TheMadWriter

Reasons you're wrong:

1 Psychological Dependance - Marijuana has EXTREME psychological dependance. In otherwise, you get hooked on it. It's just like cigerettes and drinking, except that a lot of people who sit around smoking weed end up being failures and bums who don't have jobs.

2: Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right - We teach kids drinking is wrong, because morally it is. People get shitfaced and make themselves look like idiots, cigerette smokers get addicted and commence gradual suicide. If marijuana is worse than the average cigerette, what makes you think we should tax it? Do we tax prostitution and murder? Do we tax drugs that kill people even if it's for someone to get by? Do we tax illegal weapon possession even though that's how criminals get away with killing people nowadays? Wake the fuck up, what about your kids?

3: Gateway Drug - So we get marijuana, we become used to marijuana and the effects cease that whimsical little effect they have. Then what do we do, what does our youth do? We shoot for our high back, so we go to the next drug and the next drug like a domino effect because the aforementioned psychological dependance plagues us into continuing to use drugs no matter how dangerous they are. Besides, that's the whole reason you like this shit. 'It feels good'

4: Health problems - Taken from Brown's website, learn from it.

5: The arguement is dumb and people who bring this shit up don't deserve to be taken serious due to more pressing and important issues in the world right now - nuff said.

₪RapSody₪

^^ way to use a bunch of myths perpetuated by the government to make your case that isn't backed up by any evidence at all that wasn't released by the government.

EVERY academic study in HISTORY has recommended AT LEAST decriminalization of marijuana.

you could die from taking aspirin, does that mean it should be illegal? any drug used irresponsibly can be dangerous.. the question is who should regulate that danger? putting people in prison for smoking marijuana is counterproductive and accomplishes nothing but spending a bunch of money, ruining people's lives, and taking people who aren't violent and making them into violent criminals through the prison system.

__________________
we're prepared to shed blood and die as martyrs for the roundtable

TheMadWriter

That was an excerpt from Brown's website on Marijuana. If you have the audacity to question one of the top schools in the country's report, then take it up with them. I'm sure they have the resoruces availible to substantiate their claims. Taking asprin is only wrong if someone abuses it, and asprin is useful for relieving pain. Marijuana is once again riddled with countless chemicals and prone to killing the person stupid enough to smoke it. Besides that, maybe I don't want somebody's kid selling it to my kid. I don't want a pothead for a son/daughter.

₪RapSody₪

There is no evidence to support that assertion (it is prone to killing people). Every major study of drug policy agreed that, even if the worst of what you say was true, decriminalization would still be a better solution than jailing people.

No one is denying the fact that there are health risks with any drug. Health risks are a distraction issue. However, there is no evidence to suggest marijuana is any more dangerous than drugs like alcohol, nicotine, or even aspirin.

The real issue is prison. The issue is how many millions of people will have to go to prison before this policy is successful.

As far as children having marijuana, I agree they shouldn't have access to it. That's why I am looking for a better solution -- because what we are doing now is obviously not working. In fact, the current policy is one of the main reasons that drug users find it profitable to get kids involved in drugs and distribute drugs free on school campuses. I believe that we can find a better approach which would stop this.

__________________
we're prepared to shed blood and die as martyrs for the roundtable

TheMadWriter

Jailing people for drugs makes drugs profitable? No. This policy is a reason people stay away from possession. It's also something that discourages people from smoking, which needs to be done. I'm all for making alcohol and smoking illegal too.

Point is if you make this shit legal the crime rate will rise as well. Imagine if everyone wanted to be a drug dealer. What do you do then? Weed em out. People would get shot trying to take away business, stores might even get robbed. Hell, drug dealers would probably move to things worse.

Also they can say what they want about cancinogens, but I believe marijuana has many more chemicals than cigerettes do. Studies support this. You advocate evidence yet you blatantly deny my claims and pass them off as 'government lies'. The truth of the matter is, the dangers of drugs aren't a LIE. We don't need more cases of lung cancer.

