SG Broadband Community

Randy wrote:I don't smoke weed

clean pee 4 sale

Roody wrote:Smart man. It's a waste of time if it's use is for recreational purposes which is what I suspect most people would be doing if it's use wasn't controlled.

YARDofSTUF wrote:You've said a lot, including that pot smokers should be treated like murders because it leads to that.

That post right there is why I know you are putting words in my mouth. I never said any such thing. I did however say I disagree with your philosophy that it's legalization or decriminalization will ultimately lead to the freeing up of more jails.

I don't think pot should be made available to the masses legally either, but decriminalizing it wont do that, it would still be illegal to sell/distribute it, and states could put a bill in motion to confiscate it as a controlled substance, but not jail the person.

There are a lot of ways to handle this and some are better than lockign a person up that has only used it personally, and not comitted another crime.

I think I need some clarification on your viewpoint here. You want it to be illegal to buy or sell, but you don't want jail time? What exactly would/should be the punishment then?

YARDofSTUF wrote:But if the sale of the drugs is still under attack by law enforcement how will the use of the drug balloon up?

I think this question can best be answered after you reply to my latest comment asking for a clarification of how you believe punishment should be dealt with.

Roody wrote:That post right there is why I know you are putting words in my mouth. I never said any such thing. I did however say I disagree with your philosophy that it's legalization or decriminalization will ultimately lead to the freeing up of more jails.

Ok then I misunderstood one of your early replies, and I think your're less crazy now lol

Roody wrote:I think I need some clarification on your viewpoint here. You want it to be illegal to buy or sell, but you don't want jail time? What exactly would/should be the punishment then?

No I do not want it to be legal to buy or sell it. I want the jail time for sale/distribution to stay the same.

I want the personal use of it decriminalized, and if caught with it by police, have the police confiscate the drug and send the people on their way, ASSUMING that all they were doing was smoking pot and no other illegal activity was involved.

If behind the wheel it should be handled like a DUI type deal, and if like in your friends case someone was killed, it should be handled like a murder.

YARDofSTUF wrote:Ok then I misunderstood one of your early replies, and I think your're less crazy now lol

lol

No I do not want it to be legal to buy or sell it. I want the jail time for sale/distribution to stay the same.

I want the personal use of it decriminalized, and if caught with it by police, have the police confiscate the drug and send the people on their way, ASSUMING that all they were doing was smoking pot and no other illegal activity was involved.

If behind the wheel it should be handled like a DUI type deal, and if like in your friends case someone was killed, it should be handled like a murder.

Out of curiousity how could someone obtain it for personal use (Other then medical reasons) if they aren't buying it? This is where I am confused by your remarks.

Roody wrote:Out of curiousity how could someone obtain it for personal use (Other then medical reasons) if they aren't buying it? This is where I am confused by your remarks.

Purchased illegally, but not caught in the act.

YARDofSTUF wrote:Purchased illegally, but not caught in the act.

Ok. I think I understand now.

Roody wrote:Dear God Izzo you simply aren't reading this thread in it's entirety. Until you do spare me the remarks about how you think my emotions are getting in the way.

If you had read the thread you would know that I have also stated I have no issues with treating alcohol abuse in the same manner so quit with the attempts to find holes in my arguments between the two because they aren't there.

It's not only me saying it, Roody. Take a good long look, man.

Izzo wrote:It's not only me saying it, Roody. Take a good long look, man.

No. No one else other then you is questioning the validity of how this whole event played out. That would only be you. Everyone else who has followed this thread from the opening page knows that I clearly stated that alcohol has a similiar problem and it's fine by me if they crack down harder on it also. If someone here is stating that emotion is playing a part in my remarks because my alcohol/marijuana views are contradicting then either they aren't reading what I said or they can't read what I said.

The words I spoke about how this incident played out are fact Izzo. Emotion has nothing to do with it. I could be happy, sad, angry or passive it still doesn't change the facts of that day. They aren't opinion at all. No one knows how that situation played out and what led to it on here better then me.

The day I retire, I just may roll me a big fatty...................

downhill wrote:The day I retire, I just may roll me a big fatty...................

