for ppl who dont watch the news

[Archangel Kid]

I know the whole "a friend told me" thing sounds corny but this kid is smart. He can make hundreds of dollars a week just by selling weed. He understands what would happen if it was legalized and offered at the same price as him. If he'll sell me an ounce of dank for $100 and I can get it for $110 from a licensed shop, I'll get it the legal way just to be safe. If everything becomes low quality then it could help him. People out looking for a better high might go to him but he feels drug enforcement would be more serious and laws against selling would be harsh.

As far as deaths related to weed, I can't see anyone dying from an actual overdose of just weed. But if you and your friends are on the way to a party and your passing a bowl around and suddenly the driver goes off the road, then someone could die because everyone was too busy getting high to worry about being respectful to the driver.

First of all I'd love to know where you are gettin an ounce for $100. Secondly I've driven numerous times "high" and more then once has a driver almost driven me off the road because THEY started driving in MY LANE! NEVER have I crashed, came close to crashing, or even gotten pulled over while high. I don't know many people that do either.

[SCpoloRicker]

Oh man, you really got me. What's a girl to do?

I'm going back to my knitting now, folks. The brownies will be done in half an hour.

*slaps tush*

/respectfully, of course

[tropical_fishy]

*slaps tush*

/respectfully, of course

ohhhh man, are you ever in for it.

I'll do you a favor and let derek find this thread himself

PS-- you're too old for me, darlin'

[Archangel Kid]

*slaps tush*

/respectfully, of course

GOOD GAME!

[stop whining buy a mag]

First of all I'd love to know where you are gettin an ounce for $100. Secondly I've driven numerous times "high" and more then once has a driver almost driven me off the road because THEY started driving in MY LANE! NEVER have I crashed, came close to crashing, or even gotten pulled over while high. I don't know many people that do either.

When you have good friends that are nice to you, they won't try to make a profit off you. Favors come around especially when a friend gives you a nice deal.

Maybe the part about driving and smoking was a little unclear. I have seen instances where the driver himself was not smoking but everyone else in the car was passing something around. Between all the smoke and people reaching for the joint, the driver nearly rear ended someone. There would just have to be smoking and driving laws like drinking and driving. Even being in a car with someone making bad decisions can be dangerous. Sure some people can be pretty baked and drive just fine but there's too many other people who are just too irresponsible. Not to mention your average driver on the road is a dumb*** also.

Anyways, I'm a little confused on your views. Can we keep arguing for the sake of arguing since the thread hasn't progressed much?

[Lohman446]

If we are going to ban things because they are not useful beyond pleasure and might cause harm (see, how I'm avoiding cars, guns, etc) lets do it

1) Ban alchohol
2) All drugs except for medicinal - including caffeine.
3) All high fat foods
4) Sugar

The list goes on and on.

//Has never tried pot, has no intention of it
///Those of you who "need" pot - are weak
///Said it...
////Federal government intrusion annoys him, though thinks the states have the full rights to make laws regulating it

[tropical_fishy]

////Federal government intrusion annoys him, though thinks the states have the full rights to make laws regulating it

/should consider that to let states choose over the federal government would overturn over 2 centuries of precident
//that's federalism, baby
///there's a reason the articles of confederation didn't work.

[Lohman446]

/should consider that to let states choose over the federal government would overturn over 2 centuries of precident
//that's federalism, baby
///there's a reason the articles of confederation didn't work.

Theres several: Lack of a strong, centrally controlled military. Lack of a uniform taxation policy and tarrifs, lack of being able to enter treaties with foreign powers, lack of being able to work together as a single nation in foreign matters, lack of a uniform coinage. I don't think lack of a federal drug control policy had anything at all to do with the failure of the Articles of Confederation. The list goes on I'm sure, but it is not all inclusive

/Nice try though
//Just historically, drug control, does not represent the powers of a centralized federal government.
///There may be a borderline argument that allows the federal government drug control in its enumerated powers.. but its borderline at best.

