Obama opposes legalizing marijuana

Source: AP

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama had some fun with at least one question at his online town hall, saying he doesn't think legalizing marijuana is a good strategy for turning around the economy.

Obama told the audience Thursday that one of the most popular questions was whether legalization of the illicit drug would help pull the nation out of the recession. The president jokingly said: "I don't know what this says about the online audience."

In a serious response, he said he didn't think that was a good economic policy.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090326/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_marijuana_1

When do we get the change?

The lawyers, judges, and private prisons would lose a ton of work.

It would be bad for employment if all the criminals who smoke that evil shit were set free.

Think of the jobs, people! Think of all that money that would end up going somewhere else!

I'm going to assume you were being sarcastic and playing devil's advocate. Anyone that thinks their job is more important than the right of freedom is sick and depraved. Especially when the crime was simply possessing an infinitely safer substance than both alcohol and tobacco.

They made lots of money from tobacco and alcohol. And since they closely control those two items and they can't control pot, they really have no other recourse with the evil weed. Our capitalist system depends on it.

Don't tell me you're a socialist conspirator that would take away the freedom to make money from something as evil as this weed.

Again, I hope you're being sarcastic. I don't much like conversing with people who use the words evil and weed in the same sentence. The conversation usually goes downhill pretty fast and is full of racist stereotypes, narrow-mindedness and hatred.

It is mostly white people who smoke that evil weed, so don't go racist on me. Just because poor people that can't afford a $3,000 lawyer are the ones who end up in jail doesn't mean I am for rich people. It's not my fault they are rich. It creates jobs (lawyers, judges, cops) and creates a transfer of wealth from rich people to even richer people. Capitalism at its finest!

There was a great movie a while back called 'Reefer Madness' that proves the evil intent of the evil weed. Just because 100 years ago people used the weed without problems doesn't mean it's not bad now. In fact, the mad scientists have made weed even more evil by making it stronger and more addictive like they do with tobacco.

Yeah, I heard they finally created a strain that's highly addictive and you can overdose from. No? Well, don't worry. If the alcohol or tobacco industry get their hands on it, they'll sure try.

I'm just worried that your sarcasm will elude the non-progressive visitors to the site who will quote your government-sponsored propaganda as fact.

Welcome to DU. It is important to have readers and writers who can read and write, eh?

you refer to were actually American gardeners who moved to (merry old) Amsterdam to experiment with mixing sativa with indica and tu create superbuds of infinite varieties.

I do miss the good old mellow days when we smoked the leaves, too... and were not after just the newest baddest sensimilla design, created by lot of electricity and chemicals in some closed closet.

more than is healthy to say about the sanity of the people who keep saying "think of the jobs, people!"

What my simple brain-functions, those left unmelted by pot consumption, say is that the question should be looked the other way around, what work is really necessary? And that cannot be different question from: what work is sustainable or can by done sustainably and what jobs are just harmfull to environment and the over-all well-being of all of us that live on this planet?

Why would anyone really WANT wage-slavery in self-degrading and environmentally and psychologically harmfull job, if that person was not hypnotized by the most powerfull drug there is, namely... MONEY.

People do lots of weird things for money. Money is the most powerful drug of all. And those that have it, know it best. If they can control the money supply they can get people do do even weirder things.

And what is money? It is strips of paper or coins that are made by people and represent nothing but a faith that the money, exchanged in the right place at the right time will get them something they desire.

When you decrease your desires, you decrease your need for money and decrease your dependence on those that have money that want you to do weird things to get their money.

It's all a bit crazy, eh?

It's not just "strips of paper or coins" even though company that makes money-printing machines is one of the very few doing quite well in the stock market nowadays, it's fysical manifestation is mostly (95% IIRC or more) digital bits in computers. It's econo-technical mumbo-jumbo about M1-2-3 etc, to keep us from seeing what it really is: nothing on nothing.

Good explanations on how lunatic the Fiat fractional banking money really is, see Zeitgeist movies and/or Money as Debt, on Youtube or googlemovies or where-ever, widely available.

Spiritually, Tolkien knew what he was writing about when writing about Eye of the Sauron (the ur-myth of all psychotically hypnotizing pyramid scams):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/United_States_one_dollar_bill,_reverse.jpg/800px-United_States_one_dollar_bill,_reverse.jpg

It's bit scary, eh?
(Just stare back if it's too scary, thinking of Odysseus and the Cyclops... and don't worry about hobbits, you know what they are smoking... :))

That's why I doubt we'll see it end any time soon.

It won't be part of bringing the economy out its wreckage, and of that, I think he's right.

Legalization might be good in other ways, but it's not going to help the economy-- no matter what pot smokers think. That's the dumbest assertion users have ever come up with to laud their drug.

he said he didn't think it was a good strategy for turning the economy around. I sort of agree with that. The economy will need more than just legal pot to turn around.

What I do hope is that under an Obama Administration there will no longer be a push by the DEA to go after medical marijuana users, though the DEA did just bust one in San Francisco last week. Hopefully there will be less of that.

The 21st century's sin taxes.

Sorry to deflate your bubble a little. It might provide some tax revenue, but not nearly as much as you think. Plus, tax revenue is not the problem with this economy now.

Marijuana should be legalized or decriminalized for reasons other than economic ones.

The additional tax revenue is just a bonus.

taking the downslope after 10.000 years of upslope. More weed - yup, obligatory weed as civic duty - would make the downslope not only tolerable but maybe even FUN - yippee, no more climbing, now we're sliding!!!

And that, my friends, is the real reason they don't want to legalize. They wan't to pretend that climbing (with them sitting on top of us) is not only possible (it ain't) but also desirable - and they know that too much weed tends to take that desire away...

turning it into a misdemeanor offense, as MA recently did. That second course makes way too much sense, even if it's arrived at by way of economic concerns.

the economy? Well, EXCUSEEEEEEEE MEEEEEEEEE last I've heard it's the number 1 cash crop in multiple states and it is the cause of the Mexican gang wars due to the BILLIONS in profits. That's a corporate view point, pure and simple.

Solution=LEGALIZE!


Yes, We Cannabis!:smoke: :bounce:

That was the question, not whether it should be legalized.

Fact is that we are not yet at the point where a majority of Americans support that, though someday they will.

And the media would have a major cow if he supported legalizing pot.

