I love how the states that have medical completely surround idaho.
For me it would be a godsend if they even just decriminalized it here. I have served over 100 days in jail due to 3 possessions; each time less than a gram :doh:
I agree that marijuana should be legalized. And eventually, all drugs.
... I personally believe that if something like alcohol is legal which has caused (not directly) many deaths such as car accidents ...
Well I've been hearing conspiracies that it was the huge tobacco companies that prevent its legalization. While tobacco and alcohol products are legal the rather less harmful of the ones mentioned is the one that's not legalized (erm, weed).
In the case of smoking tobacco, no tobacco smoker has chosen to become a smoker. There are those who say that they have chosen, but they don't know better, because they are addicts. Practically all tobacco addicts are addicts because they had been subjected to enough second-hand smoke to trigger the addiction.
Legalizing for medicinal purposes does not necessarily imply making it free for everyone to grow and use. I think that marijuana should be treated as any other medicine - administered by subscription only, as pills, tinctures, injection, infusion (as tea) or whatever would be a good method for ingesting the active substances, but not as something that can be smoked.
I am strongly against smoking - of any drug, because smoking is an effective way of spreading drug-addiction to people who don't want to become addicts -- which includes everyone who isn't an addict already.
In the case of smoking tobacco, no tobacco smoker has chosen to become a smoker. There are those who say that they have chosen, but they don't know better, because they are addicts. Practically all tobacco addicts are addicts because they had been subjected to enough second-hand smoke to trigger the addiction.
Smoking is also a stupid way of ingesting drugs, because it also produces many harmful chemicals such as carbon monoxide and so called "tar" - which consists of literally thousands of chemicals (slow-burning a chemical does not combust the chemical properly, but turns into many variants between uncombusted and combusted, and these half-combusted chemicals can be more reactive and therefore dangerous).
People who want to legalize marijuana (for everyone) often compare it to tobacco, and say that if tobacco is free to use then marijuana should also be.
They don't see that the legality of tobacco is a special case: Tobacco is legal because of pressure from tobacco companies but mostly because the number of addicts is significant enough. If it's use had not become popular early so that there was a large amount of addicts at the beginning of the 20th century, then it would also have been made illegal at about that time, and we may now have discussed tobacco instead of marijuana.
That said, I think that the US is sentencing people too harshly overall. Possession of a small amount of marijuana without a license or medical cause should give you a fine. Maybe a short prison term if you are caught with the third time, or something like that.
How do you feel about vaporization of tobacco or marijuana?
I have one of these: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Arizer-Extreme-Q-Herbal-Vaporizer-2-Bonus-Balloons-/180803756532?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a18be61f4#ht_2811wt_1164 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Arizer-Extreme-Q-Herbal-Vaporizer-2-Bonus-Balloons-/180803756532?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a18be61f4#ht_2811wt_1164)
It's like a cheap knockoff version of the Volcano; the bags take a lot longer to fill than the Volcano but you get a greater density of thc vapor. Never been a fan of whip-style vaporizers for some reason (though my vape also has a whip).
I like vaporizers, but THC has a lower vaporization temperature than many of the other active cannabinoids, so you don't get the same psycho-active effects as when smoking. I prefer a healthy mix of smoking and vaporizing, and the occasional ingestion of cannabis-infused edibles when I know my agenda is clear for the day!
Dam W , What about you in which planet you are right now?
I don't know about Dan, but I am in a completely different Galaxy right now. Not sure the name of the planet, but it's pretty epic...(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_M7syfSkg-e8/Sax8o_iIogI/AAAAAAAABS4/tvYOqo8ehac/s400/weed8pb.jpg)
Slightly off-topic, what's the typical rent there in a decent location for a 1 bedroom?
I wasn't aware there were other pot smokers on Geekhack until I started reading this thread...
Another good find on r/trees...Show Image(http://i.imgur.com/rCz6C.jpg)
I am curious however, and this is not a rhetorical question, how many of you want to see pot legalized for medical reasons, and how many for recreational convenience?
I am curious however, and this is not a rhetorical question, how many of you want to see pot legalized for medical reasons, and how many for recreational convenience?
