Smell of pot from chimney leads to record bust

[trip]

 

At first, Lucasiewicz thought somebody might be smoking a joint in a car parked nearby, said Sgt. Steve Jones, a state police spokesman.

 

"But with his bloodhound senses, he realized it was much stronger than he first thought," Jones said. "He followed his nose. Then he saw smoke rising from a chimney."

 

Overpowered by the scent, Lucasiewicz called his squad. When backup arrived, Lucasiewicz knocked on the door of the single-story ranch house.

 

They were greeted by a surprised man, "the gardener, essentially, who was burning some of the unusable parts of the plants in the fireplace," Jones said.

 

 

Source

 

Call me crazy, but if I were to have an indoor weed garden I think I would be a bit more careful. Retards. Now local prices will rise.

[Jesus'En'Hitler420]

Then again, who would think of a chimney?

 

But yeah, maybe just throwing the "unuseable parts" in a trash bin would have been a safer bet, or just throwing them out in the sticks somewhere,

[ilya]

Yeah, break it down and just spread it around out somewhere...

[ghost of delete key]

You grind it up, soak it, and then you can easily and reliably flush it down the pipes.

[Mainland Marauder]

The stupid ones get caught, basically.

 

Drug enforcement is basically an expensive, high-stakes intelligence test.

[beavis]

Such hypocrisy. Guy was probably doing the whole neighborhood a favor by getting everyone high, and then some "average samaritan" comes and rains on every one's party. This is why I don't believe in things like karma. You can spend your whole life being an innocent, sweet person, and then a random discrenpencie can shovel sh*t in your face and tell you you're no good. Gotta love the way society works sometimes.

[Typhus]

Yeah, that poor drug dealer. He got a bum deal. The cops should have at least allowed him the courtesy of getting a few children hooked before they hauled him in.

[chris]

Yeah, that poor drug dealer. He got a bum deal. The cops should have at least allowed him the courtesy of getting a few children hooked before they hauled him in.

Man its only a bit of weed, never going to hurt anybody.

[SaintJimmy]

Yeah, that poor drug dealer. He got a bum deal. The cops should have at least allowed him the courtesy of getting a few children hooked before they hauled him in.

Poor Typhus. The internet should of at least allowed him the courtesy of realizing that it's silly to 'get hooked' on weed before making a complete fool of himself.

Seriously dude you're a bit smarter than that, aren't you?

[King Kapone]

Well then, I guess so long as maintaining a marijuana-growing facility and effectively possession of marijuana with intent to distribute is against the law here, law enforcement, being that they are sworn to enforce the law (lightbulb), will be taking care of business.

 

Anyone who thinks this is unfair is completely ignoring the fact that law enforcement is just doing its job, whether marijuana is harmful or not.

[stinomontana]

 

Well then, I guess so long as maintaining a marijuana-growing facility and effectively possession of marijuana with intent to distribute is against the law here, law enforcement, being that they are sworn to enforce the law (lightbulb), will be taking care of business.

 

Anyone who thinks this is unfair is completely ignoring the fact that law enforcement is just doing its job, whether marijuana is harmful or not.

lol ok, why is weed illigal anyway? because the goverment cant control them?

its because they dont have a profit on it, unlike alcohol wich is more dangerous then weed and its taxed

if you make alcohol yourself (wich means you dont pay tax) youll get busted

or what about stuff like asperine? its totaly legal, cheap, and if you take enough of them then your dead

 

i can understand why meth and coke is illegal, but weed?

people been using weed for 1000years

i bet that if jezus was real, he would of smoked weed to

Edited March 11, 2010 by stinomontana

[Saggy]

 

Well then, I guess so long as maintaining a marijuana-growing facility and effectively possession of marijuana with intent to distribute is against the law here, law enforcement, being that they are sworn to enforce the law (lightbulb), will be taking care of business.

 

Anyone who thinks this is unfair is completely ignoring the fact that law enforcement is just doing its job, whether marijuana is harmful or not.

You know, I hate to draw a comparison to the civil rights movement, but when you think about it, all those law enforcement officers turning houses and dogs on people were enforcing the law too. Unreasonable, racist, Jim Crow laws.

 

You can't excuse those things simply by saying, "Oh, they were enforcing the law," if the law is unfair and everyone knows it. You can't blame the individuals, but you can't say, "Oh, that was all right, because they were enforcing the law," unless you somehow feel the law was right. In the same light, defending the War on Drugs by saying, "It's the law," is just a cop out used by those who don't want to debate the real issue at hand, possibly because they don't want to accept the very real possibility that this nation still enforces laws so unreasonable and arbitrary.

 

"Drug enforcement is basically an expensive, high-stakes intelligence test. "

 

Indeed, the DEA and lobbyists test the American public to see if they are stupid enough to allow prohibition to be forced upon them; they are, and then profit is collected in the form of hundred of billions a year in budgetary funding that gets spent on pulling up ditch weed and busting nearly a million people a year for non-violent possession--and that's just for pot.

 

 

Seriously people, wake up and smell the pot growing out of your neighbor's chimney... Drug prohibition is the most futile, counter-productive waste of money and time guised as something beneficial and "moral".

 

Beyond all that, to me it's infuriating people will fall for something like drug prohibition when as a nation we know that prohibition does not work and just introduces its own set of problems. Yet we collectively put on the horse-blinders, say, "It's the law," and go about our lives beacuse it's a non-issue to the grand majority of people, whereas the minority whose lives it effects the most are basically ran over and become statistics or "at risk" youths and it is practically expected of them to grow up to be a drug dealer or user, and we just accept that's "what drugs do". However, how many drugs users would be stealing and robbing for their fix if they could get it for pennies or even for free? How many addicts would be overdosing and dying if they had a medically supervised area to do it? Google "Drug Injection Sights", there are programs as such in place that have been shown on National Geographic very recentley that say they've had over 1,000 overdoses and 0 fatalities; how many fatalities would that equate to on the street?

 

All the while we swallow down the idea of, "We don't make the laws, we just enforce them," as if that is excusable. You wouldn't accept that from a police officer that was turning a hose on civil rights activists, what makes it any more valid in this circumstance?

