# Senator Barney Frank (D-MA) calls for decriminalization of marijuana



## Codyyy (Mar 24, 2008)

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Barney Frank to propose marijuana decriminalization?

I just heard it on the news last night briefly, so I assume there will be more stories about it as it goes on.





edit: I think he's actually a representative, not a senator. So let's say congressmen.


----------



## Leon (Mar 24, 2008)

that would certainly ease the pressure on the prison systems.


----------



## Drew (Mar 24, 2008)

I  Massachusetts. 

Not because I'm on some huge crusade to get everyone to smoke up (I don't even smoke myself), but honestly there are bigger fish to fry, and I'd rather see it legalized, treated like alcohol, and then taxed than the current tax drain marijuana enforcement is.


----------



## ohio_eric (Mar 24, 2008)

Drew said:


> I  Massachusetts.
> 
> Not because I'm on some huge crusade to get everyone to smoke up (I don't even smoke myself), but honestly there are bigger fish to fry, and I'd rather see it legalized, treated like alcohol, and then taxed than the current tax drain marijuana enforcement is.



I totally agree with Drew other than Massachusetts sucks. 

I just saw something on the History Channel that originally marijuana was made illegal as a way to punish Mexicans who smoked a lot of it. So in the southwest they pushed like crazy for it as a way to control the Mexicans in their area.


----------



## Codyyy (Mar 24, 2008)

I agree Drew, I don't smoke, but I just think it's logical to do this. 

I'm sort of surprised that any congressmen would fight for this issue, but I would definitely say "only in Massachusetts."


----------



## noodles (Mar 24, 2008)

Drew said:


> I  Massachusetts.
> 
> Not because I'm on some huge crusade to get everyone to smoke up (I don't even smoke myself), but honestly there are bigger fish to fry, and I'd rather see it legalized, treated like alcohol, and then taxed than the current tax drain marijuana enforcement is.



^ What he said. What could be a hugh source of tax revenue, is instead a horrible tax drain, trying to outlaw a naturally growing, mild depressant that is less dangerous than alcohol. Plus, I am a civil libertarian that feels the federal government has no right to restrict what we are allowed to do to our own bodies.


----------



## Drew (Mar 24, 2008)

I just really don't want to see this thread turn into, say, a bunch of people bragging about how awesome their pot leaf tatoos are, and saying stuff like "ZOMG, I CAN HAS 4:20???!!!!!1"

Honestly, I have more trouble with your average potsmoker than I have with pot being legal.


----------



## noodles (Mar 24, 2008)




----------



## Groff (Mar 24, 2008)

Drew said:


> I just really don't want to see this thread turn into, say, a bunch of people bragging about how awesome their pot leaf tatoos are, and saying stuff like "ZOMG, I CAN HAS 4:20???!!!!!1"
> 
> Honestly, I have more trouble with your average potsmoker than I have with pot being legal.



Decriminalize pot.

Criminalize being a braindead idiot.  

I've met normal people that smoke pot, and i've met complete dolts who couldn't find their ass with a flashlight and a map even when they weren't high.


----------



## drshock (Mar 24, 2008)

noodles said:


> ^ What he said. What could be a hugh source of tax revenue, is instead a horrible tax drain, trying to outlaw a naturally growing, mild depressant that is less dangerous than alcohol. Plus, I am a civil libertarian that feels the federal government has no right to restrict what we are allowed to do to our own bodies.



Yeah, theres no need to throw people in jail for getting high on a couch. Now if someone hits another person while driving under the influence then thats completly different and should be dealt with accordingly. 

Although I must say it's way easier to drive drunk then blunted.


----------



## shadowgenesis (Mar 24, 2008)

drshock said:


> Although I must say it's way easier to drive drunk then blunted.



i'm sorry to hear you've done both.


----------



## telecaster90 (Mar 24, 2008)

Of all the times I picked to go sober...



This is cool, though. It probably won't affect how much I smoke, or don't smoke really, anymore, but I'm glad to see this finally happen.


----------



## Chris (Mar 24, 2008)

Wait for it... Wait for it..
























Drugs: 

Fuck you, Dave!


----------



## ZeroSignal (Mar 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> Drugs:



+1000


----------



## zimbloth (Mar 24, 2008)

Obviously it makes no sense for marijuana to be illegal for all the reasons Drew mentioned. I don't smoke myself, but it is a real waste of law enforcement and tax payer's resources to give a shit about it. Also of course alcohol is much more harmful than pot, so it's a bit hypocritical.

That said, Barney Frank is a homosexual liberal from MA, he's a good man but I doubt he really has the credibility to make waves in the mainstream due to his reputation (fair or unfair as it may be).


----------



## drshock (Mar 24, 2008)

shadowgenesis said:


> i'm sorry to hear you've done both.



For the record I've only driven high once. I dont smoke anymore though. And I've only driven with alcohol in my system within two miles of my house. I also know all about that statistic that says most drunk-driving accidents occur within a mile of the persons home.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Mar 24, 2008)

drshock said:


> For the record I've only driven high once. I dont smoke anymore though. And I've only driven with alcohol in my system within two miles of my house. I also know all about that statistic that says most drunk-driving accidents occur within a mile of the persons home.



Is that supposed to make it OK?


----------



## drshock (Mar 24, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> Is that supposed to make it OK?



Ok, why dont you guys tell me some of the things you do wrong and then I'll rip you? Give me a break.


----------



## JBroll (Mar 24, 2008)

Why be constructive when you can be a judgmental wanker over the Internet?

Jeff


----------



## noodles (Mar 24, 2008)

Chris said:


> Drugs:
> 
> Fuck you, Dave!



Good, more for me.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Mar 24, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Why be constructive when you can be a judgmental wanker over the Internet?
> 
> Jeff



If that is directed at me I was trying to figure out what the logic is behind what he's saying. If I am to assume that you are condoning this then what is your logic behind it?


