Now wait just a cotton-pickin' minute here. Are you saying Willy Nelson smokes pot?!?!?
Now wait just a cotton-pickin' minute here. Are you saying Willy Nelson smokes pot?!?!?
Not saying he smokes it, he just likes to travel with large amounts of it 
The way I read your post, you lump all users of either substance together with abusers.
By that logic, once something is criminalized, it is right to be criminalized, and therefore should never be decriminalized.
Will you roll over so easy when your elected officials choose to make it a criminal act to possess a firearm for any purpose other than self defense inside the home?
The crime that would be reduced are secondary crimes that are caused by prohibition. Should we have not repealed the 18th Amendment?
Just because something is defined as a criminal act does not mean that it is right to be a criminal act. It's a naturally occurring plant, even more harmless than tobacco.
Not the first pot bust for the Red Headed Stranger.
I dont know how many people steal to drink or get stoned.... but my kinfolks who do sure pay by "stealing" from the other aspects of quality living.
Like Dennisshoddy mentioned... they all get by OK... kids who reek of cigarette smoke, living in a rented single wide... not a bar of soap in the house nor a toothbrush. But they all afford Zig Zags and 30 packs of beer.
My wife wonders why I keep a arms lenght between myself and a few of mine (and sadly her) relations.
I dont know how many people steal to drink or get stoned.... but my kinfolks who do sure pay by "stealing" from the other aspects of quality living.
Like Dennisshoddy mentioned... they all get by OK... kids who reek of cigarette smoke, living in a rented single wide... not a bar of soap in the house nor a toothbrush. But they all afford Zig Zags and 30 packs of beer.
My wife wonders why I keep a arms lenght between myself and a few of mine (and sadly her) relations.
This. I am all for personal choice (and personal responsibility) but when there are kids involved it is a whole 'nuther ball game. Unfortunately, functioning drunks (and potheads and druggies) can't see the sad legacy they are passing on to their children. And in my experience, very very few are actually "recreational" users.
If you can take it or leave it (and know when to leave it and can) THEN you are a recreational user. If, however, the first thing you do when you wake, get home from work, think about relaxing, get in the shower, get out of the shower, go to take a dump, or get ready for bed is light up or pop a top, you are NOT a recreational user.
no. some laws are made that obviously should never be. and they should be repealed.
but deviant behavior should not be trivialized just because others do worse.
i realize many people beleive pot to be harmless, but i beleive it is a gateway drug, and a slippery slope. in my opinion, saying pot should be legal while harder drugs should not, is akin to saying semi autos should be illegal while single shots are ok.
and to say we should legalize pot to reduce crime is like saying we should give amnesty to reduce illegals.
JMO
Now wait just a cotton-pickin' minute here. Are you saying Willy Nelson smokes pot?!?!?
That's what I was thinking - "catching" Willie Nelson with pot is like catching one of the Kennedys with a prostitute.
If you're surprised, you've been living under a rock for a while.
As a user of neither, I have a hard time seeing the difference between alcohol and marijuana, except that alcoholic drinks were at one time necessary for survival and marijuana has always been recreational. One becomes a standard, accepted part of society, even with its many drawbacks, and one does not.
Frankly, alcohol seems a good deal more dangerous to me than marijuana. Combine a drunk's poor judgment and reckless disinhibition and you have a recipe for mayhem of one kind or another. How is the the guy who's "drunk" on marijuana? Calm, forgetful, friendly, disinclined to get up and do...anything, etc. Mad weed druggies breaking into your car to fund their addiction? Not any more of a threat or risk than some wino doing the same for alcohol, probably less so.
Alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, THC are all drugs that alter a person's mind to some degree or another. What makes them different is the degree to which their usage has been standardized. Why would THC be a "gateway drug" but alcohol and nicotine would not? What makes a "gateway"? The thrill of doing something illegal? The potential for addiction? It's cultural - any of those substances could fit the criteria. I draw the line of what makes a truly dangerous drug somewhere else - somewhere around those substances that all but certainly would make any formerly normal person become a insatiable lunatic who will do wildly dangerous, illegal things to score the next hit.
Willie Nelson smokes it up? Here's a list of things I'm more concerned about:
"Low-carb diets. Michael Moore. The Republican National Convention. Kabbalah and all Kabbalah-related products. Hi-def TV, the Bush daughters, wireless hot spots, 'The O.C.', the U.N., recycling, getting Punk'd, Danny Gans, the Latin Grammys, the real Grammys. Jeff, that Wiggle who sleeps too darn much! The Yankees payroll, all the red states, all the blue states, every hybrid car, every talk show host! Everything on the planet, everything in the solar system, everything everything everything everything everything everything - eve - everything that exists - past, present and future, in all discovered and undiscovered dimensions. Oh! And Hugh Jackman."
(with thanks to a funny TV show)
Frankly, alcohol seems a good deal more dangerous to me than marijuana. Combine a drunk's poor judgment and reckless disinhibition and you have a recipe for mayhem of one kind or another. How is the the guy who's "drunk" on marijuana? Calm, forgetful, friendly, disinclined to get up and do...anything, etc. Mad weed druggies breaking into your car to fund their addiction? Not any more of a threat or risk than some wino doing the same for alcohol, probably less so.
Alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, THC are all drugs that alter a person's mind to some degree or another. What makes them different is the degree to which their usage has been standardized. Why would THC be a "gateway drug" but alcohol and nicotine would not? What makes a "gateway"? The thrill of doing something illegal? The potential for addiction? It's cultural - any of those substances could fit the criteria. I draw the line of what makes a truly dangerous drug somewhere else - somewhere around those substances that all but certainly would make any formerly normal person become a insatiable lunatic who will do wildly dangerous, illegal things to score the next hit.
Willie Nelson smokes it up? Here's a list of things I'm more concerned about:
"Low-carb diets. Michael Moore. The Republican National Convention. Kabbalah and all Kabbalah-related products. Hi-def TV, the Bush daughters, wireless hot spots, 'The O.C.', the U.N., recycling, getting Punk'd, Danny Gans, the Latin Grammys, the real Grammys. Jeff, that Wiggle who sleeps too darn much! The Yankees payroll, all the red states, all the blue states, every hybrid car, every talk show host! Everything on the planet, everything in the solar system, everything everything everything everything everything everything - eve - everything that exists - past, present and future, in all discovered and undiscovered dimensions. Oh! And Hugh Jackman."
(with thanks to a funny TV show)
I also use neither but I'll tell you the difference.When someone goes to dinner or to a sports bar(or whatever),frequently they might have a drink or 2 because they like the way it tastes or makes their food taste.They don't necessarily want to get drunk or high.When some one lights up a bowl/joint of pot,they are most assuredly trying to get high/toasted.A subtle difference but neverless one.You decide whether it matters or not.I frankly wish all alcohol and illicit drugs would vanish,they have contributed nothing but sorrow and chaos in life on this planet.
It's amazing that the news media actually thinks this is news.
Similar threads