I mean, maybe it is just me and the circle of my people I know but no one I know thinks pot should be illegal. Oh, I'm certain there are many people who still hold this view -- but how can we really be certain they remain the MAJORITY as the media and pollsters keep insisting? I don't believe them. Not any more. I've become increasingly suspicious of all this "social perception management." THEY tell US what WE think, what we believe, what we want and don't want -- and we believe THEM! And yet as we analyze what they say and don't say we find over and over again that they are dishonest and self-serving in their representations.

Marijuana is being kept illegal and not for reasons that have anything to do with health or safety of the marijuana user or society at large. What are those reasons? Answer that question and you begin to understand that the way our society works is not the way we're told it works. It is illegal because many PROFIT tremendously from that illegality -- no matter the human and social costs. Whether it is the criminal justice system or money laundering or organized crime syndicates, the fact is, MJ is illegal because people who ARE NOT THE MAJORITY of Americans WANT it that way -- and they use social information distribution channels to insure it STAYS that way.

No poll with good methods and procedures shows any majority for legalizing marijuana. The most you could say is that more people are for it than ever, but there's been some fall back due to the violence in Mexico. Here are some of the numbers:

CBS Poll: 31 for, 63 against (revised in March)
Rasmussen: 40 for, 46 against
Zogby: 44 for, 52 percent against


http://www.change.org/ideas/116/view_blog/polls_show_growing_support_for_ending_marijua

http://www.pollingreport.com/drugs.htm

IT IS AN INFORMED SAMPLE.

Point I'm making is, the majority population is still harboring MANY corporate media conveyed misconceptions about MJ and its use. All a "poll" is going to tell us is how effectively this disinformation campaign is working. What polls don't ask is, why are American's being misled regarding MJ use? Who benefits from that?

I believe that if Americans were told the truth about MJ from respected sources and told the truth about the disastrous effects MJ prohibition is having on individuals, families and society; told the truth about who profits from the prohibition; and told the truth about what options other than prohibition are available -- these numbers would turn around very quickly.

However, that isn't happening is it? And one has to wonder why that is.

This is really the point I'm making. Without access to accurate information, "polls" can only show us how well a "program" is working. On the subject of MJ legalization, polls indicate that the agenda to keep it prohibited is slowly failing. The polls don't show what an INFORMED public thinks, only what a mostly misinformed public thinks.

Not about marijuana. Now that there's all the drama in Mexico and attention to violent gangs. It did cause that one poll to fall nine points in the CBS poll in a few short months. Now, there might be some hype and distortion about it, such as the border areas don't appear to be bad off as we've been told, NPR did a report about this.

To benefit the few by taking from the many, there are far, far better games for that. It might make the drug lords wealthier, but they'd get that way no matter what the propaganda, but they'd get more, as tobacco companies did, with good commercials. So, they don't benefit from the negative hype.

But on the other side, if you follow the money on marijuana cases, the ones that benefit most are pretty easy to see: the DEA, the FBI and more than anyone, state and local law enforcement. Why? Asset forfeiture. You don't even have to be found guilty to lose your car, your house, your computer, your cash, your bank accounts-- law enforcement gets to keep those assets, and gets to sell them off if they're inclined. In my particular area, I know of cases where mayors have been found driving vehicles seized in drug busts. So I know that the spoils are being spread around. Asset forfeiture has enriched law enforcement since it was put into practice. It is nothing but legalized shakedown and corruption. The War on Drugs would not be sustainable without it. Many times the people can't get their stuff back whether they're innocent or guilty and many times the bookkeeping is-- just a little sloppy. A friend of mine who got raided for having pot lost a huge jar of quarters-- oh, and his mushrooms all disappeared, too. They were never taken into evidence, never accounted for.

And you wonder why law enforcement went ahead despite Obama's orders and raided a San Francisco Medicinal Marijuana Club? Just ask what might have come up missing after the raid. So, the courts throw the case out, the club owners get to reclaim their property, but when they do, guess what? Some of it isn't there, and it was never accounted for.

You're right it is lucrative to some to keep marijuana illegal. It's just not who you might think, and it's not the big media behind it. Whatever media disinformation that you hear is about something else entirely. Marijuana would probably not be illegal today if it weren't so associated with the '60s radical anti-war movement generation, which Conservatives, Republicans and many Independents all loathe. Also, there's racism to it. It's all happening because of Mexican gangs or because of the 'Hood.

Meanwhile, if you think you and your friends are well-informed about marijuana, the scientific about it is positive in some ways, and very negative in most ways. Based on scientific findings alone, it's not going to be decriminalized, because the closer I've looked at the science, the worse marijuana looks.

No, it's a matter of rights and liberty, and nothing else.

Republicans often said the same thing ("we are not yet at the point where a majority of Americans support that, though someday they will.") about electing a black man as the POTUS.

Saying he doesn't think legalizing marijuana is a good strategy for turning around the economy does not equal opposing legalization of marijuana.

He has spoken in favor of decriminalization of marijuana.

Still the headline of the article does not match the content.

ECONOMY!! Well, Excuseeeeeeee MEEEEEEEEEE!, I've heard that the #1 cash crop in multiple states is Marijuana, and that the Mexican drug gangs are making BILLIONS in profits suppling the illegal drug, and there's NO ECONOMIC policy except to waste more taxpayers dollars on FAILURE. He's got the corporate view point on this issue, pure and simple, and it's wrong as far as I'm concerned.

Solution= LEGALIZE :smoke:

He said he doesn't think legalizing marijuana will fix the economy.

You're not the only one parsing words - 'he only said it wouldn't help the economy. he didn't say he was against it' - but get real. That was a golden opportunity to break the ice, and he rolled the zamboni over it instead.

And it will take the profit motive out of an industry that's killing thousands on the Mexican border. It's just common sense and smart politics.

just taking the Q ...plants some seeds on the idea...no pun intended.

I am sorry, flame away but he's starting to piss me off.

What about the billions spent enforcing those outdated and irrational laws? What about the fact that minorities are far more likely to be arrested and jailed for pot than white people? Are these issues that should be the subject of mirth? What about the value of marijuana as medicine in the lives of millions, and what about the economic potential of hemp crops? Energy and ecology are subjects for jest?
A lot of people ask him those questions. For many very good reasons. Whatever his personal view might be, why make light of what was asked in earnest, when even one person sits in jail for a natural medicine, costing us money each day to maintain an injustice?