If people go to prison the solution is not to decriminalize something. Millions are murdered, raped, and beaten almost daily. You don't decriminalize, you tighten policies so they don't do it.

₪RapSody₪

Every major study of drug policy agreed that there is no evidence to support the belief that crime would increase and, even if drug use did increase, decriminalization would still be a better approach. In Europe, several countries have decriminalized drugs and actually seen a significant drop in drug use. There would be no drug dealers if it was legal because you could buy it in licensed establishments better and cheaper. There would be no need for a black market.

It costs about half a million dollars to put a single drug user in prison, which includes $150,000 for arrest and prosecution, about $150,000 for a new prison cell, and about $30,000 per year times at least five years. For the same cost we can provide treatment or education for more than one hundred people. Which do you think is the better deal?

You say I have no evidence but I have a list of every major study of drug policy in the last fifty years. Every one of them recommended decriminalization. Do you agree that the overwhelming weight of the scholarly evidence on drug policy supports decriminalization?

__________________
we're prepared to shed blood and die as martyrs for the roundtable

one8seven

I'm glad policies are made by politicians and not everyday people.

__________________
We will always be better than you.

"It's funny. Don't ever tell anybody anything. If you do, You start missing everybody." - Holden Caulfied, The Catcher In The Rye

₪RapSody₪

your comment implies the fact that politicians are somehow above "normal everyday people".. which is kind of scary.

__________________
we're prepared to shed blood and die as martyrs for the roundtable

TheMadWriter

And here comes to common sense factor to slaughter your overcomplicated studies. First of all, stores don't sell shit better and cheaper. Look at cigerettes, they rise and are practically HORRIBLE investments for smokers in the economy. Do you think they'd sell weed for CHEAP and easier access? No it'd be expensive, which is where the much CHEAPER black market comes in. Also more store robberies would occur.

More people would try to grow and sell it, these are where murders would come in to 'keep niggas in check'. Also, I don't care what you say; common sense tells you that decriminalizing drugs does NOT CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT DROP IN DRUG USE. Use common sense. You should've learned this shit in school, but what do police say is the most dangerous drug? Alcohol because it's THE MOST ACCESSIBLE. Any officer will tell you that. Aside from that, this country would be a moral WRECK if we decriminalized that shit. Could you imagine your local officer responsible for your safety propping a foot up on a chair with a camera close up saying 'hello kids, we all like the roll ourselves a good joint here and there. But please, don't smoke and drive *puff puff*' Then what? 'That's good shit Officer, kids, if you smoke be prepared to blow. In prison.'

Also, apparently you've never visited prison. I assure you, they don't give a fuck about how prisoners live and they damn sure don't take the time out to make your a nice little jail cell everytime. It's not like they build each criminal a different jail cell, that'd be stupid and economically inept. They throw you in one of those shits with a big ass prisoner who ass rapes you.

If these scholars are so smart, why can't they use common sense? If these scholars are so smart, why havn't they presented an appealing case? If these scholars know so much, why havn't they compiled this 'overwhelming evidence' and managed a halfway decent case to decriminalize the drug? Why havn't these potheads made a breakthrough? I'll tell you why...








































Because in reality they're fucking stupid.

₪RapSody₪

Is the scholarly evidence not important in science, medicine, and every other field of law? Or is it not important only when it comes to drug policy?

If you want to put everyone caught with marijuana in prison, the money is going to have to come from somewhere. How many millions of people do you think we ought to put prison for drug possession to have the best results?

__________________
we're prepared to shed blood and die as martyrs for the roundtable

TheMadWriter

When the predicament worsens we'll either strengthen criminalization by harsher penalties or we'll look after decriminalization, that's all you can count on. Either way this scholarly evidence is suggesting some stupid shit. They must've been smoking pot when they said decriminalizing it would bring drug use down, that shit's just stupid. I suggest getting scholars who know what the fuck they're talking about.

one8seven

I just believe that they are the individuals who are fit to make decisions for the good of a nation, ignoring minorities (they are voted in, are they not?) whom think otherwise of them.