----------



## playstopause (Mar 24, 2008)

zimbloth said:


> Obviously it makes no sense for marijuana to be illegal for all the reasons Drew mentioned. I don't smoke myself, but it is a real waste of law enforcement and tax payer's resources to give a shit about it. Also of course alcohol is much more harmful than pot, so it's a bit hypocritical.



Well said.


----------



## JBroll (Mar 24, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> If that is directed at me I was trying to figure out what the logic is behind what he's saying. If I am to assume that you are condoning this then what is your logic behind it?



Whether or not I condone it is irrelevant. Passing judgment in an unrelated thread gets us nowhere... 

Jeff


----------



## Rick (Mar 24, 2008)

Go ahead, make it legal and tax the hell out of it.


----------



## JBroll (Mar 24, 2008)

I guess this is always going to be the classic case of an issue that divides people who ask "Why should the government allow that?" and those who ask "Why should the government be allowed to restrict that?" when it comes to politics. When you have people like the ones running the show today, asking the former, pretending they understand the mindsets of those who founded the country, who asked the latter, it's just not fun to care about politics.

Jeff


----------



## noodles (Mar 25, 2008)

JBroll said:


> I guess this is always going to be the classic case of an issue that divides people who ask "Why should the government allow that?" and those who ask "Why should the government be allowed to restrict that?" when it comes to politics. When you have people like the ones running the show today, asking the former, pretending they understand the mindsets of those who founded the country, who asked the latter, it's just not fun to care about politics.



Personally, I prefer Thomas Jefferson's views on the subject:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."


----------



## drshock (Mar 25, 2008)

JBroll said:


> I guess this is always going to be the classic case of an issue that divides people who ask "Why should the government allow that?" and those who ask "Why should the government be allowed to restrict that?" when it comes to politics. When you have people like the ones running the show today, asking the former, pretending they understand the mindsets of those who founded the country, who asked the latter, it's just not fun to care about politics.
> 
> Jeff




I also think its ridiculous that most people now think that someone is a loser or something because they've used drugs. In a lot of other countries its not a big deal if someone likes to smoke weed or something, its just like another hobby. People really need to decide for themselves rather than abide only by what the law says.

The bottom line for me is we have serial killers and rapists running loose and we're spending time and money on bagging drug offenders.


----------



## Zepp88 (Mar 25, 2008)

Is acid next?


----------



## noodles (Mar 25, 2008)

Welcome to America, Aaron. We have a country that cares more about men fucking other men, than a government that is dragging our soldiers and economy through the gutter of a war that doesn't matter. The best thing that could have happened in the 1860s was the south winning the Civil War. Then, they could have had their psychotic Jesusland, and we could have had a country that cared more about shit that matters.


----------



## arnoroth661 (Mar 25, 2008)

Atleast a 1/4 pound of marijuana was smoked by the driver and my drummer on this trip:

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/general-music-discussion/51052-texas-metal-fest-56k.html

And I got back fine! No contact highs or anything!


----------



## Zepp88 (Mar 25, 2008)

I agree fully with Drews legalize it arguements, I've been ranting the same for a while. But weed is boring. Acid?


----------



## noodles (Mar 25, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> I agree fully with Drews legalize it arguements, I've been ranting the same for a while. But weed is boring. Acid?



I make no differentiations. Our country was founded on the principals of guaranteeing civil liberties. We have no right to tell someone what they can or cannot do to their own bodies. What we _can_ do is hold individuals accountable for how their actions effect other people, regardless of what substances he was on at the time.

PCP is not responsible for you beating up your girlfriend, killing a cop, and wounding two others. You are responsible for not having control over yourself, just like there are guys sitting on jail, convicted of manslaughter, because they drank too much before jumping in their car to drive home.


----------



## Zepp88 (Mar 25, 2008)

noodles said:


> I make no differentiations. Our country was founded on the principals of guaranteeing civil liberties. We have no right to tell someone what they can or cannot do to their own bodies. What we _can_ do is hold individuals accountable for how their actions effect other people, regardless of what substances he was on at the time.
> 
> PCP is not responsible for you beating up your girlfriend, killing a cop, and wounding two others. You are responsible for not having control over yourself, just like there are guys sitting on jail, convicted of manslaughter, because they drank too much before jumping in their car to drive home.



If you want to run for office as the "crazy socialist alternative party bastard" I'll vote for you.


----------



## noodles (Mar 25, 2008)

While I wouldn't call myself a socialist, I find it both incredibly odd and terribly sad that mankind wages wars, oppresses and starves populations, and even put the good of the planet that live on behind money, a simple concept that is no longer based upon something tangible and real.

If you look at humans as simply intelligent animals capable of rational thought, then it makes perfect sense. We, like any other animal, have no mercy for anyone but ourselves and maybe our offspring, and will do whatever it takes to survive. If we can be fat and happy, while someone else starves, it is nothing to get bent out of shape about. All of the horrible symptoms of the human condition are simply a very high level "survival of the fittest".

However, if you believe in divine power that laid out a set of moral ground rules that cannot be broken--as the oppressors always seem to--then there is absolutely no excuse for the way we treat one another, especially considering that money is "the root of all evil". Why are the atheists always the humanists? Why are the Christians, Jews, and Muslims the ones who will bring suffering with all manner of oppressive laws, horrible weapons, and predatory corporate tactics?


----------



## JBroll (Mar 26, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> I agree fully with Drews legalize it arguements, I've been ranting the same for a while. But weed is boring. Acid?



When used responsibly it hurts only those who take it, like any other drug.

The key is responsibility. There is no law that can take the place of that, and the many attempts to find such a law have fucked us over endlessly. It's time we give that up.