Marijuana is the biggest cash crop in the US. How come he can't come clean on this issue? I hope someone puts a bee in his bonnet on this.

leave it to the states to legalize it.

in November. Can the President do that all by himself, or does it have to be legislated? Would people actually have to get their representatives to vote for it?

and other states see 1) Billions in tax revenues, 2) use not increasing, 3) less prison population to pay for, 4) de-clogged courts, and 5) all the smarter people gravitating toward the states that legalize (they already do) --

There'll be a rash of 'em.

Watch as other states rush to join the legalize effort and rake in the revenues from taxes on it! California hopefully can lead the way forward!

Solution=LEGALIZE


Yes, We Cannabis!:smoke:

I love it haha

Who are these people?

They're your neighbor.
Or doctor.
Or lawyer.
Or professor.
Or scientist.
Or teacher.
They're your friends and family.
They're Americans.
Millions and millions of Americans.

And they're you Mr. President.
How would you like to have been sentenced to jail for your youthful indiscretion?
Could you have gone as far?
No?
I didn't think so.

He's already got the RW A-holes on his ass constantly - what do you think those assholes would say if he outwardly
approved legalizing MJ?!

Sometimes doing the right thing isn't easy. More upsetting than this is the fact that the right thing is currently supported by a fair majority of Americans. I expect higher standards from my President.

:thumbsup:

"Sometimes doing the right thing isn't easy"

And sometimes the right thing doesn't happen according to our own timetables...

Some of these guys are more ridiculously single-issue than people who define their entire political world in terms of guns or opposing homosexuality. I don't use the stuff, but I'm utterly in favor of legalizing it; even so, the stuffing of every one of these Q&A periods so far with really loaded pot questions is starting to look silly.

Question: how much would each state save if they didn't prosecute for marijuana possession? Never mind the ephemeral and wholly speculative "increased tax revenues"- how much would we save by not prosecuting and incarcerating people for being in possession of a particular plant?

That's where the economic argument comes in. We simply can't afford to do this anymore, in the most literal sense of the word "afford".

"Obama told the audience Thursday that one of the most popular questions was whether legalization of the illicit drug would help pull the nation out of the recession. The president jokingly said: "I don't know what this says about the online audience."


1. Their freedom of speech First Amendment Power has become enhanced with more flexibility because Internet Anonymity protects them from corporate reprisal, for speaking their minds. When no one else in your Presidential Bubble will level with you, the Internet as a whole will.

2. There may be occasional con people on the Internet as there is in real life, but if and when an overwhelming majority concur on a subject this speaks volumes as to a greater synergistic truth; different people from all walks of life coming to the same conclusion is a powerful testament. Maybe legalizing Marijuana by it self won't pull the economy out of the doldrums, but it sure beats the hell out of the current insanity of wasting billions of dollars criminalizing the American People. Hillary Clinton got one thing wrong, the American People's drug use isn't fueling the active chaos in Mexico the decades long policy of turning what should be an educational,medical,and or personal privacy issue in to a criminal one is.

I was a bit astounded at the amount of people that voted for the legalization of marijuana on his "change" site. Astounded, but extremely happy that that many people knew that the criminalization of a plant that has tremendous medicinal and other values was idiotic.

Since the 1930's, marijuana has been a boogeyman just like the long line of boogeymen the U.S. has needed to create to keep the people under control.

I am so disappointed in Obama.

NT!

the feds will have to follow suit.

Not that I care about whether marijuana is legalized or not, but it is a profoundly addictive drug for many people.

"hippie idiots"... "conspiracy theories"....... "profoundly addictive" - interesting language you've thrown out in response to the OP.

Shakes head in disbelief!

:crazy:

NT!

Congratulations.

for possession of marijuana?

Measured in billions, because that's the cost.

Take your time. I'm here until 2:30 or so.

brainwashed much?
you so don't know what you are talking about!
sheesh. hopeless.

FYI: It is widely known and accepted that pot is NOT addictive.
I've been heavily smoking pot for 40 years. You think when I run out and have to go without for a few weeks because of lack of money or availability, I go through withdrawal?

"hippie idiots"? why don't you go over there to that other site where the little reactionary fweepers mock "dirty hippies" for being "librul"--I think you'd fit in a lot better there. FYI: pot is smoked by people from every walk of life, including doctors, lawyers, politicians, rocket scientists, surgeons, and bankers. EDUCATE YOURSELF.

that has found Marijuana "a profoundly addictive drug".

Just one.

You can't do it because your comment is full of shit.

Unfortunately, I do not.

How could someone be so stupid? "Profoundly addictive?" Compared to what, going to the dentist?

Dumbest post this thread? Certainly. Dumbest post I've read this week? Probably. Dumbest post ever? Not quite, but good try.

And really all politicians for that matter. It WOULD help, any extra tax revenue without raising income taxes would help the economy, I dont get limiting the funds the govt takes in. For one not only would legalizing marijuana reap billions in tax revenue but it would save us billions more from not having to arrest prosecute and imprison otherwise law abiding citizens, 800,000 per year of non violent offenders. Its political fear that keeps people in power from proposing this or any other progressive agenda because they are afraid they wont get reelected.

maybe Kucinich? Oh yeah, and thatloon ROn Paul (only agree with his views on marijuana legalization)

'The president jokingly said: "I don't know what this says about the online audience."'

The talking heads this morning were all just as flippant. And beyond that, the idea that the only people who care about the issue are potheads is, frankly, offensive. I don't smoke weed, haven't in many years, and I still care deeply about this issue. So does, according to the last poll I saw, 46% of the American population -- the same number of people who voted for John McCain.

We've got 46%, and we got that on the backs of comedians like Al Franken and Bill Maher and a thousand others (and god bless 'em all for it!), but it's time we got someone serious into this debate, someone capable of commanding respect and getting attention.

Source: Reuters

Legalize pot? Not a change Obama can believe in

Thu Mar 26, 4:48 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Legalizing marijuana is not the kind of change President Barack Obama can believe in -- -- at least not as a remedy for the ailing U.S. economy.

On Thursday, Obama tackled the issue head-on, only half-jokingly, at an online townhall meeting where he noted that the idea was a favorite among the 3.6 million people who voted on more than 100,000 questions submitted on the White House website.

"I have to say that there was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high, and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation," he said to laughter at the White House event.

"And I don't know what this says about the online audience," Obama said, tongue-in-cheek. "This was a fairly popular question. We want to make sure that it was answered."

"The answer is, no, I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy," he said before moving back to a more sober discussion of unemployment and healthcare reform.

more:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090326/pl_nm/us_obama_marijuana


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090326/pl_nm/us_obama_marijuana

Any of the leftist governments in South America spearheading legalization? Europe?

