I'm tired of lefties telling me the glorious of weed and other drugs. Legalizing it will just be the government sponsorship of drug use. I've seen it destory individuals and familes. Only leftest knuckleheads and libertarian loonies think getting high is no problem. You have to never live near it not to experience how things like how meth and heroin kills a neighborhood, turn them into full fledged ghettos and empowers gangs.

So legalizing it will kill how drug cartels and gangs do business? The only way for the government to kill them is to physically destory them and become the cartels and gangsters to control trade. How else can government control it without the use of force? Do you really think cartels are going to just lose their illicit business?

Just go to any funeral caused by drug usage. Talk to those families and still tell me its aokay and does no harm.

Marriage is not a basic human right. It is a privilege granted by the states, not the Feds or any state supreme court. Marriage should be between a man and woman. Anything less destorys marriage completely. If you allow gay marriage, then you must allow polygamy and anything else desired. The gay marriage arguement applies to polygamy too to avoid being a hypocrite. If you believe in

With Cuba? Just as long as they have "free" health care the lack of civil liberties are okay. But maybe we should lift the embargo just to prove it isn't America causing the mess. Its the corrupt Castro brothers who have impoverished Cuba and not the US of A.

*** Only leftest knuckleheads and libertarian loonies think getting high is no problem. You have to never live near it not to experience how things like how meth and heroin kills a neighborhood, turn them into full fledged ghettos and empowers gangs. *** Only imbeciles read "marijuana" and think "meth and heroin"

**** The only way for the government to kill them is to physically destory them and become the cartels and gangsters to control trade. How else can government control it without the use of force? Do you really think cartels are going to just lose their illicit business? **** You are remarkably dimwitted. When there are legal supplies, there will be no demand for illegal ones. How many drive-by shootings by beer and cigarette gangs have there been in your neighborhood lately? As for the "funerals caused by drug usage," 90% of them are actually caused by drug PROHIBITION. And without prohibition, at least the druggies would only be killing themselves, rather than innocents caught in the crossfire.

*** Anything less destorys marriage completely. If you allow gay marriage, then you must allow polygamy and anything else desired. *** No, that's just something that right-wing tools like you like to assert, without logic or reason of any kind, in order to re-enforce your idiotic prejudices.

screendummie- you are a moron. You are spouting out nonsense and have no understanding of the issues.

Of course the cartels will go out of business if we legalize drugs. Why buy illegally when you grow your own or purchase pot from a local store?

That you are including pot usage in the same category as meth and heroin just goes to show how little understanding you have. But even there, the FACT is that the relying on law enforcement to deal with a problem that belongs in the health care sector creates more and deeper problems than the drugs themselves.

Any legalization of compounds that it will be possible to overdose on will require medical controlled. When you do that with an addictive compound that the body develops an immunity to, any user will eventually require more than the safe limit in order to get high, which means that they're going to have to break the law to get their buzz.

The problem with weed is it's active compound if fat soluble, which means if you use it, you're stuck with it. Frankly, given the whole tobacco lawsuit a few years back, I'd have to ask what company in its right mind would want to sell something that has even longer lasting effects than cigarettes did.

Then there is the cultural factor. I've lived in both Texas, and Los Angeles. Texas respond to getting stoned or getting smashed about the same way as LA'ers respond to going shooting, and vis versa! You can either have a drug culture, or a gun culture, and never the twain shall mix. Places like Texas are about as likely to legalize drugs, and places like California are to issue Carry Concealed permits. Ain't gonna happen in this lifetime.

Harry Voyager

Uh, California has Concealed Weapons Permits and Texans smoke pot. There's even medical marijuana legislation in the works.

Just because Marijuana is fat soluble doesn't mean its any longer acting than alcohol. It may remain in your system for weeks, but its effects only last for a few hours.

Voyager:

Any legalization of compounds that it will be possible to overdose on will require medical controlled. When you do that with an addictive compound that the body develops an immunity to, any user will eventually require more than the safe limit in order to get high, which means that they're going to have to break the law to get their buzz.

The problem with weed is it's active compound if fat soluble, which means if you use it, you're stuck with it. Frankly, given the whole tobacco lawsuit a few years back, I'd have to ask what company in its right mind would want to sell something that has even longer lasting effects than cigarettes did.

Then there is the cultural factor. I've lived in both Texas, and Los Angeles. Texas respond to getting stoned or getting smashed about the same way as LA'ers respond to going shooting, and vis versa! You can either have a drug culture, or a gun culture, and never the twain shall mix. Places like Texas are about as likely to legalize drugs, and places like California are to issue Carry Concealed permits. Ain't gonna happen in this lifetime.

