Missy Giove visited my home town today....
- Status
She'll be fine.its tough to laugh at that when the chances of her getting raped are probably sitting somewhere close to 99.9%
If Eric Canori is a skinny white dude, he's going to be in trouble though...
Missy will rape the guards; Funk dat.
Some clarity:
She got bagged, she knew better, they prove it (likely) she's facing a heap.
Crimilized Marijuana is stupid, and extraordinarily invested in special interests; it should at least not be criminal, and really should be legal.
No, its not. Despite my disdain and proclaimed defiance of the law, I do expect to suffer repercussions should I be caught, regardless of whether or not it is reasonable.
Specificalkly regarding Marijuana trade, more specifically the high end trade which is US based, or imported from Canada, and not mexico, nor any cartels -- there is no unusual presence of violence or weapons or lateral criminalty. With regards to real scale sales (400lbs is a lot in a sense, but really nothing in the volume scale of 'regs') and imported brick weed - that violence and lateral criminality is ENTIRELY a function of prohibition.
So dont think I dont expect her to 'pay'. Since I am clearly of the opinion that she has had no negative impact, no victims, I say she should 'get away with it' -- although I dont expect it.
Now anyone who has had any significant experience on either side of criminal law, it should be clear that nothing is as it seems, and dont be so quick to discount her claim that 'I didnt know, it wasnt mine' -- you may, or may not, be shocked at some of the successful defenses in seemingly open/shut cases.
Closer reading of currently available info shows she was caught with ~200lbs in a vehicle, the other ~200 and cash was recovered from her 'partners' house.
You know, its against the law to protest in Tehran right now, maybe they should just obey because its a law. (Stretching comparison, but you get my drift..)
Some clarity:
She got bagged, she knew better, they prove it (likely) she's facing a heap.
Crimilized Marijuana is stupid, and extraordinarily invested in special interests; it should at least not be criminal, and really should be legal.
No, its not. Despite my disdain and proclaimed defiance of the law, I do expect to suffer repercussions should I be caught, regardless of whether or not it is reasonable.
Specificalkly regarding Marijuana trade, more specifically the high end trade which is US based, or imported from Canada, and not mexico, nor any cartels -- there is no unusual presence of violence or weapons or lateral criminalty. With regards to real scale sales (400lbs is a lot in a sense, but really nothing in the volume scale of 'regs') and imported brick weed - that violence and lateral criminality is ENTIRELY a function of prohibition.
So dont think I dont expect her to 'pay'. Since I am clearly of the opinion that she has had no negative impact, no victims, I say she should 'get away with it' -- although I dont expect it.
Now anyone who has had any significant experience on either side of criminal law, it should be clear that nothing is as it seems, and dont be so quick to discount her claim that 'I didnt know, it wasnt mine' -- you may, or may not, be shocked at some of the successful defenses in seemingly open/shut cases.
Closer reading of currently available info shows she was caught with ~200lbs in a vehicle, the other ~200 and cash was recovered from her 'partners' house.
You know, its against the law to protest in Tehran right now, maybe they should just obey because its a law. (Stretching comparison, but you get my drift..)
Last edited:
your mistake is assuming that she would be on the receiving end.its tough to laugh at that when the chances of her getting raped are probably sitting somewhere close to 99.9%
oh how I pity your thinking.
please tell me how this historical anecdote has anything to do with the manner in which marijuana possession is criminalized TODAY.
I doubt you can do this. but I'd love to read your attempt.
when did you study jurisprudence? at what law school? if I were you, I'd demand a refund. jurisprudence is the study of laws and their interaction with those who are affected by the laws. the analysis only BEGINS with the origin of the first time a subject matter is the subject of legislation. it does not END there.
you think marijuana crimes are enforced today because of a 1937 law? maybe you're familiar with the fact that sodomy is illegal in many states. do you think that means it's illegal to have anal sex in those states? or do you think the ENFORCEMENT is the issue -- in other words the reasons for the enforcement, or no enforcement, are the issue?
you think you out-smarted me, but you're about 10 steps behind me.
