Marijuana Laws Are Discriminatory

[Dave M]

Interesting topic. As with most topics of this nature we/you/y'all can put forth all the opinions and heartfelt stories and even a few facts sprinkled in here and there but you WILL NOT sway either side from their opinions. But just for grins lets throw out a couple of facts here.

No matter what you say and/or who you say it too Marijuana has NO addictive qualities. Is this clear? It is not addictive! Now, this is a fact it does not change regardless of what position you take.

A gateway drug? I guess so in the same sense that you do have to deal with the same scum bags that sell other drugs. Off hand I can think of several people that have publicly admitted to smoking pot, Clinton, Bush and Obama. Hmm.. they must have missed the "gateway" to..

So when you discuss a plant type that has less harmful properties than alcohol and cigarettes and you try as you may to make it into something that is certainly not you're not actually dealing with reality, or the facts.

When you take the facts and apply them to reality the unbiased person can see the obvious irony in the fact that a bunch of DRUNKARD fat greedy alcoholic politicians have no right to tell anyone they shouldn't smoke pot in their home. But you will have to deal with FACTS to see this. This is one of the most hypocritical things I've ever seen.

One more fact, while I'm up, I have never in 4 years as an EMT and EMS driver extracted a body, alive or dead, from a car/truck that smelled like pot. On the other hand I have repeatedly retrieved people and parts of people from vehicles that smelled like alcohol.

In Texas, yeah I said it, the sheriffs association as well as countless other Police associations recently supported the decriminalization of marijuana. (Basically they can now right you a ticket for under one ounce, officers discretion) Cops think "it's a waste of time to be running people to jail for smoking pot when their time could be better spent fighting real crime issues." (Not my words, facts!)

Opps, one more fact. I was born and raised in TX in the 1960-80s. I went to an inner city High School with forced busing ie; 60% black students brought across town to go to school, police in the halls and on the school busses. I saw people pee in lockers and saw a kid thrown out of an upstairs window. Most everybody was smoking pot, at the least. Where are they now? Ok three of them died on Motorcycles. One of them is a CEO of his own computer co. another runs a fortune 500 company. Two guys are running their family companies. I know a couple of guys went to jail and one of them is doing pretty good today if you consider owning thirty plus furniture stores good. Add to that several lawyers and doctors and a state Representative. Oh yeah did I mention that 13 people that I went to school with in High School have died in DWI related accidents, that number goes up if you count college friends.

I dont drink or smoke anything.. that's a fact that results in wht's called an an un-biased opinion. If they really wanted to stop DWIs they wouldn't let Bars have parking lots..

Just the facts.. don't let em screw up your discussion folks..








Blessings,
dave

"It doesn't mean that much to me.. to mean that much to you." Neil Young

[Jon]

Dave M...
you very first statement needs to be revised at unless you are going talk down to the masses...

Any substance that alters mood or state of mind can be an addicting substance. It may not be "physically" addicting, but it can be very psychologically addicting.

Addicting being a word that has change its meaning over time. if you want to use the school book term "Addicting" which meant Physical Addiction, then you might be right. Then I would have to say it can create a state of "psychological dependence" in many people.

Again I will write and tell the family of 2 of my classmates that died in a car wreck while stoned out of there minds on cocaine that they must have been drunk and its all ok... oh, but everyone new that all they ever used was dope....





-----------------------------------------------------------
I do not believe that America is better than everybody else...
America "IS" everybody else.

[David M]

Just pondering...

If MJ should be decriminalized, then it's possible I could have visitors wanting to partake. We do maintain a strict "NO SMOKING" policy enforced on our property. So I guess, what other ways, besides smoking, could be enjoyed?

David

Ninole Resident

[oink]

Marijuana has proven to be very psychologically addictive. Plenty of "Facts" can be found, based on research, showing pots harmful addictive qualities.

As far as gateway, who knows for sure. It certainly puts a person on a path of using mind altering substances.

Sure some people can use it and not become addicted, but many do become addicted.

