What do you think about the Supreme Court case about banning Medicinal Marijuana? If this takes off, I'll post my views.

I can remember when there was a huge moral dilemma about giving morphine to terminally
ill cancer patients because the would become addicted.  They suffered, in pain, in hospitals,
so that the could die without being addicted!  We haven't progressed much. When the drug
companies are able to profit from this it will happen, not until.

Do you think you shorten the title of this thread, it's messing up my board.

Max

Do you think you shorten the title of this thread, it's messing up my board.

Max


done... that was pretty annoying

It's an issue of state's rights.  Too bad the neocons won't see it that way.  They prefer the Dupont enacted prohibition enforced even if it oversteps the rights of the states. The same people who jump up and down about the right of the states, and how they should have been allowed to form a second country will jump up and down and cry that we need to prevent the medicinal usage of a drug for terminally ill patients. The same people who scream bloody murder that the states should decide if gays can marry or not, then turn around and ask for a constitutional amendment when some states do allow it.  I laught every time I hear a neocon try and defend the "states right" slant on ANY issue, since they've proven time and again, that they "flip-flop" on it to suit their own needs.

It's an issue of state's rights.  Too bad the neocons won't see it that way.  They prefer the Dupont enacted prohibition enforced even if it oversteps the rights of the states. The same people who jump up and down about the right of the states, and how they should have been allowed to form a second country will jump up and down and cry that we need to prevent the medicinal usage of a drug for terminally ill patients. The same people who scream bloody murder that the states should decide if gays can marry or not, then turn around and ask for a constitutional amendment when some states do allow it.   I laught every time I hear a neocon try and defend the "states right" slant on ANY issue, since they've proven time and again, that they "flip-flop" on it to suit their own needs.


Chucky, I agree that this is a states-rights issue.  Specifically, if the drug is made within-state and does not cross state lines, then the Federal Government should keepa their hands off.  (I have a similar opinion as regards gun control laws for guns that are manufactured, sold, and possessed within-state... not the Federal Government's business).

But it is not a "neocon issue" as you have stated.  This whole silly war-on-drugs thing is the product of DECADES of Republican/Democrat/Liberal/Conservative policy making.

The same people who scream bloody murder that the states should decide if gays can marry or not, then turn around and ask for a constitutional amendment when some states do allow it.   

Note that John Kerry disingenuously cried out "States Rights" on the whole homosexual marriage thing.  He knows full well that the US Constitution per se does not have language that would ban homosexual marriage.  He knows that the state constitution amendments will be appealed to the Supreme Court.  There is a real and palpable risk that the Supreme Court could make homosexual marriage the law of the land and override the State Constitution Amendments.

The whole homosexual-marriage issue became inflamed in a major way because the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided that its constitution mandated homosexual marriage.  So states are rushing to mend their constitutions so that their Supreme Courts do not "catch the fever".  And the amendments have passed with overwhelming margins.

In my (admittedly conservative) opinion, I have no legal problem with any given state deciding to marry homosexuals in 2's, 3's, whatever.  Let the states decide AND KEEP FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT.

AT A MINIMUM, however, I support a Federal Constitutional Amendment that prohibits the Federal Courts (or legislative branch) from forcing a homosexual-marriage-rights ruling on all 50 states.  I'm not calling for a Federal homosexual-marriage ban, but rather an explicit declaration that it is a STATES RIGHTS issue.

...above is the reason why you see so much talk on the homosexual marriage amendment to the Constitution.

It's an issue of state's rights.  Too bad the neocons won't see it that way.  They prefer the Dupont enacted prohibition enforced even if it oversteps the rights of the states. The same people who jump up and down about the right of the states, and how they should have been allowed to form a second country will jump up and down and cry that we need to prevent the medicinal usage of a drug for terminally ill patients. The same people who scream bloody murder that the states should decide if gays can marry or not, then turn around and ask for a constitutional amendment when some states do allow it.   I laught every time I hear a neocon try and defend the "states right" slant on ANY issue, since they've proven time and again, that they "flip-flop" on it to suit their own needs.