Again, like I said, you might be wondering "Why should it be allowed?" and that's exactly the mentality that sent people to form a new country where "Why should it be restricted?" is the key question. Sadly, this change of mindset is why America fails at existence now... 

Jeff


----------



## noodles (Mar 26, 2008)

^ Sometimes, I want to reach through my monitor and punch you for your stupid opinions. Others, I feel the need to buy you a beer for your simple, brilliant way of describing exactly what I am trying to get across.


----------



## JBroll (Mar 26, 2008)

noodles said:


> ^ Sometimes, I want to reach through my monitor and punch you for your stupid opinions. Others, I feel the need to buy you a beer for your simple, brilliant way of describing exactly what I am trying to get across.



That's good... nobody's perfect, I'm sure you'll get it right all the time sooner or later.

Jeff


----------



## noodles (Mar 26, 2008)

Arrogant fucking dick.


----------



## JBroll (Mar 26, 2008)

BZZZT!

The correct answer is: confident.

Jeff


----------



## Zepp88 (Mar 26, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Don't mess with Texas you midget bastard
> 
> Jeff


----------



## JBroll (Mar 26, 2008)

"Do that look like someone mess'n with Texas to you, too, Jerry?"

"I reckun we got ahselves a mess'r."

"Git mah brandin' iorhn."

Jeff


----------



## Zepp88 (Mar 26, 2008)




----------



## jacksonplayer (Mar 26, 2008)

Legalize it. Don't tax it. Remove the taxes from alcohol. Defund most police SWAT teams. Eliminate the DEA and the offending portions of the FDA. Eliminate any aspect of federal criminal law and law enforcement that does not concern truly interstate or international activity.

That's a start.

I believe this is about the first time I agree with the quasi-socialist Rep. Frank on, well, most stuff other than civil liberties.


----------



## noodles (Mar 26, 2008)

I'll never understand how fiscal conservatism got mixed up with social conservatism. The former is based on sound financial and political principals, while the latter is an excuse for the religious right to conduct unconstitutional attacks on our civil liberties.

What is really sad is that the modern Republican party fails on both counts. They spend far more money that the former, and one of the most liberal, administrations ever, and they have made it a point to aggressively attack our civil liberties in the name of morality and some stupid war on terrorism.


----------



## JBroll (Mar 26, 2008)

Not only do they fail at both counts, adding social conservatism requires failure at conservative government - unnecessary government intervention in anything is supposed to be avoided. Oh, well...

Jeff


----------



## noodles (Mar 26, 2008)

Agreed. The modern Republican party is more theocratic fascism than anything else.


----------



## ohio_eric (Mar 26, 2008)

You should pick up this book. I think you'd find it intersting

Amazon.com: American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21stCentury: Kevin Phillips: Books


----------



## drshock (Mar 26, 2008)

noodles said:


> Agreed. The modern Republican party is more theocratic fascism than anything else.



Thats why I get really pissed when some people I know mindlessly say things like are like f- conservativism right wing etc.

Real true conservativism is supposed to be in favor of the bill of rights no exceptions. The war, the patriot act, the u.n., gun control, prohibtion etc. are all _liberal_ acts whether or not a "conservative" has voted for them.


----------



## noodles (Mar 26, 2008)

Well, I wouldn't call the liberal acts, either. I'd call them tyrannical acts.


----------



## JBroll (Mar 26, 2008)

Tyrants rarely attempt to conserve their power.

Jeff


----------



## noodles (Mar 26, 2008)

My point was it is not a simple left/right, conservative/liberal view. You cross the point where it doesn't matter anymore, because you're just a tyrant. Hitler and Stalin are on opposite sides of the graph, after all.


----------



## jacksonplayer (Mar 27, 2008)

noodles said:


> I'll never understand how fiscal conservatism got mixed up with social conservatism. The former is based on sound financial and political principals, while the latter is an excuse for the religious right to conduct unconstitutional attacks on our civil liberties.



Politically, it basically started with Nixon's "Southern Strategy," but the ideological justification back in the day was that the old-school fundamentalists of the '60s and '70s wanted, more than anything, to be left alone to practice their beliefs (home schooling, etc.). A few, like Falwell, always had an activist, illiberal bent, but it was when the fundamentalists got a whiff of power in the '80s that more of them started thinking they could reorder society along their own lines.



noodles said:


> What is really sad is that the modern Republican party fails on both counts. They spend far more money that the former, and one of the most liberal, administrations ever, and they have made it a point to aggressively attack our civil liberties in the name of morality and some stupid war on terrorism.



That's where the neocons come in. The term has mutated into a pejorative term for someone favoring an aggressive foreign policy, but it's real meaning is a small group of '60s leftist radicals and their Old Left parents who adopted conservative ideals in the '70s, but maintained their belief in the transformative power of government. In other words, the traditional Republican has a thorough distrust of the government, albeit not to the extent of us libertarians, but the neocons merely redirected their grandiose, statist theories from socialism/communism to nationalism/religion. The ends might be different, but the means are the same.

As an old-school fiscal conservative, I don't personally see anything "conservative" about neo-conservatism. Fortunately, they seem to have fucked things up so badly over the last seven years that they are discredited. The bad thing is that the only alternative being put forward at the moment is Eurosocialism. I think the GOP is going to suffer until it rediscovers what actual conservatism means.


----------



## Drew (Mar 27, 2008)

drshock said:


> Real true conservativism is supposed to be in favor of the bill of rights no exceptions. The war, the patriot act, the u.n., gun control, prohibtion etc. are all _liberal_ acts whether or not a "conservative" has voted for them.



Actually, to nit pick a bit, liberalism simply means the belief in a codified, written book of law. The sense "liberal" has come to aquire, more or less a synonym for "progressive," is slightly misleading, but can be thought of as an offshoot of the fact that before the liberal movement, law was whatever the king wanted it to be. Writing laws down for all to see and making everyone follow them is if nothing else more fair, and was most likely seen as progressive in it's day.