I'm sure marijuana isn't as detectable at a crash scene as alcohol is. It wouldn't be noticible unless it was just smoked in a closed car. Alcohol would be evident even if consumed elsewhere. It is likely that in many cases both alcohol and marijuana were consumed. You would only smell the alcohol although both would be contributing factors. I recal from my youth that one plus one can equal three, or four, or five, when both drugs are mixed.

You find some law enforcement organizations advocating decriminalization mainly out of defeat, not a belief that it is harmful.

Alcohol probably is more harmful than pot but alcohol is so ingrained into our culture that it would be impossible to eliminate it, we tried. Pot is not so ingrained. To make the argument that pot should be legalized because alcohol is worse is a poor argument. The question should be, do we need another legal substance that has such a propensity for abuse.

But as I said before. I'm for legalizing it, but as an admission of defeat.

Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.

[Dave M]

Jon, facts are hard to deal with.

Again I will write and tell the family of 2 of my classmates that died in a car wreck while stoned out of there minds on cocaine that they must have been drunk and its all ok... oh, but everyone new that all they ever used was dope....

Like the fact that you are trying to turn this into a discussion about cocaine, which is highly addictive. Please try to stay focused on facts as opposed to red hearings.

you very first statement needs to be revised at unless you are going talk down to the masses...

I'm not revising nothin nor am I speaking down to anyone! Fact are just that facts. That means that I didn't make them up they are what they are. I'm sorry if they(facts) don't fit in your opinion

Any substance that alters mood or state of mind can be an addicting substance. It may not be "physically" addicting, but it can be very psychologically addicting.

Correct.. but then again chocolate isn't illegal is it? Your counter point is not. The Fact that people can legally drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes, both of which have been pr oven more addictive and more detrimental to your health than marijuana, is a real hard and hypocritical fact to swallow.

I can appreciate a law if it is based in merit and applied evenly across the board but to pick and choose where, who and what you apply to is negligent as well as hypocritical.

Jon, my mother owns and operates a Drug and Alcohol addiction center for 16 years. I have put forth facts and no matter what you say and/or how you say it you can't change the facts.





Blessings,
dave

"It doesn't mean that much to me.. to mean that much to you." Neil Young

[Dave M]

quote:

---

Originally posted by oink

Marijuana has proven to be very psychologically addictive. True but then again so is chocolate, beer, wisky etc.. why arn't they illegal? That's the gist of my complaint.

As far as gateway, who knows for sure. It certainly puts a person on a path of using mind altering substances. But not alchohol right? Nobody evry got drunk and did something stupid?

Sure some people can use it and not become addicted, but some do become addicted.

Yep just like alcohol and cigaretts.. Your point?

I'm sure marijuana isn't as detectable at a crash scene as alcohol is. It wouldn't be noticible unless it was just smoked in a closed car. Alcohol would be evident even if consumed elsewhere. It is likely that in many cases both alcohol and marijuana were consumed. You would only smell the alcohol although both would be contributing factors. I recal from my youth that one plus one can equal three, or four, or five, when both drugs are mixed.

I'll pass your opinion on to the Texas State Trooper that searches the cars at the scene. Pot breath may not be as detectable, to you, but try telling that to the troopers. Or try giving a 16year old CPR for 50 miles Over and over and over again whether the kid wass drinking or the guy that hit him was it doesn't matter the facts are that alcohol causes many many more crashes that pot. You can spin it twist it how ever but remember facts are facts and blood test reveal all.

You find some law enforcement organizations advocating decriminalization mainly out of defeat, not a belief that it is harmful.

Police do what they do because it gets results. Our jails are filled with harmless potheads thus you see the Rocket Docket. Busting pot heads does nothing to help prevent crime.

Alcohol probably is more harmful than pot but alcohol is so ingrained into our culture that it would be impossible to eliminate it, we tried. Pot is not so ingrained. To make the argument that pot should be legalized because alcohol is worse is a poor argument. The question should be, do we need another legal substance that has such a propensity for abuse.

Constitutionally this last statement is very disturbing. "Poor argument"? if so then why do we even have a constitution?

But as I said before. I'm for legalizing it, but as an admission of defeat.

