Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Moon]

PTTG: You're contradicting yourself.

You say that you don't know anyone who uses marijuana that is a "bad" person, but then you cite that when we stopped prohibition that "the gangs lost a main money supply and became far less prevalent."

You can't have it both ways.  You can't argue that legalizing marijuana would solve a lot of crime, and then say that marijuana doesn't cause any problems with people.

I don't know anyone who uses ecstasy or crack as a bad person either.  Of course, any bad person would probably tell you that they are not "bad", they are just passionate or addicted to x (fill in 'x' as child molestation, rape, drugs, etc). 

But, where do we draw the line?  Or do you think that there should be no law at all?

[mainiac]

THEY MAKE MORE MONEY IN A WEEK THAN YOU DO IN A YEAR! That's what keeps them going.

Those overseeing huge organizations, importing vast quantities of drugs might become wealthy, but that's a tiny number of people.

Gang leaders, those who oversee an organization making many transactions might make a good wage and be able to retire in the suburbs.

The typical drug pusher however, the guy who stands out on the street corner to sell you crack, earns less per hour then working at Micky D's (which he might very well do as well.).  They're in it for the hope of being the boss one day, they get paid like shit.  The runners make even less.

Think about a typical retail company like Gap or Walmart.  The CEO's make millions.  Corporate staff makes a decent living.  But the people behind the counter don't see any of that.

[mainiac]

Oh, Maniac, you should come up into the Foothills- tons of old hippies up here; you'd have no problem with supply...

If pot's legal, won't I be able to buy it where ever there's a liquor store?

Still, would be cool to see the hippies and I imagine that would be a nice place to invest in real estate.  But what's the housing market like?  Is anyone in these Foothills hiring mechanical engineers right out of college?

[Jonathan S. Fox]

PTTG: You're contradicting yourself.

You say that you don't know anyone who uses marijuana that is a "bad" person, but then you cite that when we stopped prohibition that "the gangs lost a main money supply and became far less prevalent."

You can't have it both ways.  You can't argue that legalizing marijuana would solve a lot of crime, and then say that marijuana doesn't cause any problems with people.

That's not a contradiction at all. Legalizing marijuana won't remove marijuana from users, it'll remove the black market. If pot did cause problems in people, legalizing wouldn't solve it.

That's okay though. The crime arising from prohibition of drugs and alcohol is not from people using the substances, but from the nature of the black markets created when they're banned and the trade is driven "underground". Marijuana smokers are not necessarily bad people. But how many gangs and other scumbags may have been involved in getting the marijuana to that not bad buyer?

It's not really of any importance to the argument, but I can't help but point out that in Liberal Crime Squad you can sell pot brownies to help fund your terrorist network.

[Aqizzar]

I guess I should butt into this argument, as a former pothead from a long line of potheads.  Yes, I'm admitting to crimes on the Internet, oh how brazen of me.

On "gateway" drugs - In all the times that I smoked marijuana, I never once thought it'd be a good idea to try something harder.  None of the people I ever smoked with did either.  My father, who's been a proud pothead since 1971, tried cocaine exactly once in all that time and was so revolted he never touched it again.

Arguing that marijuana should be wholly illegal for safety or health reasons is completely hollow unless you also think alcohol and tobacco should be wholly illegal.  There's no reason why it can't be treated exactly the same way, and the only reason it's not is because dope never had an industrial basis on it's side like alcohol and booze.

Arguing that it would create crime problems is pointless, because the very fact that it's illegal now is what keeps it embroiled with the criminal element.  As Alcohol Prohibition proved making something illegal puts the industry of it in the hands of people who would break the law anyway.

Arguing that it would spread marijuana use (won't someone think of the children?) is ridiculous.  You can already buy pot at corner stores just like beer and smokes, it's just not on the shelves.  There's no one out there thinking to themselves that they'd smoke pot if only it wasn't against the law.  I'd be will to say that legalizing pot would slightly reduce it's usage, because without the "risk" of illegality, it wouldn't be as hip and cool and counter-culturey.

As the Californian lobby points out, it's the biggest cash crop in the state at $14 billion, surpassing California's oranges and vineyards.  The same story goes for another half dozen states.  There's every reason to let it be a legitimate industry like any other crop.

The typical drug pusher however, the guy who stands out on the street corner to sell you crack, earns less per hour then working at Micky D's (which he might very well do as well.).  They're in it for the hope of being the boss one day, they get paid like shit.  The runners make even less.

I don't have a lot of information on this, because asking a seller about his business is extremely bad form, but the guys I've dealt with had fairly reasonable incomes from pot.  Some did it as a supplementary thing, some as their primary business.  But not one of them ever had any aspiration of being a bigwig crime boss or Hollywood crap like that.  I think you've got a slightly distorted picture of the drug culture from movies and TV.  Every guy I've dealt with was middle-aged whitetrash just selling dope like any other job.

[PTTG??]

Gangs are the black market suppliers; users are only looking for the drug.
Gangs will compete with one annother in order to supply more and make more money.
Meanwhile, the great majority of users don't like the gangs, but they are the only supply.

You allow users to choose legitimate sources (of any drug) and the gangs go out of business.

Probably, there will be little change in crime.

But I personally don't care what my neighbor does as long as he doesn't harm me... so naturally no Driving High or so on.