From a recreational perspective, the argument I most commonly see is, "why is alcohol legal and pot isn't?" It's a good question. Alcohol can potentially cause a much more dangerous situation. Do you want a teenager drunk as hell driving on the road? Or a paranoid teenager stoner, driving under the speed limit?
california needs all the tax money it can get. i wouldn't be surprised.
All i gotta say is life is good right now in CO. The town I live in legalized up to an ounce for 21-year-olds a couple of years ago, but that makes total sense since I live in forward-thinking freedom land!I used to live in 'Somewhat County' CO. I remember when the medicinal law first became active, (I did vote yes, btw). My question to you is, do the Breck cops still drive those dark blue Land Cruisers?
It sure is nice to know that if I get pulled over my stinky bag of weed is akin to a 6-pack of beer; as long as I'm not partaking while driving it's all good!
Now with the Amendment 64 vote a week away, CO may become the first state to legalize for recreational use for anyone 21, even non-CO-residents... Sure will be a boon for tourism if it passes!
I used to live in 'Somewhat County' CO. I remember when the medicinal law first became active, (I did vote yes, btw). My question to you is, do the Breck cops still drive those dark blue Land Cruisers?
Oh, and going through Blue River (northbound Hwy9) are those people still throwing shoes on the powerlines? Seems like every 2 weeks it was a different pair of shoes/boots.... 3 years since I've moved away.
Can someone tell Malphas about this thread? He seems to think income tax is more viable for some strange reason.Probably because it's vastly easier to calculate, much fairer, and is actually capable of generating the revenue required to run a first world country. Unlike the backward medieval idea of "sin taxes" you're such a proponent of, which we established basically boiled down to "I don't want to pay income tax for the protection and services provided by my government, so why not apply a ton of tax on things like drugs instead and make them pay for it, so I can have a free ride?" Which you tried to play off as being because income tax was somehow morally wrong, rather than the more obvious explanation of it just being selfishness and immaturity.
My word, I just realised how ancient this thread is. What is this doing up near the top of the page?
My word, I just realised how ancient this thread is. What is this doing up near the top of the page?
It was in DanGWanG's subforum, and since that was closed it became more public and gained a new, larger audience.
And as far as that health chart goes, among my very small immediate family we have 7/10 (combined) of the conditions it is said to benefit. Would be very interesting to actually have the ability to test it out!
Can someone tell Malphas about this thread? He seems to think income tax is more viable for some strange reason.Probably because it's vastly easier to calculate, much fairer, and is actually capable of generating the revenue required to run a first world country. Unlike the backward medieval idea of "sin taxes" you're such a proponent of, which we established basically boiled down to "I don't want to pay income tax for the protection and services provided by my government, so why not apply a ton of tax on things like drugs instead and make them pay for it, so I can have a free ride?" Which you tried to play off as being because income tax was somehow morally wrong, rather than the more obvious explanation of it just being selfishness and immaturity.
I feel like I should add to the medical end of the discussion. I have had pretty severe ADHD my entire life. In college I discovered adderall and it helped significantly, but the teeth gnashing, nervousness/sweating, and loss of appetite/weight loss all drove me crazy. Let's be honest, Adderall is a milder form of crystal meth, and because it must be synthesized in a lab and can't be grown by anyone with water and soil, it is acceptable by our ****ed up profit-centric government.
Enter marijuana. As soon as I started smoking daily, I was able to stop using adderall and my grades improved significantly; all of the sudden I was on the dean's list every semester up until graduation, and even had a couple 'straight A' semesters. I felt healthier and happier, and haven't skipped a beat since. I still smoke daily because I enjoy it, and because it is the absolute best thing I've found to help me cope with my ADHD. I have no intention of stopping using it for any reason for the rest of my life, if I do it will have to be replaced with something more harmful and dangerous, and to me, that is ****ed up. Opponents of medicinal or even full legalization are just brainwashed government patsys.
If this were true then the government would legalize and tax the sale of marijuana.
Can someone tell Malphas about this thread? He seems to think income tax is more viable for some strange reason.Probably because it's vastly easier to calculate, much fairer, and is actually capable of generating the revenue required to run a first world country. Unlike the backward medieval idea of "sin taxes" you're such a proponent of, which we established basically boiled down to "I don't want to pay income tax for the protection and services provided by my government, so why not apply a ton of tax on things like drugs instead and make them pay for it, so I can have a free ride?" Which you tried to play off as being because income tax was somehow morally wrong, rather than the more obvious explanation of it just being selfishness and immaturity.