__________________
We will always be better than you.

"It's funny. Don't ever tell anybody anything. If you do, You start missing everybody." - Holden Caulfied, The Catcher In The Rye

₪RapSody₪

You support a campaign which is based on the belief that we can put enough people in prison to effectively control the drug problem. The question is simple: How many prisoners is the current plan going to take?

Since you don't believe the scholarly evidence is important, the least you could do is answer the question instead of just asking the taxpayers to write a blank check for arrest & prosecution of drug users.

__________________
we're prepared to shed blood and die as martyrs for the roundtable

₪RapSody₪

Yeah.. because we all know how un-corruptable and trustworthy politicians have proven to be (that was sarcasm if you didn't catch it)

__________________
we're prepared to shed blood and die as martyrs for the roundtable

TheMadWriter

This is true, look at past drug epidemics. When people were on heroin were we decriminalizing needles? No, we were putting people in prison. You don't SUBMIT to things like drugs, you triumph. As for how many prisoners it's going to take, I don't know. But I do know that people will learn the same way they did last time.

You speak highly of 'scholarly evidence' yet you speak of politicians LOWLY from blatant facts. Now here comes the analogy. A poltician's qualified and their campaign is to represent that to convince people to trust them. Scholars are qualified as well but some have been known to retract their facts, remember that in the scientific process an experiment CAN be done incorrectly. Scholars HAVE been wrong before about predictions based off 'facts' and probably have had to republish a reformed version of their studies. You could infer that a politician's potential to lie is to a scholar's potential to be incorrect. So, with that said you can toss away this hyperbole of how these people are so qualified. Here are places scholars have been wrong:

Also, for a more relevant example of flaws in medical reporting his an article:

With that you can toss away your undying trust to these reports, they can always be wrong. As far as the blank check thing, the matter of the fact is it's wrong. Taxpayers have kids and don't want their kids around that shit, it's immoral, disgusting and unhealthy. Leads to an unhealthy lifestyle sometimes. Best thing to do is to teach people the same way we did last time.

₪RapSody₪

OK, so show me any comparable list of studies that you have in support of the drug war. If the evidence that they have analyzed is fallible, there should be conflicting evidence on the other side of the debate. Saying that there are scholars who have been wrong before proves nothing except you are trying to change the subject.


You say you don't know how many prisoners it's going to take for your plan to work and that is precisely the problem. No one, including you, has ever sat down to figure it out. If you did, you would find out soon enough that it is just plain impossible to solve the problem this way.

__________________
we're prepared to shed blood and die as martyrs for the roundtable

TheMadWriter

Does that mean they can't crack down on punishments? No, it doesn't. Smoking marijuana is portrayed as something conventional, you harden the penalties and maybe you can erase that group mentality. You're also distorting the reasoning behind me mentioning the inaccuracies of scholars. You're heavily depending on this evidence yet you don't seem to acknowledge that there is the slightest possibility of these scholars being wrong. I'm not saying it'd be a quick or easy solution, nor am I saying it's a cheap one. It's an issue we need to tackle when we don't have other things on our plate like the economy in the war. We diverted our full attention to previous drug wars and those epidemics died down, if we could channel that energy into killing marijuana and not making it accessible to our kids then maybe we can make a difference. However it's not a relevant issue in comparison to what's going on right now, and there are better ways to free up tax dollars i'm sure.

₪RapSody₪

It's going to cost even more to jail people with harsher punishments, yet you can't even give a number of prisoners that would work for the current system. The reason you can't give a number is because there is no number that is going to work.

There are about 25,000 homicides in the United States each year, and there are about thirty million people who use illegal drugs.

If we had thirty million murderers or robbers, we would have to find another way to deal with the problem, simply because the criminal justice system could not handle the load. This is the case with the drug problem. It doesn't matter whether we want to put all the drug users or dealers in prison, it simply is not possible to do it by any stretch of the imagination.

How many millions of people should we put in prison to send just the right message?

