Random drug testing in school approved

[I Are Baboon]

Did anyone hear about this? I saw it on the news this morning.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/scotus.drug.testing.ap/index.html

Some girl and her family sued her school system because she was subjected to a random drug test. She passed the test and said she's never taken drugs, but she considered this a violation of her right to privacy.

All I have to say to her is DON'T TAKE DRUGS, CRACKHEAD, AND YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. Welcome to the real world, sister.

[BikeGeek]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon
Did anyone hear about this? I saw it on the news this morning.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/scotus.drug.testing.ap/index.html

Some girl and her family sued her school system because she was subjected to a random drug test. She passed the test and said she's never taken drugs, but she considered this a violation of her right to privacy.

All I have to say to her is DON'T TAKE DRUGS, CRACKHEAD, AND YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. Welcome to the real world, sister.

We always had random locker searches and bookbag searches. It was only a matter of time before this started.

[gecko]

Phew, good thing I'm done school.

[Toshi]

I don't think it's right to test without reason. Accept it in the schools as we've come to accept it (sort of) in the workplace, and we're one step closer to a police society where you're fine unless you step out of line. Okay, maybe I'm a bit overly Orwellian (and rhyming :D) this morning, but you can see my point, no?

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by gecko
Phew, good thing I'm done school.

Well, this school only tested students who participated in after school activities. This girl was a member of the Math Club and Debate Team, and she was tested. Seems odd to only test students with extra-curricular activities You'd think that would curb the number of students who participate, and schools are supposed to encourage participation.

[ibismojo]

score one for the stoners!! they've got nothing to worry about now that the attention has been shifted to over achievers!

[Toshi]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon
Well, this school only tested students who participated in after school activities. This girl was a member of the Math Club and Debate Team, and she was tested. Seems odd to only test students with extra-curricular activities You'd think that would curb the number of students who participate, and schools are supposed to encourage participation.
I guess the new math nerds will have to rely on brainpower, rather than The Crack, which undoubtedly helped me through high school. :eek: :rolleyes:

[gecko]

Well I was on most of the sports teams, did all those math competitions (scored in the 99th percentile nationally on a few of them hehe), science competitions, etc....but I did smoke the occasional dubie with my friends, I really don't think I should have been penalized for it, not at the high school level anyway.

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by gecko
I did smoke the occasional dubie with my friends,

You frickin' crack baby. :p

[Toshi]

Originally posted by gecko
Well I was on most of the sports teams, did all those math competitions (scored in the 99th percentile nationally on a few of them hehe), science competitions, etc....but I did smoke the occasional dubie with my friends, I really don't think I should have been penalized for it, not at the high school level anyway.
me too :eek:

[Yossarian]

I am all for random druig testing. I want to know if the drugs I buy are any good or not.

[Will_Jekyll]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon


Well, this school only tested students who participated in after school activities. This girl was a member of the Math Club and Debate Team, and she was tested. Seems odd to only test students with extra-curricular activities You'd think that would curb the number of students who participate, and schools are supposed to encourage participation.

I think the reasoning there is that you don't have to be involved in extra-curricular activity and if you so choose to do so you choose to submit to a drug test. They don't test the whole school because you don't have a choice of going to school or not. It's the same general principle that I think they apply to on the job drug tests. Working for a company that does drug tests is your choice if you don't like it you can find another job.

[Daniel(Canada)]

I think it's stupid to do such things. If drugs have become a problem for a kid, it's easy enough to tell. But to do random tests seems kinda stupid to me. But I guess that's coming from a person who will smoke up on occasion. But I think it's definitely an effective way to lower drugs in school, as much as I hate to admit it. But the fact that they only test extra-curricular kids seems like a motivation not to participate.

[ibismojo]

Originally posted by Daniel(Canada)
I think it's stupid to do such things. If drugs have become a problem for a kid, it's easy enough to tell. But to do random tests seems kinda stupid to me. But I guess that's coming from a person who will smoke up on occasion. But I think it's definitely an effective way to lower drugs in school, as much as I hate to admit it. But the fact that they only test extra-curricular kids seems like a motivation not to participate.

but why would do drugs in the first place if you're involved in ec activities? it's not like being high is gonna help. well...it might. hehe. actually...it doesn't make sense cause they're testing for after the fact. it'd make more sense if you got caught doing drugs on school campus or came to school high, and teachers had a reasonable cause to test the kid for drugs. what you do outside of school is your business...not the school's.

btw, happy birthday.

[Will_Jekyll]

Originally posted by ibismojo


but why would do drugs in the first place if you're involved in ec activities? it's not like being high is gonna help. well...it might. hehe. actually...it doesn't make sense cause they're testing for after the fact. it'd make more sense if you got caught doing drugs on school campus or came to school high, and teachers had a reasonable cause to test the kid for drugs. what you do outside of school is your business...not the school's.

btw, happy birthday.

When it comes to sports they are probably looking for roids. I know when I was in highschool most of the starting line on the football team used them.

[ibismojo]

Originally posted by Will_Jekyll


When it comes to sports they are probably looking for roids. I know when I was in highschool most of the starting line on the football team used them.

haha, steroids for the human mind. can you imagine that...you're at some academic competition and you're accused of juicing! heh...what i would pay to see that.

[ummbikes]

They should test the teachers too...;)

[Dirt rider]

Originally posted by ummbikes
They should test the teachers too...;)

Hell Yah you know howmany teachers would get busted.:D



Anyhow Im totaly against drug testing by shcools. It is a total invation of privicy. I watched the show and the interveiwer said that 3 out of 505 students tested at that girls school tested positive and asked the girl weather because of this drug test these 3 students where caught and schools should continue to test in order to catch more. Kids who do drugs and have a serious problem with drugs are not smart people and will get caught anyway I was in a class where 2 student where taken out after a locker seach! they where stuipd enough to have weed and its pungent odor in a locker and they go caught.

Also the principal of the girls school said he orderd the test as a result of a "serious drug problem" in his school. im sorry but 3 out of 505 is dick in comparison to my school of 800 students.

Dirt rider drug free

[Bardfor]

Originally posted by Dirt rider


Anyhow Im totaly against drug testing by shcools. It is a total invation of privicy.

I agree that random drug testing in *public* schools is an invasion of privacy... but, if you send your kid to a private school that you have to pay for, then the school should have the power to do whatever it wants to maintain it's student popluation, the school reputation, etc. You (as a parent) are paying extra to send your kid somewhere other than the school provided by the government (public school)...

now, are private schools better than public schools? hmmm....

[ElemenoPee]

only a matter of time b4 they get the rubber gloves out.

that reminds me of a quote from a movie.........'well, the guy with the rubber glove was surprisingly gentle'

[fourgivn1]

Umm, I know we all know this, but drugs are illegal. (Well, not over the counter drugs, but y'all know what I mean. :)

That being said, I'm all for random drug tests - IF they have a reason to test. For instance, if they've never had problems with drugs, then there's no reason. Now, if they suddenly have a kid wander in one day with red eyes, acting all weird, driving 2 miles an hour, and he's got the munchies big time, that'd be suspicious to me. And if they tested him, and he was positive, I do not think it would be wrong to do random drug tests. Drug tests may be an invasion of privacy, but drugs are illegal.....as soon as you take the drugs, as far as I am concerned, you void your 'right' to privacy as far as those drug tests are concerned.

[Spud]

Glad to hear the court is so stoked to do drug screening on teenagers. Now lets get their sorry azzes in the program. After all they are appointed for life and charged with being the final interpreter of the constitution. Also test:
The President and Vice-President
All Cabinet Members
Senators and Represenatives
CEO's and Board Members of all companies regulated by the SEC
Any and all accredited journalists
Anyone who wants a driver's license.......


After all if we need to test 17 year olds in drama club.... :mad:

[fourgivn1]

Hey, I have no problem with that. If the Prez has to get his jumblies groped to make sure he's not packin' anything, then so be it. :D

[ohio]

I don't think it should be allowed. It's one thing for private institutions (businesses/corporations) to test employees who are under contract, but for a govermental organization (schools) to administer random drugs tests without warrant is unlawful search and sezure and sets a dangerous precedent. My school got around this, by having random drug dog searches at the school. A drug dog smelling something is sufficient cause for search... (that one would've backfired if they hadn't warned all the teachers in advance not to bring their stash to school that day).

In addition if you ARE going to have random drug tests, it's ridiculous to limit it to students involved in exatr-curricular activities, as these are the kids LEAST AT RISK. Even if they are using drugs they're much more likely to lead healthy and balanced lives than the kids with NO extra-curriculars who is also using rec drugs.

[Damn True]

The reason for the testing of kids involved in EC activities is because they as participants in funded activites are the recipients of more per-student funding. Addtionally they are representing their schools and communites.
I think ensureing those kids are not using drugs is justified.

[Toshi]

Originally posted by Damn True
The reason for the testing of kids involved in EC activities is because they as participants in funded activites are the recipients of more per-student funding. Addtionally they are representing their schools and communites.
I think ensureing those kids are not using drugs is justified.
But the purpose of the drug testing is to ensure the kids live quality lives, right? In my unscientific opinion (backed up by my and gecko's experience as posted above) the kids in EC activites are less at risk to screw up their lives, even if they experiment with drugs.

[Spud]

The double standard is huge. I can see DT's point. However, If having kids clean for debate club is vital to our national interests than there should be no problem testing judges, politicians and journalists.....

Nobody's got the balls pass that kind of legislation so they test kids, welfare recipients and lance corporals.......

[Damn True]

You are probably right, and I think the testing includes student atheletes as well. If not it should.

But taking your logic, and it is sound, to the next level. Why not ensure that those kids are held to a higher level of accountability so as to be a better example to other kids?

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Spud
The double standard is huge. I can see DT's point. However, If having kids clean for debate club is vital to our national interests than there should be no problem testing judges, politicians and journalists.....

Nobody's got the balls pass that kind of legislation so they test kids, welfare recipients and lance corporals.......


The military does get tested.

[Spud]

Originally posted by Damn True



The military does get tested.

yep, I know the grunts do. What about the highest levels?

[Toshi]

Originally posted by Damn True
Why not ensure that those kids are held to a higher level of accountability so as to be a better example to other kids?
Doing so would be unfair. Not to sound whiny, but expectations are already high for straight arrow kids, and basically forcing them to be totally clean would perhaps make it more attractive to play dumb. :rolleyes:

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Spud


yep, I know the grunts do. What about the highest levels?

The answer is yes.

From E-1 to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Toshi

Doing so would be unfair. Not to sound whiny, but expectations are already high for straight arrow kids, and basically forcing them to be totally clean would perhaps make it more attractive to play dumb. :rolleyes:


I see your point, but disagree.

I think the message it sends to other kids is the real point.

You can't achieve "X" if you are doing drugs.

[ohio]

Originally posted by Damn True



I see your point, but disagree.

I think the message it sends to other kids is the real point.

You can't achieve "X" if you are doing drugs.

If you're putting a policy into effect for it's message rather than it's direct effect, then it should at least be an accurate message.

Looking at the top of my graduating classes (highschool and college), drug use had zero effect on ability to achieve, or overall success of the student. The kids who had problems almost always had greater problems than just drugs and very very few of them were involved in any extra-curriculars. The drugs were the symptom not the cause, and we should be encouraging kids as much as possible to get involved in extra-curriculars...

I see your point, but I disagree about what is most important in this issue.

[Spud]

Originally posted by Damn True


The answer is yes.

From E-1 to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Now that's fair. I'd like to see school districts follow such a policy. Principal Skinner, we need you to come to the nurse's office for your random U.A.

[Dirt rider]

Originally posted by Damn True
The answer is yes.

From E-1 to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.



huh huh ... he said joint.....

[LoboDelFuego]

I think it's totally fair to be testing kids. I don't even think it should be random. I think it should be mandatory. Run the mile, flex test, sit-ups, and piss in a cup. Testing kids would make so many more get caught.
I remember one day last year at my school a rumor came up that they were doing drug testing in the afternoon. Half the kids walked home at lunch or began to drink tons of water (they're stupid). The cafeteria sold every single poppy seed bagel. If we really had had drug testing that day, it would have been great. (Most of the other riders on this board from my school will disagree with me, but who cares.)

It's not an invasion of privacy. Nobody is making you strip or doing a full body cavity search. Drugs are illegal, and even if they weren't, they have no place in an institution of learning. You can't bring a gun or other weapon to school, so some schools have metal detectors. You can't have drugs in school (or anywhere) so schools should have drug tests if they have a drug problem.

edit: spelling correction

[Sideways]

15 of the 25 kids in my High School AP calculus class smoked pot on a regular basis.
All but two had used the drug at some point.
Most of the kids I've kept up from high school with are now doing very well.
There are no correlations between marijuana use and academic success.
Public school systems have no business knowing which students use illegal drugs.

[Sideways]

Oh and I might add that my AP English teacher, who was very well respected and did an outstanding job teaching the finer points of Shakespeare, is an avid marijuana user.

[Skookum]

Drug test a child on probation for commiting a crime. Drug test the staff who work at the high school. But a school should never have the right to test students for any other reason.
Justifying this infringement of rights, takes the power away from the parents. There are avenues to take if a kid is having problems with drugs, and testing is one of them, but at the discretion of the parent only.
No one should condone the use of drugs by students, especially parents. But that's not the issue, the issue is how far do we as a society react or overreact to the fallacies of youth. Certainly drugs can hamper the future of a child, but so can a black mark from a random drug test from a public institution. Think hard about the repurcussions of this policy and argue to me realistically if the benefits outweigh the negatives. Not testing, or drug prevention for a child, but the school dictating when,who, and how.

[BurlyShirley]

I cant even believe im reading this.

Marijuana (regardless of your personal feelings people) is ILLEGAL.

CHILDREN people....do not need to be smoking MARIJUANA!, or doing any other drugs to begin with. Who cares if you did. Would you want your kid smoking Marijuana? I doubt it.

With that said...School is a place for learning. An environment conducive to learning should not include students who are HIGH or INTOXICATED in any form.

I dont care if you a fu%$ing genius, you are not above the law. Being in calculus club or the football team sets students apart as representatives of the school. They should not HIGH or JUICED UP in any way. TESTING is a means of preventing that.

For CHRIST sakes people...use your heads.

[Sideways]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I cant even believe im reading this.

Marijuana (regardless of your personal feelings people) is ILLEGAL.

CHILDREN people....do not need to be smoking MARIJUANA!, or doing any other drugs to begin with. Who cares if you did. Would you want your kid smoking Marijuana? I doubt it.

With that said...School is a place for learning. An environment conducive to learning should not include students who are HIGH or INTOXICATED in any form.

I dont care if you a fu%$ing genius, you are not above the law. Being in calculus club or the football team sets students apart as representatives of the school. They should not HIGH or JUICED UP in any way. TESTING is a means of preventing that.