here's a hint for you. the propriety and equity of criminalizing a chemical ingestible or inhalable or drinkable should be weighed based upon dangers to society. this is undebatable. in the abstract, as a jurisprudential concept, that's the whole point of criminal law -- to protect society.
but when it comes to enforcement in America, theoretical jurisprudence usually goes out the window, and economic interests take precedence. (and/or sometimes, political interests based on paternalistic moralism -- "value" judgments based on what is more "acceptable" in "polite society," for example)
presently, alcohol is legal, but it causes plenty of DUI-related deaths and injuries (including economic ones), as well as lots of violent crimes (fights) and domestic violence.
and pot is illegal.
why do you think that is? obviously it's not about social harms. not real social harms anyway.
historically, pot has been the "drug" of the lower classes, the non-whites... whereas alcohol historically has had the support of the upper classes.
there's part of the clue for you.
GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly et alia make mood-altering psychopharmacology products that sell for massive profits, with approval from the FDA, the DEA, the US Dept of Justice.
yet for many people who suffer from anxiety, depression, social phobias the effects of THC are more powerful and useful than a handful of Prozac, Welbutrin, Serzone, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.
so why is pot illegal?
I'm not sure what you thought you achieved with your historical reference to a piece of 1937 legislation. you aren't even close to addressing the hows and whys of current pot law enforcement and related sentencing.
Last edited:
This is in regards to the affects on usage rate if pot is legalized.
In countries such as Holland where it is legal, the usage rates are lower than in the U.S. .
Although it could go up, there's evidence that suggests it will go down.
For whomever is interested, here's an article with some statistics as well as some theories attempting to explain the phenomenon.
Albeit, it is a pro cannabis site but all the sources are cited for those whom are vigilant enough to thoroughly inform themselves and validate before forming an opinion. An apparently rare, but commendable trait indeed.
http://www.ukcia.org/research/adolescents.htm
On the flip side there may be sufficient societal differences/factors between those countries and the U.S. to warrant another plausible conclusion, however my cursory research has yielded nil. Let me re-emphasize cursory again.
In countries such as Holland where it is legal, the usage rates are lower than in the U.S. .
Although it could go up, there's evidence that suggests it will go down.
For whomever is interested, here's an article with some statistics as well as some theories attempting to explain the phenomenon.
Albeit, it is a pro cannabis site but all the sources are cited for those whom are vigilant enough to thoroughly inform themselves and validate before forming an opinion. An apparently rare, but commendable trait indeed.
http://www.ukcia.org/research/adolescents.htm
On the flip side there may be sufficient societal differences/factors between those countries and the U.S. to warrant another plausible conclusion, however my cursory research has yielded nil. Let me re-emphasize cursory again.
Simmer down there chief, you've got your tinfoil hat on too tight.
I agree with you that the compounds found in pot are good for treating a wide array of ailments, and is probably more effective than a lot of pharma drugs on the market.
I only provided the abridged history of pot's criminalization in the US as a means of demonstrating pharma's historical lack of involvement in the politics of pot (at least here in the states). All of today's big pharma companies (JnJ, what's now GSK, Novartis, etc) have all been around long before pot was criminalized. I haven't been able to find any information in regards to them balking when it was outlawed.
My argument wasn't really in regards to the enforcement of the laws. My argument was against your statement that "it's illegal because if it were legal, a lot of businesses would lose money." Pharma wouldn't lose money from legalization, they would stand to benefit the most (aside from the growers, but I'd be willing to bet that pharma would invest heavily in that). Medicinal THC would be the new aspirin or penicillin - a single active compound that's useful against treating a myriad of symptoms from numerous chronic illnesses and conditions.
I've read from several sources that one of the biggest issues of using THC (from pot) for medicinal purposes is its inconsistent potency (% of THC per gram of plant). There's a lot of genetic variation from generation to generation, so, from an agricultural viewpoint, there's no guarantee that a crop would be medicinally valuable.
edit: in fact, a quick google search turns up a good amount of information in regards to pharma companies pushing for it to be decriminalized on the grounds that it is medicinally beneficial, patent applications for processes to not only extract but also scale up THC from the plant, and the like. Familiar with Marinol? It contains Dronabinol, synthetic delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol (commonly known as THC), in pill form.