Is this really the best way you can think of to send a message to children? If you can't do any better than that, perhaps we should be spending our money on some simple courses in basic communication or child-rearing.

__________________
we're prepared to shed blood and die as martyrs for the roundtable

TheMadWriter

Once again, you don't seem to comprehend the points of what i'm saying very well. Your interpretation is exactly that, yours. You're not looking beyond the benefit of just sending the right message. We keep drug dealers away because we don't want our kids being sucked into that unhealthy lifestyle. Also it doesn't have to systematically be every last drug dealer, if you can't solve the problem that way go to the source. Where are they getting the drugs? Bust that shit instead. Start taking out the source but keep concentration on the people. Put out more advertisements, and if needed more anti-drug propaganda.

That's how you've gotta play the game, keep people away from what will hurt them (regardless of what these incomprehensibly ACCURATE completely efficent never ever wrong or prone to making mistake scholars). Send the PEOPLE a message, not just the kids.

₪RapSody₪

I think you're getting me confused with yourself. You have virtually ignored every point I've made and changed the subject.

The evidence doesn't matter to you, the inability for your method to work in the real world doesn't matter to you, all that matters to you is that marijuana stays illegal. In reality, more and more states are moving toward decriminalization because they realize that the current system is beyond repair. No states are currently cracking down on marijuana possession, even if they wanted to they don't have the money.

So if we don't have to put away every drug dealer, what is a good number of prisoners for your method to work? You don't have one so it's hard to take your method seriously because it's been tried before and failed.

At the present time, the DEA, by its own figures, seizes perhaps five or ten percent of all the drugs in this country. It should also be noted that their impact on the market is so low that even a 20-ton cocaine bust in the Los Angeles area did not change the price of cocaine on the street.

It is clear from the DEA's own statements that they have no significant impact on the availability of drugs. That is shown most clearly by the Federal Government's own surveys on drug use which show that teens find it easier to get the illegal drugs than the legal ones.

__________________
we're prepared to shed blood and die as martyrs for the roundtable

TheMadWriter

Once again you're ignoring what I say and accusing me (blindly) of avoiding the subject. I acknowledge that this isn't going the way it should be, and there are two alternatives. Crack down or in your case, loosen up and criminalize it. We shouldn't loosen up on criminals. I can make an estimation of people but numbers and estimations don't help. It's results that count, and if we have to spend money we should take that risk.

As I said and as you blindly ignored amidst your rant of countless paragraphs saying the same thing over again, this issue is a complete joke. In comparison to the war, North Korea (which deserves to be mentioned) and the economy marijuana and prisoners don't seem to be calling for help. I have yet to see articles all over the place about marijuana, only potheads on a forum.

This is merely an excuse for free ganja, right? Who cares about the number of prisoners? You act like we're building new cells for each and every prisoner. That's inaccurate and I suggest you look up how the whole sending people to prison thing works. You don't blindly reach out and take every small time drug dealer off the street, as you said that's failed plus for someone so in tune to America's economic needs that just sounds outright stupid. Go to the source. When the time is right and we can focus on ourselves (which America can never seem to do) we can fund this project like we funded the end to other epidemics.

You're telling me the FBI can use countersurveillance on a 'black messiah' and attempt to kill off a civil rights movement with overdone technology and blatantly unnecessary tactics yet we can't deploy helicopters and use that countersurveillance to find a big ass farm growing marijuana? Come on. <---That is very relevant, apparently you fail to connect things.

You yourself said they only seize 5 to 10%, well take new measures. Tighten up on drug operations, have the government fund that more than it's wasting money on taking out roads and rebuilding them (which is what's happening here and South Carolina). Look at the war, look at how much that takes. We didn't find weapons of mass destruction yet a majority of our funding is going to that. The oil, look at Canada/Alaska reserves. The relevance (since you need me to state this everytime due to your inability to figure out for yourself) is that we have so many ways to save money but why abort more important things for people who CHOOSE to break the law for some pointless addiction they bring on themselves?