And what about the left?  Leave abortion up to the federal government, but same-sex marriage up to the states.  Bull.

And what about the left?  Leave abortion up to the federal government, but same-sex marriage up to the states.  Bull.

hmmm...
This is a double standard, is it not?
???

Do you think you shorten the title of this thread, it's messing up my board.

Max


I didn't see anything. What kind of problems did you have?

It's a big difference...the abortion issue is not about taking away someone's rights, it's about granting rights, whereas the same-sex marriage ban IS about taking away rights.  If I'm not mistaken, the point of Constitutional amendments is to prevent people's rights from being taken away (well, except the prohibition one, but that was repealed).
Good point, though Conservatives won't call it so.  For them, they're "strict constructionalists" when it comes to money and guns, but a "living document" that needs to grow a new limb when it comest gay marriage.

IMO, "medical marijuana" will never be 100% "allowed" because the drug companies will make $0 off of it.

I'm for overriding the medical marijuana debate by legalizing for personal consumption for fun.  Yeah, like that's ever gonna happen!

I didn't see anything. What kind of problems did you have?

No worries, Chucky fixed it.  The long title was expanding the width of the column, pushing part of the board out of view.

  If I'm not mistaken, the point of Constitutional amendments is to prevent people's rights from being taken away (well, except the prohibition one, but that was repealed).


The purpose of Constitutional Amendments are to neither add to nor subtract from rights.  Rather their purpose is to clarify the foundation of law in the US.

Several amendments can be construed as limiting rights:

16th:  Allows congress to tax the public without apportionment back to the states and without regard to census.

18th:  Prohibition, as you mentioned.  Later repealed.  (Interesting corollary to the uselessness of the War on Drugs)

22nd:  Term limits.  Eliminated the right to be the next FDR.

26th:  Denies the right to vote to people under 18 years old.

27th:  Takes away the right of Congress to vote itself a raise in the current House term.

...The Constitution itself has many restrictions of rights, such as the 35-year-old age limit (and native-born citizen) to run for President, the 9-year-citizenship rule to run for Senate .

IMO, "medical marijuana" will never be 100% "allowed" because the drug companies will make $0 off of it.



I think you hit the nail on the head. The pharmaceutical companies can make boocoo bucks on drugs that seem to cause more harm than good-does the name Vioxx ring a bell, (not to mention the $$$$ they spend on advertising). I have heard some of the arguments against-20,000 people died of drug related circumstances but they neglected to say that 0-that is ZERO of those deaths were related to pot. They also said that pot has no medicinal value that people only THINK their pain is eased. You can say the same thing about Valium. To me it is all a crock of doo doo because like you pointed out Cheer, there is no $$ in it.

As to state rights, the Feds have been over-stepping their boundaries in this area. Not just with the medical marijuana and gay marriage, there is a case here that has a man convicted of murder. This state does NOT have the death penalty but Ashcroft wants to turn this into a federal case so this man can get the death penalty-even when the family members of the victim are against the death penalty.

For the record, I am for medical marijuana-actually I am for the legalization of marijuana.



Cat

26th:  Denies the right to vote to people under 18 years old.


You are r e a l l y splitting hairs with that one and you know it. Before that amendment, one typically had to be 21 in order to vote, so that ammendment stripped rights from NO one, but it gave rights to people 18, 19, and 20 years of age.

26th:  Denies the right to vote to people under 18 years old.


You are r e a l l y splitting hairs with that one and you know it. Before that amendment, one typically had to be 21 in order to vote, so that ammendment stripped rights from NO one, but it gave rights to people 18, 19, and 20 years of age.