Last edited:
It wasnt big Pharma at the core, it was textiles. Alcohol, Pharma, and a whole lot of business and racism at the root of this nonsense.
Last edited:
Eloquently stated slowitdown, I especially like:
JonKranked:
I'm pretty sure this is what riled up slowitdown:
"You talk about ignorance then spew these kinds of fallacies? Read up on your history here chief. "
but thanks, you were the catalyst for a dialogue I enjoyed reading.
Funny how so many theories sound so rational but reality comes along with a big stick to let us know how imperfect our knowledge really is. Which is probably a sufficient reason to explain why jurisprudence in the end is largely a process of experience. Who said that anyways? Justice Holmes? bah I don't remember.
JonKranked:
I'm pretty sure this is what riled up slowitdown:
"You talk about ignorance then spew these kinds of fallacies? Read up on your history here chief. "
but thanks, you were the catalyst for a dialogue I enjoyed reading.
Last edited:
I can't agree with you, but do you have an article or some proof of this? not saying that its not true, i just want to know where are you getting your info.
la cleta:
huck banzai stated that there is no unusual presence of violence in the high end trade.
Although I can't offer any evidence, my experience agrees. The types of people I see deal in the high end seem to be predominantly "hippy" types with extensive knowledge in horticulture and some even pursued degrees in relevant fields.
Not really the type that is normally associated with violence. This is not to say these people are never violent but the exact words used were "no unusual presence of violence."
I know. . . highly circumstantial evidence at best, but just expressing my experience. . . not that I would know these types of things
huck banzai stated that there is no unusual presence of violence in the high end trade.
Although I can't offer any evidence, my experience agrees. The types of people I see deal in the high end seem to be predominantly "hippy" types with extensive knowledge in horticulture and some even pursued degrees in relevant fields.
Not really the type that is normally associated with violence. This is not to say these people are never violent but the exact words used were "no unusual presence of violence."
I know. . . highly circumstantial evidence at best, but just expressing my experience. . . not that I would know these types of things
Last edited:
You deal with many people who sell in hundreds of pounds?
Experience....
..inferences regarding perspective are left to the reader.
If you ever deal with Cannabis Clubs and legal Cali growers -- these are mostly the same people doing it 'on the DL' elsewhere.
Last edited:
sbaabuser:
what scales do cannabis clubs deal with? that would be around the size I'm referring to (and probably less for those on the DL). I'm in Cali where it is legal for some, and unlike Bush, Obama supposedly won't have the DEA raiding these places anymore.
anyways, high end generally means smaller scales.
what scales do cannabis clubs deal with? that would be around the size I'm referring to (and probably less for those on the DL). I'm in Cali where it is legal for some, and unlike Bush, Obama supposedly won't have the DEA raiding these places anymore.
anyways, high end generally means smaller scales.
Last edited:
Man, you guys need to go ride your bikes or something! You can wax poetic all you want about pot issues, the justice system etc. but at the end of the day she was just a dumb ass for being involved in something that everyone knows what the ramifications can be.
Im octupletasking at work, biking is not possible. (not much good trails in midtown Manhattan anyway.)haha, nothing wrong with exercising our inner nerds, but when animosity starts surfacing, then yea I concur, we'd probably be better off just riding our bikes
If all people accepted the status quo, we'd still be beating our wives and smoking cigarettes because they're good for us.
The 50's were a much better time...
Huck Banzai:
"If all people accepted the status quo, we'd still be beating our wives and smoking cigarettes because they're good for us."
I totally agree. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for political activism and advocacy, it's the basis for progress afterall, but I've been in many debates where the clarity of hindsight would have me ride a bike if I could choose to do it all over again.
for example, debating with people who already have a set conclusion and are unable to accomodate anything that doesn't lend credence to that conclusion.
"If all people accepted the status quo, we'd still be beating our wives and smoking cigarettes because they're good for us."