 

Besides, in most cases, authority figures I've heard quoted saying, "We don't make the laws, we just enforce them," are lying through their teeth. Oh sure the DEA doesn't decide it directly any more; but they were the very first to create federal drug laws, and they basically monopolize any research on any substance they see fit to cherry-pick the data for. I mean, why do DEA studies paint marijuana as one of the most insidious substances on Earth when nearly every other study from an independent source contradicts that? Why would the DEA basically ignore one of its own administrative law judges Francis L. Young when he called marijuana "one of the most non-toxic substances known to man" ? http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/medical/young/young.html

 

 

I realize for the majority of people here, they couldn't care less about what the laws regarding pot is, because to them it's a non-issue. Perhaps they don't use it so they don't worry about arrest, they probably don't know anyone that benefits from it, and quite frankly many people have bought into the propaganda associated with its "dangers" in an extremely gullible way. I can really see why it is easy to simply say, "Oh, if it wasn't really as bad as they say it is, the government would see that, people would lobby for its legalization and until then it's just a matter of law enforcement." However those are the people that are ignorant of the fact that we've known marijuana is basically harmless since the 30s when it was made illegal in the first place, and that the current legalization movement has been active since the early 70s at the very least. There are thousands of doctors, dozens of universities and even handfuls of law enforcement and DEA OFFICIALS that are saying that--roughly paraphrased--the prohibition of, and the official science regarding cannabis is bullsh*t. Yet despite that, the wheels of government are not turning, it's still illegal despite most of the public not wanting it to be illegal, conducting in civil disobedience doing it anyway, and even in some places changing state and local laws despite federal law. In some ways comparing it to alcohol prohibition is a fallacy, because at least with alcohol prohibition we knew when to stop.

 

 

I don't really have a lot of sympathy for the grower, he should have been more careful. Thought he idea he was doing any wrong or deserved to be busted is just bullsh*t. You had some opportunistic cop that wanted to make a bust to make a name for himself taking advantage of a bullsh*t law and some stupid asshole that's not smart enough to protect himself in a land where we enforce bullsh*t laws. As far as him not being able to get a few kids hooked, don't worry, their "child therapists" will get them all on amphetamines or benzodiazepines ( Adderall and Xanax) for all the attention deficit and social anxiety disorders before they know it, and in the mean time their parents will be too blasted away on opiates (prescription heroin) for their back pain to notice or even give a sh*t. Oh well, as long as it's legal...

Edited March 11, 2010 by SagaciousKJB

[King Kapone]

Well then, I guess so long as maintaining a marijuana-growing facility and effectively possession of marijuana with intent to distribute is against the law here, law enforcement, being that they are sworn to enforce the law (lightbulb), will be taking care of business.

 

Anyone who thinks this is unfair is completely ignoring the fact that law enforcement is just doing its job, whether marijuana is harmful or not.

You know, I hate to draw a comparison to the civil rights movement, but when you think about it, all those law enforcement officers turning houses and dogs on people were enforcing the law too. Unreasonable, racist, Jim Crow laws.

 

You can't excuse those things simply by saying, "Oh, they were enforcing the law," if the law is unfair and everyone knows it. You can't blame the individuals, but you can't say, "Oh, that was all right, because they were enforcing the law," unless you somehow feel the law was right. In the same light, defending the War on Drugs by saying, "It's the law," is just a cop out used by those who don't want to debate the real issue at hand, possibly because they don't want to accept the very real possibility that this nation still enforces laws so unreasonable and arbitrary.

As an individual looking to get into law enforcement, I truly believe I can justify enforcing the law by simply stating "it's the law." You hate to draw a comparison to the civil rights movement because you know it is not applicable.

 

Sure, there were people who, at the time, fueled Jim Crow laws with their own prejudice and yes, in hindsight, the Jim Crow laws were, for lack of a better word, ridiculous. However, they were laws and officers of the law were required to enforce them. Do you believe every single person involved in turning those houses and sicking those dogs was fully committed to the act? I'm sure there were some who were hesitant. If there wasn't, the laws would still exist today.

 

Truth is, it was their job. No matter how wrong it was, they took an oath to uphold the constitution and enforce the law.

 

That's the only comparison that can be made here. Law enforcement is a job. Individuals in law enforcement enforce these laws due to an oath they take the day they receive their badges. For every cop who has a real issue with marijuana there's a hundred cops who don't really care. You think law enforcement doesn't realize marijuana is the lesser of so many other evils? Whether or not the drug is harmless is besides the point. The law is the law and until the day comes that it changes, it will be enforced.

 

It bothers me to constantly read the "oh c'mon it's harmless!" and "cops are douchebags" excuses here all the while labeling the government ignorant. Well, coming up with said excuses is just as if not more so ignorant. You think that when the law changes on marijuana use, that potheads are going to get their own batch of civil rights the same way homosexuals and minorities received? Haha, no. Unlike the civil rights movements, being a pothead is a choice and therefore you can't claim the same injustice.

[GUCCI MANE LAFLARE]

chimeney smoke lookin ass nigga

[Saggy]

 

You think that when the law changes on marijuana use, that potheads are going to get their own batch of civil rights the same way homosexuals and minorities received? Haha, no. Unlike the civil rights movements, being a pothead is a choice and therefore you can't claim the same injustice.

That's why I didn't want to compare it to civil rights, because I knew you'd more than likely assert that I'm saying potheads are some group that deserves civil rights (when in reality they're just people having their basic rights violated, but that's beside the point) and miss the real issue, which the rest of your post did. No offense, I still read all of it and agree with a lot of it, it's just most of it is completely irrelevant to what I'm saying: You're still not telling me why, "It's the law, they're just enforcing the law," is a reasonable statement to make in the face of facts saying the law is unreasonable, dong more harm than good, violating people's rights, etc.. The comparison I was attempting to make is that in all actuality, attempting to argue that prohibition laws are some how "right" and that they should just be blindly enforced is comparable to doing the same for Jim Crow laws except that there's a lot less lunacy and urgency involved so it seems acceptable at surface level.