That might not be a bad idea.

downhill wrote:The day I retire, I just may roll me a big fatty...................

downhill wrote:The day I retire, I just may roll me a big fatty...................

Puff puff give mofo






If marijuana was decriminalized tomorrow, I doubt there would be a surge in its use. Pot can be obtained cheaply and easily (relatively). Anyone who wants to smoke pot, is smoking pot. Decriminalization just means that pot smokers can relax... a little more. Mankind has always been trying to catch a buzz anyway possible. Of all the things out there, marijuana is one of the least harmful.

Just think what could be accomplished if we could get some Train Wreck passed around during a session of congress.

triniwasp wrote:...Just think what could be accomplished if we could get some Train Wreck passed around during a session of congress.

Honestly, probably not much would get accomplished, though it is funny to visualize something like that happening.

How about some AK-47, Northern Lights, or maybe some Strawberry Cough perhaps.

JAFO wrote:Honestly, probably not much would get accomplished, though it is funny to visualize something like that happening.

How about some AK-47, Northern Lights, or maybe some Strawberry Cough perhaps.

They don't deserve kind buds..... give 'em a sack of schwag and lock the doors.

I'm definitely for decriminalizing possession... Since cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol/tobacco, I don't see how decriminalizing possession can do any harm.

As others have already said, illegal sale, use while driving/working, etc. is a different story, it should probably be treated similarly as alcohol/tobacco.

A. Ron Paul argues the decriminalization of marijuana would immediately shut down many drug dealers and consequently gangs across the nation, leading to substantially less violence. I don't think it'll change a damn thing because there are plenty of other drugs they could be selling.

B. The number of people addicted to the drug would sky rocket. If so many people deal with these issues even though the stuff is expensive and somewhat hard to get, imagine what it would be like if you could go to your local corner store and legally purchase as much as you want. I'm sure you've all seen those people who are dealing with addictions; they're completely trashed!

C. It's illegal to drive drunk. Lets say marijuana was legalized, however it was illegal to drive high. Is that seriously going to stop people? How many deaths have been caused because a driver was impaired due to alcohol, even though it's "illegal" to drive drunk? I would argue that those statistics would be matched, if not surpassed, but the legalization of marijuana and the deaths and accidents caused by its use.

Roody wrote:I did however say I disagree with your philosophy that it's legalization or decriminalization will ultimately lead to the freeing up of more jails.

Marijuana Arrests at All-Time High, Far Exceed Violent Crime Arrests 10/29/04

The FBI reported Saturday that the number of arrests for violations of the marijuana laws hit an all-time high of 755,186 in 2003. Despite a decade of marijuana law reforms and protestations by police chiefs across the land that marijuana is not a priority, that figure is nearly double the number of people arrested for pot in 1993. The number of people arrested on marijuana charges last year also exceeds the number arrested for violent crimes by more than 150,000.

With only a couple of hiccups, the number of people arrested on marijuana charges has trended steadily upward in the past decade, no matter which party controls the levers of government. The previous peak of 735,500 was recorded in 2000, with 724,000 arrested in 2001 and 697,000 in 2002.

To illustrate the scope of the problem, the number of those arrested for marijuana is more than the entire population of the state of South Dakota (pop. 754,844). Or, for those for whom it is too easy to picture South Dakota as a empty wasteland, the number of pot arrests is greater than the populations of San Francisco (pop. 751,682), Jacksonville (pop. 735,617), or Columbus (pop. 711,470).

As has been the case in past years, the vast majority of marijuana arrests -- some 88% -- were for simple possession. Arrests for marijuana offenses constituted a whopping 45% of all drug arrests.

Prisoners

1. "Prisoners sentenced for drug offenses constituted the largest group of Federal inmates (55%) in 2001, down from 60% in 1995 (table 18). On September 30, 2001, the date of the latest available data in the Federal Justice Statistics Program, Federal prisons held 78,501 sentenced drug offenders, compared to 52,782 in 1995."

Source: Harrison, Paige M. & Allen J. Beck, PhD, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2002 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, July 2003), p. 11.

2. In 2001, drug law violators comprised 20.4% of all adults serving time in State prisons - 246,100 out of 1,208,700 State prison inmates.