I totally agree. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for political activism and advocacy, it's the basis for progress afterall, but I've been in many debates where the clarity of hindsight would have me ride a bike if I could choose to do it all over again.
for example, debating with people who already have a set conclusion and are unable to accomodate anything that doesn't lend credence to that conclusion.
Last edited:
Drinking at work was acceptable too.
That wasn't the only thing going on at the shop when I turned wrenches.
But I work in an office now
So jealous. I could go for a drink right now. Only Tuesday and already been a long week.
You are correct; so while I dont expect to 'change' anyones mind, there are lurkers, and any discussion that brings light onto a subject spreads information and gives people access to more information! (myself included)
Whether onlione or offline, I have personnally benefitted from taking part in conversations/discussions/arguments, however they may be characterized, through realizng my error or stuboornness, and gaining information regardless. Regardless of who 'wins' there is usually something that can be gained.
I am certain several people on here can attest to my oppoisitional nature in the past! For instance, although I think General Lee can be quite a bit condescending, and inflexible when he's wrong (my opinion GL!) - he has quite a lot to offer the forums in experience and technical knowledge. Several others also fall into this category, or similar.
So, any dsicussion that can remain civil, avoid assumptions, and engage forum members in a thoughtful way, I take as a big plus.
Last edited:
Explain this to a guy like me, who knows nothing about dope...
Can't you grow weed yourself? I mean, I grow my own vegetables...is it not that easy to grow some plants on your own? so you dope smokers don't have to buy it, traffic it, etc???
Can't you grow weed yourself? I mean, I grow my own vegetables...is it not that easy to grow some plants on your own? so you dope smokers don't have to buy it, traffic it, etc???
If you have the space, knowledge, balls, and equipment, yeah. But in most places the law you're breaking isn't much different. Being that you'd go to jail quicker if it was in your yard you have to do it inside. "Good" indoor growing takes some savvy and dedication believe it or not.
Damit I'm bored I just read this whole thing.
It's disturbing to see that there are people that so vehemently stand behind the letter of the law but forget the very reason that the law and this country are what they are......the ability to interpret the facts and common sense in front of you and say no sir, I don't think so, and do something about it.
Pot is such a hot topic (obviously after a 21 page post in our little corner of the web) in this country BECAUSE the common sense and facts are there. Whether or not you smoke, hate smoke, or even people that do smoke is utterly irrelevant. Get educated and form a reasonable opinion (propaganda and media rarely qualify as education btw).
Again, I don't know Missy, but as it stands she appears screwed. Sadly, we do have to play by ALL the rules to avoid consequence. Until the rules change she's probably going to jail, 400 lbs. is pretty excessive, but it's her ass, not ours.
The simple ability to put four plants in your backyard and utilize them personally would alleviate so much associated with this: lost lives, money, and time.
I know that if I spent even a fraction of the time it must take to amass a multi multi thousand post count as an e-speculator on some corner of the net I might THEN be rendered "unproductive" in life.
It's disturbing to see that there are people that so vehemently stand behind the letter of the law but forget the very reason that the law and this country are what they are......the ability to interpret the facts and common sense in front of you and say no sir, I don't think so, and do something about it.
Pot is such a hot topic (obviously after a 21 page post in our little corner of the web) in this country BECAUSE the common sense and facts are there. Whether or not you smoke, hate smoke, or even people that do smoke is utterly irrelevant. Get educated and form a reasonable opinion (propaganda and media rarely qualify as education btw).
Again, I don't know Missy, but as it stands she appears screwed. Sadly, we do have to play by ALL the rules to avoid consequence. Until the rules change she's probably going to jail, 400 lbs. is pretty excessive, but it's her ass, not ours.
The simple ability to put four plants in your backyard and utilize them personally would alleviate so much associated with this: lost lives, money, and time.
I know that if I spent even a fraction of the time it must take to amass a multi multi thousand post count as an e-speculator on some corner of the net I might THEN be rendered "unproductive" in life.
Yep you can, I had a room mate in college that did it in a closet. I honestly think most law enforcement really don't give a **** about it either unless they are forced to face it when called in for something else or if it's a crop that is obviously for more than one house hold.