For CHRIST sakes people...use your heads.


Legalize it.
Then students won't be criminals for smoking a little pot.

[LoboDelFuego]

Originally posted by Sideways
Legalize it.
Then students won't be criminals for smoking a little pot.

No, they'll just use it more and learn less. And then when it becomes expensive (the government taxes it) and the novelty wears off, they'll just start doing ecstasy or cocaine or something.

The only definitive way to find out if a student has a drug problem without involving undercover cops is to test them. Stop the student, stop the group, stop the problem, save the school, save education.

Personally, I believe that if a student is going to be abusing any form of drugs, then they don't even deserve the education they are trying to be given, and should be summarily executed; or sent to the military/forced labor camp.

Of course, most of my school strongly disagrees with me.

[Sideways]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
No, they'll just use it more and learn less. And then when it becomes expensive (the government taxes it) and the novelty wears off, they'll just start doing ecstasy or cocaine or something.

The only definitive way to find out if a student has a drug problem without involving undercover cops is to test them. Stop the student, stop the group, stop the problem, save the school, save education.

Personally, I believe that if a student is going to be abusing any form of drugs, then they don't even deserve the education they are trying to be given, and should be summarily executed; or sent to the military/forced labor camp.

Of course, most of my school strongly disagrees with me.

Kids who want to smoke pot are going to smoke it regardless of legality.
They enjoy being high, and it has nothing to do with novelty.
The kids who end up using harder drugs have other problems that are not related to drugs themselves, and will not be cured simply by instituting overly strict policy.
In fact, criminalizing these kids will have a greater negative effect on their future.
The idea of a "gateway" drug is pure BS, and has no basis in reality.
Wasting tax payer’s money covering up the evidence of deeper social issues will not have an effect on the problem itself.

Pluck and pull weeds all day, but until the roots are gone, social problems remain.

[Eddie420]

I think you got to look at the problems of society. People do drugs to escape it(not that it will help anything). Weed is in a totally different basket to Cocaine,Ecstacy and all the rest. Let's face it, whatever your view alotta law abiding people smoke weed. Doesn't make it right or help the world, but that is the reality.
Remember Burly Surly alcohol used to be ILLEGAL. I think too often the focus is placed on all the illegal drugs when in reality the biggest killers by far are alcohol and ciggrettes.

For drug education I think they should take students to seedy places and show them the ****ed up drug addicts on the street, instead of saying kids don't do drugs mmmmkay, they're are bad.
:rolleyes:

[amateur]

I completely agree with everything Sideways is saying. Most of my AP classes have a high number of drug users in them. The straight arrow kids (as Toshi said) have enough pressure as it is, let them blow off a little steam(or smoke, whichever the case may be) Student athletes have it really hard. After seeing my brother's girlfriend completely break down last year, i've realized how much pressure there is. 4.3 student, track scholarship to Stanford...

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by amateur
I completely agree with everything Sideways is saying. Most of my AP classes have a high number of drug users in them. The straight arrow kids (as Toshi said) have enough pressure as it is, let them blow off a little steam(or smoke, whichever the case may be) Student athletes have it really hard. After seeing my brother's girlfriend completely break down last year, i've realized how much pressure there is. 4.3 student, track scholarship to Stanford...



I took AP classes in high school as well, and yes...there were some drug users in them......including myself. But, what the christ does that have to do with the problem at hand?
This has nothing to do with allowing kids to blow off steam or become less stressed. I smoked to get HIGH. Plain and simple. How did that benefit my education or personal growth?
It didnt.
DRUGS ARE BAD FOR YOU. There's no one here who can logically argue otherwise. Kids shouldnt do them. Plain and simple. Testing is a means of prevention.

[Eddie420]

someone I go to school with gets tested, he just gets someone else to piss in a bottle for him, takes the bottle to the test then pours it in the cup.
Yes he smokes wayy too much:nono:

[LoboDelFuego]

Originally posted by amateur
I completely agree with everything Sideways is saying. Most of my AP classes have a high number of drug users in them. The straight arrow kids (as Toshi said) have enough pressure as it is, let them blow off a little steam(or smoke, whichever the case may be)

So we reward our best students with the privelige to abuse drugs? What ever happened to watching TV or a movie or reading or riding!

I'll say it again: the point of a school is to provide the best possible education for the students. Drugs have no place in education or in the physical school, because they deter thought processes that are basic for education, and create a hostile environment for criminal activity. If you allow all the AP and honors kids to become addicts, look what kind of education you're cultivating. Not to mention other students who are already having trouble in school.

[-BB-]

Originally posted by fourgivn1
Umm, I know we all know this, but drugs are illegal. (Well, not over the counter drugs, but y'all know what I mean. :)

That being said, I'm all for random drug tests - IF they have a reason to test. For instance, if they've never had problems with drugs, then there's no reason. Now, if they suddenly have a kid wander in one day with red eyes, acting all weird, driving 2 miles an hour, and he's got the munchies big time, that'd be suspicious to me. And if they tested him, and he was positive, I do not think it would be wrong to do random drug tests. Drug tests may be an invasion of privacy, but drugs are illegal.....as soon as you take the drugs, as far as I am concerned, you void your 'right' to privacy as far as those drug tests are concerned.

Dude... your logic is screwed up here..
"as soon as you take the drugs, as far as I am concerned, you void your 'right' to privacy as far as those drug tests are concerned"
:confused: :confused:
OK so how will they KNOW you gave up that right by taking drugs unless you TEST them for it.
It's like a backwards Chicken and the Egg thing.
The only place it would make sense is for people that were convicted of a drug offence already, and then it isn't called a random drug test... it's called PROBATION.:rolleyes:

[indieboy]

Originally posted by Yossarian
I am all for random druig testing. I want to know if the drugs I buy are any good or not.

ahhaha wouldn't you be able to tell that after you use em :rolleyes: :confused:

[Sideways]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
So we reward our best students with the privelige to abuse drugs? What ever happened to watching TV or a movie or reading or riding!

I'll say it again: the point of a school is to provide the best possible education for the students. Drugs have no place in education or in the physical school, because they deter thought processes that are basic for education, and create a hostile environment for criminal activity. If you allow all the AP and honors kids to become addicts, look what kind of education you're cultivating. Not to mention other students who are already having trouble in school.

Hostile environment?
The last thing I'd want if I were high would be to get into a fight.
A good number of my classmates and I all did very well high as hell in our AP classes, and came away with a lot more knowlege then we went into them with.
It's appearant that smoking pot has little to do with a students ability to learn.
A large percentage of kids smoke pot frequently enough to get busted should they be tested.
What exactly would be the benefit of a black mark on their record?

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Sideways
Hostile environment?
The last thing I'd want if I were high would be to get into a fight.
A good number of my classmates and I all did very well high as hell in our AP classes, and came away with a lot more knowlege then we went into them with.
It's appearant that smoking pot has little to do with a students ability to learn.
A large percentage of kids smoke pot frequently enough to get busted should they be tested.
What exactly would be the benefit of a black mark on their record?


Dude,

The point is not to give someone a black mark on their record. Testing would hopefully deter people from smoking in the first place because it is BAD FOR YOU.

As i said before...just because some smart kids you know smoke doesnt make it okay for everyone. Hell, i smoked too, but now i recognize that it was wrong.

Sideways...you can go on and on about how Pot isnt that bad for you and this and that, but i know if you know alot of smokers than you know at least one BURNOUT. I know you know at least one guy who started with pot and moved on to god knows what else.

Realize that its not about wanting to control people but more to protect them. Think rationally rather than emotionally. It makes sense.

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Dude,

The point is not to give someone a black mark on their record. Testing would hopefully deter people from smoking in the first place because it is BAD FOR YOU.

As i said before...just because some smart kids you know smoke doesnt make it okay for everyone. Hell, i smoked too, but now i recognize that it was wrong.

Sideways...you can go on and on about how Pot isnt that bad for you and this and that, but i know if you know alot of smokers than you know at least one BURNOUT. I know you know at least one guy who started with pot and moved on to god knows what else.

Realize that its not about wanting to control people but more to protect them. Think rationally rather than emotionally. It makes sense.

Burly, weed is bad the same way alcohol is bad. Some people can't seem to deal with reality and seek an easy way out. I know people who drink and smoke weed who are ultra functional. Like you said though I know people who use and are completly out of control. I had a good friend got gunned down by a cop, suicide by cop, I think is the term. He started out with beer, then weed, then coke, then meth, and heroin and finally what ever he could get in to his system. I think he was heading towards some sort of violent end from an early age and despite a lot of people trying to intervene the outcome was writen in stone.

Most people I know who smoked weed, grew up, got jobs and mellowed out on usage. They like most people I know have the ability to use alcohol or weed in a casual way. It just didn't become a lifestyle for 'em.

[Sideways]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Dude,

The point is not to give someone a black mark on their record. Testing would hopefully deter people from smoking in the first place because it is BAD FOR YOU.

As i said before...just because some smart kids you know smoke doesnt make it okay for everyone. Hell, i smoked too, but now i recognize that it was wrong.

Sideways...you can go on and on about how Pot isnt that bad for you and this and that, but i know if you know alot of smokers than you know at least one BURNOUT. I know you know at least one guy who started with pot and moved on to god knows what else.

Realize that its not about wanting to control people but more to protect them. Think rationally rather than emotionally. It makes sense.

Deterring kids from smoking pot through random testing is a backwards means of accomplishing that goal.
It acts on fear, and not reason.
If pot is bad for kids, give them truthful information on the matter.
There are some proven negative effects of smoking pot apart from getting busted.
The practice of using fear to keep a population in line is wrong. Plain and simple.

You say "think rationally rather than emotionally", but I don't believe you really mean those words.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Sideways

You say "think rationally rather than emotionally", but I don't believe you really mean those words.

What i mean is really look at the overall situation, not just at how it would relate to you or people you know.

I think plenty of good information is given to kids on why not to use drugs. I know i went through the entire DARE program. I used them anyway. I probably wouldnt have if i were getting tested all the time.

What do you think stops people from killing each other Sideways?

I'd bet in most cases its fear of the law and spending time in Jail or prison. I think its fair to say..."do drugs and pay the consequences."

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ummbikes
Burly, weed is bad the same way alcohol is bad.

I agree:D

Yes...i totally cut your quote. But just to prove a point. If we can see it as both bad and illegal....where's the basis for argument?

[Sideways]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
What i mean is really look at the overall situation, not just at how it would relate to you or people you know.

I think plenty of good information is given to kids on why not to use drugs. I know i went through the entire DARE program. I used them anyway. I probably wouldnt have if i were getting tested all the time.

What do you think stops people from killing each other Sideways?

I'd bet in most cases its fear of the law and spending time in Jail or prison. I think its fair to say..."do drugs and pay the consequences."

I wouldn't want to kill anyone because I would feel really bad about it. (However I wouldn’t rule it out altogether in an extreme situation)
There's a lot of things I choose not to do, not for fear of being caught or suffering social consequence, but instead because my life is more full and rewarding by not doing them.
I don’t need law enforcement to help me make all my decisions.
Laws should be used to support overwhelmingly common social mores.

I don't think that pot is a severe social problem that warrants severe social consequence.
It certainly does not deserve the amount of tax dollars directed towards enforcing marijuana related laws that it receives.
I wonder what medical company will sell the drug tests to public schools.
They'll surly get rich on this one.
I'm glad I got to smoke pot in my HS days without fear of being busted.
I was able to check it out and decide for myself that smoking pot was not terribly fulfilling for me.
I found that riding a bike everyday was a much better release.
But you know what?
Riding a bike everyday kept me well away from my studies through both high school and college.
Is keeping kids focused on school really the issue here?
Maybe they should make sure kids aren't spending excessive time participating in hobbies.
Had they kept me in line and off my bike, I might be working behind a cubical right now, suffering a meaningless life, helping someone else get rich.
Maybe I would be an accountant for Monsanto, typing the Lobbyists salaries on one side, and the income from Roundup sales on the other.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Sideways
I wouldn't want to kill anyone because I would feel really bad about it. (However I wouldn’t rule it out altogether in an extreme situation)
There's a lot of things I choose not to do, not for fear of being caught or suffering social consequence, but instead because my life is more full and rewarding by not doing them.
I don’t need law enforcement to help me make all my decisions.
Laws should be used to support overwhelmingly common social mores.

I don't think that pot is a severe social problem that warrants severe social consequence.
It certainly does not deserve the amount of tax dollars directed towards enforcing marijuana related laws that it receives.
I wonder what medical company will sell the drug tests to public schools.
They'll surly get rich on this one.
I'm glad I got to smoke pot in my HS days without fear of being busted.
I was able to check it out and decide for myself that smoking pot was not terribly fulfilling for me.
I found that riding a bike everyday was a much better release.
But you know what?
Riding a bike everyday kept me well away from my studies through both high school and college.
Is keeping kids focused on school really the issue here?
Maybe they should make sure kids aren't spending excessive time participating in hobbies.
Had they kept me in line and off my bike, I might be working behind a cubical right now, suffering a meaningless life, helping someone else get rich.
Maybe I would be an accountant for Monsanto, typing the Lobbyists salaries on one side, and the income from Roundup sales on the other.



Your life history is interesting and all, but it doesnt change any of the facts.

Kids dont need to be on drugs.
Testing will at least make them think twice.

[Sideways]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Your life history is interesting and all, but it doesnt change any of the facts.

Kids dont need to be on drugs.
Testing will at least make them think twice.

Don't you think your tax dollars could be spent on education in more meaningful ways?

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Sideways
Don't you think your tax dollars could be spent on education in more meaningful ways?

Yes,

I think more money should be put into computer labs than into pads for the football team. I think more money should go into the library than into the pockets of those who sit on the school boards. There are alot of things I'd like to see change, but i also think that if we dont dedicate dollars to drug prevention early on, we'll simply be paying them later by keeping inmates that used to be our kids alive in prison.
We'll be paying tax dollars for the government supplied attorneys in their court cases. We'll be paying out of pocket when we have to bail one of them out of jail. And we'll be paying with our emotions when one of them kills a loved one in a traffic accident.

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
There are alot of things I'd like to see change, but i also think that if we dont dedicate dollars to drug prevention early on, we'll simply be paying them later by keeping inmates that used to be our kids alive in prison.
We'll be paying tax dollars for the government supplied attorneys in their court cases. We'll be paying out of pocket when we have to bail one of them out of jail. And we'll be paying with our emotions when one of them kills a loved one in a traffic accident.

Me thinks that we already do all of that even with extensive amounts of ant-drug propaganda being pumped into chool children. Maybe the money would be better spent educating parents on how to educate the children.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
Me thinks that we already do all of that even with extensive amounts of ant-drug propaganda being pumped into chool children. Maybe the money would be better spent educating parents on how to educate the children.

