Duuuddee... Pass the blunt...

[Mariya Shidou]

HECK NO! Marijuana is a reckless drug and would only cause traffic incidents, public disturbances, and legal troubles.

This is ******** through and through unless you can back it up with some credible evidence.

Traffic accidents: If this is your precedent, why is alcohol legal? Also, most people know when they're stoned better than they know when they're drunk, based on my personal sample of people who both drink and smoke weed.

Public disturbances: No. Pot smokers tend to be quiet, peaceful people, especially when high. Legalization would also reduce some types of crime because people wouldn't have to go out into the streets to get it.

Legal troubles: Well, that's a nebulous ***-cover of a phrase, isn't it? But it's also probably wrong.

[R4GEKILL!!!]

C'mon really? If marijuana is legalized, the DEA will have to come up with a truckload of new regulations to regulate the sale of the drug. They also have to figure out how to catch and punish those who use the drug illegally (like buying it from a dealer on the black market without paying taxes) that will take time, manpower, and a bunch of money. So it really won't help the DEA any.

If weed is legalized, the country won't become a perfect utopia where law enforcement and rules aren't needed. We'll still need the DEA and all that I mentioned above, and plus it won't necessarily save the economy. It's a guarantee that hundreds of people will try to grow their own marijuana and make a profit by selling it without a tax. The obvious solution is to monitor and regulate THC, hemp, and whatever, right? But that goes back to the DEA, who will have to deal with the strain of doing that and will definitely not be happy that marijuana was legalized.

What he meant is that they'll have a lot less work. And people will still buy it legally. Look at music. It's availible for free on the internet, but people still use itunes like retards.

[Megaton666]

That's already happening without marajuana.

Yup. America, Dane Cook shows and America again.

[R4GEKILL!!!]

that's already happening without marajuana.

^lmfaoooooo!!!!

[KickAsh]

What he meant is that they'll have a lot less work. And people will still buy it legally. Look at music. It's availible for free on the internet, but people still use itunes like retards.

And my point is that the DEA won't have a lot less work, and that it is quite possible legalizing marijuana would give them a bigger workload.

To me, all these arguments are bull****. The economy, medicinal marijuana, etc. Pro-marijuana advocates don't really care about that. They just want to get stoned and not have to worry about being thrown in jail for it.

[#chelloressurection]

This is ******** through and through unless you can back it up with some credible evidence.

Traffic accidents: If this is your precedent, why is alcohol legal? Also, most people know when they're stoned better than they know when they're drunk, based on my personal sample of people who both drink and smoke weed.

Public disturbances: No. Pot smokers tend to be quiet, peaceful people, especially when high. Legalization would also reduce some types of crime because people wouldn't have to go out into the streets to get it.

Legal troubles: Well, that's a nebulous ***-cover of a phrase, isn't it? But it's also probably wrong.

Legal troubles, meaning hallucinating while driving and f****** crashing, public disturbances, they laugh so freaking hard when high, and they can still be obnoxious

[R4GEKILL!!!]

And my point is that the DEA won't have a lot less work, and that it is quite possible legalizing marijuana would give them a bigger workload.

To me, all these arguments are bull****. The economy, medicinal marijuana, etc. Pro-marijuana advocates don't really care about that. They just want to get stoned and not have to worry about being thrown in jail for it.

Lol. I don't smoke weed. My friends do, but I really hate the smell. So I could GAF about "Getting Stoned". All I care about is that marijuana becomes legal so that nobody gets in trouble over something so stupidly harmless, and we could make a sh.it ton of money off of it. So yeah. F.uck your Couch.

[Megaton666]

Legal troubles, meaning hallucinating while driving and f****** crashing, public disturbances, they laugh so freaking hard when high, and they can still be obnoxious

Did anyone ever tell you you're a moron?

[R4GEKILL!!!]

Did anyone ever tell you you're a moron?

XDD
10char.

[kaiser soze]

The ironic thing is that I see people from the anti-smoking thread supporting Marijuana use here.

[Mariya Shidou]

C'mon really? If marijuana is legalized, the DEA will have to come up with a truckload of new regulations to regulate the sale of the drug. They also have to figure out how to catch and punish those who use the drug illegally (like buying it from a dealer on the black market without paying taxes) that will take time, manpower, and a bunch of money. So it really won't help the DEA any. For example, they have to think stuff like, "Do we get the FDA involved in regulating THC?" "How do we deal with the stronger, black market stuff?" "Exactly what about marijuana are we legalizing?".

Easily answered questions:
#1: Because they regulate tobacco, I think they probably would.
#2: We arrest the dealers and seize their drugs, possibly for redistribution. (Here's another simple solution: We introduce, commercially, a large variety of types of marijuana of varying strengths. We do this already with tobacco; cf. cigars, where you can probably find, if you look, all varieties from double claro all the way up through oscuro.)
#3: Use and possession, possibly cultivation if people actually get their hands on seeds.

Really, adjusting laws is probably less of a problem than you're implying, and absolutely not a reason to not legalize. Any costs will be paid for by the revenue generated by marijuana taxes and reduction in costs spend on regulation (because those costs will be reduced, unless the government ****s up REALLY badly).

Nice ad-hominem later, though. Why don't you ask Paul Armentano at NORML about that and find out how wrong you are. In fact, you don't have to: read these arguments. That's a lot of work and legit scientists on a case for something that's, in your words, "just [because they] want to get stoned and not have to worry about being thrown in jail for it."

What he meant is that they'll have a lot less work. And people will still buy it legally. Look at music. It's availible for free on the internet, but people still use itunes like retards.