I did have another thought on the subject as well; If it were legalized, I don't think most dealers/ traffickers would be doing so because there would no longer be the same kind of money in the game. Dole and the Jolly Green Giant would probably take things over. Which then leads to the question, what do the dealers do now? I am willing to bet that those that are in it for money (and most are, verses this notion of it being some nobel act of providing the deprived citizens of something they deserve), and would move on to any number of other drugs that would provide the same type of profit. This is why I say it really has nothing to do with the weed, it is more to do with the conscious decision to break the law.
For the record, I am not some anti dope, self righteous person who sees things in black and white. I used to smoke a lot years back and still will on a rare occasion. There are a lot of laws that I choose to break, some on a daily basis. My main point is that it is rediculous to cry foul or sympathize with someone, myself included, if they choose to break a law to such a large degree. And, to say these are victimless crimes, (again, at this scale) is very narrow minded.
Peg, so far the only actual victim you've identified is the mythical "law abiding US taxpayer." I disagree with this premise for two reasons. First, I am not so sure that our government is a force for good in the world and that by giving it more money, happiness and prosperity will spread throughout the land (sorry to put words in your mouth, but this, I think is your basic assumption). In fact, the government is much more likely to waste the money or spend it on something I consider totally evil (see: tomahawk cruise missile). Second, you argue that Missy's failure to pay taxes on the 400lb brick is an attack on people who do pay. Missy is not robbing those people, the government is. Place responsibility for the crime on the mugger, not the person who escapes with wallet intact.
I won't go so far as to declare it your patriotic duty to evade taxes, but as far as I'm concerned, if everybody stopped paying, the government would be far less able to perpetrate evil **** on me.
You can say that she knew the risks and has to accept the consequences, and ultimately that's true. You tangle with the state, expect to get smacked. Probably smarter to stay home. However, to deny that what might happen to her is tragic (as many people on here have done) is really cold. At this point, all she can hope for is jury nullification, but with the attitudes I'm hearing on this site she doesn't have much of a chance. The jury system is the last check on an out of control government, but as long as people are convinced that they are only permitted to rule on whether the law was broken and not on whether the law is just, lives will keep getting ruined.
It honestly makes me scared for the future of our democracy because so many people have swallowed the authoritarian "the law is the law and there must be a good reason for it" bull**** that keeps this whole scam running.
Wow, this could (is) get pollitical. Sorry to all those that think we are pluggin up the board with non-sense but I am enjoying the discussion.
Skate, you seem educated enough, and I am sure that your oppinion will not be swayed but it's a bit ironic that you seem to think that people who are supporting the legal system are some how blind followers of a corrupt government. I am not naive enough to think that our goverment is not as corrupt as the next. I went to school too and have heard the notions that our government is set up in such a way, (Electoral College, checks and balances ect.), to keep the common man out of power and the elites running the show. I can't say that I disagree with that and I also believe that until voters vote for what they truely believe in instead of ,hoping for something different, or the media race, things will remain on the path that they are on.
I will go back to the naive oppinion of victimless crime. Total BS. Growing your own and smoking your own is victimless. That is excercising a freedom that I believe people should have. If she was busted for this I would be sending money, as I dig Missy. You list your location as DC. I could send you into a few neighborhoods to buy weed and let's see how victimless and peaceful it is. You can't site your experiences and or specific subsets and make blanket statements. That is short sighted and closeminded. You can't say "It probably came from Canada or Larry the Hippies garden, so there is no victims involved. I lived with friends (years back) who moved lb's. Trust me, the larger the quantities the sketchier it gets. 2-400 lb's didn't come from somewhere that only has 2-400lb's. Remove weed from your thoughts because that is not the issue.
Let's say that weed is completely legal. You can buy it, you can sell it, you can put stalks in your ass and ride your bike down the street with it. What is the next illegal substance that you think traficking is OK and vicimless? That is the issue.
Please tell me that you are a lobyist for the legalization of marijuana. Please tell me that you are writing your congressmen and actively working to change the laws and system that you hold in such disdain. Please tell me that you are not one of those that sits around bitching about how everything is a conspiracy, and the citizens are sheep and we are being exploited by our government. Because if not, I hold little respect for the argument and offer a polite STFU.