Source: Harrison, Paige M. & Allen J. Beck, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2002 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, July 2003), Table 17, p. 10.

3. Over 80% of the increase in the federal prison population from 1985 to 1995 was due to drug convictions.

Source: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1996 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 1997).

So how is that YoS's philosophy???????????????????

Joel wrote:B. The number of people addicted to the drug would sky rocket. If so many people deal with these issues even though the stuff is expensive and somewhat hard to get, imagine what it would be like if you could go to your local corner store and legally purchase as much as you want.

Except that that wouldn't happen, because the sale and distribution would still be illegal.

UOD wrote:



So how is that YoS's philosophy???????????????????

Why don't you ask YoS.

Roody wrote:Why don't you ask YoS.

Nice try in avoiding the question. You are the one that said you didn't agree with his philosophy...well it is now backed up by cold hard facts from the Justice Dept.


So what now Roody?

UOD wrote:Nice try in avoiding the question. You are the one that said you didn't agree with his philosophy...well it is now backed up by cold hard facts from the Justice Dept.


So what now Roody?

Avoiding the question? My suggestion would be to go back and read what we stated in full and think on it because your question doesn't take away from what I stated. I might ask why the hostility UOD? Did I do something to personally harm you to bring on such an attitude? I never argued that jails aren't filled with marijuana users so I'm not sure what your implication is which is why I figured you were somehow confusing him with me.

If you would like to drop the attitude and clarify what your point is then I will do my best to answer your question.

Roody wrote:Avoiding the question? My suggestion would be to go back and read what we stated in full and think on it because your question doesn't take away from what I stated. I might ask why the hostility UOD? Did I do something to personally harm you to bring on such an attitude? I never argued that jails aren't filled with marijuana users so I'm not sure what your implication is which is why I figured you were somehow confusing him with me.

If you would like to drop the attitude and clarify what your point is then I will do my best to answer your question.

Roody...YOU said that you didn't agree with his "philosophy".

Basically, YoS said that prisons wouldn't be so crowded if we were to stop criminalizing pot use. You said that you disagree with that despite the fact that our own government is telling us otherwise.

So if YoS says the sky is blue, I say it's blue, and our government says it's blue....why do you say it's green?


But what I find most troubling, is that in other recent threads, YOU have personally called out folks for not backing up their claims with hard facts and yet here you are in a different thread doing the same EXACT thing you were complaining about!!!! I'm simply applying the same standard which you set dude.

So I asked you to back up your post where you disagreed with YoS...and now you say that I have an attitude. Well yes, I do have an attitude when it comes to integrity and impartiality.

UOD wrote:Roody...YOU said that you didn't agree with his "philosophy".

Basically, YoS said that prisons wouldn't be so crowded if we were to stop criminalizing pot use. You said that you disagree with that despite the fact that our own government is telling us otherwise.

So if YoS says the sky is blue, I say it's blue, and our government says it's blue....why do you say it's green?


But what I find most troubling, is that in other recent threads, YOU have personally called out folks for not backing up their claims with hard facts and yet here you are in a different thread doing the same EXACT thing you were complaining about!!!! I'm simply applying the same standard which you set dude.

So I asked you to back up your post where you disagreed with YoS...and now you say that I have an attitude. Well yes, I do have an attitude when it comes to integrity and impartiality.

I figured that is what you meant after your last remark which is why I stand by what I said in that you seem to have either disregarded what I wrote, didn't read it at all or misunderstood it entirely. I will clarify what I stated again. I didn't disagree that jails are filled with marijuana users. I also didn't disagree that if it was decriminalized that those currently in jail would get out thus lessening the number of people in jail. What I did however state was the jails would fill right back up again (albeit quite possibly not at the same levels which I also previously stated) with people who commit crimes brought on by the use of marijuana much like my friend did behind the wheel. It's simple math really.