The reason for that Amendment was Vietnam. 18 year olds could be drafted and sent to die in the war but they couldn't vote. As the line from "The Eve of Distruction" says, "You are old enough to kill, but not for votin'"




Cat

It will be a cold day in hell before any illegal drug is made legal or even decriminalised in this country. If the government did that then they'd be forced to own up to the decades of draconian BS and racism that drove the laws into making in the first place. Marijuana was legal until the depression, when lots of whites were out of a job, and the few jobs down south that were available were going to a lot of Mexican immigrants.... who smoked marijuana. The government used criminlisation of marijuana as an excuse to deport or lock up the Mexican immigrants so that whites could get jobs. Ever since then it's been one ridiculous campaign after the other full of lies and half-truths and scare tactics to keep people from using marijuana.

I mean, if the government legalised or decriminalised marijuana... they'd lose one of their most effective ways to harrass Black people and Hispanics and poor Whites and keep their communities down. Locking people up and then probating them while charging excessive fines and fees to keep them tied to the system long enough to where they are almost certainly going to break another BS law so that you can force them to be in the system for even longer and pay more money... Meanwhile corporate criminals are ignored and let off the hook again and agian, when they are responsible for far more serious crimes than carrying a joint!

Drug laws in this country are the number one way to keep minorities and poor people under your control... by keeping them tethered to the system. There's no way the capitalist, elitist, RACIST US government will ever give that up!

You are r e a l l y splitting hairs with that one and you know it. Before that amendment, one typically had to be 21 in order to vote, so that ammendment stripped rights from NO one, but it gave rights to people 18, 19, and 20 years of age.





The reason for that Amendment was Vietnam. 18 year olds could be drafted and sent to die in the war but they couldn't vote. As the line from "The Eve of Distruction" says, "You are old enough to kill, but not for votin'"




Cat

"And I tell you over 'n over 'n over again, my friend, we're on the eve of deestruction!"
Good old Barry Maguire, he found Jesus in the '70s you know.  He recently played a concert a local Unitarian Church.  I'm afraid I missed it!
:P

I realise exactly the impetus for the 26th Ammendment. I also realise that it did not deny people under the age of 18 the right to vote, because it was already denied to them. What it did was extend suffrage to those who were 18 and older. Of course one who isn't familiar with this would not be able to deduce that from Lyric Boy's summary of it. I quote...

26th: Denies the right to vote to people under 18 years old.



A far cry from its true purpose.

It will be a cold day in hell before any illegal drug is made legal or even decriminalised in this country. If the government did that then they'd be forced to own up to the decades of draconian BS and racism that drove the laws into making in the first place. Marijuana was legal until the depression, when lots of whites were out of a job, and the few jobs down south that were available were going to a lot of Mexican immigrants.... who smoked marijuana. The government used criminlisation of marijuana as an excuse to deport or lock up the Mexican immigrants so that whites could get jobs. Ever since then it's been one ridiculous campaign after the other full of lies and half-truths and scare tactics to keep people from using marijuana.

I mean, if the government legalised or decriminalised marijuana... they'd lose one of their most effective ways to harrass Black people and Hispanics and poor Whites and keep their communities down. Locking people up and then probating them while charging excessive fines and fees to keep them tied to the system long enough to where they are almost certainly going to break another BS law so that you can force them to be in the system for even longer and pay more money... Meanwhile corporate criminals are ignored and let off the hook again and agian, when they are responsible for far more serious crimes than carrying a joint!

Drug laws in this country are the number one way to keep minorities and poor people under your control... by keeping them tethered to the system. There's no way the capitalist, elitist, RACIST US government will ever give that up!


I honestly don't believe you think that, unless you're a complete *****.  Oh, poor black, getting arrested for breaking the law....boo hoo.....  Remember vice cops back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's who stopped pot smokers and....GASP....threw them in jail for breaking a law. 

Does anyone here agree with this?  Anyone?  Maxwell?  DC?  Cat?  Anyone?  Saying that drug laws are designed to somehow keep the poor down and keep black people in jail.  You're insane, buddy.