This country and it's legal system is far from perfect, but it does afford many more opportunities than most. There are still many more coming in than are going out.
Skate, you seem educated enough, and I am sure that your oppinion will not be swayed but it's a bit ironic that you seem to think that people who are supporting the legal system are some how blind followers of a corrupt government. I am not naive enough to think that our goverment is not as corrupt as the next. I went to school too and have heard the notions that our government is set up in such a way, (Electoral College, checks and balances ect.), to keep the common man out of power and the elites running the show. I can't say that I disagree with that and I also believe that until voters vote for what they truely believe in instead of ,hoping for something different, or the media race, things will remain on the path that they are on.
I will go back to the naive oppinion of victimless crime. Total BS. Growing your own and smoking your own is victimless. That is excercising a freedom that I believe people should have. If she was busted for this I would be sending money, as I dig Missy. You list your location as DC. I could send you into a few neighborhoods to buy weed and let's see how victimless and peaceful it is. You can't site your experiences and or specific subsets and make blanket statements. That is short sighted and closeminded. You can't say "It probably came from Canada or Larry the Hippies garden, so there is no victims involved. I lived with friends (years back) who moved lb's. Trust me, the larger the quantities the sketchier it gets. 2-400 lb's didn't come from somewhere that only has 2-400lb's. Remove weed from your thoughts because that is not the issue.
Let's say that weed is completely legal. You can buy it, you can sell it, you can put stalks in your ass and ride your bike down the street with it. What is the next illegal substance that you think traficking is OK and vicimless? That is the issue.
Please tell me that you are a lobyist for the legalization of marijuana. Please tell me that you are writing your congressmen and actively working to change the laws and system that you hold in such disdain. Please tell me that you are not one of those that sits around bitching about how everything is a conspiracy, and the citizens are sheep and we are being exploited by our government. Because if not, I hold little respect for the argument and offer a polite STFU.
This country and it's legal system is far from perfect, but it does afford many more opportunities than most. There are still many more coming in than are going out.
There are only victims because it's a crime.
If it was legal, there would be no victims. Hence, ALL drugs should be legalised, as said in my previous reply...
If it was legal, there would be no victims. Hence, ALL drugs should be legalised, as said in my previous reply...
I've worked for two pro-legalization think tanks, most recently analyzing the coca trade and US crop eradication efforts in Bolivia and Colombia. Lately, I've been attending events on Afghanistan policy trying to learn about the counter narcotics strategy, but legalization is a hard sell with the military at this point. To be honest, I try to stay off Capitol Hill, but when I had a congressman in my house this winter (friend of my father's), I did my best to tell him that crop eradication would never work and explain why it was bad policy. I just don't think they're prepared to hear "If heroin were legal this insurgency would disappear in 6 months" even though it's the truth. I don't see congress touching this with a 10 ft pole.
However, drugs are not my primary area. My work at the moment focuses on land rights reform in developing countries because frankly it's a bigger fish to fry. There are a couple billion people in the world without secure titles to their land (depending on who you ask) and land/resource grabs by elites are a significant cause of poverty and conflict. However, in my line of work I deal with the exact same nonsense.
Special interests (lawyers, surveyors, cops) who benefit directly from the status quo, predatory elites who are able to exploit it for their personal or political gain (local bosses, politicians, gangsters) and a whole bunch of people who are either too busy to demand their rights, too disillusioned to try, or too ignorant to do it effectively. I deal with land rights but you could insert drugs or practically any other intractable political issue and find the same thing happening.
As for the victimless crime idea I will say one thing. There are crimes with real victims correlated with drug use and trafficking but that doesn't mean that drug trafficking as such has victims. Charge these bastards for the murders they commit or the people they beat up. Those are crimes. A voluntary transaction between two adults is not.
However, drugs are not my primary area. My work at the moment focuses on land rights reform in developing countries because frankly it's a bigger fish to fry. There are a couple billion people in the world without secure titles to their land (depending on who you ask) and land/resource grabs by elites are a significant cause of poverty and conflict. However, in my line of work I deal with the exact same nonsense.