Apparently they are finding there's too much crime and other negative behaviors which come with the whole coffeehouse scene. I don't know where else its legal.

I don't know...I guess it's the vice aspect of vice I don't care for. Seems like whatever the vice it has long tentacles trying to suck in vulnerable people and drain the vitality. Alcohol does that for sure. Pot, crack, pornography...they all seem to have a way of getting between a person and their will for living fully.

if its legal???

and like most half-measures it's half-assed.

I wonder if the 'Amsterdam' scene is riddled with crime due to locals or if the problems are due to so many people (from around the world) making college spring break meccas to Amsterdam? Would the Netherlands have such a problem if it didn't have so many people flooding to the country for one reason...to smoke herb?

Certain cities in the US have very tolerant polices towards pot and it seems to not have adverse impacts. Actually the logic behind Denver and Seattle's polices are rooted in the concept "cops have bigger issues to address than arresting someone for less than one ounce". I think its hard to have something legal one place and illegal in others. Hence why so many Americans go to places like Amsterdam, Vancouver BC, Kingston. It is the same mentality as underage college kids with alcohol. Banning something only makes it more desirable. (the Luke Skywalker and the 2 Live Crew syndrome) The medical and political evidence of why this is illegal and should it be illegal is well documented. One can make their own choice.

The reality is pot does little compared to legal, prescription, and illegal substances that are used daily by the global masses often abused and misused. Yes pot can be abused. But it can also be part of a solution for a renewable auto fuel (see Dutch, Germany). It does fit into the discussion of medical uses. And recreationally it beats alot of other things.

And I can assure you, legal pot cigs with a tax like booze or tobacco would cut any U.S. debt in half withing 4 years.

Portugal's seen such great success at legalization, that they're being studied as a model by the EU community.

Netherlands just has it so that there are no penalties for small amounts.

I don't know if the President made his declaration that pot wouldn't be the path to economic recovery because it was the politically safe choice or if his was a more principled decision.

I do know that here in Pennsylvania, the state legislature has decided to try to balance the budget on the backs of those addicted to gambling. I find it appalling.

I am a liberal in many ways, but I have no time for the state making money from addicting and corrupting activities. I know there are lots of people who would be very angry if they read this, and might want to challenge the position. Nevertheless, it's how I feel and I'm sticking with it!

And whatever the states decide as law, as per the Constitution, let not Federal Law intervene.

'Nuff said.

(Although I am disappointed - yet again - to see Obama tow the Same 'Ol Same 'Ol Line. Meet the New Boss and all that...)

or do you think he has a principled opinion on it?

Especially in light of the our economic problems:

http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=88865

Many conservatives frequent this particular forum.

half on principle - too risky to even think about it.
half political - it was banned b/c of many reasons but most certainly b/c of competition it gives cotton, chemical based medicine, pulp industry, and petro chemical industry.

They are all in need of bailouts now, with legalization they all could be out of business (potentially). That is too much of a economic gamble.

IMO the bailout is not about revolutionizing anything, it is about saving the status quo. Legalization does create any entire economic shift as one plant becomes a major competitor to alcohol, tobacco, petroleum, cotton, pulp, timber, pharmaceuticals, etc. etc. It would shift economies (for the better I argue), but that is not what our President is doing....it seems to me he is propping up and 'fixing' what we currently are using.

Seems more like towing the line of well-established Big Industry to me.

Way to think "outside of the box", Mr President.

Change, indeed.

The support for legalization and aspects of hemp-based industries in this country is HUGE - unless you ask the DEA, Dow Chemical, the oil companies, and pharmaceutical industries, of course.

With legality, pot farmers would be as legitimate as cotton farmers, and there would be no more reason for them to be corrupt as any other capitalistic farming business. Addicting? Blah....you think people are going to mortgage their homes to buy a joint (like they do with gambling)? Even if possible, would it be in even comparable numbers? Any addictive mechanism of marijuana that you could argue exist could not even arguably be on the same level as gambling (which preys on compulsion and faults of the human mind). Hell, its as addictive as driving a nice car.

'I sucked a cock for crack.' - Half Baked. :)

Ever suck cock for a joint? Then you probably aren't addicted.

I've always considered having the state step into activities once considered the province of organized crime for revenue-generation to be unbelievably vile and hypocritical. In my state we have two supposed "native American" casinos bleeding the gambling junkies dry, plus the state lottery. I'm a realist, and old enough to remember numbers runners and neighborhood bookmakers, and honestly don't have a problem with mobsters providing services for the segment of society that has always wanted such things. But when the state runs cutesy little ads relentlessly on all commercial radio and TV stations for their rackets, and casinos play up their American Indian identity (which in my New England boutique state is about as legit as Chief Wahoo)in order to legitimize their scam, my f***ing stomach churns. The crowning touch of hypocrisy is these schmucks actually throw little blurbs at the end of their commercials offering 1-800 numbers for those who "may have a gambling problem" and asking their victims to "play responsibly". I'll take a straight-up wiseguy over a slimy, sanctimonious state "gaming official" any goddamn day of the week. F*** those people. Historically, when a government starts actively and overtly involving itself in vice the governed should be very watchful indeed.

I agree generally that poeple should never fear the government, but governments should always fear the people.

But you said:

"...Historically, when a government starts actively and overtly involving itself in vice the governed should be very watchful indeed."

You mean like when Prohibition ended illegal alcohol production and sales, which while it lasted, in large part gave organized crime the strong foothold it needed to really establish itself here in the good ol' USA? I'm kind of glad the government lifted the tyranny of the mob-controlled liquor industry. And I had family that profited from Prohibition too.

Great reasoning. How much are you paid to shill for those "straight-up wiseguys?" Just wondering about that 'cause that is what this sounds like from here. There is/was nothing noble or straight-up about your neighborhood wiseguys and they answer to no one but themselves and their two-bit bosses, including not answering to the poeple. I knew/know them too, and they are no Robin Hoods, contrary to some peoples' popular notions. Funny though, I think the Mormon Church now owns more of Vegas than your wiseguys.

Yikes, I worry about people swallowing the "everything guvmint is always evil," sh*t, ya know? Govmint is people too. Got a lot of buzz-words in that post Infidel, nothing like trying to appeal to the emotion of a discussion, eh? Instead of like, you know, the facts.

Got some kind of problem with tribes profiting from gambling as opposed to your "straight-up wiseguys?"