----------



## Rodney (Mar 27, 2008)

jacksonplayer said:


> Politically, it basically started with Nixon's "Southern Strategy," but the ideological justification back in the day was that the old-school fundamentalists of the '60s and '70s wanted, more than anything, to be left alone to practice their beliefs (home schooling, etc.). A few, like Falwell, always had an activist, illiberal bent, but it was when the fundamentalists got a whiff of power in the '80s that more of them started thinking they could reorder society along their own lines.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



An astute observation. Most people don't realize that the neocons were actually from the democratic party. The movement started during carter's run for president. The radical left fought against him and when they lost infected the republican party.

It's obvious the Republican party isn't truly conservative anymore. Look at the heart attack they had over Ron Paul. They hired Democrats to change parties and run against him in his own congressional district to keep him out of government!

The smear campaign, media suppression of his candidacy, and vote fraud was unprecidented. Many have said this primary will go down as the most corrupt in US history.

Real Republican ideals are what used to be called classical liberalism in the vein of Thomas Jeffersons writing. Personal liberty before all else, limited government, states rights and minimal taxation. It's a shame most people don't realize that. the bigger shame is that most have had the government in thier lives so long, taking care of themselves and personal responsibility are a nightmare to them. Don't even get me started on the ones that blame capitalism for all evils not realizing we haven't had it in a long time and that we live under corporatism.

Just makes the slide to socialism / fascism that much easier


----------



## jacksonplayer (Mar 27, 2008)

Rodney said:


> An astute observation. Most people don't realize that the neocons were actually from the democratic party. The movement started during carter's run for president. The radical left fought against him and when they lost infected the republican party.



Oh, it started before that. Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol from the Old Left are pretty much the godfathers of the movement, and they became "conservatives" around 1970, if not earlier. For the younger neocons (including their sons John Podhoretz and Bill Kristol), their epiphanies were driven in large part by the increasing violence and mania exhibited by the New Left at the end of the '60s. A few of them went back to Goldwater's campaign, but that was mostly a different crowd.

The younger neocons became footsoldiers in Reagan's campaigns and took junior staffer positions in his administrations. This helps point out that conservative resurgence started by Goldwater in 1964 started to evaporate almost from the moment that Reagan took office. The GOP became good at holding the White House, but quickly forgot its reason for being. And this was driven by the neocons, who had no real interest in Golderwater-style western conservatism.


----------



## Rodney (Mar 27, 2008)

jacksonplayer said:


> Oh, it started before that. Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol from the Old Left are pretty much the godfathers of the movement, and they became "conservatives" around 1970, if not earlier. For the younger neocons (including their sons John Podhoretz and Bill Kristol), their epiphanies were driven in large part by the increasing violence and mania exhibited by the New Left at the end of the '60s. A few of them went back to Goldwater's campaign, but that was mostly a different crowd.
> 
> The younger neocons became footsoldiers in Reagan's campaigns and took junior staffer positions in his administrations. This helps point out that conservative resurgence started by Goldwater in 1964 started to evaporate almost from the moment that Reagan took office. The GOP became good at holding the White House, but quickly forgot its reason for being. And this was driven by the neocons, who had no real interest in Golderwater-style western conservatism.



When you look back on events it's scary how one thing can turn the tide. Had Goldwater kept sway with the party I can only imagine what would have followed.

I realize the neocons were around before them, but the actual term and identification as a group was, as you said, the movement by Kristol to the conservative side and the label being used as a smear by other democrats.


----------



## drshock (Mar 27, 2008)

Drew said:


> Actually, to nit pick a bit, liberalism simply means the belief in a codified, written book of law. The sense "liberal" has come to aquire, more or less a synonym for "progressive," is slightly misleading, but can be thought of as an offshoot of the fact that before the liberal movement, law was whatever the king wanted it to be. Writing laws down for all to see and making everyone follow them is if nothing else more fair, and was most likely seen as progressive in it's day.



Well of course yes- my whole point was just to illustrate the fact that conservatives today arent really any bit conservative at all and that the meaning of the name has been pretty much warped and forgotten. (Kind of like the bill of rights. )


----------



## noodles (Mar 27, 2008)

Rodney said:


> Real Republican ideals are what used to be called classical liberalism in the vein of Thomas Jeffersons writing. Personal liberty before all else, limited government, states rights and minimal taxation. It's a shame most people don't realize that. the bigger shame is that most have had the government in thier lives so long, taking care of themselves and personal responsibility are a nightmare to them. Don't even get me started on the ones that blame capitalism for all evils not realizing we haven't had it in a long time and that we live under corporatism.



Then that would mean we haven't had a real Republican party...well, ever. Lincoln was the first president the Republican party ever fielded, and he didn't even come close to fitting the Jefferson mold. Jefferson was not a nationalist who would condone the suspension of habeus corpus in support of war, and would not condone forcing states to remain in the union with military force. In short, the Republican party started out by being everything that Jefferson was not. As a matter of fact, the first wave of "radical" Republicans, who rose to power during the Reconstruction, took a very similar, heavy handed approach to those who disagreed with their principals.

Teddy Roosevelt was probably the only true Republican the GOP ever put in the White House. He is exactly the kind of man I would vote for, if one of the two exclusive clubs we call political parties would field him.


----------



## Rodney (Mar 28, 2008)

noodles said:


> Then that would mean we haven't had a real Republican party...well, ever. Lincoln was the first president the Republican party ever fielded, and he didn't even come close to fitting the Jefferson mold. Jefferson was not a nationalist who would condone the suspension of habeus corpus in support of war, and would not condone forcing states to remain in the union with military force. In short, the Republican party started out by being everything that Jefferson was not. As a matter of fact, the first wave of "radical" Republicans, who rose to power during the Reconstruction, took a very similar, heavy handed approach to those who disagreed with their principals.
> 
> Teddy Roosevelt was probably the only true Republican the GOP ever put in the White House. He is exactly the kind of man I would vote for, if one of the two exclusive clubs we call political parties would field him.