 

I guess being able to justify things on the basis of "it's my job to uphold this law" is a personal trait because I cannot understand it. I mean, do you really think it's not applicable to compare it to the duty that the police officers had during those times? I mean, what drove those men to justify their acts with, "It's just the law, I'm just enforcing it," despite the reality of what they were doing. In that same light, what gives someone the ability to justify giving someone a real lengthy criminal record by "enforcing their job" even if they don't feel it's right. Sorry man, but blindly enforcing laws that do more harm than good is not something I find admirable. Worse yet, police officers who decide to go out of their way to bust non-violent drug offenders in an obvious attempt to make career moves are even less honorable in my eyes, even though I do not bunch them all together.

 

Please don't assume I'm just some stoner who thinks every cop is an asshole either. I guess you to encounter that attitude a lot, but to just be as plain and simple as possible, there's a time for enforcing the law and doing a job and a time to actually face the issues head on and discuss them outside the context of "duty". Now I might be a bit too generalizing in this statement, but I haven't found many people involved in law enforcement that won't simply disregard any question of the "official story" or deliberate on anything they have to do in a day's work as anything other than "their job". Maybe that's where the phrase "cop out" comes from... Heh sorry, bad attempt at humor. In all honesty I think it's a coping mechanism for police to do an unpleasant job, but at a certain point people need to face the music.

 

It might bother you to here people say, "Cops are douche bags," and personally I don't generalize all cops in that light. However the attitude I find more disgusting is just that of, "Oh, I'm just doing my job," without regard to their personal belief. I'm not one of the mislead; I realize that for the most part that is a duty. Not many cops want to do have the crap they have to do, that's why it's called duty. It's not that which bothers me the most, it's just how acceptable the attitude of, "Well, it doesn't matter, because it's the law," has become. I mean, when the law becomes not something that people agree upon, but something that people stand behind to justify the unpleasantries of "doing their job" then yes, I think it's directly comparable to other times when we've enforced laws that we knew were wrong, no matter how much more severe and extreme they were. The reason I chose the Jim Crow laws is because I think they're founded on the same unreasonable mislogic as prohibition laws.

 

I don't want to get too much into the history of it because I have a feeling most just disregard me when I do, but the earliest prohibition laws were in fact Jim Crow laws designed to oppress Mexican immigrants and the African American community. Whole communities of school teachers were lied to, told it would make them go insane and "rape white women" in an effort for federal laws to be adopted. Now for whatever reason they wanted those laws to be adopted is what is up for speculation and the stuff of conspiracy theories; the strategies and tactics they used to go about it are all well documented.

 

We've reached a point in this country several times where we've realized that we're basically being lied to about the dangers of drugs, the success of the War on Drugs and the effects that legalized drugs would have on society, and in the mean time it's become almost a tactic for people to just go, "It's the law, it's been the law, drugs are bad, I'm not going to listen to anything you have to say on it." When we do that, nothing ever changes, because enough people aren't interested in change except those who desire it most, while the rest just sit on ass beacuse it's none of their concern. Yeah, comparing the "plight" of potheads worrying about being busted to the oppression of African Americans... There is really no comparison to the suffering and the urgency, but in the circumstances that existed for so long due to public ignorance and apathy and beacuse of people's willingness to embrace the "law" that allowed them to be justified for so long.

 

Civil rights and drug prohibition have nothing really to do with each other except that truly equal civil rights were hindered by upholding unreasonable laws. How long will we continue to uphold unreasonable laws concerning drug prohibition despite the damage it does to our country? We stopped alcohol prohibition when we realized our folly; my question is with so many people seemingly aware of that same parallel, why hasn't it changed? Some big government conspiracy? Well, I personally believe the DEA has quite a monopoly to protect, but no the real reason is beacuse Glaucoma patients and people with insomnia being able to smoke a joint isn't as urgent as African Americans being able to enjoy the same rights as everyone else, and because even though there's a "black market" people aren't dying and being caught up in the mayhem of it as much as they were in the days of alcohol prohibition. In other words, as a society, we're standing by these laws that are wrong simply because the majority of people are content with them, and for the other half the issue is not so pressing that they must go to the same lengths as others have done to fight unjust laws.

 

None of that changes the fact that the laws are unjust and need to be changed in the eyes of millions. For others to simply disregard them and say, "No, that's just the law, the government says this," in the face of near irrefutable evidence is just wrong and then for the grand majority of the public ( law enforcement or not ) to just be so content with this law that they don't question it and disregard people as "potheads" or crazy... Well, anyway, that's what irritates me. Not police, not the monopoly that the DEA has on research, just the unwillingness for people to even listen to the possibility that the official story they've been told is wrong, and that they're upholding and/or following an unjust law. I can see where you're coming from with people thinking the police are the problem, but that's not what I'm saying; What I'm saying is people being content with unjust laws is the problem. Whether your duty is to enforce them or follow them...

 

Is drug prohibition comparable to how bad Jim Crow laws were before the cvil right's movement? Of course not, but how long are we willing to wait until they are? Are we going to go so far as to justify bi-weekly, house-to-house searches for contraband? Compromise a ltitle here, a little there, until this whole idea of fighting a War on Drugs might have us in some kind of Orwellian nightmare?

 

Stuff of fantasy I agree, but what I'm trying to say is that why should we allow the problem to become so bad that the only way to change the laws is some outrageous upheaval of public opinion and activism? I mean, realistically speaking, are we just going to keep shoveling in millions of non-violent drug offenders into our prisons every year until, eventually, the whole thing just erupts into an inferno of disgruntled citizens screaming about a time for change?

 

To me it seems like that's where we're heading, so why in the hell shouldn't we address it now?

 

In the end, the issues of drug prohibition and racism do go hand in hand more than I've touched upon or even have that much insight in, but maybe people should look at the crack epidemic and rates of incarcerated African American males and try acting like there's not a racial dynamic going on. I mean it is completely speculative, but there are some that assert crack cocaine is distributed amongst black communities intentionally to get a large portion of them incarcerated and blah blah... No offense to anyone that subscribes to those beliefs, I personally know nothing about them except the broad theme. My point is that, there in itself is civil unrest in conjuction with drug prohibition.