Just wondering.


robdogbucky

Calm down, Chirpy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
The fallacy of the Loaded Question

Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh my!

;-)

on edit:

What exactly are you getting defensive about, anyway, Jimminy?

A loaded question presupposes facts that are not agreeable to the responder. Wiki's example is "Are you still beating your wife?" Whatever the answer, the respondent is presupposed to have been a wife beater at some point.

In his question to SDF, Crickett did not presuppose any fact, he asked if the conclusions he was jumping to about SDF's views of pot/alcohol were correct. Under this structure, SDF can respond directly to the question without needing to admit to ever having held such views. Crickett's question allows for a clean yes or no answer.

If Crickett had phrased it "Do you STILL support pot prohibition and condone alcohol?", that would have been a loaded question. If SDF answers no, it is implied that he used to and has changed his mind, so the question must be answered indirectly, ie with more explanation than a mere yes or no.

with a question that CLEARLY presupposes lack of support for legalization on the part of the commentor, SlowDownFast is using a loaded question to express the sentiment "you're with us or against us," isn't that true?

So you support pot prohibition and condone the legality/regulation of alcohol? n/t is in fact worded as a statement, a conclusion, with a question mark at the end. SlowDownFast isn't asking at all, but accusing.

I was about to tell you to read your own link again, but then realized I had only read the first half and stopped when it seemed to confirm what I thought.

Wiki calls that the "implied form" of a loaded question. I had thought LQ referred solely to a question that required the responder to accept a negative assumption in order to answer directly. Still, this implied form seems more acceptable to me, as sometimes it is fine to accuse someone. Then again, it would seem better to just openly accuse, rather than hiding behind a question.

More importantly, I think you are right that there is no reason to accuse someone of supporting erroneous laws just because they note that the issue is causing an uproar.

Plus, I learned something from this :).

As so many times DU goes nutz for a while on one topic.

Take you faux outrage elsewhere, you people with values! :eyes:

So much for that.

it's all good
:sarcasm:

sheesh--single-payer healthcare would "raise taxes," so it's out, we have to "look forward" and not prosecute BushCo for war crimes and treason, the war in Afghanistan will "stay the course," and legalizing pot is "not a good strategy."

I don't think I can take all the "change." I only voted for him because he seemed better than McCain. He was never my first choice, but the choice of the PTB. "Tool in the making" was my assessment long before the elections.

I'm starting to realize Nader had a point.

Big time.

"The only difference between the Republicans and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floors when corporations knock on their door. That's the only difference."

So, while Gore supporters were right to complain that we got a maniac president because of Nader voters, Nader and his supporters are also right that Democrats like Obama and Gore do not pursue truly progressive policies, but rather merely moderate the feeding frenzy of our upper class. When you are scared to legalize weed or raise taxes for healthcare, and surround yourself with people who have made gobs of cash "privately," it's pretty clear you are not aiming to fundamentally change our social order.

The problem is I am not sure about Nader's motives either, which is why I have always voted Dem. So, overall, here in the American political landscape We The People seem rather fucked.

....but it's ridiculous to even entertain the idea of legalization?! :eyes:

The answer was no-- and it won't. He didn't say it shouldn't be legalized, keep this in mind.

We spend tens of billions each year on marijuana prohibition. Putting that money to productive use would obviously help the economy. :hi:

It troubles me when I see DUers write as if there were only a single way of looking at an issue. While I agree with the pro-pot = pro-economy argument, I don't agree that Obama's answer indicated pure ideological motivation.

This really isn't a matter of opinion. Not spending tens of billions of dollars a year on persecuting the users of a substance the scientific community has declared mostly harmless will reduce a massive drain on the US taxpayer and our economy.

There are not "two sides to every story". Sometimes, one side is right, and the other wrong. This is one of those times.

.....This really isn't a matter of opinion.

That all depends on what "this" you're talking about. If by "this" you mean that legalizing pot would help the economy, then I agree. If your "this" refers to your perceptions of Obama's ideological motivations, then I disagree. What you wrote about his motivations was very much your opinion.

.....Not spending tens of billions of dollars a year on persecuting the users of a substance the scientific community has declared mostly harmless will reduce a massive drain on the US taxpayer and our economy.

I agree :)

.....There are not "two sides to every story".

Though your use of quotes confuses me (because I never wrote those words), I would have to say that there are almost always multiple sides to every story.

.....Sometimes, one side is right, and the other wrong.

I'll up that ante. Sometimes two or three sides are right (or mostly right), and another two or three sides are wrong (or mostly wrong).

.....This is one of those times.

Again, that all depends on which "this" you are writing about - the economically green "this", or the ideologically motivated "this."

And unemployment goes to 10 plus percent. That helps the economy?

Remember when the Cold War ended, and they closed a bunch of bases? The immediate result was higher unemployment and recession. Remember that "Cold War Windfall" we were supposed to get? Now we eventually did get it, but we didn't notice because it wasn't liquid-cash.

Since law enforcement at all levels depend on asset forfeiture for much of their revenue, they are going to have to be supported more by taxes. And legalized marijuana is not going to supply that revenue. Why? It isn't like tobacco that needs some careful cultivation, I mean, literally everybody can grow it. You'll have yards overgrown with it. How are they going to tax that? Nobody is going to be paying a tax on it.

I think marijuana should be decriminalized at least (that is if you're caught with it you pay a "tax"), but as a matter of rights and liberty, and stopping the violence that we see. The economic or "common sense" arguments are mostly for the birds.

let it grow wildly outdoors and soon you've just got some rope-grade hemp. To grow good stuff, it's important that the female plants are not germinated or the product ends up full of seeds and lower quality. If marijuana were legal, the overwhelming majority of users would consume the commercial product. Who wants the expense and hassle of grow lights, timers, foil-lined rooms, and the SMELL, if they can just purchase the prepared product?


as for the 'drug task force' types with no reason for a job anymore, let 'em go patrol the border.

And most of the patrol is already for drugs. You're just going to be making work for them.

Believe me, if it's allowed to be freely cultivated, people will find a way around the problem you mention. There will be seed extractors invented and on the market pretty soon. And what makes you think they won't be willing to go with a lower grade product? I'm certain that there will be simple processes available in every home to concentrate it.

Also, the problem with this economy at this moment is not that we lack tax revenue. Now, that's down the pike a little more.

And most of the patrol is already for drugs. You're just going to be making work for them.