If were gonna talk about officials that follow party platform we've never had a real democrat either. I disagree about Roosevelt though. Taft was deserving of the title as well. His greatest contribution to the party not being his presidency as much as his son Roberts career.


----------



## JBroll (Mar 28, 2008)

So, long story short, American politicians fail at politics. Anything new?

Jeff


----------



## noodles (Mar 28, 2008)

JBroll said:


> So, long story short, politicians fail at politics. Anything new?
> 
> Jeff


----------



## Zepp88 (Mar 28, 2008)

Most of our politicians seem too worried about their reputations than actual politics. It just does not make sense to me why alcohol is legal, and marijuana isn't. 

But here's one other issue about drug legalization: Are there some drugs that are inherently too dangerous to legalize? I could see legalizing marijuana and possibly LSD with little problem, but what about the others?


----------



## JBroll (Mar 28, 2008)

People on acid and shrooms never fuck with anyone, they're too busy painting the walls back into the house.

Seriously... you're missing something. The issue is "Why should the government be allowed to restrict my actions?", not "Could we please maybe just for a little sort of kinda you know try legalizing something, Mr. Government guy person in charge of things man?"... drugs don't shove themselves into people. Hold PEOPLE accountable for their actions, not drugs. Anything else is just letting people off the hook for their fuckups and we've seen that doing that doesn't work.

Jeff


----------



## Zepp88 (Mar 28, 2008)

JBroll said:


> People on acid and shrooms never fuck with anyone, they're too busy painting the walls back into the house.
> 
> Seriously... you're missing something. The issue is "Why should the government be allowed to restrict my actions?", not "Could we please maybe just for a little sort of kinda you know try legalizing something, Mr. Government guy person in charge of things man?"... drugs don't shove themselves into people. Hold PEOPLE accountable for their actions, not drugs. Anything else is just letting people off the hook for their fuckups and we've seen that doing that doesn't work.
> 
> Jeff



LSD  I just wish it was legal....

Good point, and is what I would say as well, except for the fact that I don't fully know the affects of every drug you know? It's like when you bump into a crack head while walking through D.C. and you're trying to get away from the jumpy fucker without pissing him off for fear of getting shot  

I could go for passing a "High in public" law similar to the "Drunk in public" law..


----------



## JBroll (Mar 28, 2008)

If you're endangering someone, you should be held accountable for it. If you're not... fucking hell, why worry about it?

Teach people to make choices and stop letting excuses like "I was drunk" or "I was on drugs" or "I got totally hammered with a campaign worker, drove our asses off a fucking cliff, and rather than calling for help swam my useless ass down myself to try and help and failed miserably, and by the time I woke up the next morning and hadn't told anyone who could have helped I figured the problem had just magiced itself away" and we'll be a lot better off.

Jeff


----------



## Zepp88 (Mar 28, 2008)

JBroll said:


> If you're endangering someone, you should be held accountable for it. If you're not... fucking hell, why worry about it?
> 
> Teach people to make choices and stop letting excuses like "I was drunk" or "I was on drugs" or "I got totally hammered with a campaign worker, drove our asses off a fucking cliff, and rather than calling for help swam my useless ass down myself to try and help and failed miserably, and by the time I woke up the next morning and hadn't told anyone who could have helped I figured the problem had just magiced itself away" and we'll be a lot better off.
> 
> Jeff





I'm just taking in account the stupidity factor, there's just no way to fix this issue...


----------



## noodles (Mar 28, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Seriously... you're missing something. The issue is "Why should the government be allowed to restrict my actions?", not "Could we please maybe just for a little sort of kinda you know try legalizing something, Mr. Government guy person in charge of things man?"



Quoted for fucking truth.


----------



## JBroll (Mar 28, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> I'm just taking in account the stupidity factor, there's just no way to fix this issue...



Fix the stupid, not the things you can do wrong while stupid. The former may be hard as hell, if not approaching impossible, but the latter punishes the wrong people and doesn't help the ones it intends to help.

Jeff


----------



## lordofthesewers (Mar 28, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Fix the stupid, not the things you can do wrong while stupid. The former may be hard as hell, if not approaching impossible, but the latter punishes the wrong people and doesn't help the ones it intends to help.
> 
> Jeff



I love you!


----------



## noodles (Mar 28, 2008)

Guys, keep the off topic shit out of P&CE. /mod


----------



## ibznorange (Mar 28, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> Most of our politicians seem too worried about their reputations than actual politics. It just does not make sense to me why alcohol is legal, and marijuana isn't.



Because we got too groups of dolts that have a monopoly on the electoral system. Why do you think McCain is sucking up so much to the republicans? Do you honestly think he'd stand any sort of shit chance at getting to the election if he didn't warmonger around for a while? There's no way in hell. 
McCain isn't a big fan of the war, talk to him in person about it. I've done so on several occasions. Shit, he went to war, and look, because of it, he cant even comb his own hair. He got tortured so bad in Korea as a POW that he cant even lift his arms up high enough to comb his own damn hair. Hes stated in person to me that he doesn't like being in Iraq, but that you have to give up some to get stuff done. How is he (or anyone) supposed to get anything done if he/they dont have support. Its just not how things work. The issue is that whoever you may be, you cant walk in, take the presidency, and do the right thing straight up. you have to kiss ass to get shit done. Completely ass backwards (the monopoly), yes. but its what we've got to work with.


----------



## jacksonplayer (Mar 28, 2008)

noodles said:


> Teddy Roosevelt was probably the only true Republican the GOP ever put in the White House. He is exactly the kind of man I would vote for, if one of the two exclusive clubs we call political parties would field him.