---

Blessings,
dave

"It doesn't mean that much to me.. to mean that much to you." Neil Young

[oink]

Ok, I'll bite. What does this statement have to do with the constitution?

quote:

---

Alcohol probably is more harmful than pot but alcohol is so ingrained into our culture that it would be impossible to eliminate it, we tried. Pot is not so ingrained. To make the argument that pot should be legalized because alcohol is worse is a poor argument. The question should be, do we need another legal substance that has such a propensity for abuse.

Constitutionally this last statement is very disturbing. "Poor argument"? if so then why do we even have a constitution?

---

quote:

---

I'll pass your opinion on to the Texas State Trooper that searches the cars at the scene. Pot breath may not be as detectable, to you, but try telling that to the troopers. Or try giving a 16year old CPR for 50 miles Over and over and over again whether the kid wass drinking or the guy that hit him was it doesn't matter the facts are that alcohol causes many many more crashes that pot. You can spin it twist it how ever but remember facts are facts and blood test reveal all.

---

I do speak from experience. I would be happy to share my knowledge with any Troopers that are interested. The pot odors are mild enough that they are overwhelmed by the stronger crash odors, of which their are many. Blood tests from crash scenes don't test for everything, only those substances requested. If alcohol is detected or suspected then that will be the test. If there is no alcohol evidence but pot is found, then the blood will be tested for pot. Blood tests do not reveal all, only what is requested that it be tested for. Standard field sobriety tests are not effective for substances other than alcohol. A very few officers will be certified as DRE (drug recognition experts). Alcohol is responsible for more crashes than is pot. No doubt. Pot is also a contributor. Most pot users seen on the road will also be abusing alcohol or another drug. The jails are not filled with harmless potheads although they hold a few marijuana dealers and traffickers. Even when pot users are arrested for possession of misdemeanor amounts, they are not incarcerated long, unless they have an extensive prior history or are currently on probation. If you're on probation for any crime and choose to be out smoking pot, then too bad. You're an idiot and are probably safer in jail.

quote:

---

Yep just like alcohol and cigaretts.. Your point?

---

I'm not defending alcohol or cigaretts. I maintain that just because we have one or two harmful vices that are legal, doesn't mean we need to add more.

ps: I'm a no spin zone.



Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.

[Dave M]

Ok, I'll bite. What does this statement have to do with the constitution?

Honestly if you can't see that peoples rights to live their own lifes and do what they want in their own home reflects our constitution, then there's not much more I can say. There should be no double standard merely because the Alchohol & Tobacco lobbyist pay the big bucks.

I do speak from experience. I would be happy to share my knowledge with any Troopers that are interested. The pot odors are mild enough that they are overwhelmed by the stronger crash odors, of which their are many.

If you truly had experience in this area you would not be posting this. I seriously doubt that you could contribute anything of value to the Department of Public safety. I don't mean to be an a hole but look at your post. It's obvious that you experience in this area is limited if not biased.



Blood tests from crash scenes don't test for everything, only those substances requested. If alcohol is detected or suspected then that will be the test. If there is no alcohol evidence but pot is found, then the blood will be tested for pot. Blood tests do not reveal all, only what is requested that it be tested for.

Unfortunatley your wrong, It's called a (CBC) Complete Blood Check. The officers do not request a test for a specific substance.

Standard field sobriety tests are not effective for substances other than alcohol. A very few officers will be certified as DRE (drug recognition experts). Alcohol is responsible for more crashes than is pot. No doubt.
I'm not talking about "Field Sobriety Test". That has no relevence to my post.

Pot is also a contributor. Most pot users seen on the road will also be abusing alcohol or another drug.

Maybe in the teenage years and thats a maybe, but in general you're just throwing out opinions.

The jails are not filled with harmless potheads although they hold a few marijuana dealers and traffickers. Even when pot users are arrested for possession of misdemeanor amounts, they are not incarcerated long, unless they have an extensive prior history or are currently on probation. If you're on probation for any crime and choose to be out smoking pot, then too bad. You're an idiot and are probably safer in jail.