Maybe...

I dunno, I would agree that education is undoubtedly the key to all of this, but I also see no problem with testing students. Just because they know something is wrong may not stop them from doing it. Perhaps the fear of getting "busted" will work a little better.
Personally, If i had children, I wouldnt be upset about my kids being tested because (a) I would have nothing to worry about or (b) it would alert me of a problem that needs to seriously be addressed.
I dont want my kids making the same mistakes i did.

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I dont want my kids making the same mistakes i did.

They will learn from their mistakes, not yours. Kids need to figure stuff out on their own, and they need to learn from their own experiences. Having someone tell you something is bad, no matter how much that is repeated is not going to alleviate any curiosity someone may have.

If people are taught responsibility, then the rest will follow.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
They will learn from their mistakes, not yours. Kids need to figure stuff out on their own, and they need to learn from their own experiences. Having someone tell you something is bad, no matter how much that is repeated is not going to alleviate any curiosity someone may have.

If people are taught responsibility, then the rest will follow.

I dont have to kill someone to know that its a mistake.
Ive seen the consequences, and dont really need to experience it myself regardless of how curious i may be.

[ummbikes]

I like where this is going, we talked a lot this last quarter in my class about how people should be governed and if we have any right to dictate morality.

The fact is there are people who can rise above casual drug use and lead productive lives. Bill Clinton smoked weed, Bush Jr. used coke, and alcohol. The people who can lead, pesuade, and influence the masses will always do so. Drugs or no drugs.

Like my deceased friend there are those who simply lack the internal ability to progress and so they do not.

If put more government control on things it just creates more government control on things...

It just doesn't work.

Some people will always be leaders, and most will be the great masses of people who follow. Checking to see if they smoke weed will not change who they are and what course in life they will follow.

[ohio]

Originally posted by fourgivn1

That being said, I'm all for random drug tests - IF they have a reason to test.

Then it wouldn't be a random test, would it?

What you're describing currently exists. It's called "probable cause" and schools use it all the time.
--------
Kids who don't find drugs in highschool will find them in college.

Kids who are sheltered from any and all drug use grow up with a lack of understanding and sympathy for drug users often bordering on hate and disgust.

[Eddie420]

kids with hard line strict ass parents are usually the ones that go hit the drugs hardest.
:angry:

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Eddie420
kids with hard line strict ass parents are usually the ones that go hit the drugs hardest.
:angry:

Honestly...not being a smartass, but...how does this relate, and is this something you learned from personal experience or are there facts that back this up.

Because......I'd have to disagree.

[LoboDelFuego]

Well I've been away eating Christmas leftovers but now I'm back in the fray. A couple responses:

Originally posted by Sideways
Don't you think your tax dollars could be spent on education in more meaningful ways?

Yes. I totally agree. Some schools don't need drug tests because drugs are not enough of a problem for them. Some do. In situations where the drug tests would help a school more than other supplies, they will be overwhelmingly used. And I can tell you right now, it will help most schools more than some new Integrated Mathematics III textbooks by Keenan and Dressler.


Originally posted by ohio

Kids who don't find drugs in highschool will find them in college.

Kids who are sheltered from any and all drug use grow up with a lack of understanding and sympathy for drug users often bordering on hate and disgust.

Kids who learn that drugs are wrong and learn how to avoid them as well as knowing that there is an environemnt in whicc you can be happy even if drugs don't exist will keep them off drugs in college.

Kids who are sheltered from drugs will have a lack of sympathy for criminals and idiots who abuse their bodies and place other people in danger. Thats OK by me.

[Sideways]

Marijuana use is not a social problem.

[indieboy]

ok well here's the view of someone who is still in high school and has seen high school from both views of an inner city school and the subs. random drug testing is absurd. it is totally not necessary. there should be things that the schools should be more worried about like actually teaching then whether or not students are dappling in drugs. both my parents were littered in drugs, my mom stopped not to long before she was pregnant w/ me but i remember for a long time my dad chiefin out. so for me i was not sheltered about things of these nature. however growing up in the neighorhood i grew up w/ in atlanta many of the kids i grew up w/ their parents were very sheltering and didn't really expose their kids to much of anything. many of them now are complete addicts. every time i go back up to atlanta to hang out w/ one of my friends almost all of his friends are trying to find a way to get ****ed up. it's really kinda sad to be honest. my exposure to this stuff at a young age made me realize that this was something i didn't want to really get involved in. i'll openly admit that i've done some stuff. never smoked, never will, however i have done escasty once and speed once. once was enough to make me realize that it wasn't what i want to be involved in. for some odd reason i tink the usage of drugs seemed to be more of a problem then the school i go to. i think partly b/c of how much the kids i grew up w/ were sheltered. now don't get me wrong there are a lot of durgs going around at the school i currently go to. not as many or as hard core as the drugs going around teh school i would have been going to in atlanta. the main thing that goes around my school is weed (pot) which isn't nearly as serious as coke, estacy, crystal meth., acid.......which are all things floating around where my buddy goes. and i don't think by doing a drug test it's going to stop many kids from doing what they are already doing. many will just quit whatever activity it may be b/c many EC activities aren't that important to most kids.

[LoboDelFuego]

Sideways: It is a societal problem. A society is made of people, and when one person has a problem that affects anyone else, it becomes a societal problem.

Indieboy: Your situation is exactly what we are trying to eliminate by having drugs thrown out of our schools. You and I spend most of our time at school, and we both know that it's where most kids deal. I advocate that testing be for everything, not just extracurriculars. If you know that you're going to get caught and that your parents will be told and that you might be arrested and will have it on your permanent record, most kids won't do drugs.

[Sideways]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Sideways: It is a societal problem. A society is made of people, and when one person has a problem that affects anyone else, it becomes a societal problem.


Theres no problem with marijuna as you describe.
Therefore marijuana use is not a societal problem.

[indieboy]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Sideways: It is a societal problem. A society is made of people, and when one person has a problem that affects anyone else, it becomes a societal problem.

Indieboy: Your situation is exactly what we are trying to eliminate by having drugs thrown out of our schools. You and I spend most of our time at school, and we both know that it's where most kids deal. I advocate that testing be for everything, not just extracurriculars. If you know that you're going to get caught and that your parents will be told and that you might be arrested and will have it on your permanent record, most kids won't do drugs.


um not here, where i go to school the kids really could care less about what their parents think, and permanent records aren't going to make these kids blink twice.......and if i had to go through the situation i have gone through i'd do it. i think it made me a better person.....don't regret it one bit......

[Eddie420]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Honestly...not being a smartass, but...how does this relate, and is this something you learned from personal experience or are there facts that back this up.

Because......I'd have to disagree.

Ya i agree silly comment I take it back...my excuse is that I'm really tired and suffering from bike withdrawals, I cracked my rim, all the mechanics are on hols and can't build me a new wheel.
:stupid: :D

[LoboDelFuego]

Sideways: Marijuana hinders your ability to aid society. Take this for example: One of my friends and I are standing at the top of a downhill chute. We are discussing lines. We both agree that this certain line, which includes a sharp turn and a big drop with little room for error is too dangerous to try at high speed. Now two hours later, he has been smoking weed. He comes down the course, and takes the exact line that we said no. He almost clips his rear wheel on a rock and then hits the drop, coming about one inch from smashing into a tree at full speed. He's a good nough rider to pull it off. Most of us aren't. If he were to get hurt, he would be sitting in a hospital, wasting supplies and time that could be benefitting someone who wasn's using drugs. Now I know you're gonna say "well mt. biking itself is dangerous, should we have random tests for that?" My response to this is: Yes, it's dangerous. So is driving a car. So is cleaning out my gutters. When you add drugs to the equation, you make it much more dangerous, and even make it more dangerous for the people around you (certain drugs). I think we can agree that if there were no drugs, many unfortuante events would not occur.

Indieboy: Thank you for joining this thread. You have shed light on an important aspect that the rest of us were ignoring. Indieboy shows us that we're not discussing an ideal world where kids will drop drugs immediately for fear of tests or as a result of tests. He depicts a society in which individuals are indifferent to their eductaion, where they are content to wallow in the slime of ignorance and drug-induced mirages. Here, we don't need school-wide drug tests. We need a police force. We need responsible parents. This is when we need to call in a Cincinnatus. Solve the problem somehow. Anyhow. Get the kids off the streets and into the libraries. (unless they are riding urban, which is ok)

However, your situation only adds to the argument for testing kids involved in extra curriculars. There are students in your school, including yourself, who aspire to be something more than what they are surrounded by. Correct me if I'm wrong. For these students, extracurricular activities are a place where they should be able to be safe from the drugs, and only be with other students who also want to better themselves. Make it the model of an ideal society.

Now I'm tired, but keep your rebuttals coming. It's 3v1 and dammit, BurlySurly I need backup! send the APC of morals and value!

[Sideways]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Sideways: Marijuana hinders your ability to aid society. Take this for example: One of my friends and I are standing at the top of a downhill chute. We are discussing lines. We both agree that this certain line, which includes a sharp turn and a big drop with little room for error is too dangerous to try at high speed. Now two hours later, he has been smoking weed. He comes down the course, and takes the exact line that we said no. He almost clips his rear wheel on a rock and then hits the drop, coming about one inch from smashing into a tree at full speed. He's a good nough rider to pull it off. Most of us aren't. If he were to get hurt, he would be sitting in a hospital, wasting supplies and time that could be benefitting someone who wasn's using drugs. Now I know you're gonna say "well mt. biking itself is dangerous, should we have random tests for that?" My response to this is: Yes, it's dangerous. So is driving a car. So is cleaning out my gutters. When you add drugs to the equation, you make it much more dangerous, and even make it more dangerous for the people around you (certain drugs). I think we can agree that if there were no drugs, many unfortuante events would not occur.


I think you are a little confused about the effects of marijuana.
Folks are a lot less likely to engage in risky behavior when high.
Smoking pot is not dangerous.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Sideways
I think you are a little confused about the effects of marijuana.
Folks are a lot less likely to engage in risky behavior when high.
Smoking pot is not dangerous.



Im sorry.......did you actually say that?

I think anything that slows my decision making process is a bit dangerous, not to mention the longterm effects. Driving while high (regardless of any stupid example about being aware you may try to give) is dangerous.

The loss of short term memory, and the introduction of foreign chemicals into the lungs and bloodstream that can cause, among other things CANCER, to me is slightly dangerous.

Now...go ahead and say it...."Well its not as bad a cigarettes and yada yada yad"

BullSh@#, cigarettes dont impede judgement.

[prisspringle]

i see there are many differant views and there are many differant experiances, my town 10 yrs ago was relatively nice looking not that much crime but looking at the present thats starting to chance for the worst, theres at least one drugy dieing a week u can walk down teh high street and point out atleast 1 or 2, crime has risen dramaticly in the past yrs, ok that might not be related to drugs but i wouldn't be suppriced,from my place of work just before we moved i could of gone to about 3 homes that i could of easly bought drugs from, these homes are only down the road and i really mean that from the police station, my friends have done and still do drugs quite often some have no ill effects and live a normal life others for one resson or another have taken a downhill ride which i hope they will pull out of, now bk on subject of random drugs test, here in the uk theres been words of this happening but no REAL plans to do it, my personal opinion is to only test posable risk areas, during my last yrs at school partys were thrown with the deliberate means to get drunk and take drugs, these areas are now getting to be more brought age wish younger and younger kids are taken drugs, tho these areas are from backgrounds where unemployment,drug use and alchol abusment have been part of there lives,i think this problem has many differant solusions and pitfalls and only time will tell if the right one is picked, personaly i'm all for legalising drugs altho only once u'r adult and a limit to how much u can by at a time or per week, this would help remove some of teh cr@p that drug dealers can and do put in the mix of some drugs some can be more harmfull then the drug its self,if u look at where it is legal aka holland theres still problems with additicon but they will be in a better posion to deal with it than we are as they've had more time to, i think we need to let kids choose there own destany and learn from there own mistakes but also tell them before hand wot the risk are, yes this may lead to ppl with problems but look at alcohol and cigarets (sp?) thats just as bad if not worse yet thats ok now since its legal to drink it, even if they totaly get rid of which i dowt they ever will the whole of society will not get rid of problems people will move on to other things wot ever they maybe.

thats my personal feeling on the subject some may not like or agree but thats life people have diferant feelings and ideas.

priss

[Sideways]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Im sorry.......did you actually say that?

I think anything that slows my decision making process is a bit dangerous, not to mention the longterm effects. Driving while high (regardless of any stupid example about being aware you may try to give) is dangerous.



No, driving high is proven (http://www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadsafety/research16/) to be safer.

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by Sideways
No, driving high is proven (http://www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadsafety/research16/) to be safer.

I don't know what weed they were smoking, but if you come to the Northwest to smoke, you aren't going to be doing much of anything.

When you smoke the local pot, you are incapacitated.

(It has been many years since I have done so...)

[prisspringle]

wot happens on these tests if u have drugs in your system from second hand smoke? can they tell the differance?and why isn't there drug tests for alcohol being in students systems?

priss

[LoboDelFuego]

Originally posted by Sideways
I think you are a little confused about the effects of marijuana.
Folks are a lot less likely to engage in risky behavior when high.
Smoking pot is not dangerous.

What?

You may argue that smoking pot in and of itself is not dangerous. I can't totally argue that. I'm not a biochemist. But consider this: most people who die in house fires die of inhaling smoke. So it can't be too good for you.

No, the real danger of any drug is when it is combined with an activity. Any activity. I personally have witnessed people (while high):

walk into walls
walk through a plate glass door
almost drown in a pool (jumped in, realized he couldn't really swim)
set fire to parts of their body or home

And I don't hang out with too many kids who do drugs. As for driving, the little link you provided says, among other things:

"This suggests that they were unable to control their steering as well when under the influence of the high cannabis dose. This again confirms previous observations that cannabis adversely affects drivers' tracking ability."

[zibbler]

Originally posted by BurlySurly

Now...go ahead and say it...."Well its not as bad a cigarettes and yada yada yad"


No, smoking pot is not as bad as smoking cigs.... it's a LOT worse! What do you think killed Bob Marley? He died of lung cancer because of the amount of ghanja he smoked. Weed is far more damaging to the lungs than cigs are.

[indieboy]

Originally posted by zibbler
No, smoking pot is not as bad as smoking cigs.... it's a LOT worse! What do you think killed Bob Marley? He died of lung cancer because of the amount of ghanja he smoked. Weed is far more damaging to the lungs than cigs are.

it's not the pot itself that is damaging it's the chemicals that are in the weed......same w/ cig's. all the chemicals in them are what are the real problem. i'm not saying that the smoke won't harm you but the chemicals sure do play a HUGE factor in there too.