Actually, he was one of the most heavy-handed imperialists ever to hold the office. Now, Calvin Coolidge, there is a man I admire. Maybe the greatest president of the 20th Century.


----------



## noodles (Mar 28, 2008)

That man gets a bad rap because there is nothing to remember him for. He did nothing.

Well, other than not meddle, while presiding over the strongest economy of the twentieth century.


----------



## ibznorange (Mar 28, 2008)

noodles said:


> That man gets a bad rap because there is nothing to remember him for. He did nothing.
> 
> Well, other than His job


----------



## ZeroSignal (Mar 28, 2008)

On the drugs issue... I am assuming that in this ideal world of yours there would be free healthcare paid by the taxpayer?

I for one would not be happy with paying for the extra illnesses and problems that others inflicted on themselves using drugs. At the moment it is bad enough having to pay for healthcare for the heart attack prone obese and alcoholic members of society filling up beds and not to mention methadone treatment. Then we will have to start paying for the people with more drug rehabilitation issues, say even more heroin addicts who want to get clean or patients who suffer from drug induced psychiatric episodes or other issues. A&E will get even more clogged up by fools jumping off shit and doing themselves damage (and don't say it doesn't happen because I've seen it for myself).

Then we have to consider the fact that some people just need to be protected from their own stupidity, ignorance and indestructibility complexes (see: teenagers). So is what you are saying is that 15 year olds should be allowed to attain a potentially life crippling addiction without any protection from society? The "parents should do a better job" answer is not appropriate in most cases as a teenager is trying to find a new role-model to base themselves on during this stage and rebel against their parents who were their previous role-models. And education still isn't reaching a lot of people obviously.

Just a few thoughts that I thought I'd share. I'm not looking for an argument at all.


----------



## Metal Ken (Mar 28, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> I for one would not be happy with paying for the extra illnesses and problems that others inflicted on themselves using drugs. At the moment it is bad enough having to pay for healthcare for the heart attack prone obese and alcoholic members of society filling up beds and not to mention methadone treatment.



Well, in some states, they're talking about passing laws for when people ignore roadsigns, they have to pay to be rescued. In cases, for example, when the road is flooded out and the person drives into it anyway and then gets their car swept up against the side of a bridge or whatever. Something similar could be enacted. Paying out of pocket for mistakes = less likely to do stupid shit.



ZeroSignal said:


> Then we have to consider the fact that some people just need to be protected from their own stupidity, ignorance and indestructibility complexes (see: teenagers). So is what you are saying is that 15 year olds should be allowed to attain a potentially life crippling addiction without any protection from society? The "parents should do a better job" answer is not appropriate in most cases as a teenager is trying to find a new role-model to base themselves on during this stage and rebel against their parents who were their previous role-models. And education still isn't reaching a lot of people obviously.



Well, why do kids smoke and do drugs? Cause they're not supposed to. Legalizing it to an extent takes the rebellion factor out of it, you know?


----------



## ZeroSignal (Mar 28, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Well, in some states, they're talking about passing laws for when people ignore roadsigns, they have to pay to be rescued. In cases, for example, when the road is flooded out and the person drives into it anyway and then gets their car swept up against the side of a bridge or whatever. Something similar could be enacted. Paying out of pocket for mistakes = less likely to do stupid shit.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, why do kids smoke and do drugs? Cause they're not supposed to. Legalizing it to an extent takes the rebellion factor out of it, you know?



And what if they cannot afford to pay? Are you going to chuck a repentant heroin addict back out on the street because he realised that he blew his last buck on heroin and wanted to clean up? Not everyone has access to money like that and some are struggling to make ends meet.

If your hero/role-model smokes/whatever I think that it would have a pretty major influence on your decision at least subconsciously. I was told that drinking and smoking under-age was illegal and I never had the urge to do either.


----------



## noodles (Mar 28, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> I for one would not be happy with paying for the extra illnesses and problems that others inflicted on themselves using drugs. At the moment it is bad enough having to pay for healthcare for the heart attack prone obese and alcoholic members of society filling up beds and not to mention methadone treatment. Then we will have to start paying for the people with more drug rehabilitation issues, say even more heroin addicts who want to get clean or patients who suffer from drug induced psychiatric episodes or other issues. A&E will get even more clogged up by fools jumping off shit and doing themselves damage (and don't say it doesn't happen because I've seen it for myself).



You already are. Addicts can't hold onto jobs, degenerate to the point they cannot take care of themselves, and eventually become wards of the state, be it through prisons or court-appointed rehabilitation. So, your tax dollars are already paying for these drains on society.



> Then we have to consider the fact that some people just need to be protected from their own stupidity, ignorance and indestructibility complexes (see: teenagers). So is what you are saying is that 15 year olds should be allowed to attain a potentially life crippling addiction without any protection from society? The "parents should do a better job" answer is not appropriate in most cases as a teenager is trying to find a new role-model to base themselves on during this stage and rebel against their parents who were their previous role-models. And education still isn't reaching a lot of people obviously.



Alcohol is illegal to anyone under the age of 21 in my country. Obviously, the same sort of restrictions would apply to other substances.

People do NOT need to be protected from their own stupidity. There is nothing in our Constitution that says that that is the role of government. More importantly, *I* do not need to be protected from other people's stupidity, because *I* can make decisions for myself. It is not the right of the government to tell us what we can or cannot do to ourselves, and just like prohibition, outlawing a substance does absolutely nothing to keep it out of the hands of those that want it. All this is proposing is decriminalizing it, so we're not clogging our courts and prisons with people guilty of nothing more than taking a substance.


----------



## JBroll (Mar 29, 2008)

One more question...

If you don't want drugs legal, how the fuck do you expect Americans to learn the metric system?