Actually it's called the three strikes law and there are many people in jail for possesion of pot. But I wouldn't expect this, fact, to matter to anyone that hasa different opinion. Remember what I said in my first post:
"Interesting topic. As with most topics of this nature we/you/y'all can put forth all the opinions and heartfelt stories and even a few facts sprinkled in here and there but you WILL NOT sway either side from their opinions."

It's really hard to deal with me on this subject for several reasons; First of all, factually I'm right. Second, I have no use for either drugs or alchohol therefore I'm unbiased. Third, and most important, I'm a constitutionalist (or quickly becoming one)being such I have watched many of mine and your constitutional rights being trampled on. This last issue should be key to any person be they Republican or Democrat. It amazes me how people can watch the federal government take away State Rights as well as individual's constitutional rights. I guess it's easy when it's someone elses rights but wait until it's your rights.

This is my last response on this topic because like I said it's hopeless to think that I can sway anybodies opinion on line.


Blessings,
dave

"It doesn't mean that much to me.. to mean that much to you." Neil Young

[oink]

quote:

---

If you truly had experience in this area you would not be posting this.

---

Trust me, I do. Or don't trust me, it's ok.

quote:

---

Unfortunatley your wrong, It's called a (CBC) Complete Blood Check.

---

It's a cost issue. You may get that for medical blood but not normally for that sent out for criminal testing, due to budget issues. Hospitals check everything due to liability if they miss something and they charge it to you and I. Medical blood has to be subpoened, and will be if there is a legal reason to do so.

quote:

---

I'm not talking about "Field Sobriety Test". That has no relevence to my post.

---

Why aren't you talking about FSTs. Unless the suspected offender is hospitalized that is the method usually used to tetermine the future course of the investigation.

quote:

---

Maybe in the teenage years and thats a maybe, but in general you're just throwing out opinions.

---

Not just chronological teenage years. Mental teenage years might be accurate.

quote:

---

Actually it's called the three strikes law and there are many people in jail for possesion of pot.

---

Ok, if you don't learn the first two times you have some learning issues. Strike three. I believe that for that to kick in there are some felonies in there somewhere. That law isn't universal. Most places you earn points or some such and if you earn enough points to get a long term, it was your choice.

quote:

---

First of all, factually I'm right. Second, I have no use for either drugs or alchohol therefore I'm unbiased. Third, and most important, I'm a constitutionalist (or quickly becoming one)being such I have watched many of mine and your constitutional rights being trampled on.

---

Because you or someone whos opinion you admire deems something a fact doesn't make it so to anyone other than you. Research and especially Stats can be made to show what you want. I think you will find both research and Stats that bolster both sides of the argument.

Not being a user obviously doesn't make you unbiased. You sure come accross as having a very biased opinion. Of course you are the sole purveyor of facts so there's no reason to listen to other opinions.

I'm sorry, but there is no constitutional right to consume drugs.

You are correct in that there isn't much point in continuing a discussion with you on this topic, other than for the entertainment value.

Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.

[Dave M]

Because you or someone whos opinion you admire deems something a fact doesn't make it so to anyone other than you. Research and especially Stats can be made to show what you want. I think you will find both research and Stats that bolster both sides of the argument.

Really? maybe you could show your side of the facts?? Anything? The reason you won't is because you cant.

Not being a user obviously doesn't make you unbiased. You sure come accross as having a very biased opinion. Of course you are the sole purveyor of facts so there's no reason to listen to other opinions.


I'm open to facts you're obviously not. Why? because it doesn't agree with your OPINION. Like I said don't let facts interupt your discussion. You've turned my accident into a traffic stop because you have no clue as to what happens on scene after a crash.


I'm sorry, but there is no constitutional right to consume drugs.

Don't be sorry dude I'd be throwing out Red Herrings to if I was on your side of a loosing argument.

You are correct in that there isn't much point in continuing a discussion with you on this topic, other than for the entertainment value.

The only reason your still posting is to save face on an internet forum. You have not offered one shred to back your opinion and/or to rebutt mine. So yes it is useless but here if this makes you feel better. You're right you know much more about Weed, Traffic accidents, police procedure, the Constitution. Your opinion needs no fact because you're OINK. Good luck with that!


Blessings,
dave

"It doesn't mean that much to me.. to mean that much to you." Neil Young