bmattock
Veteran
Amateur hydroponics growers? No, you're right, they're not supporting criminal activity.
Those who grow in national forests protect their interests with guns and bombs. They are criminals, and buyers who buy from them are supporting that.
I tend to doubt that explanation. If anything, I'd tend to support the notion that marijuana is illegal because it is hemp - and hemp is a threat to the lumber industry. If you want a valid-sounding conspiracy theory, that one would work.
stefan_dinu
Established
Then why hyper active drugs like caffeine and tobacco, which are far more dangerous for your body than THC, are tolerated? Also because of the lumber? Or just because it serves the cause of a consumerist society? And why this dangerous addictive drug which is caffeine is promoted and marketed as the most popular brand in this consumerist world? Of course is paranoia from THC speaking, not me.
I do have the strong feeling that some are speaking from books and reports and others speak from experience. Which is which? Stop quoting DEA, or other "credible" sources.
I do have the strong feeling that some are speaking from books and reports and others speak from experience. Which is which? Stop quoting DEA, or other "credible" sources.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
Wow!.....fellas, gonna ditch all this sh#*, and just stick to the mushrooms!! 
bmattock
Veteran
All I can refer to are facts and estimates based upon public, vetted, law enforcement agencies. If you believe 'feelings' are better, then we are done discussing this. Thank you for your input.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
My neurologist keeps telling me that I should smoke pot. It's more effective and less harmful than the anti-seizure meds she has me taking now, plus she says it's cheaper, even at street prices.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Might I suggest a new multi-question poll? Are rangefinder photographers more or less likely to be pot smokers compared to SLR shooters? ...or shoot B&W instead of color? ...or prefer film over digital?
stefan_dinu
Established
One thing is sure. Some stiff, narrow view people around here could use a smoke. A real smoke. It is evidence enough for me.
And one more thing. It is absurd to blame a plant or the smokers just because by making it illegal, it generate criminality. All the criminal behavior pointed here is generated by the very act that's make it illegal in the first place.
(this is not a direct answer for bmattock. nothing will go through him, I am sure by now)
And one more thing. It is absurd to blame a plant or the smokers just because by making it illegal, it generate criminality. All the criminal behavior pointed here is generated by the very act that's make it illegal in the first place.
(this is not a direct answer for bmattock. nothing will go through him, I am sure by now)
bmattock
Veteran
I could quote violent crime statistics, domestic abuse and health statistics with regards to alcohol consumption, care to quote any empirical data supporting your "feelings' that the 'average stoner' does much more violence to the fabric of our society then alcohol?
Present only supportable data, please save us your 'feelings'.
There is no need to present anything other than simple, understandable logic.
I do not drive drunk, nor do I hit my wife, drunk or sober. Therefore, when I drink, I commit no crime, nor do I damage society. Nor do many who drink.
On the other hand, if a person in the USA buys pot, they are buying it, ipso facto, from criminals. So the average stoner who does not grow their own DOES engage in criminal activity, each and every time they buy. They are willing participants in a criminal organization that extends from the grower to the ultimate buyer.
A person who drinks MAY commit crimes, and indeed, as you point out, many are the crimes committed by alcoholics and people who are drunk. The average pothead DOES commit crimes, every time they buy pot.
The difference is that not all who drink are criminals - but all who buy pot (in the USA in circumstances not yet legalized) are criminals and are supporting criminals.
This is simple fact, and cannot be refuted. Sorry if you do not like it.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
As for smoking in resturants, stores ,offices, whatever, why not let the market determine what works best. If enough people avoid going into a "smoking allowed" place they'll either go out of business or change their business model.
bmattock
Veteran
Meh. I'd rather hang out with a stoner than a drunk. Criminal or not.
I don't generally care to hang out with either one.
So do you ever speed while driving? Let the parking meter run out, even a little? Cross when the light isn't green? Because those generate criminality also. I'm just sayin'...
Not the same thing, and I'm not just talking about degree. If I speed, I am not supporting an illegal industry - it's just me breaking the law. Even if I do something really bad, it's still just me doing it.
If I buy a fake Rolex watch, on the other hand, I am not just breaking the law (actually, probably only civil law in most places), but I am supporting a criminal organization that extends all the way back from the guy who sold it to me on the street to the gang that smuggled it in, to the organization that financed it, to the shop that made it in some alley in Taiwan. All illegal, all not paying taxes (at the minimum), all paying bribes, making threats, committing violence, and generally harming society - and that's if they are NOT also supporting terrorism, as many of these organizations do.
Now, which is worse from the point of view of damaging society? Speeding, or buying a fake Rolex?
When a person buys illegal goods or services, they are tacitly supporting the organization that makes such things available. That, to me, is far more damaging to society than running a red light.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Yup, legalizing it would get a lot of criminals off the street for sure. My grandfather was in the wholesale liquor business both before and after prohibition. Guess what he did for a living during prohibition? He became a criminal and stayed (pretty openly too) in the wholesale liquor business. If everybody in public office were to admit to their current and past drug use Washington, D.C., the state capitols and the city halls, the courts, and corporate offices would all be gost towns. Remember, the garbage collectors and office workers get drug tested while elected officials and top management get a free ride.
bmattock
Veteran
That's just the 'bigger criminal' side-step. "I'm not that bad, there are worse criminals than me." It doesn't work.
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Drugs/default.asp
bmattock
Veteran
Using this 'logic', every day 100k's of drivers that exceed the speed limit by just a few mph (law breakers) are more violent to our society then a thousand drunks?
No, nor did I say anything even remotely resembling that. You're intelligent, so I must conclude you are twisting my words intentionally because you have no logical response.
The logic of crime is that one person commits it, which is bad, but it is a solitary offense against society - or a person commits the type of crime which engages a criminal enterprise, ultimately involved hundreds or thousands of people.