Jeff


----------



## Zepp88 (Mar 29, 2008)

JBroll said:


> One more question...
> 
> If you don't want drugs legal, how the fuck do you expect Americans to learn the metric system?
> 
> Jeff


----------



## ZeroSignal (Mar 29, 2008)

noodles said:


> You already are. Addicts can't hold onto jobs, degenerate to the point they cannot take care of themselves, and eventually become wards of the state, be it through prisons or court-appointed rehabilitation. So, your tax dollars are already paying for these drains on society.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with the first statement. In fact, I actually said that in my first post.  I wouldn't want it to be any worse than it actually is and I am of the opinion that it is bad enough.

Alcohol and cigarettes are illegal to under anyone under the age of 18 here too and look how well that turns out anywhere.  Kids'll still get it if they want. They can just ask a friend over 18 to go and get it for them or any number of other solutions.

When other people begin taking my money because they are too fucked off their faces to hold down a job and have to go on the Dole or if they're so strapped for cash that they need a fix that they have to resort to crime like mugging to get their cash I DO need protection from them because I'll be damned if I'm going to have to carry around something as insane as a gun to protect myself.

I do not think that people caught carrying substances should be put through the court system but I do think that they should be given on the spot fines and the police and judiciary should spend that time and energy on pursuing the dealers and pushers. I also believe that shops shouldn't be allowed sell these drugs either.


----------



## JBroll (Mar 29, 2008)

Maybe you could just cut the social programs for drug-addled loons, instead of continuing to pour money into a pit that nothing is coming out of?

Jeff


----------



## ZeroSignal (Mar 29, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Maybe you could just cut the social programs for drug-addled loons, instead of continuing to pour money into a pit that nothing is coming out of?
> 
> Jeff



Now what do you suppose we do instead?

What ever happened to "leave no man behind"?

Have we become so desensitised that we are willing to cut these people off because they have made a few bad choices? Then we would just be taking another step towards Hitler's fascism where the "weak" are removed simply because they are perceived to be "weak".


----------



## Metal Ken (Mar 29, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> And what if they cannot afford to pay? Are you going to chuck a repentant heroin addict back out on the street because he realised that he blew his last buck on heroin and wanted to clean up? Not everyone has access to money like that and some are struggling to make ends meet.


Thats what makes it a preventative measure. 




ZeroSignal said:


> If your hero/role-model smokes/whatever I think that it would have a pretty major influence on your decision at least subconsciously. I was told that drinking and smoking under-age was illegal and I never had the urge to do either.



Education goes a long way. in schools, break out those slides of smoker's lungs compared to regular people's lungs. Proper education of what people are getting into is more likely to make them think about it than going "Mom said not to so im gonna do it anyway!"


----------



## JBroll (Mar 29, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> Now what do you suppose we do instead?
> 
> What ever happened to "leave no man behind"?
> 
> Have we become so desensitised that we are willing to cut these people off because they have made a few bad choices? Then we would just be taking another step towards Hitler's fascism where the "weak" are removed simply because they are perceived to be "weak".



I don't like social programs anyway, and you're the one saying you want to leave the same people behind because of the same few bad choices.

I wouldn't treat people much differently, myself. Whatever someone's reasons for not showing up to work and dropping out of life are, the drain on society is just the same. Do you object to handouts because people aren't qualified for real jobs and half to stick to fry-serving, or for people who just don't want to work at all?

You're already paying for charity cases who spent too much time and money on drugs. Keeping things illegal doesn't stop that, and if you're concerned about that it's hypocritical to keep alcohol legal because people get smashed on booze and drop out of life all the same. Keeping people in jail just leaves more of a strain on the prison system and our budgets.

Jeff


----------



## ZeroSignal (Mar 29, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Education goes a long way. in schools, break out those slides of smoker's lungs compared to regular people's lungs. Proper education of what people are getting into is more likely to make them think about it than going "Mom said not to so im gonna do it anyway!"



Well in my experience a lot of people shown that kind of material (including films like Super-Size Me) are at first shocked but after a while become either apathetic towards it or they become desensitised to the shock value. Not that I'm saying education doesn't work it's just that it varies in its effectiveness.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Mar 29, 2008)

JBroll said:


> I don't like social programs anyway, and you're the one saying you want to leave the same people behind because of the same few bad choices.
> 
> I wouldn't treat people much differently, myself. Whatever someone's reasons for not showing up to work and dropping out of life are, the drain on society is just the same. Do you object to handouts because people aren't qualified for real jobs and half to stick to fry-serving, or for people who just don't want to work at all?
> 
> ...



Sorry mate but you're not reading my posts...

I said that people shouldn't be left behind because of their "stupidity" and whatnot. Not the other way around.

If they're making an effort to get back on their feet then I believe my tax-monies are being well spent. For instance a young, poor single mother trying to make ends meet would have to sign up for a child benefits scheme or other Dole scheme. Or an unskilled factory worker who has worked in the same factory for 30-40 years is getting laid off and needs to prop himself up as he is retrained is a worthy cause in my opinion.

Again you didn't read my posts because I said that people who are caught in possession shouldn't be convicted and sent to prison but they should be fined or be forced to do community service or something along those lines. The government should be attacking the producers, traffickers, dealers and pushers instead. ALSO I am not hypocritical because I dislike alcohol just as much as any other drug. I do not drink.


----------



## noodles (Mar 29, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> Alcohol and cigarettes are illegal to under anyone under the age of 18 here too and look how well that turns out anywhere.  Kids'll still get it if they want. They can just ask a friend over 18 to go and get it for them or any number of other solutions.



I have ceased being able to perceive the point you are trying to make. You are saying that alcohol and cigarettes still wind up in the hands of minors, even though it is illegal to them, so we shouldn't legalize drugs? 