[Skookum]

Originally posted by Will_Jekyll
I think the reasoning there is that you don't have to be involved in extra-curricular activity and if you so choose to do so you choose to submit to a drug test. They don't test the whole school because you don't have a choice of going to school or not. It's the same general principle that I think they apply to on the job drug tests. Working for a company that does drug tests is your choice if you don't like it you can find another job.
A public school is a government institution for supposed learning. The people pay taxes for programs whether they are extra-cirricular or not. It's up to the people not the schools to decide if this is the policy they want to adopt.
If i was a parent of course i would want to stay far away from this damning action. Firstly you are randomly testing a group of kids with absolutely no reason for suspicion.
Secondly what is the ultimate effect of this action. To give kids a scarlet letter and prevent them from assorted means of success through programs within the school. It makes no sense to judge children and their fallacies in an adult fashion anyways. That's part of growing up is making mistakes and learning from them. Not being drawn from a lottery and being the one kid left behind and not get the same opportunities afforded to other kids who very well may lead even a more destructive lifestyle.
Judging our children by limiting their opportunities may very well be a viable option for a kid who has been involved in host of anti-social behavior. You take a kid who has been caught shoplifting or having serious problems, the school and the parents can work together to help him/her. That might include random drug testing, i repeat at the discretion of the parents, or the courts. But we're skipping to a gross overreation when we test kids not only for applying to extra-cirricular activities, and i would mantain the same stance for random testing in the general population as well. For after all isnt this a technique to make the latter more acceptable? Then where do we go? It's anti-American.

[Skookum]

Originally posted by fourgivn1
Umm, I know we all know this, but drugs are illegal. (Well, not over the counter drugs, but y'all know what I mean. :)

That being said, I'm all for random drug tests - IF they have a reason to test. For instance, if they've never had problems with drugs, then there's no reason. Now, if they suddenly have a kid wander in one day with red eyes, acting all weird, driving 2 miles an hour, and he's got the munchies big time, that'd be suspicious to me. And if they tested him, and he was positive, I do not think it would be wrong to do random drug tests. Drug tests may be an invasion of privacy, but drugs are illegal.....as soon as you take the drugs, as far as I am concerned, you void your 'right' to privacy as far as those drug tests are concerned.
That's not random.
Well unless you have never taken drugs in your whole entire life, you've forfeited your so-called "rights" and so have 98%percent of us here.
edit:oops sorry -bb- got on your case for this too. Oh well kick a man when he's down..;) :D

[Skookum]

Originally posted by Damn True
You are probably right, and I think the testing includes student atheletes as well. If not it should.

But taking your logic, and it is sound, to the next level. Why not ensure that those kids are held to a higher level of accountability so as to be a better example to other kids?
Uhhhmm well then we'd have to accept your "presumed" logic that kids will be influenced one way or the other.
Enter the scenario of the debate class parading around at the assemblies shelling out anti-drug sentiment, but then on a Friday party you see a bunch of em with lampshades on their heads at a ragin kegger.

[Skookum]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
I think it's totally fair to be testing kids. I don't even think it should be random. I think it should be mandatory. Run the mile, flex test, sit-ups, and piss in a cup. Testing kids would make so many more get caught.
I remember one day last year at my school a rumor came up that they were doing drug testing in the afternoon. Half the kids walked home at lunch or began to drink tons of water (they're stupid). The cafeteria sold every single poppy seed bagel. If we really had had drug testing that day, it would have been great. (Most of the other riders on this board from my school will disagree with me, but who cares.)

It's not an invasion of privacy. Nobody is making you strip or doing a full body cavity search. Drugs are illegal, and even if they weren't, they have no place in an institution of learning. You can't bring a gun or other weapon to school, so some schools have metal detectors. You can't have drugs in school (or anywhere) so schools should have drug tests if they have a drug problem.

edit: spelling correction
HEIL!!!

[Skookum]

Originally posted by Sideways
Oh and I might add that my AP English teacher, who was very well respected and did an outstanding job teaching the finer points of Shakespeare, is an avid marijuana user.
Yah but most likely has a host of intangible problems like inability to deal with emotions, that nasty habits bring along with it. This is not a good role model, it's too bad to think how she's limiting her potential, and providing an avenue for other to limit theirs.

[Skookum]

Originally posted by Skookum
Drug test a child on probation for commiting a crime. Drug test the staff who work at the high school. But a school should never have the right to test students for any other reason.
Justifying this infringement of rights, takes the power away from the parents. There are avenues to take if a kid is having problems with drugs, and testing is one of them, but at the discretion of the parent only.
No one should condone the use of drugs by students, especially parents. But that's not the issue, the issue is how far do we as a society react or overreact to the fallacies of youth. Certainly drugs can hamper the future of a child, but so can a black mark from a random drug test from a public institution. Think hard about the repurcussions of this policy and argue to me realistically if the benefits outweigh the negatives. Not testing, or drug prevention for a child, but the school dictating when,who, and how.
Damn your an amazing hunk of sexiness!

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by Skookum
Yah but most likely has a host of intangible problems like inability to deal with emotions, that nasty habits bring along with it. This is not a good role model, it's too bad to think how she's limiting her potential, and providing an avenue for other to limit theirs.


She's limiting her potential???

My AP English teacher was a man, man.

[Skookum]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I cant even believe im reading this.

Marijuana (regardless of your personal feelings people) is ILLEGAL.

CHILDREN people....do not need to be smoking MARIJUANA!, or doing any other drugs to begin with. Who cares if you did. Would you want your kid smoking Marijuana? I doubt it.

With that said...School is a place for learning. An environment conducive to learning should not include students who are HIGH or INTOXICATED in any form.

I dont care if you a fu%$ing genius, you are not above the law. Being in calculus club or the football team sets students apart as representatives of the school. They should not HIGH or JUICED UP in any way. TESTING is a means of preventing that.

For CHRIST sakes people...use your heads.
Believe it or not i agree with most of this. However your setting a precedent in testing that doesnt wash with basic principles in freedom. Random drug testing is wrong. Pick and choose for a reason first, then throw them to fiery pits of hell. The latter should be debated as well. Ok we got a doper peice of crap kid let's hang him? uhmm stone him? uhmm sorry i'm being affected by Burly Surly here arent i.

[indieboy]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
I think it's totally fair to be testing kids. I don't even think it should be random. I think it should be mandatory. Run the mile, flex test, sit-ups, and piss in a cup. Testing kids would make so many more get caught.
I remember one day last year at my school a rumor came up that they were doing drug testing in the afternoon. Half the kids walked home at lunch or began to drink tons of water (they're stupid). The cafeteria sold every single poppy seed bagel. If we really had had drug testing that day, it would have been great. (Most of the other riders on this board from my school will disagree with me, but who cares.)

It's not an invasion of privacy. Nobody is making you strip or doing a full body cavity search. Drugs are illegal, and even if they weren't, they have no place in an institution of learning. You can't bring a gun or other weapon to school, so some schools have metal detectors. You can't have drugs in school (or anywhere) so schools should have drug tests if they have a drug problem.

edit: spelling correction

dude TESTING for drugs is an invasion of privacy, SEARCHING for drugs on school campus is another subject in itself and is not what is in question. searching for drugs is not a big deal, however testing for them is. espically since most of the kids who are using drugs are not using them at school. i honestly don't know many kids who are dumb enough to light up at school. know some kids that have dropped acid n many other pills at school n snorted coke too before exams. it's really none of the schools business what happens outside of school. end of that discussion period. it's insane that kids are being suspended for fights outside of school and other actions (mistakes) they make outside of school. don't say that it doesn't happen, it may not at your school or in your area, but i have seen and know kids who it has happened to.

[Skookum]

Originally posted by Sideways
Hostile environment?
The last thing I'd want if I were high would be to get into a fight.
A good number of my classmates and I all did very well high as hell in our AP classes, and came away with a lot more knowlege then we went into them with.
It's appearant that smoking pot has little to do with a students ability to learn.
A large percentage of kids smoke pot frequently enough to get busted should they be tested.
What exactly would be the benefit of a black mark on their record?
You've obviously not smoked the chronic hydroponic make you dumb enough not to be able to understand a bugs bunny cartoon tabaccky. I would beg to differ.:p
Perhaps you have a valid point of the misunderstanding and demonization of marijuana. But ultimately as Surly has stated it is bad for you. This isnt chicken soup we're talking about. It's like saying cigarettes should be overlooked to because they might help a kid study. I agree let's use proper perspective when talking about drug use, but it has to work both ways.

[Skookum]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I agree:D

Yes...i totally cut your quote. But just to prove a point. If we can see it as both bad and illegal....where's the basis for argument?
Just to argue with you knowing you crave it like crack should be any Monkey's motivation to find basis, logical or not.:D

[Skookum]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Your life history is interesting and all, but it doesnt change any of the facts.

Kids dont need to be on drugs.
Testing will at least make them think twice.
Sideway's life history contained the them of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yah let's put it in the crapper to make sure kids don't make the mistakes i made.:rolleyes:

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Skookum
Sideway's life history contained the them of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yah let's put it in the crapper to make sure kids don't make the mistakes i made.:rolleyes:

Seriously though man, you needn't try everything to know that its bad. Sometimes a little fear is good.

[Eddie420]

Originally posted by zibbler
No, smoking pot is not as bad as smoking cigs.... it's a LOT worse! What do you think killed Bob Marley? He died of lung cancer because of the amount of ghanja he smoked. Weed is far more damaging to the lungs than cigs are.

I'm afraid you're wrong Bob Marley died of skin cancer. Since Bob Marley's Dad was white that where he probably got the gene for it.
It's spelt ganja and look at the statistics related to ciggrette and marijuana.Ciggrette's have killed a thousand times more people and that's not an exaggeration.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Eddie420
I'm afraid you're wrong Bob Marley died of skin cancer. Since Bob Marley's Dad was white that where he probably got the gene for it.
It's spelt ganja and look at the statistics related to ciggrette and marijuana.Ciggrette's have killed a thousand times more people and that's not an exaggeration.


Thats only because 100 times more people smoke cigarettes 100 times more often.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Thats only because 100 times more people smoke cigarettes 100 times more often.


Wait, no........that would be 10,000.

I meant to say that 100 times more people smoke them 10 times as often....yeah, thats it.:D

[Eddie420]

Yeah I get ya:D
Man you should stay off that harsh hydro **** it's messing with your mind.:D

[zibbler]

Originally posted by Eddie420
I'm afraid you're wrong Bob Marley died of skin cancer. Since Bob Marley's Dad was white that where he probably got the gene for it.

Well, here lies another mystery. He may well have died of skin cancer. Some say it was a CIA coverup, some say lung cancer, others say he was murdered. That's besides the point. Weed, can cause cancer and other lung problems.

It's spelt ganja.....

Well, if you wanna split hairs, try this on for size. Quoted from http://www.daweedking.com/marijuana.html

Marijuana, hashish, charas, ghanja , bhang, kef, and dagga are all official names that have been applied to various varieties and preparations of the hemp plant....

Ghanja is a less active form of cannabis. Whereas hashish and charas are made from the pure resins, ghanja is prepared from the flowering tops, stems, leaves, and twigs, which have less resin and thus less potency. Ghanja is nevertheless one of the more potent forms of cannabis....

And so on and so forth.

Bottom line.... the stuff aint good for ya. It may not be as bad as coke, heroin, or other more lethal street drugs, but it's still not good for ya.

[Eddie420]

why would the CIA cover up Bob Marleys death???:confused:
I know it's not good for you.....neither is sitting at the computer and arguing about pointless topics like the spelling of GANJA
:D:D:evil:

[Sideways]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Seriously though man, you needn't try everything to know that its bad. Sometimes a little fear is good.
Smoking pot isn’t bad.
The dosage amount is miniscule.
Risk=hazard*exposure. Exposure to hazardous chemicals in pot is low, risk is low.
Find enough cases of people dying from pot to even begin to rank it as risky.
There’s a long list of worse things people do to themselves everyday.
Sitting behind this monitor can't be good for my eyes.
Breathing in rush hour funk sucks.
Eating fast food is gross.
Stomping on platform pedals is awful on the knees.
Smoking pot is literally nothing in comparison to a lot of socially acceptable and legal activities.
Arguing against pot on the grounds of it being an unhealthy activity is not much of an argument.
Unlike driving, where both hazard and exposure is high and quite often people die.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Sideways
Smoking pot isn’t bad.
The dosage amount is miniscule.
Risk=hazard*exposure. Exposure to hazardous chemicals in pot is low, risk is low.
Find enough cases of people dying from pot to even begin to rank it as risky.
There’s a long list of worse things people do to themselves everyday.
Sitting behind this monitor can't be good for my eyes.
Breathing in rush hour funk sucks.
Eating fast food is gross.
Stomping on platform pedals is awful on the knees.
Smoking pot is literally nothing in comparison to a lot of socially acceptable and legal activities.
Arguing against pot on the grounds of it being an unhealthy activity is not much of an argument.
Unlike driving, where both hazard and exposure is high and quite often people die.

So how do all these random facts equal out to pot not being bad?

Like i said before, people will come up with all these lame thoughts and ideas and instances about how pot is not bad. But everyone knows really, that there's nothing good about it.
Apart from just the health risks, just look at the statistics on the percentage of violent crime related to drugs.
I dont have any stats on hand, but how many people can you think of that started smoking pot, and either just burned out and started a career of loafing, or moved on to even harder drugs and ended up in jail for dealing or being caught on possession. I cant think of one damn benefit of marijuana, unless you either have terminal cancer or glaucoma, in which case there are still better legal drugs available.
People will continue to try and find neat little discrepencies and loopholes to justify their drug using. Fine, whatever, but no one will be convinced because its simply not true.

[johnny33fb]

Sideways isnt just trying to give you lame thoughts, maybe they are as seen by you but what i think hes trying to say is that people do degenerating things to their bodies and environment everyday, is one more on the list going to hurt. Im not a drug user i have before tried pot but since people dont see consquences right away (on their bodies not getting caught) they are going to do it for whatever reason. Unless hopefully they have found other activites (e.x. sports, lifting, biking, school, etc.) to show them that they dont need false highs (i know that might sound corny) but that you can have just as much fun doing something else and feel good about yourself.

[Sideways]

Originally posted by johnny33fb
Sideways isnt just trying to give you lame thoughts, maybe they are as seen by you but what i think hes trying to say is that people do degenerating things to their bodies and environment everyday, is one more on the list going to hurt. Im not a drug user i have before tried pot but since people dont see consquences right away (on their bodies not getting caught) they are going to do it for whatever reason. Unless hopefully they have found other activites (e.x. sports, lifting, biking, school, etc.) to show them that they dont need false highs (i know that might sound corny) but that you can have just as much fun doing something else and feel good about yourself.