 

Anyway, lest I start repeating myself, I just don't see the benefit of maintaining such an apathetic stance toward prohibition, especially when it's not really up for debate on whether it's going to come to a bad end. History repeats itself after all. When it all comes right down to it, the cop that busted his guy was an asshole in my opinion, which doesn't really matter anyway.. It wasn't his "duty" to call it in; no one is going to accuse him of not smelling the smoke and not wondering if it was pot coming from his neighbor's chimney. There's always a little bit of personal discretion, cops don't arrest every person they see doing anything wrong, otherwise every dude jaywalking or out in public with a beer in a bag would be busted. So this cop's personal discretion was to "bust this weed growing scum" or something similar, and people aren't supposed to feel pissed off about that when the law the cop used to put this guy away for is just bullsh*t, and one the cop probably didn't even give a crap about personally? I mean, basically, people are getting their lives thrown away by cops "doing" their jobs" because this law hasn't been changed.

 

Now, finally rounding back to home. Why hasn't the law been changed? Is it accurately representing society? Do the majority of people embrace this law? Well, I can say "No," you can say "Yes", but where's the official answer? How many states have enacted legislation for medicinal marijuana? When is the last time there was a vote for the "federal" law. I mean, the DEA says, "We don't make the laws, we just enforce them." Who the f*ck is making the stupid ass laws? In this particular circumstance, it certainly isn't us. Basically this sh*t is illegal because a long time ago, some assholes convinced enough people that they were bad enough to be made illegal, and for this entire time no one has been able to convince anyone otherwise. I guess it turns out that convince people something is insidious and evil is a hell of a lot easier than convincing them of the opposite; I mean, all it took was some Yellow Journalism about minorities raping white women to get marijuana criminalize for the majority of a century. 80 years later, and at the dawn of a new century, there's hundreds of studies available saying it's harmless, it might cure cancer and shrink cancer, and yet the constant repetition of, "It's bad, it will ruin your life, make you eat your dog," has made most people ready to accept, "Pot is bad because it's illegal, and it's illegal because it's bad," like we're telling ourselves 2+2=5.

 

It's true though. As inane as the thought is, "Pot is bad because it's illegal, and it's illegal beacuse it's bad," is the truth. The majority of people cannot think of a genuine, long-term negative effect of pot. They'll say, "Oh, it causes you brain damage or infertility," both of which have been discounted thousands of times, but the American public at large still holds them as truth, and so the grand majority of people just don't even give a crap about the laws, it's fine for them, everything makes sense. "Pot eats your brain, and it's illegal, the world is okay!"

 

So my point in all this rambling is that, unless collectively as a nation we start giving a crap about why the laws are in place, and not just worrying about using them as justification, things are not going to get better, and I will bet that if we keep on with the War on Drugs, we're simply going to wind up exhausting our resources and regulating it like we do with alcohol and questioning, "Why didn't we do this sooner?" as we just set ourselves up for the problems that a regulated industry like that of the alcohol industry will bring. If instead we took our heads out of our asses, nipped it in the bud, we might just come up with some kind of system that doesn't put a million people in jail a year for bullsh*t, or lead to people getting high as a kite and running their cars into 7/11s. The way we're doing it, we're just going to get one or the other.

 

I mean, without saying too much more, I'm not even talking about just pot alone. We need a new stance toward every type of drug prohibition.

[Max_Powers]

Sag is always right about these things.

 

 

SMOKE EVERYDAY

[Typhus]

Yeah, that poor drug dealer. He got a bum deal. The cops should have at least allowed him the courtesy of getting a few children hooked before they hauled him in.

Poor Typhus. The internet should of at least allowed him the courtesy of realizing that it's silly to 'get hooked' on weed before making a complete fool of himself.

Seriously dude you're a bit smarter than that, aren't you?

When people stop taking pride in their weakness and addiction, maybe I'll stop making groundless, absurd claims.

[King Kapone]

@ Sag

 

You'll have to bear with me as I don't care as much to write an essay (edit - it seems I did anyway), though there is nothing wrong with that. I've always seen you as this articulate individual who has gained so much knowledge yet somehow lacks the ability, or should I say opportunity, to process what he knows through the proper channels (perhaps being an activist/politician is in your future). At any rate, being able to debate on the internet is a skill that one needs to devote a lot of time and research to and for that, I commend you and likely always will.

 

I've read your entire post and, as always, you do a fine job of getting your opinion across. Am I convinced that the law is unreasonable? No but then again, it's your right to believe what you want just as it is my right to say that if I do become a police officer, I will do my best to enforce the law. First off, it's difficult to question a police officer's choices. There's a lot of grey area, that's for sure.

 

In New York, the NYPD has come under fire countless times for allegedly instituting arrest quotas. Recently, a police officer from, I believe, the Bronx broke through the "blue wall of silence" to inform the public that at roll call, commanding officers demanded on a daily basis that for any individual month, an officer is responsible for at least 25 citations and 1 arrest. The NYPD defends this allegation by assuring the public that it is merely a way of judging an officer's performance. Anyway, the alleged arrest quota has led to countless arrests made on seemingly innocent NY residents. One example that comes to mind is that a bunch of kids were running down a sidewalk and one fell down. The kids were all written for unlawful assembly that was both detrimental and dangerous to the general public. To me, this is a violation of civil rights. I don't think the same can really be said for possession of a prohibited substance. You'd have to manipulate the subject matter so much so that by the time your opposition reads it, they'll forget what the hell the debate is even on. "Were we talking about smoking pot or being able to drink from the same fountain as white Americans?"

 

Just as there is no reason to believe that marijuana is harmful, or as claimed when this whole thing started - fatal, there's no reason to believe that the legalization of marijuana will boost our economy. It's a stab in the dark. It's a series of guesses that are using the Prohibition Era as a foundation. Prohibition can be traced back to 1840 when the United States had only 17 million residents. By the time it ended, we were at 122 million. We're now at around 310 million strong. You have to admit, our failed economy has a lot more to do than with the prohibition of marijuana. On an individual case by case basis, the illegality of marijuana is a tiny speck on our list of problems. Legalize pot tomorrow and within five years, we're lucky if we made a tiny dent in our overall deficit. I believe the estimated guess at this point is what $10 billion a year profit if when marijuana is legalized? Well, we have a public debt of around $12 trillion. Needless to say, positive results will take a long, long time. I guess the big hope is that you can walk to your corner deli and buy a pack of joints. You think these packs of a once prohibited drug are going to cost $7.50 a pack? You'll be spending more money buying marijuana legally than you would have in the past illegally and I can guarantee you that.