Harry Voyager

Harry, no offense, but what you've just written is one of the most imbecilic comments ever posted on these boards, and that is no mean feat. All of us who had the misfortune of reading this are now stupider for the experience. THC is virtually impossible (i.e. completely impossible under anything even remotely approaching practical terms) to "OD" on, even Bush's shills admitted this. Let me put this in mathematical terms for you: the amount of THC one would have to consume in order to approach toxic levels is at least 40,000 (yes, forty thousand) TIMES the amount typically required to get high. So, yeah, I guess if you took someone and stuck them in something like a bomb calorimeter with mountain of dope and fired that sucker off, maybe, just maybe, it might have some deleterious effects. For everyone else, in every normal situation, under the physical laws of the universe as we understand them to exist, it is completely impossible to "OD" from marijuana. End of story. Every other "point" you raise is equally moronic. THC possesses no physically addictive qualities in any meaningful degree. Plenty of people develop psychological dependence, sure, but that's because modern life is a bitch, and we have to run a daily gauntlet of imbeciles with medieval beliefs running around trying to control us. The fact of the matter is that plebes who have never sniffed a bud let alone actually enjoyed one in a responsible fashion have no business whatsoever pontificating about the supposed dangers of an herb humanity has been enjoying for millennia.

Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go spark one and re-read your post for comedic effect.

Dreamweapon swings and knocks it out of the park!

Any legalization of compounds that it will be possible to overdose on will require medical controlled. When you do that with an addictive compound that the body develops an immunity to, any user will eventually require more than the safe limit in order to get high, which means that they're going to have to break the law to get their buzz.

You mean compounds like ethanol alcohol?

The problem with weed is it's active compound if fat soluble, which means if you use it, you're stuck with it. Frankly, given the whole tobacco lawsuit a few years back, I'd have to ask what company in its right mind would want to sell something that has even longer lasting effects than cigarettes did. What does the fat soluble nature of THC have to do with tobacco? I don't seem to recall the lawsuits against big tobacco having reduced their interest in selling tobacco.

Then there is the cultural factor. I've lived in both Texas, and Los Angeles. Texas respond to getting stoned or getting smashed about the same way as LA'ers respond to going shooting, and vis versa! You can either have a drug culture, or a gun culture, and never the twain shall mix. Places like Texas are about as likely to legalize drugs, and places like California are to issue Carry Concealed permits. Ain't gonna happen in this lifetime. Both California and Texas are 'shall issue' states as far as concealed carry permits are concerned. That means, if you aren't a criminal or insane, the state has to issue you a concealed weapons permit. [When I lived in CA, I had a concealed carry permit for no reason other than I wanted one.] Both states allow open carry. So, that kind of blows the 'gun culture' part of the argument out of the water. California, I guess, is moving away from sending first offense non-violent drug offenders to prison by offering them treatment - but only because they have so many in prison now they can't afford to send any more to jail.

Umm, which "hood" do you live in? Meth is far more a rural than urban drug. Not really sure how all those small towns turn into gang-infested rat holes. Out here in the city, the biggest problem is poverty, and not enough jobs.

" Legalizing it will just be the government sponsorship of drug use."

Just like tobacco and alcohol.

"I've seen it destory individuals and familes."

Just like tobacco and alcohol (Especially alcohol).

The funny part is that you cite laws and all that but fail to understand that DRUG LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Tell me where in the US Constitution the US gov't has the right to pass laws controlling drug use by individuals. That's right, there isn't.

Don't even try to say "interstate commerce." That just means it's fine for the gov't to pass laws controlling what drugs (or anything) crosses state lines, NOT what happens solely in one state.

It's too bad the Supreme Court doesn't like to read the constitution literally (yes, even Scalia and Thomas). There is nothing that permits the fed gov't to pass drug laws, and thus drug laws are purely a state matter via the 10th amendment (The so called "police power" amendment).

screendummie:

You have to never live near it not to experience how things like how meth and heroin kills a neighborhood, turn them into full fledged ghettos and empowers gangs.

That's a direct result of making those drugs illegal. If they were legal, how could their use affect neighborhoods or empower gangs?

It's important to remember that ALL drugs, even heroin and cocaine, were completely legal and freely used before 1914. We seemed to survive OK until then.

Thanks, Dreamweapon! Informative posts like this are one of the big reasons I stick around through some of the mudslinging that often comes up in the Fray. Forty thousand is indeed a lot higher than I would have imagined.

screendummie wrote: Marriage is not a basic human right. It is a privilege granted by the states, not the Feds or any state supreme court. Marriage should be between a man and woman. Anything less destorys marriage completely. If you allow gay marriage, then you must allow polygamy and anything else desired. The gay marriage arguement applies to polygamy too to avoid being a hypocrite.

Marriage has existed long before states and government existed. The states recognize marriage in order to convey certain benefits (tax, inheritance, etc.) on the married couples.

And, for the record, polygamy is legal in many countries in the middle east, asia, africa and marriage has not been "destroyed" in these countries because of it. Gay marriage is legal in 6 US states, and marriage has not been "destroyed" in these states.

What exactly do you even mean by the phrase "Destroy marriage"? Does the fact that 2 men or 2 women in MA or CA, or IA are married make your marriage less meaningful? That's just silly. Does the fact that J-Lo has been married 3 times, or Elizabeth Taylor, 8 times make your marriage less meaningful? Does the fact that some men in Texas (or wherever) have multiple wives (one legal, the other 'spiritual') make your marriage less meaningful? How does what two other people do--who you don't even know--have any meaning on your own life?