Quick question -- Do you know how much the marijuana industry currently yields yearly? In the 3 states (Colorado, Oregon and Washington) voting to legalize marijuana for recreational use, the Mexican cartel ALONE generates approximately $4.5 billion. That doesn't include dispensaries, private home grown sales, etc.
While I'd agree, on the large scale, income tax is likely easier to integrate especially since it's already in place. Taxation on "drugs" is merely a method of complementing existing structures and foundations. Why would it NOT be appealing to states with lots of debt? Sin taxes don't only have negative effects, but also attracts tourism. Income tax and sales tax on "drugs" go hand in hand.
I guess I'm introducing a separate argument, you're right that the government isn't entirely about profit, and I suppose my point is that they are very selective about who is allowed to take the profit, and in the last decade in particular the 'rules' have been heavily manipulated by the ultra rich that control the big corporations and have pools of millions of dollars to accomplish their goals. In 2008, Obama and McCain spent a record $1 billion combined in the presidential race; in 2012, Obama and Romney have already spent $2 billion. This money isn't coming from 'Joe the Plumber', and when you think about it, this money is being wrongly siphoned from shareholders and investors and written off as an operating expense.. This isn't capitalism, this is fascism.
Legislation that benefits corporations with deep pockets and hurts the average citizen only serve to weaken the country. The ultra rich have bought their way into politics and found a way to do so without even spending their own money, and they are the reason we haven't seen reform sooner on issues such as marijuana. They have been able to keep enough of the population brainwashed into thinking that smoking marijuana is the same thing as shooting up heroin, while at the same time convincing those same people to buy synthetic heroin for pain management... They are also lobbying against immigration reform (and drug reform) because they are making money in the privatized prisons in some of our southern states (look into GEO group and CCA). The internet is still free enough for the future generations to see the truth in these matters, but the ultra rich are lobbying hard to end that with legislations such as SOPA and PIPA.
Sorry to sound all Occupy, but I strongly believe in everything I've said. If America continues down this path, I'm confident that even those who disagree with my views will eventually see that I was right, and by then it will be too late.
saying one thing and doing the opposite is why Romney lost
Do some real drugs, hippies.
Obama or any president really does not have the power to do that. It's all just politics. The Supreme Court are the people with that power.
Legalise the lot. Everything. Then control and tax the supply line, in the same way tobacco and alcohol are handled (although probably with a 'scrip for 'hard' drugs). Good gear = less medical problems, controlled supply = an idea of the size of the problem, taxed supply = tax income and equitable commerce with (agricultural) suppliers in 3rd world countries, and a boost to local agriculture. Also less police time spent dealing with petty dealers and users, less users and small time dealers spending time in the big house learning to be hardened crims, and so on.Yeah, it's a no-brainer but it'll never happen of course. If you ever wanted concrete evidence of this, they should criminalise coffee for a few decades and then sit back and watch how the effects are 90% as harmful as heroin, once dealers are cutting smuggled Nescafe with dimethocaine and selling it for $100 a cup.
You don't solve anything by putting the control into the hands of criminals. You lot should have learned that during the prohibition era...
Regulation, on the other hand, does NOT make sense to me. Taxation is theft and therefore, taxation of marijuana is ALSO theft. Also, it means that the government is going to have a lot of control over the substance you are ingesting, which is arguably just as dangerous as not knowing the source you are getting it from in the first place.
I want to eat a brownie made by Paula Deen with Marijuana in it
Hickenlooper, a Democrat, signed the proclamation that officially places Amendment 64 into the constitution. And he announced the creation of a task force to attempt to work out the many legal and logistical details that must accompany the amendment, which makes the use, possession and limited home-growing of marijuana legal for anyone 21 and older
After my failed experience with investing in iGrow, I think it should be decriminalized in one fashion or another, but the penalties of driving or other 'incidents' should be horrifically prohibitive. My idea is mostly to remove most of the hard crime element, operating in the shadows, opportunist money-makers, petty jail and fines, and overall hassles. It will take the high profit out of it, which for medical and crime reasons would be beneficial.
ha. libertarian here!