the following images:
20 years on heroin.....................25 years on alcohol
There's a young man I know who got sent up the river for a year for repeated offenses of driving without a license.
He's a decent person, working to provide child support payments, who had his license revoked due to some foolish indiscretions in his late teens.
But he needed to travel by car to get to his job.
He was initially sent to a minimum-security prison, but the place was being filled so rapidly with people busted for mainly minor drug possession offenses that he'll have to spend the bulk of his time at the state's worst maximum security lockup.
In the company of murderers and other truly bad-ass dudes.
He's scared to death.
His mom cries that he won't make it out alive.
Now, I'm no fan of drugs, and I personally believe that calls for decriminalization of marijuana are an exercise in stoner petty self-indulgence that folks with conservative sensibilities are warranted in feeling affronted by.
But there are so many Americans getting stuffed in the pen for holding just a a small amount of pot, coke or whatever...that it's ridiculous.
And racist, since conviction comes so much more readily in cases of inner city youth than in those instances where some white kid from the plush suburbs "experiments" a bit.
A progressive youth movement was taking America toward social and economic justice.
Along came drugs, touted by Dr. Timothy Leary, who could have been a CIA diversionary master if he actually wasn't one.
I'll never forget how I arranged with some counter-culture friends to hold a Memorial Day protest against the Vietnam war, on Sunday, in 1969, or maybe '70.
The night before, they all got wasted, and slept through the demonstration they'd promised to attend.
I was reduced to leafletting parade-watching crowds all alone.
My bad.
Never trust self-indulgent lumpenproletarians.
Only class-concious, devoted workers with unshakable solidarity and discipline can be relied upon to truly, consistently fight the power.
During Ed Rosenthal's trial, a defense witness mentioned that he had met the marijuana cultivation expert "in the context of Proposition 215." U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer interrupted the witness, instructed the jury to disregard his statement, and took over the questioning.
The reason for Breyer's heavy-handedness was clear: He did not want the jury to consider the fact that Rosenthal was growing marijuana for medical use, which is legal under Proposition 215, an initiative that California voters approved in 1996. Since federal law does not recognize marijuana as a medicine, the judge reasoned, Rosenthal's motivation was irrelevant to the question of his guilt.
Mr. Bush emphasized a desire to get treatment for drug users and proposed $3.8 billion for drug treatment for the 2003 budget, an increase of more than 6 percent over the current fiscal year.
Is the president soft on drugs?
What happened to "you da pusher? -- I'm da shover."
Agreed, Bill. The War on Drugs goes on because there are so many people and institutions who have a vested interest in seeing it continue. Same with the race lobby and the environmentalists, who will NEVER admit to any success stories because it's in their best interests not to.
Going after Sharpton for drugs is a non-starter. And who cares anyway? If the press can still take him seriously after the Tawana Brawley thing, they're hopeless -- nothing will tarnish him.
The "War on Drugs"
I say use the nukes!!!!!!
I say legalize them in only one state. Let it be free reign and have all drugs legalized in that state. Then after 5 years let that state decide wehther the rest of the country should legalize them.
Or least let the rest of the nation look at the data so we could see their addiction rate, their crime rate, the infant mortality rate, the pregnancy rate, the residency retention rate, the suicde rate, and any decreased or increased expensitures due to doing so. And the overall quality of life.
Any takers ? Who would move there ?
Well, that state might be Nevada come election day.
And I would move there if they pass it, but I would move there even if they didn't pass it.
Artemis & Bill
LOL
I was thinking,,,,,some lovely place like, Iowa. :)
Artemis,
Would you move there because drugs were legalized ?
I know you said you'd move their anyway but if they did tomorrow would it be enough of a reason to pick up and move ?
I can see Nevada doing it considering their stance on prostitution and gambling.
Luv- I know you said you'd move their anyway but if they did tomorrow would it be enough of a reason to pick up and move ?
I would move there because I'm enamored with the south west, and I have actually been looking at land in NV, UT, and AZ the last couple years. If I could afford it and the job market looked better I would move tomorrow :) But if drugs were legalized it would be an incentive towards taking the risk and moving, and looking into the possiblity of opening a smokers cafe (there are already a few cigar bars).
I can see Nevada doing it considering their stance on prostitution and gambling.
