- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 3, 2012 at 11:48 pm #775859
kootchmanMemberWell, we certainly have not seen liquor prices come down. The margin is large. I may purchase a bottle for convenience, but for the holidays … off to Portland with the shopping list. I am not even going to pretend “medical marijuana” is the core issue… it’s an excuse. Pot is a recreational diversion. Nothing is free JoB.. this is true.. risk drives up the price and so would government takeover and a monopoly of the pot trade. The state is well aware that medical use is a farce… they want revenue. Consumers will continue to buy whatever offers the best value for them.
November 4, 2012 at 2:51 am #775860
JoBParticipantkootch..
ROFLOL.. you actually expected liquor prices to come down when you voted to take them out of state stores and put them in the local grocer?
” but for the holidays … off to Portland with the shopping list.”
to the state run liquor store..
you really do make me chuckle
thanks. laughing is a good thing on a rainy saturday night as i sit here waiting expectantly for the potatoes in my stew to finish cooking
the trouble with slow cookers is that they are slow
November 4, 2012 at 4:17 am #775861
maplesyrupParticipantJulie, I am curious what your potential reasons for voting for the initiative are. Personally, I’d rather not see it in parks either, especially around my kids. But when I weigh that against the reasons to vote for 502, there’s really no argument.
Anyway, would flagrant violation of this law be in the same league as violation of off leash laws? Random dogs running around do a lot more damage than a bit of smoke that dissipates in a few seconds. And there’s not the litter issue you have with cigarette butts.
Tell you what, we can set up a website to out pot smoking law violators just like the off leash site. :)
November 4, 2012 at 1:45 pm #775862
anonymeParticipantMaplesyrup, I raised the issue because I have LOTS of personal/professional experience dealing with stoners in public parks and gardens. People who are high are not very different than those who are drunk. They do stupid, destructive things – some by accident, some by altered design, some by a distorted urge to commune with nature, wreaking havoc in the process. And they almost always smoke cigarettes at the same time to disguise the smell of weed, so there are usually butts as well (and food wrappers!). Both produce second hand smoke, which may or may not be welcome by passers-by – which include children.
Many parks users are minors; I don’t know if police, under the new law, would take public consumption by minors any more seriously than they do now – but I doubt it. Roxhill park hosts pot-smoking students all school day long. The Arboretum at SSCC protects student use to such an extent that they now bring bongs to campus.
No one is saying that this is a life-shattering, deal-breaking issue – but it is a valid concern.
November 4, 2012 at 2:33 pm #775863
TanDLParticipantIt seems to me that if there is such a problem in the parks and at SSCC… and I can’t really speak to that issue because I’ve not seen a problem in the parks, nor do I frequent SSCC. But if there really is that large a problem, then the lack of any regulation seems to be propagating that problem. I don’t see how legalization and regulation could make that any worse. If anything, it seems like legalization and regulation would horn in on the current distribution system and maybe disrupt the current flow.
I personally think it should be legal and taxed. Why shouldn’t the state get $ out of it to help fund our schools, roads, etc. That way you can choose to be taxed and purchase or you can choose not to be taxed and abstain… I like choice! And combined with legalization, I think there should be a HUGE educational effort to make it as socially unacceptable as possible, combined with strong enforcement against use in public places and altered states driving.
November 4, 2012 at 2:51 pm #775864
TanDLParticipantPost Script: I just did a little Google work: According to a 2008 Time article, 42% of Americans had smoked weed once or more, an illegal drug in this country, compared with 20% of Dutch residents, where the drug is legal.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1821697,00.html
It would be interesting to know how (or if) the recession affected that statistic as it has generally been held that affluence is an indicator of drug experimentation.
November 4, 2012 at 5:11 pm #775865
JoBParticipantNovember 4, 2012 at 6:21 pm #775866
TanDLParticipantWhy, thank you JoB. I’m trying very hard to be rational these days. :) Mostly I’m thrilled that this election season is almost over!!!!!
November 4, 2012 at 7:25 pm #775867
JoBParticipantTanDl
me too.
i am profoundly weary of all of the hype
and requests for money from democrats
who are cooperating in making this election all about the money and not about the issues..
i am going to take a bath, get dressed and go play with my hubby and dogs…
i like to do something productive every day ;->
i need to rest up.
regardless of which way this election goes
we are going to have a tough fight getting outside untraceable money back out of our election.