Anyway, I do encourage you to go back and read what was stated from the beginning in particular between YoS and I. If you didn't follow it all the way through and really look at what was said it would have been easy to misunderstand something. Yes, there was some confusion between him and I, but it was ultimately straightened out. When you asked me about him I honestly wasn't avoiding the question I just didn't understand your point at the time since YoS and I had already addressed it yet you had acted like it hadn't been. In truth YoS and I aren't far off from thinking alike on this topic. We both have no issues with medical use. We both don't support it being legal. Where we differ is the impact it would have if it was decriminalized. As I have understood him he believes it will free up more jail space. That in fact maybe true to an extent. I however think a good amount of that free space will fill back up with even harsher sentences brought on by the use of marijuana. Naturally it wouldn't be due to the use of it alone, but in fact other issues brought on by it's use.

Roody wrote:I figured that is what you meant after your last remark which is why I stand by what I said in that you seem to have either disregarded what I wrote, didn't read it at all or misunderstood it entirely. I will clarify what I stated again. I didn't disagree that jails are filled with marijuana users. I also didn't disagree that if it was decriminalized that those currently in jail would get out thus lessening the number of people in jail. What I did however state was the jails would fill right back up again (albeit quite possibly not at the same levels which I also previously stated) with people who commit crimes brought on by the use of marijuana much like my friend did behind the wheel. It's simple math really.

Anyway, I do encourage you to go back and read what was stated from the beginning in particular between YoS and I. If you didn't follow it all the way through and really look at what was said it would have been easy to misunderstand something. Yes, there was some confusion between him and I, but it was ultimately straightened out. When you asked me about him I honestly wasn't avoiding the question I just didn't understand your point at the time since YoS and I had already addressed it yet you had acted like it hadn't been. In truth YoS and I aren't far off from thinking alike on this topic. We both have no issues with medical use. We both don't support it being legal. Where we differ is the impact it would have if it was decriminalized. As I have understood him he believes it will free up more jail space. That in fact maybe true to an extent. I however think a good amount of that free space will fill back up with even harsher sentences brought on by the use of marijuana. Naturally it wouldn't be due to the use of it alone, but in fact other issues brought on by it's use.

Roody I did read the whole thing....I always read the whole thing. Always.

What evidence do you have that shows the jails will fill back up again Roody? You say "I think". Sentences can't be more harsh Roody. If you are driving under the influence, you are driving under the influence...doesn't matter the substance.

So again, I come back to my point of you not being able to back up what you think with any kind of evidence or facts.

So what leads you to believe that prisons will fill back up? What evidence supports your viewpoint?

UOD wrote:Roody I did read the whole thing....I always read the whole thing. Always.

What evidence do you have that shows the jails will fill back up again Roody? You say "I think". Sentences can't be more harsh Roody. If you are driving under the influence, you are driving under the influence...doesn't matter the substance.

So again, I come back to my point of you not being able to back up what you think with any kind of evidence or facts.

So what leads you to believe that prisons will fill back up? What evidence supports your viewpoint?

As I stated simple math man. Look at it this way. If people realize that they can do something without criminal consequences they will tend to be more bold with their actions. If personal use is decriminalized then people will try it out more because they can do so without fear of jailtime. It's common sense thinking dude.

I gotta say though man your comparison of my remarks in past threads and this one doesn't work very well. In this instance we are talking about stuff that could happen down the road. In the past when I asked for evidence it was based on past events (or at least that's what I recall). There is somethings you can just look ahead and see how they will play out (i.e. a kid runs into the street increases the chances he will ultimately get hit if he doesn't get out of the road). My thinking is based on sheer numbers based on a possible future situation. My past comments on different topics were not.

Roody wrote:As I stated simple math man. Look at it this way. If people realize that they can do something without criminal consequences they will tend to be more bold with their actions. If personal use is decriminalized then people will try it out more because they can do so without fear of jailtime. It's common sense thinking dude.

This was stated by you in response to Sava's points of view in that other thread...

Roody wrote:In general I agree with you on this. I do think Sava walked right into a situation he wasn't prepared to counter with facts. Yes it's possible DH or someone else might provide counter evidence, but as you suggested Brembo it was Sava that walked right into this and it helps his credibility if he provides something to prove his point.

So right there you set a new standard by which to measure and validate opinions.


Do as I say, but not as I do.

UOD wrote:This was stated by you in response to Sava's points of view in that other thread...




So right there you set a new standard by which to measure and validate opinions.