I honestly don't believe you think that, unless you're a complete *****.  Oh, poor black, getting arrested for breaking the law....boo hoo.....  Remember vice cops back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's who stopped pot smokers and....GASP....threw them in jail for breaking a law. 

Does anyone here agree with this?  Anyone?  Maxwell?  DC?  Cat?  Anyone?  Saying that drug laws are designed to somehow keep the poor down and keep black people in jail.  You're insane, buddy.

Yeah, but so are you and you own guns, so which one of us is a bigger danger?

I honestly don't believe you think that, unless you're a complete *****.  Oh, poor black, getting arrested for breaking the law....boo hoo.....  Remember vice cops back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's who stopped pot smokers and....GASP....threw them in jail for breaking a law. 

Does anyone here agree with this?  Anyone?  Maxwell?  DC?  Cat?  Anyone?  Saying that drug laws are designed to somehow keep the poor down and keep black people in jail.  You're insane, buddy.

Well, you're gonna deny this baby too, but let us just ask...
Where are you likely to find crack cocaine?, and where are you likely to find powder cocaine?  OK, in 1988 Congress passed a law mandating the punishment for a dealer caught with 5 grams of crack would get the same punishment as a dealer with 500 grams of powder form cocaine. 
That certainly helped to lock up plenty of African Americans for many, many years, whereas your upscale whitey George W. Bush type who gets busted with a few grams of powder gets a slap on the wrist.

A question we must always ask when dealing with crime and punishment is who gets the kind of legal representation that will get a suspect of the hook?  Rich people.  African Americans are disproportionately poor, and thus more likely to face a drug charge with a crummy court-appointed attorney who might spend five minutes with him and barely know his name.  Without competent legal representation, a drug suspect can get sent up for a long stretch on a mandatory minimum.

While I can't prove drug laws were designed specifically to imprison African Americans, I can say without fear of contradiction that they sure do help...buddy!
::)

Well, you're gonna deny this baby too, but let us just ask...
Where are you likely to find crack cocaine?, and where are you likely to find powder cocaine?  OK, in 1988 Congress passed a law mandating the punishment for a dealer caught with 5 grams of crack would get the same punishment as a dealer with 500 grams of powder form cocaine. 
That certainly helped to lock up plenty of African Americans for many, many years, whereas your upscale whitey George W. Bush type who gets busted with a few grams of powder gets a slap on the wrist.

A question we must always ask when dealing with crime and punishment is who gets the kind of legal representation that will get a suspect of the hook?  Rich people.  African Americans are disproportionately poor, and thus more likely to face a drug charge with a crummy court-appointed attorney who might spend five minutes with him and barely know his name.  Without competent legal representation, a drug suspect can get sent up for a long stretch on a mandatory minimum.

While I can't prove drug laws were designed specifically to imprison African Americans, I can say without fear of contradiction that they sure do help...buddy!
::)


So drug laws are designed to keep black people down?  It is the white mans' fault IF (I don't even know if it is true) black people do drugs more often.

I have always said that people who are arrested for drug dealing should get a longer sentence than a person arrested for drug possession.  Maybe if an idiot gets addicted, maybe help would help him.  But drug dealers deserve to rot in jail, in my opinion.

So drug laws are designed to keep black people down?  It is the white mans' fault IF (I don't even know if it is true) black people do drugs more often.

I have always said that people who are arrested for drug dealing should get a longer sentence than a person arrested for drug possession.  Maybe if an idiot gets addicted, maybe help would help him.  But drug dealers deserve to rot in jail, in my opinion.



Does that include doctors and pharmacudical companies, too? They are pushers too. And they advertize on T.V.! Oh, but those drugs are legal so that makes it ok. It doesn't matter that people get addicted to those drugs (like your buddy Rush) and many are just as deadly as crack.



Cat

Does that include doctors and pharmacudical companies, too? They are pushers too. And they advertize on T.V.! Oh, but those drugs are legal so that makes it ok. It doesn't matter that people get addicted to those drugs (like your buddy Rush) and many are just as deadly as crack.