Thanks. That's about what I was getting at.
The thing I don't like is that marijuana is illigal.
Based on the number of people who use pot, vs. the minor harm it causes the body...there just isn't any reason to criminalize users.

Imagine if NORBA randomly tested mountain bikers!

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by johnny33fb
Sideways isnt just trying to give you lame thoughts, maybe they are as seen by you but what i think hes trying to say is that people do degenerating things to their bodies and environment everyday, is one more on the list going to hurt.

Yes.

If we allow one more thing, then why not the next thing, then the next thing. My point is all people say is "its not that bad" or "it doesnt hurt that much" but never has anyone given a coherent reason of something good that POT can add to society.

It is yet another detriment, we've to many already.

[Sideways]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Yes.

If we allow one more thing, then why not the next thing, then the next thing. My point is all people say is "its not that bad" or "it doesnt hurt that much" but never has anyone given a coherent reason of something good that POT can add to society.

It is yet another detriment, we've to many already.

I can’t believe you aren’t aware of how useful the cannabis plant is.
Paper, fabric and engineering textiles (composites), food (oh yes, those seeds contain some of the healthiest fatty acids you can so easily digest), etc….the list goes on.

There are also all sorts of medicinal benefits of smoking pot.
Thousands of folks who suffer from MS, Glaucoma, HIV, and cancer find serious relief in marijuana.
But who cares about the extreme cases when there are millions of responsible Americans who really enjoy smoking pot?
Nothings wrong with enjoying a little reefer. Making it a criminal offence is ridiculous.

[johnny33fb]

BurlySurly wrote:
"If we allow one more thing, then why not the next thing, then the next thing. My point is all people say is "its not that bad" or "it doesnt hurt that much" but never has anyone given a coherent reason of something good that POT can add to society."

We are in a democracy though and if pot can be scientificly proven to be just as harmful as legal drugs, and other bad things that are in our society then why can't pot be legal. Not that i think it should, because its not my job to say whether something is good or not its societies and voters. If society wants something that can be proven to be around the same level of harm to the body as legal drugs way not make it legal, if they dont make it illegal but i think in some ways making pot legal would be benefical. Do you know how much taxpayer money is being spent on keeping drugs out of the us? Its ridiculous, if we legalized it you could then regulate it and i believe lots of the drug related crime would fall because much of that violence revolves around drugs deals and whatnot. So by making it legal you take them out of the picture and free up lots of taxpayer money. Now i know your gonna say well what about all the people that might become burnouts put say around 1/3 (hypothetically) to treatment & rehab. The rest of the money could be used put into reserves so we have money in the economy is in a slump like it is now, or in to education, or into other things.

[Sideways]

Originally posted by johnny33fb
We are in a democracy though and if pot can be scientificly proven to be just as harmful as legal drugs, and other bad things that are in our society then why can't pot be legal. Not that i think it should, because its not my job to say whether something is good or not its societies and voters. If society wants something that can be proven to be around the same level of harm to the body as legal drugs way not make it legal, if they dont make it illegal but i think in some ways making pot legal would be benefical. Do you know how much taxpayer money is being spent on keeping drugs out of the us? Its ridiculous, if we legalized it you could then regulate it and i believe lots of the drug related crime would fall because much of that violence revolves around drugs deals and whatnot. So by making it legal you take them out of the picture and free up lots of taxpayer money. Now i know your gonna say well what about all the people that might become burnouts put say around 1/3 (hypothetically) to treatment & rehab. The rest of the money could be used put into reserves so we have money in the economy is in a slump like it is now, or in to education, or into other things.


Here's the problem!
Do you know where that taxpayer money goes?

[johnny33fb]

well since i dont pay taxes i dont care, your money not mine. I don't have a say anyway, thats your problem where it goes, i don't have to worry until i have to start paying them.

[Sideways]

If folks were allowed to grow industrial hemp,
we might not be months away from war as we are now.
:confused: :eek:

Do some damn research and see what the mess is really all about.
Here's some keywords:

hemp
hearst
dupont
nixon

[Eddie420]

Originally posted by johnny33fb

We are in a democracy though and if pot can be scientificly proven to be just as harmful as legal drugs, and other bad things that are in our society then why can't pot be legal. Not that i think it should, because its not my job to say whether something is good or not its societies and voters. If society wants something that can be proven to be around the same level of harm to the body as legal drugs way not make it legal, if they dont make it illegal but i think in some ways making pot legal would be benefical. Do you know how much taxpayer money is being spent on keeping drugs out of the us? Its ridiculous, if we legalized it you could then regulate it and i believe lots of the drug related crime would fall because much of that violence revolves around drugs deals and whatnot. So by making it legal you take them out of the picture and free up lots of taxpayer money. . [/B]



I doubt the government really cares whether or not it's good for you. It's a money thing, government makes big bucks on taxes from beer and ciggrettes. If they could make money out of weed I think it would be legal by now. Though they can't so it's not an issue for them.
:think:

[Eddie420]

Actually the government here allows small places of industrial hemp. Which is definately a step in the right direction, though it's not enough it should be more widespread, it really is very versatile. By the way you would have to smoke a truckload to get high from it.....
hehe hasn't stop desperate people stealing it..:stupid:

[LoboDelFuego]

All your arguments are good, but the original issue here was testing in school. And since drugs are illegal now, then we have to base our legislation on that.

But now we've moved on to the topic of legalisation. I'm pretty split on this issue, because I can see benefits on both sides, but also drawbacks.

However, the main point is: drugs are bad for you.(I feel i'm repeating myself here) There is no positive effect to making yourself stupid. So let's just keep them illegal and rack up some cash in fines. Saying "oh well riding a motorcycle on a highway is a million times more dangerous and deadly" isn't a valid argument. Yes, it is probably true. But just because something isn't as bad as another thing doesn;t mean it should be permitted. Imagine if that was your excuse for everything:
"Yeah officer I know I was speeding and I ran 3 red lights and a stop sign, but there are murders going on in the world. And nobody's stopping them."

[Sideways]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
All your arguments are good, but the original issue here was testing in school. And since drugs are illegal now, then we have to base our legislation on that.

But now we've moved on to the topic of legalisation. I'm pretty split on this issue, because I can see benefits on both sides, but also drawbacks.

However, the main point is: drugs are bad for you.(I feel i'm repeating myself here) There is no positive effect to making yourself stupid. So let's just keep them illegal and rack up some cash in fines. Saying "oh well riding a motorcycle on a highway is a million times more dangerous and deadly" isn't a valid argument. Yes, it is probably true. But just because something isn't as bad as another thing doesn;t mean it should be permitted. Imagine if that was your excuse for everything:
"Yeah officer I know I was speeding and I ran 3 red lights and a stop sign, but there are murders going on in the world. And nobody's stopping them."

Why should this unjust law be enforced by such extreme measures?

In North Carolina, sex in any position other than missionary is illegal.
This law should be enforced to its highest degree by installing video surveillance cameras in everyone's bedroom.

[indieboy]

Originally posted by Sideways
Why should this unjust law be enforced by such extreme measures?

In North Carolina, sex in any position other than missionary is illegal.
This law should be enforced to its highest degree by installing video surveillance cameras in everyone's bedroom.

LOL :devil: i can hear the hillbillies in boone now "WHAT he raped in the ass?!?! i've done had it now GET 'EM BOIS"

[ohio]

You really want to keep kids off drugs, stop teaching them from history books that teach more then 50% of the population to hate themselves. Then give the other 50% (who are relatively privileged and wealthy) something to actually care about. Kids start using drugs abusively in middle and high-school either because they think they've got nothing better to do (the latter 50%), or they've been taught for their whole lives that they come from nothing and are worth nothing (the former 50%).

We've got to stop trying to cure symptoms with tyranical laws, and start curing the cause.

Do you really think busting a kid at school and suspending or expelling him/her is going solve his/her problem? "Okay, Billy has a problem, so let's stop educating him."

[indieboy]

Originally posted by ohio
You really want to keep kids off drugs, stop teaching them from history books that teach more then 50% of the population to hate themselves. Then give the other 50% (who are relatively privileged and wealthy) something to actually care about. Kids start using drugs abusively in middle and high-school either because they think they've got nothing better to do (the latter 50%), or they've been taught for their whole lives that they come from nothing and are worth nothing (the former 50%).

We've got to stop trying to cure symptoms with tyranical laws, and start curing the cause.

Do you really think busting a kid at school and suspending or expelling him/her is going solve his/her problem? "Okay, Billy has a problem, so let's stop educating him."

thank you........

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
You really want to keep kids off drugs, stop teaching them from history books that teach more then 50% of the population to hate themselves. Then give the other 50% (who are relatively privileged and wealthy) something to actually care about. Kids start using drugs abusively in middle and high-school either because they think they've got nothing better to do (the latter 50%), or they've been taught for their whole lives that they come from nothing and are worth nothing (the former 50%).

We've got to stop trying to cure symptoms with tyranical laws, and start curing the cause.

Do you really think busting a kid at school and suspending or expelling him/her is going solve his/her problem? "Okay, Billy has a problem, so let's stop educating him."

Man, you come up with some really neat figures sometimes.

I totally agree that we need to start curing the cause. That would simplify everything, but i think that the fact of the matter is, we have been trying with programs like DARE and others, we only seem to be losing ground.

I like that you adress drug use as a problem, because no one else here seems to recognize that. I just think that if fear of getting busted in one kid, causes him to not use drugs and fu$# up his life, then a silly law that wont affect most of us is totally worth it.

I dont know exactly what you mean when you say 50% of kids are taught that they are worth nothing. I dont know where you went to school, but all i remember hearing is "you can do anything if you apply yourself"

I think some people are worthless though. Like junkies and loafing hippies. And people i work with sometimes.:)

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I dont know exactly what you mean when you say 50% of kids are taught that they are worth nothing. I dont know where you went to school, but all i remember hearing is "you can do anything if you apply yourself"

If you get a chance, pick up the book "Lies Your Teacher Told You."

The history we teach our children, along with the textbooks we use to enforce our "facts," are pretty much a load of nationalistic crap that paints a false history of perfect white men bringing superior European/British technology, culture and religion to savages. I'm not a PC freak, but we're teaching blatant lies in an attempt to prop up our self-worth, at the expense of any color, religion,and culture that is not white christian and western European. Since folks from that background now only constitute roughly half the nation, we end up teaching the other half that they came from nothing, and would be nothing, if they hadn't been saved by the white man. What a great way to teach our children that they can "do anything if they apply themselves [and are saved/helped by the almighty hand of white folk]." A real self-esteem builder.

[johnny33fb]

Yeah, i agree programs like DARE don't work, because telling a child or young adult that "drugs are bad" and just simply listing things that could happen to your body (cancer) don't work. I think showing what actually happens to people that abuse drugs and how hard it can be to quit/stay off a drug habit would work much better. They could also show how being involved in drugs can turn a persons life upside down and that these are reasons why you dont want/need drugs in your life. Telling someone just says no will not help them if they don't understand what could happen to them if they get seriously involved in drugs. I also don't think suspension from school is right if a student was to get busted for using drugs, because for many of theses students school is a much better environment then their homes, due to parents drug uses, just bad parentings, or whatever. Getting these kids more involved in the school and community will lead to less kids on drugs but there will always be people doing drugs recreationally just for kicks i dont think that will ever change.

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Man, you come up with some really neat figures sometimes.


he he. I retain numbers like women I date retain water...


anyways, I just reminded myself to ask you as a follow-up to my last post, what sort of state history is taught in Hawaii, considering the multicultural population. I read Mitchner's "Hawaii" (historical account of the entire history of Hawaii, with fictional characters) a couple of months ago, and it totally blew my mind since I knew nothing of Hawaiian history.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
he he. I retain numbers like women I date retain water...


anyways, I just reminded myself to ask you as a follow-up to my last post, what sort of state history is taught in Hawaii, considering the multicultural population. I read Mitchner's "Hawaii" (historical account of the entire history of Hawaii, with fictional characters) a couple of months ago, and it totally blew my mind since I knew nothing of Hawaiian history.

As Im sure you can imagine, its very America friendly, but they still get a good grasp of their history. There really is alot of animosity that ive seen from locals here toward white people in general who live or visit here. And rightfully so, we did just come and take over, but it was either us or Japan, and it probably saved San Diego from what had eventually happened to Pearl Harbor.

Anyway, I think schools across the country are becoming alot more liberal in their teaching of other cultures and whatnot. I think there was quite a bit of it back just a couple years ago when i was still in school. Anyone who progresses to college will eventually know "the lies their teachers told them" or they should anyway.

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Anyone who progresses to college will eventually know "the lies their teachers told them" or they should anyway.

That's the problem. The kids that progress to college are usually the ones that don't NEED to know the truth. If they made it that far they have their heads on relatively straight. Think of all the kids that DON'T continue with school because it only teaches them to hate themselves.

And think of all the kids with little or no interest in History because it was taught to them as something completely static, just memorization of facts, rather than an exciting dynamic evolving argument...

I for one was never interested in History, and never had to take a History course in college. I would never know any of this if I hadn't picked up "Lies My Teacher Told Me" or Zinn's "People's History..."

[indieboy]

Originally posted by ohio
That's the problem. The kids that progress to college are usually the ones that don't NEED to know the truth. If they made it that far they have their heads on relatively straight. Think of all the kids that DON'T continue with school because it only teaches them to hate themselves.

And think of all the kids with little or no interest in History because it was taught to them as something completely static, just memorization of facts, rather than an exciting dynamic evolving argument...

I for one was never interested in History, and never had to take a History course in college. I would never know any of this if I hadn't picked up "Lies My Teacher Told Me" or Zinn's "People's History..."

our AP US history teacher last year was telling us about that book. i've been meaning pick it up and read it. yes the elementary-high school text books that they make us use are a total waste. they hide and beat around the truth. the college text book that we used for that class wasn't to bad but still didn't entirely tell everything. our teacher used to tell us all sorts of wacked out shiet about many of the U.S. presidents. some of it was quite entertaining. she was the conspericy (sp?) theory type lady, and if the school knew what she was telling us and teaching us i don't htink that she would have been there to much longer lol.

[patconnole]

Here are some cool quotes from the first chapter of "A people's history of the United States 1492-present".


Relating to 9/11 and a pre-emptive strike on Iraq (page 16). "The English found their exuse, a murder which they attributed to Metacom, and they began a war of conquest against the Wampanoags, a war to take their land. They were clearly the aggressors, but claimed they attacked for preventive purposes. As Roger Williams, more friendly to the Indians than most, put it: "All men of conscience or prudence ply to windward, to maintain their wars to be defensive.""