Special interests (lawyers, surveyors, cops) who benefit directly from the status quo, predatory elites who are able to exploit it for their personal or political gain (local bosses, politicians, gangsters) and a whole bunch of people who are either too busy to demand their rights, too disillusioned to try, or too ignorant to do it effectively. I deal with land rights but you could insert drugs or practically any other intractable political issue and find the same thing happening.
As for the victimless crime idea I will say one thing. There are crimes with real victims correlated with drug use and trafficking but that doesn't mean that drug trafficking as such has victims. Charge these bastards for the murders they commit or the people they beat up. Those are crimes. A voluntary transaction between two adults is not.
Very respectable. I agree with your last paragraph to an extent, and to the minute portion of it that we may ever so slightly differ; I say, in the words of the great Ron Burgandy, "Agree to disagree."
Great, now what...back to the mindless reading of boring Boxxer, Brakes and bearings threads..
Great, now what...back to the mindless reading of boring Boxxer, Brakes and bearings threads..
If you actually believe this, you're a good candidate for the anti-drug side of the debate.
Back to the subject, does anybody got any updates on Missy's situation?
her website sucks... 
The notion it is victimless derives from the reality that all of the 'victims' of drugs, excepting the individual choosing to use them - should that be characterized as a victim, are afucntion of prohibition and enforcement.
Please explain how a person consuming drugs victimizes anyone else. Now compare and contrast those effects in 2 scenarios:
1 - criminal/illegal - which creates a black market and associated violence, disenfranchises any users as criminals and provides no practical means of mitigation
2 - legalized - removes exorbitant enforcment expenditures, takes the market out of the street and thugs hands, and puts in a regulated status that allows for purity, taxation, and an end to moral repression.
Its both reasonable and pragmatic to favor #2, whereas #1 serves only special interests and those pursuing a 'moral' agenda.
Its enormosly significant that Amsterdam is both the most drug tolerant place to be, and hostorically near the top, or at the top, of lists of best places to live in the world.
No - it is not great BECAUSE of the drug use IMHO, but indicates that the tolerance and acceptance of it does not lead to massive increases in use and a spiralling society. Point taken from above that this is a disparate and more heterogenous culture than exists in this country, but a valid example nonetheless.
True story, reflective of many others:
An acquaintance who is a team leader of a large IT group in financial services; regular confessed 'toker' (daily, lunchtime, dinner, so on).
- Outstanding reviews under multiple managers
- Fastest promoted member of this IT group.
- Held in high regard by colleagues as the best of the best.
- Committed, capable and proven effective.
This person would be screened out by the notion that use indicates mediocrity or other deficiency making them a lesser employee.
I can spew stories about many others that are the same in most respects, including a college friend who smoked heavily and graduated Summa Cum Laude, Phi Beta Kappa, so on so forth..
YES, I can also point to a plethora of couch sitting, bong toting, XBox addicted lumps as well.
A bit of a tangent, but a legitiamte note per the application of drug related discrimination.
These laws allow people to judge people and manipulate situations based on flase notions, and often a 'political' agenda.
Please explain how a person consuming drugs victimizes anyone else. Now compare and contrast those effects in 2 scenarios:
1 - criminal/illegal - which creates a black market and associated violence, disenfranchises any users as criminals and provides no practical means of mitigation
2 - legalized - removes exorbitant enforcment expenditures, takes the market out of the street and thugs hands, and puts in a regulated status that allows for purity, taxation, and an end to moral repression.
Its both reasonable and pragmatic to favor #2, whereas #1 serves only special interests and those pursuing a 'moral' agenda.
Its enormosly significant that Amsterdam is both the most drug tolerant place to be, and hostorically near the top, or at the top, of lists of best places to live in the world.
No - it is not great BECAUSE of the drug use IMHO, but indicates that the tolerance and acceptance of it does not lead to massive increases in use and a spiralling society. Point taken from above that this is a disparate and more heterogenous culture than exists in this country, but a valid example nonetheless.