Americans should at least know who is paying for the ads they are being bombarded with…
that way they have a better chance of evaluating the source
November 4, 2012 at 7:48 pm #775868
DBPMemberComparisons between booze and pot can be helpful, but they only go so far. Both are “recreational” drugs for example, and both can be addicting. But that’s about as far as you’ll get with that.
Pot advocates point out that alcohol (which is legal) does far more damage to society than pot (which is not legal.) Absolutely correct. But on the other hand, if you look only at the total number of people who consume the drug in either case, I believe you’d find that pot smoking does more damage, relatively speaking.
Consider all the people you know who drink. Now ask yourself: how many of them are problem drinkers?
Now consider all the people you know who smoke pot. How many of them are problem smokers?
I know several drunks. Hell, everyone does. But of all the people I know who imbibe any amount of alcohol, the great majority can take it or leave it alone. By contrast, most of the people I know who smoke pot, cannot leave it alone. In other words, they’re dependent on the drug.
Not a reason to villify pot, but something to think about.
November 4, 2012 at 8:52 pm #775869
JulieMembermaplesyrup, the reasons for which I might end up deciding in favor very much reflect TanDL’s point, that legalization and regulation could make control actually easier, and end up reducing the use of this drug. I’m also interested in this argument: by legalizing the production of marijuana in the NW, we might be able to supplant the flow of illegal marijuana from Mexico to the US, even to states where it remains illegal–and cut the profits of the Mexican cartels, which I think would be an overall plus.
Also, I find it frustrating that it’s difficult to get good research information on marijuana as a medical drug, because it’s difficult to do the research legally. This makes it difficult to evaluate the claims of medical use for the drug. I think people who have conditions for which marijuana is popularly suggested would benefit from having this thoroughly and independently researched.
Which brings me to DBP’s point. Most of the research I’m finding (but see my point about limited validated research) actually indicates that marijuana is less addicting than alcohol (and far less addicting than tobacco, another legal recreational drug). Another approach to this problem might be to keep all of them legal but control them as drugs–that is, require prescriptions to buy wine or cigarettes. I don’t think that one is very likely. I’m not even sure how well it would work. And it’s not just the addictiveness that makes these drugs problematic. Plenty of drunk drivers are not alcoholics.
Lastly, as an aside, I take issue with maplesyrup’s “bit of smoke that dissipates in a few seconds”. That’s what people say about tobacco smoke in parks, but it really doesn’t dissipate as quickly as you might think. It hangs around. And if there’s a person smoking walking ahead of you on the sidewalk (happens all the time at Lincoln Park and the Junction), well… it’s just a constant stream back into your face. So you speed up to get past them, and there’s another one ahead of them. If I could stop people smoking tobacco in outdoor public places in exchange for people smoking pot in outdoor public places, I’d take it as a step forward–but having to put up with both–ugh!
November 4, 2012 at 10:36 pm #775870
justadumbguyParticipantDBP,
You wrote:
By contrast, most of the people I know who smoke pot, cannot leave it alone. In other words, they’re dependent on the drug.
I think this is skewed by the fact it is against the law … I like a beer or two watching the Seahawks but it could just as easily be a little weed … except well I have a wife, and a kid who I’d like to have learn to respect the law, and a job I’d like to keep, and so the risks simply aren’t worth it. If it were legal though that would be different …. as you wrote …just something to think about.
November 4, 2012 at 10:37 pm #775871
dobroParticipant“But of all the people I know who imbibe any amount of alcohol, the great majority can take it or leave it alone. By contrast, most of the people I know who smoke pot, cannot leave it alone”
My anecdotal experience is the exact opposite of that so I don’t think anything is proven by your assertion.
November 4, 2012 at 11:58 pm #775872
kootchmanMemberTanDL
“get $ out of it to help fund our schools, roads, etc. That way you can choose to be taxed and purchase or you can choose not to be taxed and abstain.
Well, we have had prison threats, job loss, no knock warrants approved paid bribes, had sheriffs, local cops confiscate for their personal use.., … once the state legalizes, there will be no abstaining and no taxes… unless the state makes it cheaper. We can choose to fire up, and not pay taxes, as we have done for over 40 years. So, we throw a scrip in the glove compartment and continue to support the small, family farm as we have done for decades.
November 5, 2012 at 11:43 am #775873
JoBParticipantDBP..
“Now consider all the people you know who smoke pot. How many of them are problem smokers?”
You know people who drink moderately because you can go out to dinner with them and order a drink…
you can share a drink publicly with them in street side cafes… and privately in your back yard without fear of dsicovery. booze is legal.