One of the main conclusions of chapter one: "Was all this bloodshed and deceit--from Columbus to Cortes, Pizarro, the Puritans--a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization? Was Morison [a historian] right in burying the story of genocide inside a more important story of human progress? Perhaps a persuasivie argument can be made--as it was made by Stalin when he killed peasants for industrial progress in the Soviet Union, as it was made by Churchill explaining the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg, and Truman explaining Hiroshima. But how can the judgment be made if the benefits and losses cannot be balanced because the losses are either unmentioned or mentioned quickly?

[Skookum]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
we have been trying with programs like DARE and others, we only seem to be losing ground.

I like that you adress drug use as a problem, because no one else here seems to recognize that.
Drug use by anybody is a problem, especially kids. But regardless of laws there are going to be people that use and there are going to be people that abuse drugs. If you accept the notion that some people are genetically predisposed to have addictive personalities, maybe you'd less apt to focus your attention on the drug and more on the persons.
We've got a broad sweeping solution like DARE run by police as a tool to educate but also with the alterior motive to prosecute people and run them through the system.
I would say send that federal money to social worker's, drug counselers, family counseler's. People that could work with parents and schools for problem kids on a one on one basis. Create more funding for schools that cater to "problem kids" with realistic avenues for success, along with implications that if they don't take education seriously they choose serious repurcussions. Allow and encourage schools to have freedom to run programs or policies that focus on their own special needs(local,cultural).
I dont agree with the current system of attacking drug abuse. It groups casual user's with addicts. It has created a machine that perpetuates itself on the creation of criminals through addiction. A system that is now dependant upon chemical dependency if you will. I don't agree drugs are good for anybody, they limit the potential of people on a physical, emotional, spiritual level, and not to mention your eating holes in your brain. Your correct BurlySurly in stating that nothing good can come from it. I just disagree with your tactics on how to fight it.

[Silver]

Why oh why do people care what I put INTO MY OWN ****ING BODY?

It's not your business. I don't care what goes into your body either. If you want to walk around stoned or drunk all day, no worries. Why should I care if getting high is what you do for fun?

Amazing that a kid in high school can smoke a joint and get hit with a criminal record, while his mother can run around with anti-depressants and tranquilizers in her system all day and society doesn't care about that, but insteads advertises and endorses it.

Don't even get me started on DARE. If anything, DARE leads kids onto harder stuff. Kids try pot and realize that they aren't dying, and they wonder what else DARE lies about.

And well we are at it, lets drop the strawman about pot causing cancer. If you can bring up one documented case, I'd love to see it. I've never heard of one. Plus, you don't need to smoke pot, so unless eating pot gives you cancer too, this is really a moot point.

This really isn't a drug issue. It's an issue of personal freedom.

[LoboDelFuego]

Originally posted by Silver
Why oh why do people care what I put INTO MY OWN ****ING BODY?

This really isn't a drug issue. It's an issue of personal freedom.

Why do we care? Lots of reasons:

If you are Driving while intoxicated (with anything) or performing any other activity for that matter, you put other people in potential danger because of you own stupidity.

If you hurt yourself, you waste valuable resources in a hospital or other scenario that could be better used for people who really need it and don't harm their bodies.

Your rights are not absolute. Here's an example we use in debate: you are only free to swing your fist as long as it does not hit someone in the face. You can;t scream "fire" in a crowded theater, even though you have freedom of speech. Your individual rights do not extend to the point where they are infringing up the rights of another.

Moral codes and the hippocratic oath force us to care for everyone. But why should we be helping @$$holes who don't take care of themselves?

Inhaling any sort of smoke is bad for you. Inhaling smoke from smoldering plants such as cannabis and tobacco is a proven carcinogen. Most people smoke pot, supposedly you get much less effect if it is eaten and you wouldn't want to waste your illicit supply, would you?

Why don't you just shut about you individual rights if you don't understand them.

[Silver]

Where to start....

Moral codes and the hippocratic oath force us to care for everyone. But why should we be helping @$$holes who don't take care of themselves?

I never took the hippocratic oath, but's that's an aside. And I don't think that people should be absolved for thier actions while intoxicated. And hey, if you want to bitch about people taking care of themselves, stake out a MacDonalds sometime. Cardiac disease kills a LOT more people than illicit drugs do.

If you are Driving while intoxicated (with anything) or performing any other activity for that matter, you put other people in potential danger because of you own stupidity.

Agreed. I don't believe that people should drive drunk or high or sleep deprived. I'd agree with you there. However, if someone wants to smoke a joint before they turn in for the night, I don't think it's your business.

Inhaling any sort of smoke is bad for you. Inhaling smoke from smoldering plants such as cannabis and tobacco is a proven carcinogen. Most people smoke pot, supposedly you get much less effect if it is eaten and you wouldn't want to waste your illicit supply, would you?

Well, you could always vaporize it. You're not really after the smoke, it's the THC you want. By the way, have a reliable study handy that shows that marijuana smoke causes cancer?

Your rights are not absolute. Here's an example we use in debate: you are only free to swing your fist as long as it does not hit someone in the face. You can;t scream "fire" in a crowded theater, even though you have freedom of speech. Your individual rights do not extend to the point where they are infringing up the rights of another.

Exactly. Someone smoking a joint or drinking a beer or taking ecstacy is not hitting you in the face. If they begin to do that, call the police. That's why we have laws against assault. How am I infringing on your rights by smoking a joint in the privacy of my own home? You don't have a right to not be offended, you know.

[LoboDelFuego]

You're still missing one of my points:

We still have to care for your sorry ass if you overdose on something.

And the reason I care if you smoke "in the privacy of your own home" is because I have no guarantee that it will stay there. You may assure me that it will, but when you're taking drugs you're not apt to make very intelligent decisions.

I also don't want your smoking habit to be passed on to my future children and I don't appreciate the crime that it brings into my neighborhood.

[indieboy]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
You're still missing one of my points:

We still have to care for your sorry ass if you overdose on something.

And the reason I care if you smoke "in the privacy of your own home" is because I have no guarantee that it will stay there. You may assure me that it will, but when you're taking drugs you're not apt to make very intelligent decisions.

I also don't want your smoking habit to be passed on to my future children and I don't appreciate the crime that it brings into my neighborhood.

um you are on a debate team right? well then the first thing you'd know about a debate is takign this personally and calling someone names like that is not cool at all......so think twice before you attack someone personally please...

[Silver]

Well, I guess this is my answer to that:


We still have to care for your sorry ass if you overdose on something.

Really, I wasn't aware that your were coming over to my place to nurse me back to health. I have health insurance that I pay a pretty penny for. If I OD, you won't be picking up the tab. Now, I know you're going to say that it wastes valuable hospital resources, but hey, so does cardiac care for a 55 year old man who is overweight and never got any exercise. We don't outlaw cheeseburgers and make exercise mandatory, do we?

In fact, riding a bicycle down a very steep rocky hill and crashing is a waste of medical resources as well. After all, you can get the exercise on a stationary bike just as well, and the you don't have the chance of hitting a hiker on the way down. (See the 'maybe' here?) Should we ban mountain bikes too?
And the reason I care if you smoke "in the privacy of your own home" is because I have no guarantee that it will stay there. You may assure me that it will, but when you're taking drugs you're not apt to make very intelligent decisions.

This is why I don't invite people over to my house very often. Let's repeat again...It's none of your business! Maybe I like to stick my privates into a running kitchen mixer...once again, my decision, not yours to make for me.

I also don't want your smoking habit to be passed on to my future children and I don't appreciate the crime that it brings into my neighborhood.

Well, the crime can be solved quite easily. Legalize it. Everything. You would have thought that Prohibition in the 1930's would have taught us something, but I guess not.

As far as your future children go, raise them yourself. It's not my job. If you can't instill in them that it's not a good idea to smoke, you can hardly blame that on other people beside yourself. Any of your friends ever drink a beer in front of a child?

And for the record, you can stop with the ad hominem attacks. I don't smoke marijuana. But I also don't believe that I have the right to tell others what they can and cannot do with thier bodies or lives.

Your position is based on ifs and maybes. There is a chance I'm going to get drunk tonight and steal a school bus too, you know. Because you never know what someone on DRUGS might do....

[Eddie420]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
You're still missing one of my points:

We still have to care for your sorry ass if you overdose on something.

And the reason I care if you smoke "in the privacy of your own home" is because I have no guarantee that it will stay there. You may assure me that it will, but when you're taking drugs you're not apt to make very intelligent decisions.

I also don't want your smoking habit to be passed on to my future children and I don't appreciate the crime that it brings into my neighborhood.

You say "we" still have to care for your sorry ass who is "we". I looked at your profile dude, your 15. A high school kid just the same as me....(I've only got 8months left,yay) you're not going to be caring for any sorry ass except your own maybe..

I think you're missing the point, you can't overdose on weed OK.
When most people are stoned they're not going to go do crazy **** they would rather just sit down and chill out.
How would people's smoking habit be passed to your "future children" it's all about choice, if they want to they will and if they don't want to smoke they won't.

[BurlyShirley]

Hey Silver...great idea.

We should legalize murder and rape too. That would really cut down on crime.

How come i didnt think of this sooner????

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Eddie420
You say "we" still have to care for your sorry ass who is "we". I looked at your profile dude, your 15. A high school kid just the same as me....(I've only got 8months left,yay) you're not going to be caring for any sorry ass except your own maybe..

I think you're missing the point, you can't overdose on weed OK.
When most people are stoned they're not going to go do crazy **** they would rather just sit down and chill out.
How would people's smoking habit be passed to your "future children" it's all about choice, if they want to they will and if they don't want to smoke they won't.

I believe when he says "WE" he means American taxpayers. Now, sure, he may not pay federal taxes yet, but his parents surely do, and that takes money from his pocket as well. He'll be paying his own soon enough.

Now i know what you're thinking. "Well if he's got insurance, where's the problem?"

Its like this, many drug users and adicts dont have insurance. And niether would most of them be able to keep it after being fire from their job after having a drug=related incident.

The cost then falls on the taxpayers....get it?

[Silver]

C'mon BurlySurly, I know you're smarter than that. Murder and rape are hardly analagous to taking drugs or drinking a beer.

You really think that the crime involved with the illicit drug trade has something to do with the drugs? Once again, remind me how well Prohibition worked. We've tried prohibition with some drugs for a number of years now, and in my opinion, it's not working. Why not try something else?

[Silver]

Its like this, many drug users and adicts dont have insurance. And niether would most of them be able to keep it after being fire from their job after having a drug=related incident. The cost then falls on the taxpayers....get it?

Yes, I understand that part. Answer this then: Should we withhold medical care from a overweight middle aged heart attack patient who never exercises and doesn't have insurance to save tax money?

Or a elderly smoker? Or someone who falls off a bike? Or someone who gets into a car accident?

The difference is, of course, that some drugs are illegal. That doesn't make the life of someone who has taken them worth any less in my eyes. Withholding medical care because you want to save tax money is pretty cold though, in my opinion.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver


You really think that the crime involved with the illicit drug trade has something to do with the drugs? Once again, remind me how well Prohibition worked.

So, you think we should make all drugs legal then, because there will be less crime if there are no dealers? I disagree, completely.

First off, when something is legalized, like alcohol, it becomes a socially acceptable standard. I for one, do not want my children thinking its ok to shoot up with heroin. It isnt. Not at all. The average joe would pay again, for the sheer numbers of OD's and other such instances. Not to mention other crimes that would still spring up. Ie...more theft for drug money and whatnot.

Its just a bad idea.

And you cant say......just legalize pot...because it opens the door to more legalizations that would lead to the afore mentioned problems. The system we have may not be perfect, but its sure better than having doctors and school teachers who smoke crack every night. Legally.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver
Yes, I understand that part. Answer this then: Should we withhold medical care from a overweight middle aged heart attack patient who never exercises and doesn't have insurance to save tax money?


I never said we would or should withhold medical care from anyone. I said we would pay more for their problems that would only increase if they were legally allowed to participate.

Fast food may be bad for you, but i dont see BigMac dealers on the corner bustin caps because they got skimped on the special sauce.........G!

[Silver]

I'm not saying legalize everything overnight. That would lead to huge problems. But having a much less draconian policy with regards to some drugs would have huge social benefits.

Look at the Netherlands. Marijuana smoking is tolerated there, and guess what...not everyone walks around high 100% of the time. You mentioned alcohol, is it socially acceptable to walk around drunk all the time? To be drunk at work?

As far as there not being firefights over BigMacs...make them illegal and then we have a valid comparison.

Plus you could always tax the sales of drugs, that might help to make up for the upswing in OD care that you seem to think will happen (it might, I'm not sure. If it does, I wouldn't be thrilled about it, but once again, not my place to tell someone else what to do with their body.)

And maybe if addicts weren't worried about getting tossed into prison they would be more receptive to seeking out treatment programs.

I'm not saying I have all the answers. I am saying that the current system does not work.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver
I'm not saying legalize everything overnight. That would lead to huge problems. But having a much less draconian policy with regards to some drugs would have huge social benefits.

Look at the Netherlands. Marijuana smoking is tolerated there, and guess what...not everyone walks around high 100% of the time. You mentioned alcohol, is it socially acceptable to walk around drunk all the time? To be drunk at work?

As far as there not being firefights over BigMacs...make them illegal and then we have a valid comparison.

Plus you could always tax the sales of drugs, that might help to make up for the upswing in OD care that you seem to think will happen (it might, I'm not sure. If it does, I wouldn't be thrilled about it, but once again, not my place to tell someone else what to do with their body.)

And maybe if addicts weren't worried about getting tossed into prison they would be more receptive to seeking out treatment programs.

I'm not saying I have all the answers. I am saying that the current system does not work.

No. It certainly isnt, however alcoholics often do cause problems in the workplace, be it from showing up late with a hangover, or drinking on the job. There are still drunk drivers on the road. Should we magnify this problem exponentially by having heroine addicts on the roadways and in the workplace where they're free to drive fork lifts and airplanes? To influence the minds of our youth?

No....period.

Yes, there is money to be made from taxes. However, there are many other areas that we could tax harder if we needed alot of extra money. Which we dont. We could just double the tax on alchohol and people would still buy it, so there really is no clear benefit. Only detriment.

If addicts want help, it is available to them. I feel no need to justify what they;ve done to themselves by making their problem legal and supporting their uselesness. Legalizing would only create more users, and more addicts that would clearly negate any tax benefit you might have hoped for.

[Silver]

I'm not motivated by the tax benefits, BurlySurly. Like I've said before, I don't believe that I have the right to tell someone else what they can or can't do with their own body. Prohibiting some drugs, while promoting the use of others is not something that a "free" society does.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver
I'm not motivated by the tax benefits, BurlySurly. Like I've said before, I don't believe that I have the right to tell someone else what they can or can't do with their own body. Prohibiting some drugs, while promoting the use of others is not something that a "free" society does.

You're free to do whatever you want, so long as it does not affect the basic freedoms of others. Drug use does not meet that criteria.