Do as I say, but not as I do.

Go take a look at my past remark UOD. You caught me mid-edit. There is nothing "do as I say, not as I do" about this. You are simply twisting it into something it isn't.

Seems like common sense logic to me, but here is a link though that sorta talks about what I mean. Link

Fifth, decriminalizing marijuana possession will not empty our prisons of drug offenders. Today, very few people go to prison for possessing small amounts of marijuana. While some people have ended up in prison for possession of marijuana, the majority of people who go to prison these days for drug offenses are there because of other crimes they committed. They may have had marijuana in their possession at the time of their arrest, but their sentencing was related to more serious offenses, like intent to sell drugs, or robbery, or violent crimes. Rather than reducing the prison population, it is likely that decriminalization of marijuana possession will result in more people going to prison for drug-related crimes. As the drug-abusing population increases due to the relaxed attitude about marijuana, more people will end up with drug addictions, and many of these people will turn to crime to support their habits or engage in other illegal behaviors that mandate prison time. According to a 1997 U.S. Department of Justice survey, 33 percent of state prisoners and 22 percent of federal prisoners said they were high on drugs when they committed their offense. Marijuana is often implicated in these crimes. The U.S. Department of Justice also reports that more inmates in federal and state corrections facilities who were high when they committed their crimes were high on marijuana or cocaine at the time of their offense. It is better to leave it in the hands of prosecutors and judges to determine whether or not a person should go to jail for marijuana possession than to decriminalize marijuana possession and produce more addicted drug-users, many of whom will find themselves facing jail time for their drug-related crimes.

Roody wrote:Go take a look at my past remark UOD. You caught me mid-edit. There is nothing "do as I say, not as I do" about this. You are simply twisting it into something it isn't.

Seems like common sense logic to me, but here is a link though that sorta talks about what I mean. Link

Am I supposed to accept that as a reliable source?

is it black history month?

brembo wrote:Beer/alcohol is legal and I'll argue that it kills/ruins more lives than weed. Cigarettes are legal and kill people...KILL.

I could give a flip if weed is legal, however I don't see it as dangerous as meth/crack/heroin. All these uber SWAT type drug interdiction units should be focused on the hard drugs that create the urban hells that many of the bigger cities have festering in their more ethnic areas. Get rid of the crack dens, the heroin dumps, leave the stoners alone until the real nasties get expunged.

There are a plethora of issues that need addressing before the BCS gets it's 15 minutes in congress's spotlight. Why is the governing body of the United States focusing on a game series for college students? It's a private concern, and should remain so. I simply cannot see how in any way that involving the f'ing government in sports is a good thing. It is astonishing sometimes the things people will allow the government to do, regulating our lives to the finest minutia and asking for more.

I don't think there's a better way to say what you just said. And what you said is a mothful of reality.

The drug user no matter what substance; started out with them feeling incomplete. Of course kids try things as many of us have. They remain and/or become addicted to drugs because they're filling a gap in their life. A gap or place that wasn't filled in by their parents. It could be not knowing your dad, your mom being an alcoholic, being beaten, diddled and the list goes on.

I had fantastic parents, but I know I drink a lot more than I should as an assist to coping with life. It isn't the drugs so much as it's our failure to properly raise our children. That has become very apparent to me over the last decade or so. Raised by TV.

Kids start to do drugs out of curiosity, they stay doing drugs because of the lack of parenting or abuse. There are exceptions but, try and prove I just said wrong.

I was doing crack at 17, I made it threw from family roots that didn't even know I was doing it. Friends from that same period, I can't say the same. The difference is I had firm roots. The thought of being ashamed if my father found out, was the factor between me being me now, and not not frying my brain on crack anymore.

It matters when you tell your kids they will be somebody.

Raised by TV. What I'm saying is, it isn't so much the drugs (which are super bad these days) as us failing to tend to our young.

Billy didn't shoot his classmate because he was high. He did it because he was high and had no foundation.

sito wrote:The drug user no matter what substance; started out with them feeling incomplete.