You are far less likely to know people who smoke and/or consume pot moderately because people who use pot moderately generally only break the law privately or within their most intimate circles.
the broad brush you are using to paint marijuana smoke as more dangerous in spite of the evidence to the contrary makes some pretty rash assumptions.
November 5, 2012 at 11:47 am #775874
JoBParticipantkootch..
we don’t have to be taxed to benefit financially from legalizing marijuana.
look what we will save in prosecution and incarceration costs alone
November 5, 2012 at 5:39 pm #775875
DBPMember“Tokers I Have Known”
by DBP
You’ve all been waiting for this one, haven’t you?
C’mon. You know you have!
November 5, 2012 at 7:28 pm #775876
kootchmanMemberTrue enough.. so why the hue and cry to tax it? All the legislature has to do is drop it from the penal code… instead of all this hoopla.. if it isn’t in the penal code, there is no harm and no foul. The measure is designed to squeeze another dime.
November 5, 2012 at 7:49 pm #775877
DBPMemberToker #1: DBP
Profile:
Very occasional toker since age 13. Dealt some hash to his big brother’s high school friends.
Big brother confronts friends: “Don’t sell dope to my little bro!”
Friends reply: “Dude! He’s selling dope to us!”
November 5, 2012 at 8:33 pm #775878
maplesyrupParticipantanonyme & Julie: I wasn’t trying to invalidate your concerns. I was saying that I don’t think smoking in a park is as serious as letting a dog run around (and I have a dog) or throwing cigarette butts on the ground.
Still, I think in the issues you cited, the problem is with the behavior and not the substance. Just like with alcohol, for every idiot that stands out with drunken behavior there are 9 more who can consume it responsibly.
I hope you both vote for 502. :)
November 5, 2012 at 8:57 pm #775879
trimParticipantA lot of you have brought up some good points about legalizing. However, it’s not really legalizing it. The only legal part about 502 is making it “okay” to smoke within the confines of your own home. The way I see for voting for it to be legalized is pretty much this. It’s something different, something new, and something that is harmless. I’d like to compare this to the presidential election so please bare with me here. More increasingly people are finding themselves not wanting to vote for the primary candidates that are just the same regurgitated politicians from before *more or less* most people want something new, and at the very least 502 is new. Everyone can speculate all that they want whether it’s going to be good or if it’s going to be bad. The only way we’ll actually find this out is if it is legalized, maybe it will get better maybe it won’t. There’s always going to be the option to vote again against it.
November 6, 2012 at 5:24 pm #775880
DBPMemberToker #2: My father-in-law
Profile:
This guy died long ago and I never met him, so everything I know about him is through my wife.
He was what they now call “dual diagnosis” — meaning that, in addition to being mentally ill, he was addicted to drugs. Several of them, in fact. His drug of choice was alcohol, but he was very fond of pot as well, because he could grow that easily on the family’s little backwoods farm.
He was so fond of pot, in fact, that even when the rice crop failed and the family was threatened with starvation, he would spare no effort to protect his cannabis plants from being plowed under. If you know anything about addiction, that one will ring a bell.
After going on a bender and gambling away the family fortune one night, f-in-law hung himself from a tree on the side of a dirt road headed out of town. My wife was 7 years old at the time, and she and her siblings were crying when they heard the news about their daddy. When their mother saw this, she started chasing the kids around the house, whacking them on their backs with a shoe.
“Don’t cry for that bastard!” she wailed through angry tears. “He never gave us anything but grief!”
Sound like a scene out of Angela’s Ashes? Huh. Yeah.
In fact, this was but a minor gale in the sustained Category 5 Shit Hurricane that was my wife’s childhood.
November 6, 2012 at 7:09 pm #775881
trimParticipantDBP – I’m unsure what you’re trying to prove with that post. Your father-in-law sounds like he was an alcoholic. Also it sounds like he wasn’t ready as a parent if he can’t take care of himself. Marijuana isn’t physically addictive, if anything it’s a mental issue to let go or not to let go. With I-502 it’s still going to be illegal to grow. I’m sorry about what your wife went through as a child. I have a brother that sounds exactly like your father-in-law and I can easily tell you that it was most likely the alcohol that drove him to that point. But for the most part, you cannot contribute someone who has mental problems along with several drugs addictions to someone who isn’t an alcoholic, doesn’t have several drug addictions, and someone who isn’t mentally-ill.
November 6, 2012 at 7:12 pm #775882
JoBParticipantNovember 6, 2012 at 10:02 pm #775883
trimParticipantOn facebook, I’m sure you could like one of my posts
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.