Cat


If you're a qualified doctor, and you are a resident of one of the 11 states that allows marajuana soley for medical usage.  Then no.  But you are talking about legal drugs, and mentioning Limbaugh who got help, which is more than I can say for many crack heads out on the streets. 

Listen, a doctor prescribes that stuff.  Get it?  People on the streets are getting it to do smoke, take, inject, whatever, and taking some of the more harder drugs like Special-K and Meth is basically suicide.  The drugs the doctor gives you have a purpose, don't tell me the crack-heads on the street need crack for some medical issue.  The potheads on the streets all need it to ease the pain, everyone on the street with illegal drugs need it to survive.  Well, you know that is not true, at least I hope.  To compare a doctor's orders to some guy on the street who wants to do God knows what with the drug is absurd.

If you're a qualified doctor, and you are a resident of one of the 11 states that allows marajuana soley for medical usage.  Then no.  But you are talking about legal drugs, and mentioning Limbaugh who got help, which is more than I can say for many crack heads out on the streets. 


Rush got HELP?  Rush doctor shopped, so that he COULD ABUSE THE DRUGS.  That's not help, that's borderline recreational usage.  Amazing the hypocrasy the right continues to display.  If Al Franken did it, you'd be screaming for him to be imprisioned.

If you're a qualified doctor, and you are a resident of one of the 11 states that allows marajuana soley for medical usage.  Then no.  But you are talking about legal drugs, and mentioning Limbaugh who got help, which is more than I can say for many crack heads out on the streets. 

Listen, a doctor prescribes that stuff.  Get it?  People on the streets are getting it to do smoke, take, inject, whatever, and taking some of the more harder drugs like Special-K and Meth is basically suicide.  The drugs the doctor gives you have a purpose, don't tell me the crack-heads on the street need crack for some medical issue.  The potheads on the streets all need it to ease the pain, everyone on the street with illegal drugs need it to survive.  Well, you know that is not true, at least I hope.  To compare a doctor's orders to some guy on the street who wants to do God knows what with the drug is absurd.



If Rush got help, that is because he has the $$ and health insurance for that help. What do people on the streets have in the way of help? Lock them up-that is all the help they get. There is no rehab-only incarceration. Is that help? NO! Being addicted to legal drugs is the exact same thing as being addicted to illegal ones. An addiction is an addiction is an addiction. But, if they are white and rich, many look the other way and feel sorry for them. But, if they are poor and non-white, then, they are bad people and should be locked away. What hypocrisy!




Cat

Cat is absolutely right. Some upper-middle class White lady can get dangerous perscription drugs and abuse them legally, and so when everyone notices she has a problem, it's sad and "she needs help." But when some random poor person (probably a minority) gets addicted to crack or whatever, we look at them like they are scum, and they need jail time, not help. It is only one of the many expressions of the innate disgust Americans have for the poor. The law always reflects that disgust.

The ONLY reason Rush "got help" is because Rush "got busted".  If he was a famous black person, I'd be willing to bet that he'd have gotten (at the very minimum) community service.
Like the man he despises so much, Bill Clinton, Rush lives in an elitist pod surrounded by syncophants.  He doesn't realize how big an a-hole he is, and he probably was in denial about his addiction, with the attitude, I'm Rush Limbaugh, I don't have a problem 'cuz everyboyd loves me!
::)
GWB wrote
Listen, a doctor prescribes that stuff. Get it? People on the streets are getting it to do smoke, take, inject, whatever, and taking some of the more harder drugs like Special-K and Meth is basically suicide. The drugs the doctor gives you have a purpose, don't tell me the crack-heads on the street need crack for some medical issue. The potheads on the streets all need it to ease the pain, everyone on the street with illegal drugs need it to survive. Well, you know that is not true, at least I hope. To compare a doctor's orders to some guy on the street who wants to do God knows what with the drug is absurd.
Yeah, drugs like crack and meth are deadly, however, I wouldn't put marijuana smokers in the same category as junkies.  Potheads are generally not "on the streets."  They're at home toking up, minding their own business, and not hurting anyone (except possibly themselves).  Now the prescription cheats like Rush hurt others because they break down the level of trust among doctor, pharmacist, and patient.  That's why you can only a get a few at a time of certain pain relievers, because some people--like Rush--can't be trusted.