In other words, "If Pot's outlawed, only outlaws will sell Pot!"

[Moon]

I just think that legalizing it will open the door to legalizing something harder to solve another crime crisis.

I think another good example of this is since pornography has become much more widespread because of the internet, that child pornography and child trafficking cases have shot through the roof.

If you make marijuana easier to access and more widespread, I think you will see a greater population of people wanting to try the "harder" stuff.

I don't think it would dampen drug trafficking or the black market at all.  It would just change what they were selling.

Haven't we already seen this scenario before?  Legalizing alcohol was the first stepping stone, now we're on the cusp of legalizing marijuana...next we will be legalizing crack.  All in the name of stopping crime and getting federal money.  When are we going to learn that giving in doesn't fix problems, it just creates new ones.

[mainiac]

I don't have a lot of information on this, because asking a seller about his business is extremely bad form, but the guys I've dealt with had fairly reasonable incomes from pot.  Some did it as a supplementary thing, some as their primary business.  But not one of them ever had any aspiration of being a bigwig crime boss or Hollywood crap like that.  I think you've got a slightly distorted picture of the drug culture from movies and TV.  Every guy I've dealt with was middle-aged whitetrash just selling dope like any other job.

I was more talking about the crackdealers.  I don't have personal experience (I even used to wonder why DC had so many sneakers hanging from telephone wires!) But my misconceptions and second hand opinions come from reading about it, not movies and TV.  I figure for a quantifiable thing like how much the typical guy standing on a corner makes, printed literature is probably won't mislead me.

[mainiac]

I just think that legalizing it will open the door to legalizing something harder to solve another crime crisis.

I think another good example of this is since pornography has become much more widespread because of the internet, that child pornography and child trafficking cases have shot through the roof.

Oh, the slippery slope argument.  How we love to apply it to everything.

If your problem is against legalizing other drugs, why not oppose their legalization.  I don't like domestic abuse.  Doesn't mean I'm opposed to marriage.

Take the porn argument.  Which is more likely: that the traffic in porn increased the traffic in child porn or that the internet allowed child porn to be trafficked more easily?

[PTTG??]

The people who want "harder" stuff will want it whether or not The M-Word is Legal. This isn't about crime anyway; It's about money. The big thing that this bill would do is allow taxes on something that's now getting sold anyway. It's not like the government is just "giving up".

I think another good example of this is since pornography has become much more widespread because of the internet, that child pornography and child trafficking cases have shot through the roof.

I'm pretty sure that that's not a real effect; where did you get that information? Child Molesters are mentally ill people- they have psychological issues. This isn't something you can get from looking at naked celebrities.

[Moon]

The people who want "harder" stuff will want it whether or not The M-Word is Legal. This isn't about crime anyway; It's about money. The big thing that this bill would do is allow taxes on something that's now getting sold anyway. It's not like the government is just "giving up".

Why do you keep calling it "The M-Word"?  Nobody here is afraid of using the word, are you?

I'm pretty sure that that's not a real effect; where did you get that information? Child Molesters are mentally ill people- they have psychological issues. This isn't something you can get from looking at naked celebrities.

Really?  I always thought people who smoked and drinked were mentally ill.

Seriously though, people who actually want to smoke pot are weak-minded.  They allow their physical desires take control of their mind.  I consider that person to be weak.  I hope that doesn't offend someone here.

[Aqizzar]

Seriously though, people who actually want to smoke pot are weak-minded.  They allow their physical desires take control of their mind.  I consider that person to be weak.  I hope that doesn't offend someone here.

Well, it offended me.  I smoked pot because I wanted to see what it was like.  I gave it up after a while because I didn't see the appeal anymore and I had shit to do.  It was never about physical desires, or any such reptilian-brain stuff, it was out of curiosity and the fact that, hey, it was entertaining.

I was more talking about the crackdealers.  I don't have personal experience (I even used to wonder why DC had so many sneakers hanging from telephone wires!) But my misconceptions and second hand opinions come from reading about it, not movies and TV.  I figure for a quantifiable thing like how much the typical guy standing on a corner makes, printed literature is probably won't mislead me.

Ah, my confusion.  I only have experience with marijuana dealers.  I don't think anyone here or anywhere is arguing for the legalization of crack.

[Granite26]

Ah, my confusion.  I only have experience with marijuana dealers.  I don't think anyone here or anywhere is arguing for the legalization of crack.

I will

Actually, Crack may be the one drug that's TOO addictive...

[Moon]

Ah, my confusion.  I only have experience with marijuana dealers.  I don't think anyone here or anywhere is arguing for the legalization of crack.

I will

Actually, Crack may be the one drug that's TOO addictive...

My point exactly.  Give someone an inch, they'll take you for a mile.

[Onlyhestands]

Really?  I always thought people who smoked and drinked were mentally ill.

Seriously though, people who actually want to smoke pot are weak-minded.  They allow their physical desires take control of their mind.  I consider that person to be weak.  I hope that doesn't offend someone here.

That does offend me as someone who does use MJ. Personally I like to experience music and nature while on it. Its ridiculous to say that MJ is mind controlling. Its not physically addictive, the only addiction you can get off it is the same as chocolate. There is a huge gap between "soft" drugs like marijuana-infinitely safer than alcohol and cigarettes- and something like crack or heroin. People who want to try a hard drug are going to do it despite the legality of softer drugs.