Sure, the system's not perfect, but its not that bad either. Alchohol can cause similar problems i know, but we're dealing with what we have. We dont need new problems.

[Silver]

How does my smoking a joint impede your life, liberty, or pusuit of happiness? You point out a host of societal problems (which we are already dealing with, because lots of people use lots of different drugs, and since they are allready breaking the law and the price is artificially high, it's much easier to rationalize stealing or dealing to get to it), but forget to take into consideration that enforcing the ban on these substances causes a tremendous amount of pain for everyone involved.

I just don't get it. The prohibition of a substance should not be more harmful than the substance itself.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver
How does my smoking a joint impede your life, liberty, or pusuit of happiness?


I know we already went over this a couple times, but lastly, as Lobo Del Fuego pointed out, intoxicated drivers and money hungry drug dealers can quickly impede all of those things.

[johnny33fb]

BurlySurly:

"So, you think we should make all drugs legal then, because there will be less crime if there are no dealers? I disagree, completely.

Fast food may be bad for you, but i dont see BigMac dealers on the corner bustin caps because they got skimped on the special sauce.........G!"

Okay, you completely went against what you were just saying. By legallizing pot (just pot were not talking about other drugs so stop bring it up by trying to make more points by talking about a different drug b/c they are different believe it or not) you would take those drug dealers off the corners right? So then there wouldn't be shootings on the corner right?


"No. It certainly isnt, however alcoholics often do cause problems in the workplace, be it from showing up late with a hangover, or drinking on the job. There are still drunk drivers on the road. Should we magnify this problem exponentially by having heroine addicts on the roadways and in the workplace where they're free to drive fork lifts and airplanes? To influence the minds of our youth?......

If addicts want help, it is available to them. I feel no need to justify what they;ve done to themselves by making their problem legal and supporting their uselesness. Legalizing would only create more users, and more addicts that would clearly negate any tax benefit you might have hoped for."

Alright we have made beer legal which causes problems and there is AA and other programs to help with that. Now who if they both do harm to your body why can one be legal and the other not (don't give me oh were gonna add more problems, we may and probably would) but if they both do the samething and around around the same level of bad why can one be legal and not the other? How can that one be "bad" and the other be acceptable. It not anyone persons right to say if something like pot is acceptable it would have to be done by vote, whats one more gonna do to society that already filled with "bad" things if it is legalized and limited to small amounts no biggy. And legalizing one thing wouldn't lead to others because coke and harder drugs are much more powerful.

[Silver]

Another if. People can grow their own plants, and choose to not drive. Legislation based on what someone might do is faulty. By that logic, we should ban all guns, because someone may shoot another person with one.

If you believe that some drugs should be illegal you have to be very hypocritical to ever drink a beer. All I'm asking for is a little consistency.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver
Another if. People can grow their own plants, and choose to not drive. Legislation based on what someone might do is faulty. By that logic, we should ban all guns, because someone may shoot another person with one.

If you believe that some drugs should be illegal you have to be very hypocritical to ever drink a beer. All I'm asking for is a little consistency.

I dont drink beer or any other alchohol for that matter. I also do not use drugs (spare me the caffiene argument please).

Thats not to say that i never have.

Its just saddening to see people so adament about doing drugs like its the savior of man or something. I mean christ, they're no good for you, society or the human race, so whats the point of it all?
Cause people want to get high. Thats all.

Does getting high mean that much to you? It seems like it (based soley on your stance in this conversation)

How sad a life is that?

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by johnny33fb
BurlySurly:
And legalizing one thing wouldn't lead to others because coke and harder drugs are much more powerful.

What the hell does that mean?

1st off about the McD's thing, cheeseburgers dont cause traffic accidents and destroy futures, so really, its not an accurate comparison I admit.
But since when did this argument become solely about Pot?
I think its about all drugs, but even if it werent. Pot still leads people on to other drugs. You've probably seen it as many times as i have. How can you argue that?
Anyway...legalizing pot would just set the stage for legalizing coke, the crack, then heroine and yada yada yada. Why one and not the other right? According to your little Beer logic.

[Silver]

Its just saddening to see people so adament about doing drugs like its the savior of man or something. I mean christ, they're no good for you, society or the human race, so whats the point of it all?
Cause people want to get high. Thats all.

It's not about getting high for myself at all. I can't remember the last time I've been high. I don't smoke marijuana, and I've never done hard drugs.

Like I've said, it's a issue of freedom to me. It's got nothing to do with drugs in particular, although drugs do make for a good talking point, I guess.

So let me repeat, for the last time: If someone wants to get high, and does it responsibly, why should you care? It's none of your business.

[johnny33fb]

BurlySurly:
"I dont drink beer or any other alchohol for that matter. I also do not use drugs (spare me the caffiene argument please).

Thats not to say that i never have.

Its just saddening to see people so adament about doing drugs like its the savior of man or something. I mean christ, they're no good for you, society or the human race, so whats the point of it all?
Cause people want to get high. Thats all.

Does getting high mean that much to you? It seems like it (based soley on your stance in this conversation)

How sad a life is that?"


I think silver said he didn't even use drugs (could be wrong on that) but i know i don't, the argument im making is that people like you are so damn adament about being hippocritical i mean how can you say oh yeah beer is fine but pot is not?? People in my mind want to fight because they believe that people not just them have that right and when you say no you can't then how the hell can you allow beer? I mean its contradicts so much. And getting high means so damn much because why shouldnt people have the same rights to use pot as beer if they can cause the same bodily affects? You try taking peoples rights away that they have been granted and yes they will put up an arguement thats why this country is so great.

[johnny33fb]

Originally posted by johnny33fb
BurlySurly:
And legalizing one thing wouldn't lead to others because coke and harder drugs are much more powerful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah sorry about that i didnt bother going back and proofreading.

Sure, it may lead to people doing harder drugs but it may not. I know way many more people that have not been led to harder drugs (at least not yet and maybe things are the other way around where you live i dunno) but doesn't beer lead to people doing pot? I know way more people that have started with beer and then gone to pot but they stop when they get to pot. No i dont think it will because the generally public doesn't want those harder drugs to be legal. And i dont see you saying beer should be illegal because its bringing talk of making pot legal.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by johnny33fb
BurlySurly:



I think silver said he didn't even use drugs (could be wrong on that) but i know i don't, the argument im making is that people like you are so damn adament about being hippocritical i mean how can you say oh yeah beer is fine but pot is not??

Exactly at what point did i say Beer was fine?

And exactly who are "people like me?"

Since Im so adament about being hipocritical and all, probably nothing i try to say will sink through your thick skull, but if you listen to any part of what I've been arguing about, try to remember that drugs are inherently bad. They're no good for anyone. So whats the point?
The laws now the make drugs illegal are a better option than actually making drugs legal. The problems Ive already listed should speak for themselves.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver


So let me repeat, for the last time: If someone wants to get high, and does it responsibly, why should you care? It's none of your business.

And i shall reiterate as well.

Because many people are not responsible enough and at that point it does become my business.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by johnny33fb


No i dont think it will because the generally public doesn't want those harder drugs to be legal. And i dont see you saying beer should be illegal because its bringing talk of making pot legal.

Check your figures...the general public doesnt want pot legalized either.

And....beer is legal right? What are we talking about now?

[johnny33fb]

No they don't open your eyes drugs arent going away. No matter how many laws there are made or how much tax payer money we put into stopping them. As long as there are users they will still be drugs coming in, so why not regulate the problem and save some money, and stop some crimes evolving around drugs at the same time. It doesn't matter if you think beer is fine, because 51% and more think it does and i think 51% think pot should be legal but my word is worth nothing too. You still haven't said why pot can't be illegal and beer can when the bodily affects around the same. Unless you want to get rid of all drugs and then we would have a clean society, which i think would be very benefical. But thats never going to happen.

[johnny33fb]

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n1703/a11.html?117

"The fact is, 80 million Americans have tried marijuana at one time in their lives and they didn't go onto harder drugs and they aren't homeless."

http://freedom2008.com/blog/archives/000016.html

um... the polls were almost even? and you say no the general public doesnt want pot to be legal, check your figures.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by johnny33fb
No they don't open your eyes drugs arent going away. No matter how many laws there are made or how much tax payer money we put into stopping them. As long as there are users they will still be drugs coming in, so why not regulate the problem and save some money, and stop some crimes evolving around drugs at the same time. It doesn't matter if you think beer is fine, because 51% and more think it does and i think 51% think pot should be legal but my word is worth nothing too. You still haven't said why pot can't be illegal and beer can when the bodily affects around the same. Unless you want to get rid of all drugs and then we would have a clean society, which i think would be very benefical. But thats never going to happen.

The figure you posted about 51% of people is completely false. The actual number is somewhere around 12% i believe. Maybe lower.

And as ive already stated, about why Beer can be legal and POT cant, because POT is a gateway drug. Pot leads to worse things. I dont care about your personal friends and how they quit at pot. The facts remain facts.

Since Beer is already legal, it remains regulated and taxed, but still a problem right? So why introduce another problem? As you said, and i agree, we could never get a completely clean society, but if we can create a few less heroine adicts by fear of the law, Im all for it.

[BurlyShirley]

PS.

Dont post a 51% Hippie Propaganda number from some slanted website.

[johnny33fb]

alright maybe they were a little off but the numbers are rising quickly http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/timep.politics.pot.tm/index.html and last i check cnn isnt a hippie pot site but then again my heads just so damn thick nothing is getting through there. And i can tell you got that pot was a gateway drug for DARE i dont know how many damn times they said that but why dont they call beer one i mean it lead so wouldnt that be the first gateway? The question is not about adding more problems it whether its justified as a right.

[BurlyShirley]

FROM YOUR LINK:

A TIME/CNN poll last week found that only 34% want pot to be totally legalized


Now, that number is way higher than what i stated, but recognize first that CNN is not the be all end all of statistics, especially when they formulate their own polls. They are quite slanted in a hippyish, liberal sort of way.

I, being one that often works in media, could care less about a CNN poll because anything thats not pro-gay, pro the little guy, pro minority is seen as inherently bad. Thats a serious problem in the media today, but thats another argument altogether.

[johnny33fb]

And i never said it was the end all but i haven't seen one poll or article online saying that popular support isnt rising. And you haven't shown any but since cnn is to hippish and liberal i can maybe find another poll from another media company there are plenty out there just give me some and ill look it up.

[Sideways]

Theres not one good reason for pot to be illigal.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Sideways
Theres not one good reason for pot to be illigal.


Dude, do i really have to start all over again?:(

[LeatherFace]

Ah...I see the cycle has come full circle and we are having another drug legalization debate. It is amazing to me all of the propaganda Burly has digested that our government has spoon fed us about drugs that started with Nixon's political platform--the true beginning of the "War on Drugs." I encourage you to read "Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure" by Dan Baum. I think in order to really be convincing in your argument, you should have studied information from both camps, and let me emphasize the word INFORMATION. This is a little different than what one feels is morally good or bad.

I also encourage you to look at the Bureau of Justice Statistics website regarding this false connection between drugs and violent crime. Read the Real Facts (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/duc.htm) Notice that drugs are the major cause of property crimes. You know why drugs are involved in violent crime? Because of their illegality. Imagine if you will, being able to walk down to your local 7-11, flashing a 21 ID and being able to buy a pack of marijuana cigarettes. There would no longer be dark alleys and shady individuals involved in drug deals--therein crime would reduce.

And as for people using drugs, it would be just another population with substance abuse problems. They could now join the ranks of the alcoholics, prescription drug addicts, and smokers. Big deal? If people want to smoke pot or inject a needle into their eyeballs, let them do it.

In doing so, this would help with prison overcrowding. Treating drug addiction as a health problem instead of a criminal act. Of the 2 million people in prison and jail, 500,000 are there for non-violent drug offenses. That, in and of itself, should outrage everyone.

Should I continue?

[Sideways]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Dude, do i really have to start all over again?:(

Yes, but this time concider the facts and not the lies.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by LeatherFace
Ah...I see the cycle has come full circle and we are having another drug legalization debate. It is amazing to me all of the propaganda Burly has digested that our government has spoon fed us about drugs that started with Nixon's political platform--the true beginning of the "War on Drugs." I encourage you to read "Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure" by Dan Baum. I think in order to really be convincing in your argument, you should have studied information from both camps, and let me emphasize the word INFORMATION. This is a little different than what one feels is morally good or bad.

I also encourage you to look at the Bureau of Justice Statistics website regarding this false connection between drugs and violent crime. Read the Real Facts (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/duc.htm) Notice that drugs are the major cause of property crimes. You know why drugs are involved in violent crime? Because of their illegality. Imagine if you will, being able to walk down to your local 7-11, flashing a 21 ID and being able to buy a pack of marijuana cigarettes. There would no longer be dark alleys and shady individuals involved in drug deals--therein crime would reduce.

And as for people using drugs, it would be just another population with substance abuse problems. They could now join the ranks of the alcoholics, prescription drug addicts, and smokers. Big deal? If people want to smoke pot or inject a needle into their eyeballs, let them do it.

In doing so, this would help with prison overcrowding. Treating drug addiction as a health problem instead of a criminal act. Of the 2 million people in prison and jail, 500,000 are there for non-violent drug offenses. That, in and of itself, should outrage everyone.

Should I continue?



Here's what i see yet again, another person so bent on being a non conformist that they've failed to even pay notice to good sense, and not only that, but have also decided that all my choices towards a particular subject are the product of government propaganda.

I could read all the hippy, pro pot jargon in the world, just like you could read the government propaganda in the world, and still come away with nothing. Id still come away with the feeling that marijuana would cause more problems if it were legal than if it stayed where it was.

Its almost comical to me that you think if drugs were made legal, there would be less crime. To me, it seems like addicts will be addicts until they're broke regardless of the legality of the substance. It seems like drug users who are a dangerous problem, would still commit violent crimes to acquire drugs. WE ALREADY HAVE PLENTY OF ADICTS. WHY WOULD WE WANT TO EXPAND THE PROBLEM?

Why one earth would we want another population with substance abuse problems? Why support people's stupidity with tax dollars?

Im sure some of those 500,000 inmates you speak of probably sold pot to kids and heroin to pregnant women. I believe thats as bad as any violent crime. That should be an outrage to everyone.

Finally, drug addiction is treated medically. Its not a crime necessarily to be an addict. Only to posess and use drugs. If someone wanted to go to a methadone clinic because they wanted to kick a habit, they would recieve no legal consequences to my knowledge.

Surely all this speaking of common sense of I've done will come to no avail, simply because people's minds are already set here. I try to listen to new ideas, but this one, which isnt new by any standard, is almost proposterous. Its almost not worth arguing anymore.

[Silver]

Let's look at it another way.....