Believe me, if it's allowed to be freely cultivated, people will find a way around the problem you mention. There will be seed extractors invented and on the market pretty soon. And what makes you think they won't be willing to go with a lower grade product? I'm certain that there will be simple processes available in every home to concentrate it. And plus, people will be cultivating it in their own homes. They already are, and with legalization, people all over are going to have their own personal, cultivated plants. How are they going to tax that?

Also, the problem with this economy at this moment is not that we lack tax revenue. Now, that's down the pike a little more.

Not that many, even though it isn't all that hard to do. I don't currently use marijuana. I used to. If it were legal, I probably would at about the same frequency I consume alcohol, i.e. 1 or 2 times a month. I am certainly not going to invest in a grow room, and all the other inconveniences I discussed, if I can just grab a pack at 7-11.

Yes, there will be 'black market' operations going on - there's a HUGE cigarette black market in some states right now. And, there are still moonshiners too. Doesn't mean the legitimate alcohol and tobacco markets are futile endeavors and we should ban those substances, too.

As for the cop unemployment problem, my 'border patrol' comment was meant somewhat in jest. I honestly don't really care if the law enforcement machine is shrunken down a bit in this country. Getting rid of the 'drug war' is not going to spike nationwide unemployment like you suggested. Maybe not overnight, but gradually I'd like to return to something more like Sheriff Andy Taylor instead of a glut of SWAT storm troopers in every town.

Because it's considered bad (i.e. an easy target) and it's seen as a cash cow. Interestingly, it's not that the drug is made more expensive by being illegal, it's that the mob can undersell the legal market and still make a tidy profit. That's part of the danger in thinking that tax revenue from pot

It seems to me that pot is pretty easy to grow. If not, I'm certain there's going to be some "voluntary" fields of pretty good pot that people could harvest, (probably to protest the taxation). I mean, it's a weed. I think the main taxation is going to be when the cop stops you and tickets you for not paying taxes on your stash. And gives you a courtesy search on your car, to make sure you don't have any guns or heroin.

In the long, gradual run there will be returns from stopping the War on Drugs. Immediately it means a bunch law enforcement people looking for a way to look busy, which was what happened after Prohibition, and which led to "Reefer Madness" and the war on marijuana. Or they'll be out of work, and armed, and in contact with a lot of underworld people. I don't like that . . .

But I agree with you. I hope it gets shrunk. We can't afford a large population with that training.

Akin to asking "But what will the Guantanamo torturers do for a living when we ban torture???"

No offense, but it's mind-numbingly bad. :hi:

There's a whole industry built up around fighting drugs-- a huge one. Big enough to add a percentage or two to the unemployment rate. Worse, these are people who are trained in firearms, and who are bound to have contacts with the underworld. If the law enforcement industry shrinks, where do you think these people will shop their resumes? It will be a problem.

The Guantanamo and Abu Gharib torturers worry me too, because once you've done that, it has to pretty much warp you. But as bad as that might be, there aren't that many them.

BTW-- my original point was it will hurt, not help the economy initially. It's not a good plan to pull this economy out of its distress. Over the long haul, it will help, but we don't want to try as an economic stimulus, in this economy: it will fail.

We should do it because its the right thing. Those unemployed drug enforcement officers will just have to be retrained.

I'm sorry to say, there's something about the effects of marijuana that destroys common sense, especially for users regarding the drug. Users think their drug will solve everything. They talk about how wonderful it is and how it solves very problem on earth. To non-users this sounds . . . psychotic, and it's about time somebody tell you that, but I know you're not going to believe it, you're going to say I'm so wrong I must be ideologically motivated, or in some other way subverted. (Wrong: I believe it should be legal as a matter of liberty.) However, I've had discussion with other moderate-heavy users. They are absolute fanatics not just about what the drug does for them, but how it will solve every problem in the world.

I'll tell you: that's just the effect of the drug on your mind. It has no connection to reality, and I know I can't talk you out of that.

Including the studies that might disturb you. No, what I said is not faith-based. I gave you my experience in what I've seen as a non-user around users, but what I've written here is consistent with the science about the drug.

I think marijuana should be decriminalized or legalized, and I think it's also a useful drug, even so, marijuana users could really get under my skin with their praises about their drug. Different drugs work on you in different ways, and that's the way it works on them.

For example, everyone knows opiates have a very intense high, and they are very useful (look at their uses before they were controlled). But I never hear the users saying over and over that it's the most wonderful stuff in the world, it solves every problem, it should be legalized . . . the drug just doesn't work on them that way.

Cigarette users: nicotine gives a very intense pleasure-- but it's so deep in brain that it doesn't show consciously. They don't praise their drug en masse, but they'll do just about anything to continue to use it.

Marijuana-- it works on mind differently. It's the greatest gift to mankind.

"there's something about the effects of marijuana that destroys common sense,"

Indeed. Though the anandamide system that all animals have, is poorly understood, something is known - e.g. it concerns forgetting (c.f. notoriously weak short term memory while high :)), no woman would think of giving birth twice if there were no ways to forget the pain. So when cannabinoids join ananamide receptors, the effect is often childlike wonder of experiencing as in first time, without "common sense" interpretation-mecanisms destroying the freshness of experience. Cannabinoids don't add anything to "reality", they remove or weaken the "doors of perception" of reality, ie. what and how the collective dream of "common sense" dictates and limits to experience.

So as this sharing with plant opens realities that the "common sense" of a very very very sick society (behaving like cancer of Mother Earth) keeps closed and want's to keep closed, we can be certain that if pot was oblicatory civic duty, it wouldn't solve all the problems in the world, but it certainly wouldn't make things worse.

Casey, that is what I thought of when I read your post in response:

"...I'm sorry to say, there's something about the effects of marijuana that destroys common sense, especially for users regarding the drug. Users think their drug will solve everything. They talk about how wonderful it is and how it solves very problem on earth. To non-users this sounds . . . psychotic, and it's about time somebody tell you that, but I know you're not going to believe it, you're going to say I'm so wrong I must be ideologically motivated, or in some other way subverted. (Wrong: I believe it should be legal as a matter of liberty.) However, I've had discussion with other moderate-heavy users. They are absolute fanatics not just about what the drug does for them, but how it will solve every problem in the world.

I'll tell you: that's just the effect of the drug on your mind. It has no connection to reality, and I know I can't talk you out of that."