 

If and when the drug becomes legal, there's going to be a load of restrictions placed on it. You'll be able to purchase it legally but only how the government deems reasonable. There will still be loads of ways to be arrested for distributing marijuana once it is legalized. For instance, do me a favor and start selling bottles of liquor out of your house. Kind of tough to accomplish without a liquor license, eh? Well, I can guarantee you that you will need a license to purchase weed, to distribute weed, to dispose of weed, to house weed (basically any form of commercial transaction). And that license will be mighty tough to get. Try and go through the process of obtaining a liquor license. I'll see you a couple years from now when you tell me how much of a b*tch that was.

 

Will any of the paragraph above this one be a violation of civil rights? I don't think so. When the issue involves choice, it's difficult to play the civil rights card. For many (most often the opposition), homosexuality is a choice that people make while for others (most often homosexuals themselves) define homosexuality as a character that they obtain early on in life or even at birth. Fortunately for the Gay Rights movement, the latter group found themselves on top. On the other civil rights hand, being black isn't by choice. The difference between choice and a characteristic that can not be changed is huge. At least for me. Anyway, as hard it will be to acquire a marijuana license, it will be even harder for an argument to be made that smoking pot is anything other than a choice. As defined by the consensus model, as long as the majority of society shares the same values and beliefs on the issue, legalization of marijuana will prove to be even tougher. I guess, that last line there so far has me siding a bit with you on the matter. You acknowledge that one of the most harmful factors in legalizing marijuana is the majority's view on the drug.

 

Ultimately, we're going to have different opinions. I tried my best to acknowledge and discuss some of your strongest points but in the end, we're both entitled to our own opinions. That's fine by me. Interestingly enough, I have no bone to pick with you through all of this. It's only the folks who post one sentence responses that are, in a nutshell, "OMG how unfair weed doesn't hurt anyone damn douchebags" that bother me. You, at least, try to develop a well thought out post on the subject. As I said in my first post, it's appreciated and, whether you like it or not, you have many fans here - one being myself.

[Saggy]

 

@ Sag

 

You'll have to bear with me as I don't care as much to write an essay (edit - it seems I did anyway), though there is nothing wrong with that. I've always seen you as this articulate individual who has gained so much knowledge yet somehow lacks the ability, or should I say opportunity, to process what he knows through the proper channels (perhaps being an activist/politician is in your future). At any rate, being able to debate on the internet is a skill that one needs to devote a lot of time and research to and for that, I commend you and likely always will.

 

I've read your entire post and, as always, you do a fine job of getting your opinion across. Am I convinced that the law is unreasonable? No but then again, it's your right to believe what you want just as it is my right to say that if I do become a police officer, I will do my best to enforce the law. First off, it's difficult to question a police officer's choices. There's a lot of grey area, that's for sure.

 

In New York, the NYPD has come under fire countless times for allegedly instituting arrest quotas. Recently, a police officer from, I believe, the Bronx broke through the "blue wall of silence" to inform the public that at roll call, commanding officers demanded on a daily basis that for any individual month, an officer is responsible for at least 25 citations and 1 arrest. The NYPD defends this allegation by assuring the public that it is merely a way of judging an officer's performance. Anyway, the alleged arrest quota has led to countless arrests made on seemingly innocent NY residents. One example that comes to mind is that a bunch of kids were running down a sidewalk and one fell down. The kids were all written for unlawful assembly that was both detrimental and dangerous to the general public. To me, this is a violation of civil rights. I don't think the same can really be said for possession of a prohibited substance. You'd have to manipulate the subject matter so much so that by the time your opposition reads it, they'll forget what the hell the debate is even on. "Were we talking about smoking pot or being able to drink from the same fountain as white Americans?"

 

Just as there is no reason to believe that marijuana is harmful, or as claimed when this whole thing started - fatal, there's no reason to believe that the legalization of marijuana will boost our economy. It's a stab in the dark. It's a series of guesses that are using the Prohibition Era as a foundation. Prohibition can be traced back to 1840 when the United States had only 17 million residents. By the time it ended, we were at 122 million. We're now at around 310 million strong. You have to admit, our failed economy has a lot more to do than with the prohibition of marijuana. On an individual case by case basis, the illegality of marijuana is a tiny speck on our list of problems. Legalize pot tomorrow and within five years, we're lucky if we made a tiny dent in our overall deficit. I believe the estimated guess at this point is what $10 billion a year profit if when marijuana is legalized? Well, we have a public debt of around $12 trillion. Needless to say, positive results will take a long, long time. I guess the big hope is that you can walk to your corner deli and buy a pack of joints. You think these packs of a once prohibited drug are going to cost $7.50 a pack? You'll be spending more money buying marijuana legally than you would have in the past illegally and I can guarantee you that.

 

If and when the drug becomes legal, there's going to be a load of restrictions placed on it. You'll be able to purchase it legally but only how the government deems reasonable. There will still be loads of ways to be arrested for distributing marijuana once it is legalized. For instance, do me a favor and start selling bottles of liquor out of your house. Kind of tough to accomplish without a liquor license, eh? Well, I can guarantee you that you will need a license to purchase weed, to distribute weed, to dispose of weed, to house weed (basically any form of commercial transaction). And that license will be mighty tough to get. Try and go through the process of obtaining a liquor license. I'll see you a couple years from now when you tell me how much of a b*tch that was.

 

Will any of the paragraph above this one be a violation of civil rights? I don't think so. When the issue involves choice, it's difficult to play the civil rights card. For many (most often the opposition), homosexuality is a choice that people make while for others (most often homosexuals themselves) define homosexuality as a character that they obtain early on in life or even at birth. Fortunately for the Gay Rights movement, the latter group found themselves on top. On the other civil rights hand, being black isn't by choice. The difference between choice and a characteristic that can not be changed is huge. At least for me. Anyway, as hard it will be to acquire a marijuana license, it will be even harder for an argument to be made that smoking pot is anything other than a choice. As defined by the consensus model, as long as the majority of society shares the same values and beliefs on the issue, legalization of marijuana will prove to be even tougher. I guess, that last line there so far has me siding a bit with you on the matter. You acknowledge that one of the most harmful factors in legalizing marijuana is the majority's view on the drug.