True story, reflective of many others:
An acquaintance who is a team leader of a large IT group in financial services; regular confessed 'toker' (daily, lunchtime, dinner, so on).
- Outstanding reviews under multiple managers
- Fastest promoted member of this IT group.
- Held in high regard by colleagues as the best of the best.
- Committed, capable and proven effective.
This person would be screened out by the notion that use indicates mediocrity or other deficiency making them a lesser employee.
I can spew stories about many others that are the same in most respects, including a college friend who smoked heavily and graduated Summa Cum Laude, Phi Beta Kappa, so on so forth..
YES, I can also point to a plethora of couch sitting, bong toting, XBox addicted lumps as well.
A bit of a tangent, but a legitiamte note per the application of drug related discrimination.
These laws allow people to judge people and manipulate situations based on flase notions, and often a 'political' agenda.
Last edited:
Food for thought Huck: Where does it end? Again, you have to take the specific substance out of the picture. It is my belief that big time dealers are in it for money, no more, no less. How old is Crack? I know where it derives from but my point is it was manufactured back in the 80's, not because there were no other options for ways to get high, but because people were looking for a way to make money. Crystal Meth-mid to late 90's; again there are a lot of other substances out there that will provide similar results but again it is a pure profit type of drug created by criminals. My point is, and I am not against the legalization of marijuana, the theory that legalizing will eliminate dealers/traficking/associated crime is a farce. It may eliminate the small time petty dealer, who I agree poses little threat, but the true criminals who opperate off of greed for money and power will just create something bigger and badder (for lack of better term).
Additional food for thought: People always bring up alchohol vs. weed/drugs. The majority of people who drink do not binge drink. That is to say, the majority of people have a drink or two at various times and do not go to the point of getting drunk. If a person was to get drunk everyday or even multiple times through out the day, would we not view them as a problem or at least in a negative light even if they were to harm no one? Now think about it, (unlike Bill Clinton)I have never smoked without getting high. Most people I know that smoke do so on a daily basis, and a fair amount will do so multiple times per day. If it were legal, like alchohol, is there now a double standard? I know there are differences in the effects of the "high", again, just food for thought.
Additional food for thought: People always bring up alchohol vs. weed/drugs. The majority of people who drink do not binge drink. That is to say, the majority of people have a drink or two at various times and do not go to the point of getting drunk. If a person was to get drunk everyday or even multiple times through out the day, would we not view them as a problem or at least in a negative light even if they were to harm no one? Now think about it, (unlike Bill Clinton)I have never smoked without getting high. Most people I know that smoke do so on a daily basis, and a fair amount will do so multiple times per day. If it were legal, like alchohol, is there now a double standard? I know there are differences in the effects of the "high", again, just food for thought.
Peg, just some points:
In regards to the criminals selling weed, the small guys who do it to supply themselves would stop because they could get it through legal channels. Larger ops (provided they don't have hands in other substances) might opt to go legit. But if some of these large ops chose not to go legit, what about their customer base? The people who buy from them currently do so only because their are no other options really. But what happens if a legal means to obtain it suddenly manifests itself? Do you think the customers will continue to purchase through the illegal channels and their associated risk? Or will they opt for a legal route of purchasing their pot, even if it means paying more for the same amount just to avoid the added risk?
In regards to your comments about alcohol vs weed, yes some people smoke multiple times a day. There are functional stoners, just like there are functional alcoholics.
In regards to the criminals selling weed, the small guys who do it to supply themselves would stop because they could get it through legal channels. Larger ops (provided they don't have hands in other substances) might opt to go legit. But if some of these large ops chose not to go legit, what about their customer base? The people who buy from them currently do so only because their are no other options really. But what happens if a legal means to obtain it suddenly manifests itself? Do you think the customers will continue to purchase through the illegal channels and their associated risk? Or will they opt for a legal route of purchasing their pot, even if it means paying more for the same amount just to avoid the added risk?
In regards to your comments about alcohol vs weed, yes some people smoke multiple times a day. There are functional stoners, just like there are functional alcoholics.
- Status