Casey, your alleged anecdotal experience with "users," belies your basic misperception. It is pure hyperbole and speculation, as most opinions not based on direct experience tend to be. I just don't choose to believe your claims that anyone in this day and age of accepted common use would ever claim that marijuana use would "solves very problem on earth," or whatever your words were meant to convey, and I have over fifty years of direct experience with users and the use to back up my belief, not some alleged anecdotal claim from some "absolute fanatics," that you claim to have interviewed. C'mon, don't you think your use of "psychotic," is just a tad over the line? If you had any real experience with that state of mind I doubt you would use it in relation to this discussion. I choose to believe your reactionary tinged rhetoric indicates another agenda rather than reality-based conclusions.

Have you ever "tried" marijuana? Just wondering because I have come across folks that have and had a panic reaction to it and did not know why, and hence reached a conclusion that the pot "made them crazy," or some such notion. You see the initial effect of the smoke is as a stimulant, increased heart rate, dry mouth, etc., all symptoms of the fight or flight adrenaline response in the body. Sometimes, folks misinterpret this initial effect as a negative one, choosing to believe that they have something to fear, hence they generate a panic reaction when it is only the initial physical effect of the pot. In the long term it is a mild depressant.

I have also come across folks that believe that smoking pot somehow made others do something onerous under its influence. Like rape or robbery. Don't you think such a person would do those things whether smoking pot or not? If you don't think pot makes a person much more passive and less disposed to such activity, I would recommend you collect more data on that point. All of this hogwash from non-users, with no real direct experience simply reflects their ignorance, either wilful or borne of pure fear and lack of initiative and it really, really, really pisses me off. I have known people unjustly serving many years in prison due to your way of thinking and I really resent it at this point.

I have seen people that were pre-disposed to psychological dysfunction react badly to marijuana, like, who knew? Really, if you are already dealing at a deficit, anything, like donuts, will create a metabolic imbalance and raise some kind of havoc within that person's system. Really, Casey, get a clue.


robdogbucky

It's very telling that the experiences that e.g. Japanese refer to by "kensho" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensho) and "satori" are officially defined by Western psychology as "psychosis".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

or this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis

Where did you read that Western Psychology refers to Kensho or Satori as psychoses? Maybe in Western psychology in the Victorian age.

The hallucinations or psychoses are described as a side effect of, and an impediment to, kensho. Makyo is the psychotic part, and the master has to keep you from being distracted by it to reach kensho. Read the article.

As in your previous post, marijuana might enhance creativity, but it's in no way is it like kensho or satori. You think you make great insights, but what's happening is that the THC is causing the release of brain messengers that tell your mind you've made a great discovery about yourself. You know? That thrill when you find or realize something is important? That feeling is the drug effect, and it's not attached to anything real.

I'm an atheist, so I'm skeptical that Kensho is the same sort thing, induced in a different way.

"Characterized by the presence of odd or unusual feelings, thoughts, or behaviors." http://ptsd.about.com/od/glossary/g/Positive.htm - this is what a quick google brought but first time I read about "positive psychosis" from the description of an anti-psychotic drug. Plus that it's become a sort of insider joke with some friends to call certain kinds of experiences "psychosis".

And no, I'm not talking about experiences while high nor calling them kensho or satori. Just what Western psychiatry considers "odd or unusual".

As an atheist, you have certain kinds of interpretations and beliefs and dogmas about what is "real" and what is not real (ie. "odd or unusual").

PS: More logical or philosophically sound position would be that all observation events are real as such, as they happen, instead of posing materialistic theory over reality and using it as the criterion to separate "real" from "unreal".

Psychosis is what happens when some aberrant process in the brain interferes with conscious sensory input, causing the conscious mind to perceive things that have no attachment to real world events. The aberrant processes could also interfere directly with the operation of the conscious mind itself, causing it to have thoughts that are detached from events in the real world and that corrupt subjective experience in random ways, or cause emotions that are not prompted by real world events or are prompted as though they are current from past events.

See?

My atheism is only based on my honest answers to a few questions:

Have I ever seen anything in my life in this world that signifies that there is a God-- (from a monotheistic standpoint?)-- No.

Do I think from any definition of God, any depiction of God, any recorded witnessing of God that there could be such an entity in the universe that I see? -- No.

Do I think people who said that they witnessed/experienced a being called God were sane, honest and in a position to see it that could be reconciled with this universe?-- No

Do I think that human beings could ever know if there is a God (in the monotheistic sense).-- No. Human beings are not equipped mentally to perceive God, not equipped that way to declare that they've perceived one, and have never been in a position to have perceived one.

Do I think there are any "gods," that is, super-beings who had a separate hand in making a part of the universe in concert with other such super-beings? -- No.

Do I think the existence such super-beings could be reconciled in the universe I see? -- No

Do I think that beings superior to human beings could exist in the universe I see.-- Yes, why not?

Finally, are there any supernatural processes in this universe? No, most previous supernatural things are now explained as natural processes (fire, lightning). Currently, others are illusions made by trickery, they are part within our consciousness but without any real world existence, or they are part of yet unknown natural processes.

Imposing materialistic theory: no, actually, I am a dualist. The physical world and the conscious "mental world" are separate, but the conscious world is built from the unconscious and modified by sensory input, to parallel and signify the physical world-- which is a small part of the universe. The conscious and unconscious minds, however, are also capable of creating other constructs or "worlds" as it does with dreams, or it art or story telling which have varying attachment to the physical world.

Only one construct: "conscious world" is meant for moment to moment survival in the physical world.

To my knowledge Western standard psychology has no labels or diagnosis (other than psychosis) for various "spiritual experiences" to use as broad term as possible.

You may be familiar with the term "supervenience" wich refers not to causal interpretation (either way) but just to the idea that there is reciprosity between "material" and "mental" movements.

Your position still seems to be, as stated, the very familiar reductionism to classical physics, that mental phenomena reduce to (are causally produced by) electro-chemical mechanics of classical phsysics. The underlying "metaphysic" being the idea of linear causality in one-directional (psychological!?) time. If this a strawman interpretation I apologise - while hoping to clarify various belief systems.

I call that very limited and limiting position "laymans physics", since the worlds of theoretical physics ("physical worlds") are much much wider and richer and deeper - especially at so called "fringes". Obviously quantum physics are not fringe but the very corner stone of physical world, yet somehow what is usually meant by physical world is mere classical mechanics - what you seem to refer to by the term "real". By "fringes" I mean the creative edge of theoretical physics, "out-of-box" thinking.