[Target Practice]

Oh man, you really got me. What's a girl to do?

I'm going back to my knitting now, folks. The brownies will be done in half an hour.

Well, it's a good thing Derek doesn't have to beat you to have you remember your place.

[tropical_fishy]

Theres several: Lack of a strong, centrally controlled military. Lack of a uniform taxation policy and tarrifs, lack of being able to enter treaties with foreign powers, lack of being able to work together as a single nation in foreign matters, lack of a uniform coinage. I don't think lack of a federal drug control policy had anything at all to do with the failure of the Articles of Confederation. The list goes on I'm sure, but it is not all inclusive

/Nice try though
//Just historically, drug control, does not represent the powers of a centralized federal government.
///There may be a borderline argument that allows the federal government drug control in its enumerated powers.. but its borderline at best.

I didn't say I didn't agree with you

You proved my point, though: All the things you mentioned happened because the federal government had no power over the states. They couldn't create a monetary system, they couldn't create a federal army, they couldn't order the states to do anything. Nothing got done, and the federal government had no control. All they could do was ask the states nicely, and if the states didnt feel like it, they didn't do it.

I still think that because the Supreme Court has ruled on pot before, a VERY strong case would have to be made for the precident to be overturned. Courts don't like to overturn precident, it goes against our judicial system.

I'd like to know what these borderline constitutional arguments are, however.

[Lohman446]

I didn't say I didn't agree with you

You proved my point, though: All the things you mentioned happened because the federal government had no power over the states. They couldn't create a monetary system, they couldn't create a federal army, they couldn't order the states to do anything. Nothing got done, and the federal government had no control. All they could do was ask the states nicely, and if the states didnt feel like it, they didn't do it.

I still think that because the Supreme Court has ruled on pot before, a VERY strong case would have to be made for the precident to be overturned. Courts don't like to overturn precident, it goes against our judicial system.

I'd like to know what these borderline constitutional arguments are, however.

The great federal powers of interstate commerce, tarriffs, and taxation. There can be an argument rolled together to show the federal governments authority of the manufacture and distribution of drugs. Its not the greatest argument, but it is more of an argument than most of the federal abuse of powers have.

[behemoth]

PS-- you're too old for me, darlin'

I'm not!

*SMACK*

/respectfull
//sorry trop
///jay/kay...

[tropical_fishy]

I'm not!

*SMACK*

/respectfull
//sorry trop
///jay/kay...

If you're not too old for me then you can't afford me.

Get in line.

[bleachit]

That would NEVER happen. They could never control it. Just take a look at prohibition.

If pot were to be legalized by the federal govt a comparison to prohibition would be the exact opposite of what you would be looking for. Prohibition was not the federal govt controlling a substance, it was the federal govt BANNING a substance..

a better comparison would be prohibition and the current state of "the drug war" in the US. Drugs are everywhere despite the govt. efforts to remove them.

However, if we were to look at the repealling of prohibition we see that the govt was able to again take control over alcohol, instituting a minimum drinking age by influcing States through federal grants for road ways as well as laws governing public drunkeness and DWI. Alcohol has become a huge business in the US LEGALLY, plus there are fewer deaths due to bad liquor.

So I think that shows that if pot were to be legalized, the federal govt COULD tax the piss out of it and another massive industry will be born....dont forget states.. [good ol NY would make a killing on pot taxes... unless the Indian Nations start growing them.. Tobacoo, gas and pot.. Smokin Joe would become unstoppable!!!!!!!!] then the federal govt will sue big pot in 50 years over the detrimental health effects....

people, for the most part, I think would buy legal FDA approved marijuana over illegal street drugs. They get their high without the cops harassing them...

[billybob_81067]

If you're not too old for me then you can't afford me.

Get in line.

LOL... we've got ourselves a High Priced Hooker here boys!