 

Ultimately, we're going to have different opinions. I tried my best to acknowledge and discuss some of your strongest points but in the end, we're both entitled to our own opinions. That's fine by me. Interestingly enough, I have no bone to pick with you through all of this. It's only the folks who post one sentence responses that are, in a nutshell, "OMG how unfair weed doesn't hurt anyone damn douchebags" that bother me. You, at least, try to develop a well thought out post on the subject. As I said in my first post, it's appreciated and, whether you like it or not, you have many fans here - one being myself.

Hmm, I can see how my comparison to civil rights is confusing. I'm not proposing that there are really any rights being violated at the same level as African Americans were disenfranchised. However, there are a certain amount of constitutional rights that as a people we're supposed to be entitled too. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. In many cases the government's opposition and prohibition of marijuana is in violation of those rights ( if you subscribe to the belief that pot is harmless, since you would also be violating someone's rights if it weren't ) and that's really the only thing as far as denying people their rights goes that I can see happening. I mean, to put this in a better example: The AID's patient that could smoke pot to have an appetite can't because their state has no medicinal marijuana laws. I'm not so concerned with the stoner that can't get high without being paranoid or something like that.

 

I'm not sure I see eye to eye with your predictions about the economical effect, but I do believe that it would not be as economically gainful as people suspect. Though nevertheless, my problems with drug prohibition are more social than economical. In the long run of things with legal, taxed cannabis, the game would simply change to tax evasion, and prices would drop to the point where any type of beneficial gain to the economy we would have expected to see based on illicit prices would be vastly different from the actual result. Though, in the long run, I believe that keeping our resources inside our own borders would make us stronger economically; and that means if we weren't importing and exporting millions of pounds and dollars into and out of Canada and Mexico, we would probably keep most of that money in the U.S. Even though the social problems might remain to some extent, I think that would greatly help our economical issues.

 

What I'm mostly at odds with isn't the question of whether marijuana is completely harmless or very harmful. I mean honestly, we can all practically agree that marijuana is less lethal than just about any drug out there ( no recorded overdoses ) and that its addictive potential is relatively mild and arguably not there at all. Considering that, with its well documented therapeutic effects, there is no reason for the DEA to keep it as a Schedule I narcotic. If you're unfamiliar with drug scheduling; a Scheduel I narcotic is a drug that does not have any therapeutic value, and is very dangerous. From most of the independent research available, we can see that marijuana is almost the complete opposite of this, and so there is no question at all for most people that really research it that marijuana should not be a Schedule I narcotic. That's not to say everything thinks it should be legal, or that everyone thinks it's harmless, but basically everyone knows the DEA is full of sh*t. They simply won't acknowledge the research showing its therapeutic values because it wasn't conducted themselves, and most independent researches report that they are unwilling to provide test material if the research is attempting to show theraputic value or evidence refuting their past findings. In other words, they're completley cherry-picking the data and monopolizing the schedueling of it, and that is just wrong.

 

Thank you for the compliments, though it's no needed.... Really all I'm doing is rambling out loud, and it's because of that I could never really act on any of these thoughts. However, as far as legalizing drugs go... If tomorrow you were to allow me to do one thing that I felt would solve the problem with drug prohibition. I would not legalize cannabis, I would not even decriminalize it. I would dismantle the DEA because they have more than enough interest in keeping cannabis illegal than to entertain the idea of corruption, and in a government like ours we simply need more checks and balances. If we could do that, and bring things back into the hands of the FDA and local state level, I think it would be a tremendous step in solving the problems drug prohibition creates while still addressing the problems drugs themselves create.

 

Oh, and no hard feelings here either. I appreciate you having a full conversation and discussion of this.

Edited March 11, 2010 by SagaciousKJB

[Mainland Marauder]

Yeah, that poor drug dealer. He got a bum deal. The cops should have at least allowed him the courtesy of getting a few children hooked before they hauled him in.

Poor Typhus. The internet should of at least allowed him the courtesy of realizing that it's silly to 'get hooked' on weed before making a complete fool of himself.

Seriously dude you're a bit smarter than that, aren't you?

When people stop taking pride in their weakness and addiction, maybe I'll stop making groundless, absurd claims.

So what vices do you claim for yourself, Typhus? Are they addictions, or are they just things you do?

[trip]

 

Yeah, that poor drug dealer. He got a bum deal. The cops should have at least allowed him the courtesy of getting a few children hooked before they hauled him in.

I think we all know your not a fan of pot. I'm not saying be more open minded or anything, just don't be totally blind.

 

 

 

I'm not a pot smoker, but marijuana needs to be decriminalized! PLAIN AND SIMPLE! Tax it like alcohol and cigarettes and hold it to the same law standards as alcohol, as well as work place SOP (standard operating procedures) Use the proceeds to reduce, if not all but eliminate, the budget deficits throughout the nation and use some of the proceeds to eradicate all other listed illegal controlled dangerous substances! PLAIN AND SIMPLE! ENOUGH SAID.................

 

 

Oh, and I'm pretty sure that it has been scientifically proven that marijuana has no physical dependency to make it addictive. The only thing to get hook on is the enjoyable feeling it brings to some of the people who partake. Do you feel good when you go to church? Do you give money to your church? Do you pay to be 'hooked' on god?

 

I didn't intend to, but I guess I am just kinda adding to MM's remark

 

and some science from www.drugscience.org

 

 

This is an interesting one.

[trip]

 

^Pot? How old are you? Also, D.A.R.E. much?

 

I'm at that kind of age where I actually have to think about retirement and surviving after a work career. Ask your dad about it

 

Edit:

 

Man, I wouldn't be too surprised if they try to devise some system in the distant future, where they can electronically detect/track what sh*t came from which sh*tter.  Then again, it better be f*cking legalised long before that..

It's not really the same but, my wife is a fan of this particular African singer guy. I'm too lazy too get up to grab a disk to get his name, and there is no way I can even try and spell it.