Cheer wrote
Okay, so in the past month, I've gotten Vicodin prescriptions from 3 different doctors plus multiple other muscle relaxers/nsaids.  Granted, I've only filled a few of them, but the prescriptions are there at the pharmacy waiting for me to call.  Using your "logic", if I filled them and had used all 300 or so pills in the past month, I'd be "justified" being a walking zombie because "The drugs the doctor gives you have a purpose". ???  Talk about hypocrisy ::)

The problem with most drugs isn't the chemical itself, but the with doctors who prescribe the wrong pill for the wrong person, or with patients who misuse or abuse drug.  Now, sometimes we find a drug the pharmaceutical firms have been pushing on everybody is poisonous swill, and that IS a problem.  Which would you rather do smoke a joint or take Vioxx?

The ONLY reason Rush "got help" is because Rush "got busted". If he was a famous black person, I'd be willing to bet that he'd have gotten (at the very minimum) community service.

Okay, so in the past month, I've gotten Vicodin prescriptions from 3 different doctors plus multiple other muscle relaxers/nsaids. Granted, I've only filled a few of them, but the prescriptions are there at the pharmacy waiting for me to call. Using your "logic", if I filled them and had used all 300 or so pills in the past month, I'd be "justified" being a walking zombie because "The drugs the doctor gives you have a purpose". ??? Talk about hypocrisy ::)


Actually, if you went and got all those Vicodin prescriptions filled, you could possibly be charged with "doctor shopping" like Rush did.  ;D

Now, sometimes we find a drug the pharmaceutical firms have been pushing on everybody is poisonous swill, and that IS a problem.  Which would you rather do smoke a joint or take Vioxx?



This has been my point. Smoking pot has been used by many cultures for medicinal (as well as recrational  ;)) use LONG before Vioxx was even heard of. It is an ancient and natural remedy and I firmly believe that ancient remedies work a lot better than some of these new drugs that the pharmaceudical companies try to push down our throats.



Cat

You're probably right, even though I never asked any of them for prescriptions for the Vicodin and they were all given to me by doctors that I was referred to by other doctors ;)  It's nice to know they're waiting for me if I need them, though ;) Neither...pot does nothing for me except give me a massive headache :D

I don't smoke it no more myself, but when I did, certain low-grade weed gave me wicked headaches.  Better strains didn't, but they could make my heart feel like it was going punch right through my chest!
:o

Here is a simple question, for anyone who wants to answer it.  Wheather you like it or not, pot and certain other drugs are illegal, and as of today you can get arrested for them.  And I don't care if you want to legalize drugs, it is not what I am asking.  So here goes:

Two men get arrested in the same state.  One was arrested for possesion of marijuana.  The other was arrested for selling/dealing marijuana.  Which one under our current system do you think should get the harsher penalty, or do you think they are equal?

Here is a simple question, for anyone who wants to answer it.  Wheather you like it or not, pot and certain other drugs are illegal, and as of today you can get arrested for them.  And I don't care if you want to legalize drugs, it is not what I am asking.  So here goes:

Two men get arrested in the same state.  One was arrested for possesion of marijuana.  The other was arrested for selling/dealing marijuana.  Which one under our current system do you think should get the harsher penalty, or do you think they are equal?

If it is illegal to both sell and possess marijuana, then the pot dealer should get a harsher penalty than the pot smoker.  So...?

If it is illegal to both sell and possess marijuana, then the pot dealer should get a harsher penalty than the pot smoker.  So...?