Put them in prison or they'll never learn. Nobody forces them to smoke it, they make that decision. Keep these potheads AWAY.

₪RapSody₪

It's pretty amusing that you accuse me of ignoring what you say, when I have proposed several simple questions to you and you have yet to answer one of them while I have responded to the majority of what you said directly and succinctly with evidence ready to back it up, though it's hard to address every single point in your rambling responses (you accuse me of having countless paragraphs, but go back and check who has written more). An estimation is better than no answer at all.

You acknowledge it's impossible to jail all drug dealers, yet you somehow still believe that "cracking down" is going to solve the problem? That's a leap of faith of epic proportions. If the DEA could seize more of the drugs coming into the country, they would have done so already. They certainly have the funds and capabilities to do so already.

If this approach was going to work, it would have worked already. You are advocating spending even more money on a failed policy. I believe that to be a bad idea.

__________________
we're prepared to shed blood and die as martyrs for the roundtable

Mr Dillinger

1. Wow are you serious...you really think more people become bums from Weed than from Alcohol

2. Ok but all smoking weed is a victimless crime...where as the rest you mentioned weren't...(I guess maybe besides Prostitution...)

3. I hate that "Gateway Drug" bullshit...people don't suddenly decide right after smoking a joint..."oh I like this I think I wanna go do some coke now..." they already had intentions of trying other drugs...case and point...me...I tried the good ol' Mary Jane but I have never touched another drug since (besides I guess alcohol) all cuz I don't intend too...

4. How are they gonna tell me I can't do something cuz it might harm me...???

5. We don't deserve to be taken serious because we have a different opinion than you??? And who the fuck are you to tell me whether something is important or not???

__________________


All it takes is one bad day to drive an average, modest man irretrievably insane.

TheMadWriter

Recognize that you're getting what you put out, i'm addressing your responses word for word. This 'evidence' you rely on has a possibility of being wrong and i've posted up the potential inaccuracies of medical reporting to stop you from heavily relying on some cheesy medical report you probably barely understand yourself. We don't need to sit around with our calculators figuring out numbers, we need to do this and get it over with.

Cracking down would solve the problem. The drug laws we have aren't really that severe and a lot of people get away with shit like marijuana. You act like they actually get jailed, which is rare. You crack down and people will be forced to acknowledge that this is dangerous, in more ways than one. Also, I don't know where you think we have the funds to conduct a real crusade against drugs but go rethink that because everyone is struggling, not just the people.

We simply havn't taken this serious because it doesn't need to be, we have far more important things on our plate than potheads. People are put away for other things that are disagreed with too, there's a lot that has to be changed about the system. I advocate we spend money on it because if it really calls for attention we need to devote ourselves to it, but right now it doesn't. I believe even acknowledging this is a joke, so don't get it twisted.

Dillinger, for one the same is for alcohol. I never said anything about alcohol nor did I give my opinion on it. Two, our kids are often sucked into to smoking weed by their friends and other loser potheads who want to bring people down to their level. Three, it'd be a gradual process. Some people would lose the high and would decide that weed isn't doing it for them anymore, we all know some people ruin things and those people would be the ones shooting up because marijuana lost it's effect. Four, the same way this guy i'm arguing with compulsively dickrides what the most likely pot smoking scholars say---they're qualified. As for five, i'm someone going through the same shit you are with the government and the hardships of life in America. You don't deserve to be taken serious because joints aren't important, throw these potheads to the wolves or something. We have better things to worry about.

₪RapSody₪

At least I actually have evidence, unlike you who just rely upon your own outdated thinking. "We don't need to sit around with our calculators?" Good argument there, why sit around reviewing the facts when we can just do what you want!

Some cheesy medical report I barely understand myself? I think you're confused. These are studies done by researchers from all different fields and all different countries and are written in plain language. Some were even conducted by the U.S. Military. Some were conducted by professors, some by doctors, some by government committees. All of them recommended decriminalization. Where is the huge mountain of evidence to support your case?

__________________
we're prepared to shed blood and die as martyrs for the roundtable