 

The African government actually confiscated this guys sh*t to check it for weed(feel better?). He even titled an album based on it. It might even be called 'good sh*t'

 

To explain myself on the calling it 'pot' yes I am old, but the circle I am from it is called 'byrd'. No one would know what I was talking about if I said "We all know your not a fan of byrd"

 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2010 by tripmills

[Kaj.]

Now, as someone who is also planning on becoming a police officer, I have to say that I personally don't give a damn about cannabis. To me, it's just like alcohol. Only difference is the obvious legality of it. I can't wait until it's legalized so we don't need to worry about these dumb debates and the token stoner with the brilliant stoner mentality and arguments.

 

The point is, I think that cannabis should be legal. Law enforcement wastes far too many resources on drug enforcement in terms of busting grow operations and dealers for cannabis. It's a relatively harmless drug, and could bring in a lot of cash if it were to ever be government regulated (but then stoners would throw a fit because the gov't was involved, there's no winning).

 

However, it's illegal. If you're going to break the law (which has been in place for a long time now), deal with the consequences. And if you're a person who uses cannabis (and therefore breaks the law), don't f*cking complain and cry about someone getting busted. If you use and don't get caught, good on you, you're smarter than all the fools who do get caught.

 

Child molesters (I'm not comparing the two, I'm just trying to get a point across) and cannabis users don't see anything wrong with what they do. They think they're in the clear because of their beliefs. They're not. Get over it. Be careful with growing your bud and don't get your panties in a bunch about how some idiot got caught growing.

 

And my arguments are pretty much completely ignoring the fact that cannabis and organized crime are best friends.

[Xboxless]

@ Sag

 

wall of text

wall of text

So basically over-regulation is literally the culprit, whether if it is illegal or legal, over-regulation is going to be screwing something up.

 

If it is ever legalized the gov will need to strike a fine balance on how regulated it is. Too regulated and you get the same problems you had before, drug trafficking over borders, violence over possible selling territory if gangs are involved. so they need to keep it pretty basic on the regulation, but best way to do it it, license to sell, and a sin tax. Which i think is as far as it goes for alcohol, i think. As a social problem having it illegal is far worse than it will ever be legal.....

 

-Kajun- you are absolutely correct...all I need to say.

 

[LCstuntman]

Of course like in every other topic even mildy relating to marijuana, all the potheads have to come over and post about how "marijuana never killed anyone" and why it should be legal

 

Kajun is spot on. Marijuana may be way less harmful than alcohol, but it's still illegal (which it shouldn't be in my opinion, but that's besides the point). And if you get caught doing something illegal, you have to face the consequences, regardless of whether it's fair or not.

[Typhus]

Yeah, that poor drug dealer. He got a bum deal. The cops should have at least allowed him the courtesy of getting a few children hooked before they hauled him in.

Poor Typhus. The internet should of at least allowed him the courtesy of realizing that it's silly to 'get hooked' on weed before making a complete fool of himself.

Seriously dude you're a bit smarter than that, aren't you?

When people stop taking pride in their weakness and addiction, maybe I'll stop making groundless, absurd claims.

So what vices do you claim for yourself, Typhus? Are they addictions, or are they just things you do?

Ones indiscretions should remain private and should not be a source of pride.

I don't honestly give a damn if you're weak enough to start doing drugs, but why would you amplify that weakness and try to justify and glorify it?

Let me tell you, I would support legalising cannabis if the people who did it weren't so proud of themselves for getting high. Is it really that much of an accomplishment? Do you really feel the need to brag about it with your friends?

It's bad enough that you people insist on drinking alcohol and polluting your bodies with cigarettes. But to base this whole culture around drugs is infuriating to me.

Believe it or not, but I'm not saying that you're bad people. I would just rather you look inside yourselves for validation and meaning rather than turning to drugs to help define yourselves.

If it was treated as just another harmless vice, instead of something cool and trendy, I would be in favour of making the stuff legal.

[Mainland Marauder]

Let me tell you, I would support legalising cannabis if the people who did it weren't so proud of themselves for getting high. Is it really that much of an accomplishment? Do you really feel the need to brag about it with your friends?

OK, fair enough. However, not everyone who uses cannabis does that. I've quit and started more times than I can count in over a decade. Laying off now to stay clean enough to pass a drug test for work. Once I get it, odds are I'll do it again. And if I have to lay off again, I will. Addicts can't do that.

 

Find me someone who claims to be "addicted" and I'll show you a weak-willed individual who probably couldn't do anything that makes them feel better without developing a compulsion. That could be anything from smoking pot to drinking to browsing the Internet.

 

Now, personally I think a lot of the "culture" you speak of has a lot to do with its legal status and the sorts of misconceptions some people have, if you catch my drift - if it was legal and regulated along the lines of liquor, it'd be no different.

[Saggy]

Now, as someone who is also planning on becoming a police officer, I have to say that I personally don't give a damn about cannabis. To me, it's just like alcohol. Only difference is the obvious legality of it. I can't wait until it's legalized so we don't need to worry about these dumb debates and the token stoner with the brilliant stoner mentality and arguments.

 

The point is, I think that cannabis should be legal. Law enforcement wastes far too many resources on drug enforcement in terms of busting grow operations and dealers for cannabis. It's a relatively harmless drug, and could bring in a lot of cash if it were to ever be government regulated (but then stoners would throw a fit because the gov't was involved, there's no winning).

 

However, it's illegal. If you're going to break the law (which has been in place for a long time now), deal with the consequences. And if you're a person who uses cannabis (and therefore breaks the law), don't f*cking complain and cry about someone getting busted. If you use and don't get caught, good on you, you're smarter than all the fools who do get caught.

 

Child molesters (I'm not comparing the two, I'm just trying to get a point across) and cannabis users don't see anything wrong with what they do. They think they're in the clear because of their beliefs. They're not. Get over it. Be careful with growing your bud and don't get your panties in a bunch about how some idiot got caught growing.

 

And my arguments are pretty much completely ignoring the fact that cannabis and organized crime are best friends.

I don't know that I'm ready to believe child molesters actually have themselves convinced what they're doing is right... More like they just don't have the will power to stop themselves. I mean, very rarely do you see pedophiles lining up outside of court houses protesting their rights to diddle little kids.