Just wondering, it seems like a lot of you were shocked when I said I think dealers deserve longer jail sentences.  I just wanted to confirm that most of you thought the same under our current system.

As for legalizing any drugs, I am personlly against it, but I don't care all that much.  This is a non-issue for me.  Why the hell should I care for the idiot who gets themselves killed?

Just wondering, it seems like a lot of you were shocked when I said I think dealers deserve longer jail sentences.  I just wanted to confirm that most of you thought the same under our current system.

As for legalizing any drugs, I am personlly against it, but I don't care all that much.  This is a non-issue for me.  Why the hell should I care for the idiot who gets themselves killed?

Most people who get kiled by drugs (idiots and non-idiots alike) get killed by the legal ones--alcohol and cigarettes.

The problem with your question, GWB, is that it too simplistic unless you are talking about the big dealers who smuggle tons of the weed into the country.  Most potheads I have known might deal a nickle bag or 2 to friends now and then because they have a good source, usually around here a grower.  They don't do it for the $$$. 

The problem with the drug laws, and especially pot, is that they are like prohibition, uninforcable in the long run.  The Indians of the Andes have been chewing coca leaves for centuries, and those of the southwest have used mescalin cactus buttons for as long.  Why is this illegal?

Cat is absolutely right. Some upper-middle class White lady can get dangerous perscription drugs and abuse them legally, and so when everyone notices she has a problem, it's sad and "she needs help." But when some random poor person (probably a minority) gets addicted to crack or whatever, we look at them like they are scum, and they need jail time, not help. It is only one of the many expressions of the innate disgust Americans have for the poor. The law always reflects that disgust.


You truly do own this board, McDonald.

For the record, I am for medical marijuana- actually, I am for the legalization of marijuana.

Cat, you aren't alone. My view is that you should have the right to put what you want into yourself. I'm not so sure with things like cocaine, though. Cocaine can stop your heart on the first try, and there is that risk every time you take cocaine. Therefore, I'm a little unsure with things so immediately-threatening. No doubt, marijuana does hurt you in the long run {I read somewhere it has 4 times the tar of one cigarette}, but cocaine is an immediate threat. I'm still considering this, but I'm generally for legalizing currently-illegal-substances.

Here is a simple question, for anyone who wants to answer it.  Wheather you like it or not, pot and certain other drugs are illegal, and as of today you can get arrested for them.  And I don't care if you want to legalize drugs, it is not what I am asking.  So here goes:

Two men get arrested in the same state.  One was arrested for possesion of marijuana.  The other was arrested for selling/dealing marijuana.  Which one under our current system do you think should get the harsher penalty, or do you think they are equal?


The dealer, of course should get the longer sentence for a simple legal reason.

The dealer is towards the top of a criminal ENTERPRISE.  He's distributing the illegal substance to more than just himself.  If it is proven that he is part of an organization of 5 or more fellow criminals, we can throw the RICO book at him.

My answer would be the same for any class of crime.  Someone who facilitates the crimes of others is part of a criminal enterprise and, as such, should receive more punishment than the lone criminal.

. No doubt, marijuana does hurt you in the long run {I read somewhere it has 4 times the tar of one cigarette}

From the studies I read one joint is equal to 28 cigaretts.  One joint a per day for five days is about the same as a pack of cigaretts a day (one pack is 20 cigaretts.)

From the studies I read one joint is equal to 28 cigaretts.  One joint a per day for five days is about the same as a pack of cigaretts a day (one pack is 20 cigaretts.)


Thats why you should use a bong, to filter out alot of the cr@p  in dope smoke.

Thats why you should use a bong, to filter out alot of the cr@p  in dope smoke.


I heard you can even clean the bong with Listerine to enjoy a minty taste and a clean bong!  ;)

From the studies I read one joint is equal to 28 cigaretts.  One joint a per day for five days is about the same as a pack of cigaretts a day (one pack is 20 cigaretts.)

Who commissioned those studies, Jesse Helms?  Why would you even think that would be true?
:D :D