Yes, it makes sense to me, they're already known as "sin city" might as well take it all the way ;)
Doesn't Alaska already allow you to grow, smoke and carry up to an ounce of dope legally before it's considered dealing? Apparently they need something to do during those long dark winter months. Why not get high and dream about Maui?
Why not get high and dream about Maui?
Why not do something constructive?
Yeah, like grow some weed. Thanks Joe
look at the data so we could see their addiction rate, their crime rate, the infant mortality rate, the pregnancy rate, the residency retention rate, the suicde rate, and any decreasedor increased expensitures due to doing so.
#1 decreases: costs of courts and jails
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101021104/index.html
I would have read it but I ran out of zig-zags so I had to use my copy of Time.
The really wild part is that if you use time magazine for papers you get smarter and "time" stands still. :)
The O'Reilly Factor had an interesting feature on last night's segment.
They had Gary Thompson and his daughter speaking out against proposition 9 in Nevada.
Gary's wife, a very prominent figure in the community, a person who was liberal minded and open minded in the Marijuana debate was killed in a car accident. The person in the car who hit her was charged with DUI for having been under the influence of Marijuana while operating a vehicle.
Their daughter was formerly an open minded, for the legalization/decriminalization type person with many tatoos, body piercing, and pretty much in line with those in her generation which support such things. Now she is encouraging people to really think about all the implications of marijuana and vote against it.
You stole my avatar Paula, now I gotta change it.
Clue Master 11/5/02 11:00am
I'm sorry! Thank you though, if you are the one I got it from. It is quite nice.
Regarding Legalization/Decriminalizing Marijuana
Dear Lance,
(and anyone else who wishes to respond)
Quite a few posts ago I mentioned a poster in my pediatricians office which showed the damaging effects of marijuana, heroin, alcohol, cocaine along with a healthy brain.
The question I posed to you was (something like):
If marijuana does in fact damage your brain, would you still want to legalize/decriminalize it. (Based on your claim that it does not damage the brain)
Your response was I need more information. Here is the information.
3D surface views of the brain acquired by SPECT imaging, looking at the cerebral blood flow and metabolism showed the following images:
20 years on heroin.....................25 years on alcohol
....................healthy brain.........................
2 years on cocaine.....................12 years on marijuana
these images revealed gaps/holes in the brain to varying degrees on each brain scan.
For more information you may contact:
Images by Daniel G. Amen, MD., The Amen Clinic for Behavioral Medicine, Brain Imaging division, 350 Chadbourne Rd., Fairfield, CA., 94585... Phone # 707-429-7181, fax # 707-429-8210.
here's the website http://www.amenclinic.com/ac/about/dramen.asp
and another one http://mindworkspress.com
Please get back to me on what you think after checking out these websites. Thanks. Your opinion and views matter.
Thanks. Your opinion and views matter.
HeHe! That made me think of an old comercial (I think) "And thank you for your support".
Seems strangely appropriate for today.
strangely appropriate for the conversation topic. it was a commercial for bartles and james wine coolers i believe.
Here's info. about the brain imaging:
http://www.amenclinic.com/ac/docs/brochure_new.pdf
Hi Ares and Artemis!
ares 11/5/02 4:01pm
Ah yes, the good old days! Those mind coolers must have increased my brain function for me to recall and use that.
I will be glad as when the election results are finally in and we see just what the makeup will be of our state and local governments.
i'm just glad we get a 2 year reprieve from campaign ads.
Hi Paula!
Me too! The waiting and anticipation just kill me :-)
LOL Ares! I'm with you on that!
'Bill - Fold' 11/6/02 4:37am
Hello Bill!
How are you today? Are you licking your wounds from yesterdays election?
True story.
There's a young man I know who got sent up the river for a year for
repeated offenses of driving without a license.
He's a decent person, working to provide child support payments, who had his license revoked due to some foolish indiscretions in his late teens.
But he needed to travel by car to get to his job.
He was initially sent to a minimum-security prison, but the place was
being filled so rapidly with people busted for mainly minor drug possession offenses that he'll have to spend the bulk of his time
at the state's worst maximum security lockup.
In the company of murderers and other truly bad-ass dudes.
He's scared to death.
His mom cries that he won't make it out alive.