> When other people begin taking my money because they are too drunk off their faces to hold down a job and have to go on the Dole or if they're so strapped for cash that they need a drink that they have to resort to crime like mugging to get their cash I DO need protection from them because I'll be damned if I'm going to have to carry around something as insane as a gun to protect myself.



There, I just replaced everything in your argument that referred to drugs with alcohol instead. Amazingly, your argument still holds true! So, can you explain to me, using your logic, why alcohol should stay legal?



> I do not think that people caught carrying substances should be put through the court system but I do think that they should be given on the spot fines and the police and judiciary should spend that time and energy on pursuing the dealers and pushers. I also believe that shops shouldn't be allowed sell these drugs either.



Now you are not only arguing against yourself, but you're not making sense. First, how is weakening the penalties for drugs going to fix the problem with addicts being a drain on welfare? Second, how is giving "on the spot" fines going to not burden the court system? This is essentially what cops do with speeding tickets, and yet traffic court is still overloaded. Everyone has a right to a fair trial, so you can't just presume guilt and force them to pay a fine.

If you'd been paying attention to other's posts, you'd see what everyone is calling for is _decriminalization_. That means it becomes the same as alcohol:


Walk around smoking a joint, and you get a fine. That is the same as walking around drinking a beer, which is a violation of open container laws. Well, except in New Orleans, where we're not so fucking uptight.

Driving under the influence is the same as driving while intoxicated on alcohol: you lose your license for 6-12 months, have to go to a court appointed training program, and pay a steep fine.

You have to be 21 to possess or consume it, the same as alcohol. It is taxed and regulated the same way as alcohol. Suddenly, all the money spent on the utter failure of trying to keep it out of people's hands becomes a huge influx of tax revenue. We can completely eliminate the DEA. Gang crime related to the manufacturer and distribution of illegal substances all but disappears, becoming the minor, unorganized nuisance that today's bootlegger's have become. Now, we can significantly lower people's income taxes.

As I see it, decriminalization is going to mean we spend _less_ money dealing with drugs, and not more. The welfare burden is already there, whether it is legal or not. Let go of the boogey man views of drugs that you learned in school, since alcohol is worse than everything but heroin, crack, and ketamine.


----------



## noodles (Mar 29, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> Sorry mate but you're not reading my posts...
> 
> I said that people shouldn't be left behind because of their "stupidity" and whatnot. Not the other way around.



Don't you see? That is what we already have. Heroin possession is a _felony offense_. So, one act of stupidity, and you have to answer "yes" to the "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" on every job application for the next ten years. No one is going to hire you for a real job, so your life is basically over. You are now going to be condemned to working fast food, living in a shitbox government assisted apartment in a bad part of town, and going to a parole officer and NA meetings. After it falls off your record, you can now begin to start completely over (best of luck with that).

Everything you are stating that you stand against is happening _right now_.


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Mar 29, 2008)

fuck, im staying out of this one.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Mar 29, 2008)

noodles said:


> (1) I have ceased being able to perceive the point you are trying to make. You are saying that alcohol and cigarettes still wind up in the hands of minors, even though it is illegal to them, so we shouldn't legalize drugs?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. The point that I was making in my first post and continued with is that sometimes people do need to be protected from themselves for various reasons. You may not like it but that is what I think.

2. I can't explain why alcohol should stay legal and I couldn't care less because I (and I quote) "dislike alcohol just as much as any other drug".

3. I guess we have different policing systems here considering that people are not prosecuted for drinking in public and people do not lose their licence for drink-driving but they do get points on their drivers licence. I am not entirely familiar with your policing regulations. I am of the opinion that less drugs the better in general and they are very poorly regulated in a lot of areas.

4. Ha! "Boogey man views" indeed... I didn't learn them in school because I went to an inner city school so drug use was common enough and the staff couldn't jive a shit. I picked up my stance from my own experience with friends who are drug abusers. And again I put alcohol in the same place as any other drug.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Mar 29, 2008)

noodles said:


> Don't you see? That is what we already have. Heroin possession is a _felony offense_. So, one act of stupidity, and you have to answer "yes" to the "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" on every job application for the next ten years. No one is going to hire you for a real job, so your life is basically over. You are now going to be condemned to working fast food, living in a shitbox government assisted apartment in a bad part of town, and going to a parole officer and NA meetings. After it falls off your record, you can now begin to start completely over (best of luck with that).
> 
> Everything you are stating that you stand against is happening _right now_.



I know and I agree with you! I have a great respect for you Noodles and I agree with most of what you are saying except a few points.

It is horrific how people are treated in this day and age and I do not think people should be labelled a "felon" (we have just The Criminal Record over here) for drug possession or abuse.


----------



## JBroll (Mar 30, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> I said that people shouldn't be left behind because of their "stupidity" and whatnot. Not the other way around.
> 
> If they're making an effort to get back on their feet then I believe my tax-monies are being well spent. For instance a young, poor single mother trying to make ends meet would have to sign up for a child benefits scheme or other Dole scheme. Or an unskilled factory worker who has worked in the same factory for 30-40 years is getting laid off and needs to prop himself up as he is retrained is a worthy cause in my opinion.



I'm reading them, you just have narrow definitions of stupidity. Never underestimate the power of people to be stupid in new and innovative ways.



ZeroSignal said:


> Again you didn't read my posts because I said that people who are caught in possession shouldn't be convicted and sent to prison but they should be fined or be forced to do community service or something along those lines. The government should be attacking the producers, traffickers, dealers and pushers instead. ALSO I am not hypocritical because I dislike alcohol just as much as any other drug. I do not drink.



In that case, they're a strain on those people administering community service... at least around here, that lot doesn't get much done.

Do you move to have alcohol made illegal? I can't say I blame you for disliking it, but do you object to its status as a legal drug?

Jeff


----------