I would maintain that that's a different issue (supporting the artist).

The ironic thing is that I see people from the anti-smoking thread supporting Marijuana use here.

Maybe I forgot what irony is somewhere down the way, but smoking marijuana is far from the only way to take it. So, there's no irony here. Anti-smoking people who support legalizing pot are not necessarily supporting the smoking of it... or even the use of it. They're just saying it should be legal.

[R4GEKILL!!!]

The ironic thing is that I see people from the anti-smoking thread supporting Marijuana use here.

^That
10char.

[R4GEKILL!!!]

Easily answered questions:
#1: Because they regulate tobacco, I think they probably would.
#2: We arrest the dealers and seize their drugs, possibly for redistribution. (Here's another simple solution: We introduce, commercially, a large variety of types of marijuana of varying strengths. We do this already with tobacco; cf. cigars, where you can probably find, if you look, all varieties from double claro all the way up through oscuro.)
#3: Use and possession, possibly cultivation if people actually get their hands on seeds.

Really, adjusting laws is probably less of a problem than you're implying, and absolutely not a reason to not legalize. Any costs will be paid for by the revenue generated by marijuana taxes and reduction in costs spend on regulation (because those costs will be reduced, unless the government ****s up REALLY badly).

Nice ad-hominem later, though. Why don't you ask Paul Armentano at NORML about that and find out how wrong you are. In fact, you don't have to: read these arguments. That's a lot of work and legit scientists on a case for something that's, in your words, "just [because they] want to get stoned and not have to worry about being thrown in jail for it."



I would maintain that that's a different issue (supporting the artist).

There already is a large variety of marijuana strands. Have you ever been to a marijuana shop in california? It's pretty facinating S.hit.
(Sorry for double post. damn lag.)

[ChedWick]

C'mon really? If marijuana is legalized, the DEA will have to come up with a truckload of new regulations to regulate the sale of the drug. They also have to figure out how to catch and punish those who use the drug illegally (like buying it from a dealer on the black market without paying taxes) that will take time, manpower, and a bunch of money. So it really won't help the DEA any. For example, they have to think stuff like, "Do we get the FDA involved in regulating THC?" "How do we deal with the stronger, black market stuff?" "Exactly what about marijuana are we legalizing?".

If weed is legalized, the country won't become a perfect utopia where law enforcement and rules aren't needed. We'll still need the DEA and all that I mentioned above, and plus it won't necessarily save the economy. It's a guarantee that hundreds of people will try to grow their own marijuana and make a profit by selling it without the ($50) tax, because seriously, who wants to pay $50 every time they want to get high? The obvious solution is to monitor and regulate THC, hemp, and whatever, right? But that goes back to the DEA, who will have to deal with the strain of doing that and will definitely not be happy that marijuana was legalized.

Yes really. Maybe you didn't think your comments through very well but the budget for the war on drugs is outstanding. All to stop the import of it, the low level sell of it and street level use/possession of it. Make it legal and the need for black market trafficking greatly goes down as well as the need to stop it. Legalize it and we cut down on the need to try and jail non-violent "criminals." Coming up with new regulations wont take long. The government even with its habit of not ever doing anything constantly come up with hundred page proposals as if they are making instant mac. The tax argument you have isn't the DEA problem, it's an IRS problem and like the majority of other stuff bought and sold between street dealers will likely have a blind eye turned to them.

Legalizing it and taxing it fairly (as fairly as alcohol and cigarettes are currently being taxed) wouldn't be that challenging either. As far as black market home grown dealers are concerned... I'm sure the cooperation would capitalize much greater on legalized marijuana than a bunch of college kids growing it in their basements. Convenience would outweigh a few extra dollars in ones pocket.

[noahdaboa]

The ironic thing is that I see people from the anti-smoking thread supporting Marijuana use here.

Smoking tobacco and smoking weed are two totally different things my friend.

[#chelloressurection]

Did anyone ever tell you you're a moron?

No, you, GMD and mariya seem to be the only ones that think that.

[Megaton666]

No, you, GMD and mariya seem to be the only ones that think that.

No, it seems everyone in this thread agrees with me. Even people on your side of the argument would agree with me, seeing as you've proved nothing with your arguments other than that you're a moron.

[#chelloressurection]

Um, please be quiet, l dont see you getting any points accross either, so, shut up until you have some respect, stop spamming by arguing with me, and get back on topic. You have a bit of a rep from me by doing that, making YOURSELF look like a moron, so shut up, and enjoy the thread.

[Zenotwapal]

All it would cause is a bunch of people being lazy, laughing at things that aren't funny, and eating a lot.

Mary Jane affects the nervous system. It is stupid not to say that it WON'T cause traffic accidents and the manner.
Drugs are drugs; ban them all or find someway to use them in a safe manner (which really, no way is safe).
Why do we even need drugs anyway? All they do is hurt you. There's no significant "help" factor involved with any of these drugs, including Weed. there is nothing weed can do that a regular pharmaceutical drug can't.

[Mariya Shidou]

Mary Jane affects the nervous system. It is stupid not to say that it WON'T cause traffic accidents and the manner.

Only if people drive while high. Which, I think, not many people will... except people who would have driven on something else.

Why do we even need drugs anyway? All they do is hurt you. There's no significant "help" factor involved with any of these drugs, including Weed. there is nothing weed can do that a regular pharmaceutical drug can't.

Why not have an option?

Also, if all drugs do is hurt, do you agree that alcohol and tobacco should be illegal?