Now, I'm no fan of drugs, and I personally believe that calls for decriminalization of marijuana are an exercise in stoner petty self-indulgence that folks with conservative sensibilities are warranted in feeling affronted by.
But there are so many Americans getting stuffed in the pen for holding just a a small amount of pot, coke or whatever...that it's ridiculous.
And racist, since conviction comes so much more readily in cases of
inner city youth than in those instances where some white kid from the plush suburbs "experiments" a bit.
I go further, Dennis -- drugs should be totally decriminalized.
Marx said religion is the opiate of the people.
But I say opium is the opiate of the people.
Look back at the '60s.
A progressive youth movement was taking America toward social and economic justice.
Along came drugs, touted by Dr. Timothy Leary, who could have been a
CIA diversionary master if he actually wasn't one.
I'll never forget how I arranged with some counter-culture friends
to hold a Memorial Day protest against the Vietnam war, on Sunday, in
1969, or maybe '70.
The night before, they all got wasted, and slept through the demonstration they'd promised to attend.
I was reduced to leafletting parade-watching crowds all alone.
My bad.
Never trust self-indulgent lumpenproletarians.
Only class-concious, devoted workers with unshakable solidarity and discipline can be relied upon to truly, consistently fight the power.
Why not Minnesota? Nothing but a bunch of dopes up there anyway.HAW-HAW--PAW-PAW!
I bet the folks in Texas thank God for Mississippi don't they Duane.
If it weren't for Mississippi, Texas would be 50th in everything.
And now with Coleman and PAW-PAW in office Minne-SLOW-duh will run a close 49th. Nice job.
Muskwa 11/10/02 9:19am
Muskwa, that's a Libertarian viewpoint, I believe.
Hi, Ian -- yes, it is, but other people hold it too. William F. Buckley, for one.
and again we find ourselves not talking about the issue, but hurling insults.
Jury Rigging: Ed Rosenthal never had a chance
During Ed Rosenthal's trial, a defense witness mentioned that he had met the marijuana cultivation expert "in the context of Proposition 215." U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer interrupted the witness, instructed the jury to disregard his statement, and took over the questioning.
The reason for Breyer's heavy-handedness was clear: He did not want the jury to consider the fact that Rosenthal was growing marijuana for medical use, which is legal under Proposition 215, an initiative that California voters approved in 1996. Since federal law does not recognize marijuana as a medicine, the judge reasoned, Rosenthal's motivation was irrelevant to the question of his guilt.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jacobsullum/js20030207.shtml
And you and Townhall know this because Breyer...what, Told You?
I have no idea what you are referring to, fold. What is it that Breyer was supposed to have told us?
You don't believe in circumstantial evidence, fold?
Bush Plan Increases Funding for Drug Treatment
Mr. Bush emphasized a desire to get treatment for drug users and proposed $3.8 billion for drug treatment for the 2003 budget, an increase of more than 6 percent over the current fiscal year.
Is the president soft on drugs?
What happened to "you da pusher? -- I'm da shover."
Is the president soft on drugs?
He's gotta think of his familys future ya know.
;) sorry couldn't resist the huge open door...
Agreed, Bill. The War on Drugs goes on because there are so many people and institutions who have a vested interest in seeing it continue. Same with the race lobby and the environmentalists, who will NEVER admit to any success stories because it's in their best interests not to.
yet the Budget down there has NOT been touched with regards to any real "Increase" for treatment and/or education on the Drug problem in that state.
Good. Why is the states responsibility to pay for Sally or Johnny's drug problem?
Just say NO!
LOL !
Just think what AL could do with all those confiscated drugs if he's elected pres?
Was Sharpton a drug user at one time?
There was apparently a video of him doing coke a while back, I believe it was the late 80's.
The tape wasn't him using but rather buying or selling.
I can't recall which, but it wasn't of him using.
He was just buying it for a "freind" I'm sure. Or he was buying it for book research ala; Pete Townsend. ;)
I, think, if I remember correctly he was facilitating a connection between a buyer and a seller.
Yeah man, smoking dope is cool, man.
Here is a link to the Sharpton drug allegations: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/GoodMorningAmerica/GMA020724Sharpton.html
Going after Sharpton for drugs is a non-starter. And who cares anyway? If the press can still take him seriously after the Tawana Brawley thing, they're hopeless -- nothing will tarnish him.