If I punch a guy in the mouth, that's bad. If I pay a mobster to punch a guy in the mouth, that's worse. Because in the latter example, I am supporting mobsters and their illegal depredations on society.
If I steal a watch, that's bad. But if I buy a counterfeit Rolex, I am supporting groups that have known links to terrorist organizations - my money goes to buy bombs and ammunition for people who want to kill my countrymen (see my link to Interpol in previous post).
It is not the crime, it is the organization it supports, and the damage they do. DUI drivers kill people. But they do not support thousands of people who are smuggling booze into the country, bribing officials, killing competitors, and funneling money back into terrorist coffers. Drug users do that.
Again, sorry if you do not like it. Those are not 'feelings', that is cold hard logic. Like I said, irrefutable, unless you intend to continue playing silly buggers.
bmattock
Veteran
You are the only one committing a crime if you speed. The lives you endanger are finite and relatively small compared to the huge number threatened by terrorists funded by drug purchases.
Drugs are not the cause of terrorism? Well, illegal drugs are. Narco-terrorism is certainly caused by drugs. No drugs, no narco-terrorism. However, if you are referring to the more 'traditional' religion-based terrorism, then I agree - they are opportunistic and will take their funding wherever and whenever they can.
However, knowing that buying a dime bag could be funding people who want to destroy my country is more than enough, even if I had no other reasons, to not want to do so. For the same reason, I do not own a counterfeit watch. I will not willingly support terrorists. This is no different from those who boycott manufacturers who pollute - I am boycotting terrorists, and like environmentalists, pointing this out to others - if you buy illegal drugs, you are supporting those who wish to kill you.
bmattock
Veteran
Again, you deflect instead of offering argument. The 'worse crook' theory simply says "Hey, don't mind me, there are worse crooks out there." Whether there are or not is immaterial. A side-argument that is mean to detract, and you do it because you have nothing to argue with. Sorry, won't work. Murderers are worse than rapists, perhaps, but rapists don't get a pass just because there are murderers out there.
We jump from statistical data supporting alcohol consumption with respect to its violence on our society, to the 'feelings' that every time our average stoner buys weed, he's buying it directly for osama himself
A) The average stoner does not grow his own, he buys it.
B) The DEA says that only a small percentage of marijuana is domestically-produced - this is about as close as anyone is going to come to 'fact', but some here reject that IN FAVOR of their own 'feelings' as they stated.
C) Even if produced domestically, the FBI says that outlaw biker gangs and ethnic gangs produce and distribute marijuana in this country. They steal land and resources, murder their competitors, bribe officials, and generate domestic terror.
D) Interpol says that illicit drugs fund terrorist organizations.
There is a straight, bright, line connecting the average stoner to groups like FARC, MILF, the Taliban, Al Qaida, et al. If you don't wish to acknowledge it, fine with me. It does not change facts.
The pot did not magically appear in the stoner's baggie. Unless he grew it himself, he bought it. If he bought it, he bought it at the end of a long distribution chain that extends from him to the grower, criminals every one, and many of them violent thugs or actual terrorists who severely damage society.
bmattock
Veteran
Yes, I can. Potential is not actuality. Not all speeders crash and hurt people.
But all people who buy illicit drugs support criminals who belong to a supply chain that extends back from the buyer to the grower, and involves those who DO hurt people. That's not potential, that's actuality.
The first example is 'some', and the second is 'all'.
lorriman
Established
The diseases of smoking are mostly related to immune system strength. Cut out immuno suppressors, like vegetable and fish oils (perhaps excepting Olive and Palm) and cigarettes are not nearly as harmful as we are led to believe. Get a decent dose of the immuno vitamins A & D and smoking is likely to be of negligible influence health-wise.
The same applies to heart disease: it is a modern phenomena beginning in the 1920s and the real cause is almost certainly nothing to do with smoking which is probably only contributory.
The anti-smoking lobby is acting as an inadvertent smokescreen for other scourges that are far more harmful. Margarine, anyone? And lets not forget orange juice: so much sugar your cardiologist would have a fit.
The same applies to heart disease: it is a modern phenomena beginning in the 1920s and the real cause is almost certainly nothing to do with smoking which is probably only contributory.
The anti-smoking lobby is acting as an inadvertent smokescreen for other scourges that are far more harmful. Margarine, anyone? And lets not forget orange juice: so much sugar your cardiologist would have a fit.
stefan_dinu
Established
And this assertion is more than enough for me to see what happens in your mind. You like facts. Here are some facts:
1. There is no reason to make marijuana illegal; at least not in the same context where alcohol, caffeine and tobacco are legal.
2. Without this stupid incrimination all the other criminal related activity, that you impose, would be zero.
3. Providing info and stats about dope, from the American government entities....is funny, to say the least.
4. There are places on this planet where you can smoke pot without any trouble, but where you can go to jail for a bottle of scotch. And believe me, all these places are far more secure than most of the places in US.
There is always about context. A law does not change morals. Common sense is superior to any laws. What yesterday was allowed, tomorrow will be outlaw. What this means? That morality is changing? Or the laws are changing to support a way of living and the "general" interest. Which is not always that "general"
5. If "people that destroy my country" is your measure, then all Europeans should not buy or have any relations with the Americans because of the Wallstreet junk that destroy all the western economies by inflicting this tremendous crisis. I am not thinking like this, but this is how you would sound if you where born somewhere else.
And what is your point anyway? I don't like pot? Or you don't like the fact that I like and smoke pot? What is to you? Or against you? And how much of those things against you are inflicted by the prohibition itself?
I am very happy that there are not many people who thinks like you on this issue. At least your president is not with you on this one. Not the moron, the new president.