 

I mean, don't get me wrong I know where you're coming from, I just think that the comparison of it to child molesters is a little skewed. I mean, it's not as if there are millions of child molesters out there protesting for the statutory rape laws to changed. On the other hand there are millions ( well that might be a large number for people protesting, but as far as civil disobedience goes in using it ) out there that are proponent's for the legalization of pot and tons of activists holding various events and what not.

 

Further more there's a general unwritten law of society in some cases... I don't think anyone cares what the law says regarding child rape, there's not going to be anyone supporting the pedophiles in their desires. I mean, whereas people will look at the proponent's of pot and go, "Well, you're right, you're not really hurting anyone, it's not really that dangerous, why not?" that simply would never happen with something like child molestation because it is immediately apparent it's harmful and not a victimless crime.

 

Like I said though I got your point. The law is the law and people should deal with the consequences of breaking it. That's an okay idea, and most people are accepting of that; I even said that this guy should have been more careful. However as time goes on, and it becomes apparent that there are more and more people unwilling to follow this law, and there are nearly a million people filling our jails each year for non-violent posession charges, it becomes apparent that it is a law that the people are unwilling to follow, and history shows us that such laws only lead to trouble when we try to ramp up enforcement.

 

Once again though simply saying, "Well, they should deal with being arrested," is yet another apathetic response to all of it as far as I'm concerned. It's valid but it doesn't change the fact that the law shouldn't be there in the first place, and the law is now doing more harm than the substance it is meant to protect against, and I'm not sure how people expect others to be content with this line of thinking. "Break the law and suffer the consequences," when they're saying, "Why don't you help me change the law?" while both parties agree it's wrong.

 

I mean, granted reality doesn't seem to mesh with what's on paper and the historical record... But aren't we supposed to be the ones making the laws in this country? Not just going, "Ahh, nuts, that's my luck," and blindly following it?

 

Anyway, this is verging on a very broad topic of discussion that has been up for debate more than the pot issue: Civil disobedience. Personally I believe it is necessary to ensure public change. If everyone simply went around following laws they didn't agree with and leaving it at that, then many of the social issues we've changed in this country would still be a problem today. The only difference in this situation is that what's at stake does not seem very important to many because it's as if we're discussing a stoner's right to get high. However, if instead you think about it in terms of the medicinal values of cannabis that we've been unable to study ( and I'm not talking about patients in Oakland smoking for their back pain, I'm talking about real medicinal value like the fact that Italian researches have shown it shrinks tumors ) all of the medicinal values that it could have.

 

Marijuana and organized crime only go hand in hand because marijuana is criminal. Before it was ever criminalized, it grew wild on the sides of roads, and the criminal element had no idea what kind of cash crop it was sitting on. I'm not going to say, "If it's legal, then all the dealers disappear," beacuse it's just not that simple, but what is simple is that there is an organized crime element surrounding marijuana simply because it is illegal. I mean, there would really not have been such a large bootlegging trade after alcohol prohibition if alcohol was never put in the prohibition that it was.

 

Eventually it all comes circling back around to a question that everyone seems to want to do their best to avoid: Why is marijuana illegal in the first place. Just think about it; forget the fact that it's law, or that it's your (future)job to enforce it and just look at that element of it.

[Mainland Marauder]

 

Marijuana and organized crime only go hand in hand because marijuana is criminal.  Before it was ever criminalized, it grew wild on the sides of roads, and the criminal element had no idea what kind of cash crop it was sitting on.  I'm not going to say, "If it's legal, then all the dealers disappear," beacuse it's just not that simple, but what is simple is that there is an organized crime element surrounding marijuana simply because it is illegal.  I mean, there would really not have been such a large bootlegging trade after alcohol prohibition if alcohol was never put in the prohibition that it was.

It'll boil down to the question of "do I want to get my product by legal, above-ground means where I know what I'm getting, or do I want to deal with some shady street dealer who may rip me off or get ripped off by whoever supplies him?" I mean, how big is moonshining/alcohol bootlegging these days? It still exists, but it's not exactly the norm it was during alcohol prohibition.

 

If you outlaw anything that people want, it and organized crime will become friends. It's called capitalism. If there's a demand, there will be a supply and somebody will be making a lot of money.

[trip]

 

Marijuana and organized crime only go hand in hand because marijuana is criminal.  Before it was ever criminalized, it grew wild on the sides of roads, and the criminal element had no idea what kind of cash crop it was sitting on.  I'm not going to say, "If it's legal, then all the dealers disappear," beacuse it's just not that simple, but what is simple is that there is an organized crime element surrounding marijuana simply because it is illegal.  I mean, there would really not have been such a large bootlegging trade after alcohol prohibition if alcohol was never put in the prohibition that it was.

It'll boil down to the question of "do I want to get my product by legal, above-ground means where I know what I'm getting, or do I want to deal with some shady street dealer who may rip me off or get ripped off by whoever supplies him?" I mean, how big is moonshining/alcohol bootlegging these days? It still exists, but it's not exactly the norm it was during alcohol prohibition.

 

If you outlaw anything that people want, it and organized crime will become friends. It's called capitalism. If there's a demand, there will be a supply and somebody will be making a lot of money.

This kinda touches on my main concern.

 

If marijuana would ever be legalized it would be something similar as to if all the companies and work that goes on in silicone valley decided to close shop and lay off all of the workers. There is a very large criminal enterprise created by illegal marijuana. If the government were to take it over it would be the same as putting millions of people out of work.

 

From the biggest person to the littlest person there are people and families that rely on the illegal marijuana trade. These are people that might not know how to struggle and survive in non-criminal ways.

 

If marijuana would ever become legal and government controlled what criminal industry is capable of filling it's shoes? The people that are used to living the easy life with money and all that thanks to their criminal marijuana activities are not really going to want to accept positions as super market stock boys for minimum wage.

 

 

I've heard the argument that the illegal trade will still exist and users might have an option of getting stronger stuff illegally, and other stuff like that. For one the basic supply/demand principle very well might dictate that legal weed will be a sh*t load cheaper, since there will always be a demand and the govt will be able grow/process/sell with far less overhead then the illegal ends. The govt might be able to undercut the illegal trade to the point where the margin of profit in the illegal world just isn't worth it.

 

*retard edit

Edited March 13, 2010 by tripmills