Life experience has convinced that "physical world(s)" aka nature is not limited to idea and mechanics of unilinear causality - which is rather a product of second law of thermodynamics, which in turn is not universal limit and does not apply for example in certain quantum phenomena. It's usefull to make a distinction between "psychological time" where arrow of time behaves entropically and "geometrical time" which is what theoretical physics (or mathematics) studies, where speed of arrow of time is dependent on gravity as stated by general relativity, and moves (at least) in two directions, "future" AND "past", as stated by quantum mechanics.

Life experience has also taught me that mental processes do not fully reduce to classical mechanics, mental processes have also causative effects over classical mechanics (one classical example is placebo drug causing causing *belief* in getting better causing increase in endorfin levels - cf. supervenience). As Buddha said when asked about causality: "if this arises, that arises; if this ceases, that ceases", ie. codependent causality.

IMHO what contribution theoretical physics can give to understanding of consciousness or mental processes, currently the most promising avenue is the various field of the quantum-mind -hypothesis. Sure, it leads to abandoning the unilinear causality (and of course, reductionism of mental phenomena to classical mechanics) as the cornerstone of physical world, but so what, good riddens... :)

I'm not limiting my basis to "layman's physics." For example, the arrow of time for the universe goes in both ways, but our consciousness only operates in one direction. That's seems to be its design limit. The past is only accessible to us through our memories, either mental or physical copies that we keep. These are basically poor replications though. The past does always exist, however. I mean we could look through telescopes and see "the past" for other worlds in space, but strangely, we can't see or find our own past, but if there are aliens, they can see ours. It's like in the age before mirrors: another person could see what you look like, and you could see what they look like, but neither can see what they themselves look like. What we lack right now is a mirror. I could go on with that conjectures here for a long time . . .

Now, another one of your points, the "physical world" is just a small subset of the universe, I will define it provincially and broadly as phenomenon that could act upon us, even just acting on our senses. (I have to do that because I'm running out of time!) Also, mental processes act as a "feedback" to the physical processes within the brain. That is, they have a local effect on the physical world inside the brain, which then undergoes a physical change (the release of endorphines) that then effect the mental processes of the subject . . . However, the new mental processes, or mental state, created cannot have any effect on the external physical world without prompting a physical action on the person. Hence, thoughts and emotions have no direct effect on the external physical world.

What I've given here is an extremely over-simplified version of my thoughts. If it seems "limiting", maybe that's because language itself is linear, with one arrow . . .

or scientific world view is consistence, I've found the most consistent approach with widest explanatory power to the so called mind-body problem to be that mental processes and classical mechanics (or physical as you say) processes are codependent aspects of underlying monistic processes - which go back to (wierd and then some) math if we take the platonist position which also is consistent and hard to avoid. Aspectual dualism building on or emerging from platonistic monism.

I take that by 'universe' you mean something similar to what I'd prefer to call phenomenal world, that phenomena or 'observation events' occur, which our minds then interprete through our conditioned interpretative lenses and sieves of world views - denial or exclusion from consciouss observation being one interpretation sieve among others.

Another approach to the time-problem is hologrammic dynamism, where quantum jumps with arrows (or cones) of time pointing to past and present - 'moments' - are and can be of many size, from or below planck scale to moments of human size consciousness and up to universe size, smaller moments inside bigger moments like Russian dolls. Technically this means that Planck's constant is a variable that takes various values, other values besides the one that is measurable to measurers like us are what is called 'dark matter' of other space-times beside ours. In multidimensional embedding space, of course... :)

So, in a dynamic hologram (of a universe size quantum computer that some may call God if they so wish :)) quantum jumps (or moments of being) of various sizes occurring and interacting literally rewrite both past and present each moment... which on on our level and from our perspective gives whole new meaning to responsibility.

Claimed to have interviewed? I've used the drug. I hung around one of the major dealers on my side of town, and our friendship became somewhat strained whenever I skeptical with the frequent notion within that marijuana and hemp could be used to: get high, to kill pain, to slow down AIDS, to use for fuel, use for clothes, to help the economy, raise tax revenue, to raise productivity, prevent conflict . . . and really, it just went on. I was exaggerating in saying that they believed marijuana would solve all the world's problems, but they did frequently bring up the problems it would solve, sometimes with very odd theories.

Yes, I've used pot-- I enjoyed it. No, I don't use it anymore, but I never will say never.

Paranoia from use of marijuana is pretty well known. Now former frequent users, including my ex-girl friend, have told me that they became paranoid. In fact, from what I've been able to gather, paranoia and anxiety tend to get worse the longer you use the drug, but they gets worse at different rates with different people, who don't usually associate it with the use of the drug because it happens at random times, and not necessarily when they're using at that moment. Remember though, that THC stays resident in the body for 6 weeks. You don't have to be using right then to have side effects.

There is one thing I could say about the use of pot and violence: it adds several volatile ingredients to dangerous situations. One would be confusion. "Dave's not here man!" Imagine a jealous argument when the two people can't tell exactly what the other one is saying or means. And unlike alcohol, the two guys aren't in any way physically impaired. It also adds paranoia, anxiety, and bad judgment. (Now, all of this is true for most drugs, but also for marijuana).

Now, suppose one of them is armed. A love triangle, especially when there's also drug money involved, can quickly become a homicide from simple mis-perception, distrust and bad judgment. No, the pot doesn't start problem, but it makes it worse. I got into a very bad situation when a guy couldn't tell what I was saying. Instead, he banged somebody else's head against the wall. Now he was a violent SOB, but being paranoid, confused and not understanding anybody made him worse, not better.

So, from what I've seen, experienced, read about, with some experience is criminal justice is: marijuana will make any heated argument about love or money, two things that people get passionate about, and will increase the chance of tragedy. Again that's true of many recreational drugs.

No, I don't think marijuana should remain illegal. I just think people should stay mellow and not get into any heavy discussions while high-- on anything.

About marijuana causing psychosis: psychosis could be pretty subtle. A man or woman might have their perception altered on specific subjects.


Now, about marijuana and psychosis and paranoia:

http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Marijuana-can-Trigger-Psychotic-Symptoms--New-Study-Finds-20397-1/

http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-1/Daily-consumption-of-cannabis-predisposes-to-the-appearance-of-psychosis-and-schizophrenia-7696-1/

Actually, my drug of choice, or the one I'm most curious about, would be this:

http://www.sagewisdom.org/usersguide.html

I'm stunned, really.

in the drug war? Of course it would require legalizing more than pot though...cocaine is the drug that is most transported across the lines..

How's that for change you can believe in? Yes we can!!! woo fucking hoo.