Exactly. And it's not just kids - even as adults, there's a gap that needs to be filled and for whatever reason, drug users can't fill it. Lonliness, job loss, low pay, unstable living situation, whatever the reason might be. It's a release. It helps ease the pain that, for whatever reason, can't be stopped at that point in time.

And I know I don't speak for everyone. But personally, and with those few I know, this statement holds true. Drug use is a release. It eases pain, removes anxiety and worry, and makes it possible to wake up in the morning and fight to make the situation better and not just remain depressed and stuck in a bad spot.

Paft wrote:Exactly. And it's not just kids - even as adults, there's a gap that needs to be filled and for whatever reason, drug users can't fill it. Lonliness, job loss, low pay, unstable living situation, whatever the reason might be. It's a release. It helps ease the pain that, for whatever reason, can't be stopped at that point in time.

And I know I don't speak for everyone. But personally, and with those few I know, this statement holds true. Drug use is a release. It eases pain, removes anxiety and worry, and makes it possible to wake up in the morning and fight to make the situation better and not just remain depressed and stuck in a bad spot.

My niece has a complete family in the sense that mom and dad hug each other and her and support her. They don't have much money wise but she will share her stuff no matter what she has.

My nephew who is older has a father that pays no mind to his boys existence. The difference I see is he will be extremely jealous from something she gets he hasn't got and she'll still share it with him. It's the same idea, although he has everything a kid could want including 2 uncles, a step dad and a super grandfather, I heard him say one day, I haven't seen my dad, I miss my dad.

He is possessive and jealous because that big hole is in his 9 year old mind.

What gets me is this kid loves a man that doesn't give a **** about him.

When they both reach their teens in 5 years or so, which one do you think I'll have my eye on? Which one is more likley to abuse drugs? I have a pretty good guess.

Back on topic. People that are willing to blame pot as a reason to justify the behaviour of our children, need to stop, take a deep breath and have another look.

There are things like meth that will kill a mind. Pot can actually be therapeutic if a healthy mind is experiencing it.

If pot is illegal, so should ethanol and tobacco. Quit pretending ganja is worse than either. We`re the smartest organism I have ever seen or known thus far. How about we act like the smartest living thing in the universe until proven otherwise..

Roody wrote:Go take a look at my past remark UOD. You caught me mid-edit. There is nothing "do as I say, not as I do" about this. You are simply twisting it into something it isn't.

Seems like common sense logic to me, but here is a link though that sorta talks about what I mean. Link

Talk about an opinion piece. I am not arguing with anything else you said but that was a silly reference

UOD wrote:Am I supposed to accept that as a reliable source?

I gave you what you asked. You continue to miss the point though. I have explained it over and over, but I will do it one last time. In past threads that I asked for links on we were discussing past or present events. In this instance we are discussing something that would be an event in the future. In those cases predictions based on sheer numbers and common sense factor in.

Honestly UOD I don't really care whether you accept it as a source or not. Here is what I know regardless of that. I have been consistent through out. You are attempting to find a loophole in my remarks that isn't there.

De Plano wrote:Talk about an opinion piece. I am not arguing with anything else you said but that was a silly reference

Apparently you are missing the point also. Again UOD is trying to compare two drastically different situations and then expecting a similiar result. There is nothing silly at all about that reference. Again the situation I speak of is using common sense and numbers to look at how something would play out in the future. That is what the guy in that link offered. UOD incorrectly believes I am giving everyone a "Do as I say, but not as I do" even though that's hardly the case at all. Even though his comparison doesn't hold I gave him a link because it was clear he was continuing to compare two things that can't really be compared. The situation wasn't a "Do as I say, not as I do" before the link and it sure as heck ain't one now.

That said here is yet another link.

Reason why I stated that jails would fill up more is common sense and this link suggests that very reason. Again jails wouldn't necessarily be filled with people there for drug use, but it's use would in effect be a gateway to other criminal acts.

Marijuana affects many skills required for safe driving: alertness, the ability to concentrate, coordination, and reaction time. These effects can last up to 24 hours after smoking marijuana. Marijuana use can make it difficult to judge distances and react to signals and signs on the road.

Izzo wrote:To believe it's a stepping stone to other things is foolish.

marijuana is a stepping stone for ALL other drugs ... and it is foolish to think otherwise