Have you read Safetrails (http://www.safetrails.net)?

Pretty hysterical stuff, isn't it? Reading it, I'm struck by how much it sounds like a government official preaching about drugs.

Let's see:

1. Some mountain bikers are irresponsible.
2. There have been accidents in the past involving hikers and bikers, which have caused harm to people other than the biker.
3. Therefore, all mountian bikes need to be banned, because an accident MAY occur again in the future. It's all about safety for the largest number of people, right? Hikers do outnumber bikers.

If you agree with that, BurlySurly, then I'll have to give you respect for being consistent. Once again, it's not about drugs...it's about making decisions for others that you have no right to be making.

The marijuana as gateway drug myth has been debunked as well, read up on a recent report by the Canandian Senate. I can dig up some links for you if you want.

Let's all go ride now :) It's a beautiful day!

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Here's what i see yet again, another person so bent on being a non conformist that they've failed to even pay notice to good sense, and not only that, but have also decided that all my choices towards a particular subject are the product of government propaganda.

I could read all the hippy, pro pot jargon in the world, just like you could read the government propaganda in the world, and still come away with nothing. Id still come away with the feeling that marijuana would cause more problems if it were legal than if it stayed where it was.

Its almost comical to me that you think if drugs were made legal, there would be less crime. To me, it seems like addicts will be addicts until they're broke regardless of the legality of the substance. It seems like drug users who are a dangerous problem, would still commit violent crimes to acquire drugs. WE ALREADY HAVE PLENTY OF ADICTS. WHY WOULD WE WANT TO EXPAND THE PROBLEM?

Why one earth would we want another population with substance abuse problems? Why support people's stupidity with tax dollars?

Im sure some of those 500,000 inmates you speak of probably sold pot to kids and heroin to pregnant women. I believe thats as bad as any violent crime. That should be an outrage to everyone.

Surely all this speaking of common sense of I've done will come to no avail, simply because people's minds are already set here. I try to listen to new ideas, but this one, which isnt new by any standard, is almost proposterous. Its almost not worth arguing anymore.

I suppose I should preface who I am and where I am coming from. First of all, according to your profile, I'm over ten years older than you--research has shown that the more education a person has, the more liberal his/her views are. Now, I am not saying you are uneducated, please....you are very articulate and can form very convincing arguments. But you are young, and have not been exposed to other information besides what has been given to you in your high school classrooms, plus what you call "common sense" based on either personal experiences or anything else.

As for my talk about crime, prison populations and the like, my information doesnt come from "hippy, pro pot" feelings. I'm a graduate student at the College of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University. I think I have a little more knowledge about crime than the average Joe. So my views arent just "non-conformist," they are based on my education, my studies, and whatever other knowledge I try to fill my head with.

So please dont think that I'm some pot smoker who just wants to have an excuse to get high. I dont smoke pot or do any drugs for that matter. I used to, but I was by no means a pothead. I was not what you seem to think the typical pot smoker was: burned out, loser, eating doritoes in my friend's basement while taking bong hits and playing tony hawk's pro skater.

I would love to see what your attitude is about this in ten years.

[fourgivn1]

I'm staying out of this one, being the fundamentalist Christian that I am.

Long time no see Leatherface. :)

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by fourgivn1
I'm staying out of this one, being the fundamentalist Christian that I am.

Long time no see Leatherface. :)

HAHA you know I couldn't let this one get by me...how are u doing?

[fourgivn1]

Not too bad. Got a new truck (2003 Dodge Ram 1500 V8 4x4) and just bought a house in the 'foothills' of the Ozarks. On the lake, no less. :D Life has been good to me.

One of the reasons you don't see me here too much is because I realized a while back that our views, and also whether or not we're willing to change our viewpoints and stances, has almost everything to do with specifically what we're basing it on. Being a Christian, EVERYTHING about life relates and is based on, in some way, to my beliefs, and when arguing with those who don't believe the same way, it's very tough to find that common ground. Even when evidence is provided to the contrary, in the end I'd have to default to what I believe.

And that makes for a lot of circular arguments :D So now I just sort of hang back, get into an argument every once in a while, but mostly just make dumb comments. :p

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by LeatherFace
you are young, and have not been exposed to other information besides what has been given to you in your high school classrooms, plus what you call "common sense" based on either personal experiences or anything else.





So now its just about how you're smarter than me, so you obviously know the right answer. Gimme a break. I know lots of people with alot of education who are quite conservative.
I also know lots of people with college degrees who are complete morons. Your years in school do not lend any credit to your argument in my eyes (it is something to be proud of however).

But just for your information.

Im in my 2nd year of College and third year of the Marine Corps.
I graduated from the Defense Information School in Ft. Meade Md. and hold an equivalent to an associates degree in Journalism. Yeah, Im 20........so what. I've been around the world to more countries than most people will visit in their life. I've been published in more than 20 newspapers and magazines, not to mention countless websites.

I've been a bit further than my high school classroom, but really none of that matters. Im not sure why you would even bring this up, other than to gloat about your accomplishments.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
So now its just about how you're smarter than me, so you obviously know the right answer. Gimme a break. I know lots of people with alot of education who are quite conservative.
I also know lots of people with college degrees who are complete morons. Your years in school do not lend any credit to your argument in my eyes (it is something to be proud of however).

But just for your information.

Im in my 2nd year of College and third year of the Marine Corps.
I graduated from the Defense Information School in Ft. Meade Md. and hold an equivalent to an associates degree in Journalism. Yeah, Im 20........so what. I've been around the world to more countries than most people will visit in their life. I've been published in more than 20 newspapers and magazines, not to mention countless websites.

I've been a bit further than my high school classroom, but really none of that matters. Im not sure why you would even bring this up, other than to gloat about your accomplishments.

Now, did I say that I was smarter than you? I dont think so--I said with more education a person has more liberal views. And I was merely pointing out that this was my field of study...but if you take that to be gloating, fine. I am glad that I know more about crime and the American criminal justice system than John Q. Public because I am able to make my own decisions based on my independent research, not what Fox News or Bill O'Reilly tells me.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by fourgivn1
Not too bad. Got a new truck (2003 Dodge Ram 1500 V8 4x4) and just bought a house in the 'foothills' of the Ozarks. On the lake, no less. :D Life has been good to me.

One of the reasons you don't see me here too much is because I realized a while back that our views, and also whether or not we're willing to change our viewpoints and stances, has almost everything to do with specifically what we're basing it on. Being a Christian, EVERYTHING about life relates and is based on, in some way, to my beliefs, and when arguing with those who don't believe the same way, it's very tough to find that common ground. Even when evidence is provided to the contrary, in the end I'd have to default to what I believe.

And that makes for a lot of circular arguments :D So now I just sort of hang back, get into an argument every once in a while, but mostly just make dumb comments. :p

My uncle used to have a house at the Lake of the Ozarks---like 2 houses away from the tip of Cobb's Chimney Point. Is that still there? Right across the big lake from the 4 Seasons. We went down there every summer until I was 18. Before all of the hoopla and people who started to move in.

And I'm wondering--you have Chrisitanity to base your beliefs on, and that shapes your thoughts, I wonder what mine is ;)

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver
Let's look at it another way.....

Have you read Safetrails (http://www.safetrails.net)?

Pretty hysterical stuff, isn't it? Reading it, I'm struck by how much it sounds like a government official preaching about drugs.

Let's see:

1. Some mountain bikers are irresponsible.
2. There have been accidents in the past involving hikers and bikers, which have caused harm to people other than the biker.
3. Therefore, all mountian bikes need to be banned, because an accident MAY occur again in the future. It's all about safety for the largest number of people, right? Hikers do outnumber bikers.

If you agree with that, BurlySurly, then I'll have to give you respect for being consistent. Once again, it's not about drugs...it's about making decisions for others that you have no right to be making.

The marijuana as gateway drug myth has been debunked as well, read up on a recent report by the Canandian Senate. I can dig up some links for you if you want.

Let's all go ride now :) It's a beautiful day!


Breaking things down by extreme examples to help define logic can be very helpful in an argument, but this isnt really one of those cases.

First off, some of every group of people are responsible, this includes both Mt. Bikers and drug users and underwater basket weavers.
However, drugs and drug users seriously cause damage to huge numbers of people every day. In fact, All drug users could be considered irresponsible since they are "breaking the law".
Mt. Bikes are very minute in their effects on.....well, just about anything.
Its a matter of scale, thats all. If bikes were a huge menace to society, I wouldnt participate. I personally happen to think bikes are good for people.

Oh......about your random canadian study, Its bullsh%$, no, i havent read it, and i dont care.

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by LeatherFace
My uncle used to have a house at the Lake of the Ozarks---like 2 houses away from the tip of Cobb's Chimney Point. Is that still there? Right across the big lake from the 4 Seasons. We went down there every summer until I was 18. Before all of the hoopla and people who started to move in.

Think further south. I think the Lake of the Ozarks is in Missouri. What we're doing (my wife and I) is buying my Uncle Jack's house. He owns a house on the shore of Lake Norfork in Elizabeth, AR....near Mountain Home, AR. You might have heard of the White River and Bull Shoals Lake. If so, that's where. :)

And I'm wondering--you have Chrisitanity to base your beliefs on, and that shapes your thoughts, I wonder what mine is ;)

I thought yours was the Catholic church, which would explain a lot :p (Gotta get my potshots in when I can :D) I really have no clue. BUT I'm willing to bet that you do not accept the Bible as the infallible perfect Word of God, as I do. (Let the tomaters fly :D)

[Sideways]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Breaking things down by extreme examples to help define logic can be very helpful in an argument, but this isnt really one of those cases.

First off, some of every group of people are responsible, this includes both Mt. Bikers and drug users and underwater basket weavers.
However, drugs and drug users seriously cause damage to huge numbers of people every day. In fact, All drug users could be considered irresponsible since they are "breaking the law".
Mt. Bikes are very minute in their effects on.....well, just about anything.
Its a matter of scale, thats all. If bikes were a huge menace to society, I wouldnt participate. I personally happen to think bikes are good for people.

Oh......about your random canadian study, Its bullsh%$, no, i havent read it, and i dont care.
Pot doesn’t cause damage to any number of people.
Even on a bad day.
Marijuana users are can not be collectively called irresponsible simply by the fact that they break the law. That’s a silly generalization.
Marijuana is not a menace to society.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by fourgivn1


I thought yours was the Catholic church, which would explain a lot :p (Gotta get my potshots in when I can :D) I really have no clue. BUT I'm willing to bet that you do not accept the Bible as the infallible perfect Word of God, as I do. (Let the tomaters fly :D)

True--I call myself a "recovering Catholic" and no, I dont accept the Bible as the infallible perfect Word of God. I dont even believe in God...let the hellfire and brimstone envelop me now! Can I get an AMEN!

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Sideways
Pot doesn’t cause damage to any number of people.
Even on a bad day.
Marijuana users are can not be collectively called irresponsible simply by the fact that they break the law. That’s a silly generalization.
Marijuana is not a menace to society.


Yes it does, yes they can, not it isnt and yes it is.:)

[mrbigisbudgood]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
In fact, All drug users could be considered irresponsible since they are "breaking the law".

Does this mean people who drive 56 in a 55 are "irresponsible" because they breaking a posted law?

I really do admire you Burly, but damn, you've been brainwashed by the Marines. Really, it's ok, my buddy Seth was too, now he's into Quixtar and driving a 92 Ford Escort.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Sideways
Pot doesn’t cause damage to any number of people.
Even on a bad day.
Marijuana users are can not be collectively called irresponsible simply by the fact that they break the law. That’s a silly generalization.
Marijuana is not a menace to society.


Yes it does, yes they can, not it isnt and yes it is.:)

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Yes it does, yes they can, not it isnt and yes it is.:)

Na-ner-na-ner-boo-boo :p

[mrbigisbudgood]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Yes it does, yes they can, not it isnt and yes it is.:)

If I smoke pot, what will happen to me? Please tell me.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by mrbigisbudgood
If I smoke pot, what will happen to me? Please tell me.

You will get arrested if you get caught:D

[Serial Midget]

I have smoked pot exactly one time when I was 14 or 15, at the time I preferred beer. That was over 20 years ago. Right now I do not think pot should be illegal; and I don't buy the gateway argument either - one beer almost always leads to another but as long as it's not abused then no problem... :p

I do have a problem with drug abuse but I do not think the legal system will ever have any impact on this issue. Millions of people smoke dope regularly and, while I view this a serious weakness in character, I do not think it should be a crime. This is not a liberal point of view, many well known conservatives also share the same views.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
I have smoked pot exactly one time when I was 14 or 15, at the time I preferred beer. That was over 20 years ago. Right now I do not think pot should be illegal; and I don't buy the gateway argument either - one beer almost always leads to another but as long as it's not abused then no problem... :p


I buy it because I've seen it. I've seen it too many times and i still see it. Alchoholism is a big problem, so why allow others to legally follow?

[mrbigisbudgood]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
You will get arrested if you get caught:D

But your making is sound like my life will deteriorate and I'll be living out of a shopping cart if I take a hit off a joint. Come on dude, your not that dumb. I know an investment banker that smokes. I know a maxilofacial surgeon that smokes, and he's the maxilo surgeon for a pro football team. Engineers, farmers, accountants....thousands of successful people.

Want me to tell you about my life and what I smoke? Probably not.

It's only illegal because when prohibition ended, that department needed something to do or they would loose their jobs. Next target......marijuana.......and it's useful cousin hemp!!!!!!!!

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by mrbigisbudgood

It's only illegal because when prohibition ended, that department needed something to do or they would loose their jobs. Next target......marijuana.......and it's useful cousin hemp!!!!!!!!

And let's not forget that the reason marijuana is criminal is not because it is harmful to people--god forbid Americans can't take care of themselves and the government has to tell us what we can and cannot do to our bodies because it is our "parent"--but let's break down the financial aspect of marijuana and other drugs.

Let's say that we legalize marijuana, not all drugs. How does this affect our corporate government?

The DEA estimates that there are 45 million casual drug users in America. Casual drug user means that at the least, you use drugs once a month. Out of that 45 million, 40 million smoke pot. So imagine what would happen to the DEA, the ATF, Customs, and the INS if marijuana was legalized...these huge agencies would only have to police 5 million people in a population of 280 million. Can we say BUDGET CUTS?

So I ask you, in whose best interest is it to make marijuana illegal?

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by LeatherFace
I dont even believe in God...let the hellfire and brimstone envelop me now! Can I get an AMEN!

No. :o: ;)

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by mrbigisbudgood
But your making is sound like my life will deteriorate and I'll be living out of a shopping cart if I take a hit off a joint. Come on dude, your not that dumb.



So Im at least pretty dumb.:)

Anyway, sure there are those who smoke and are successful, good on them. I, personally, wouldnt want a pot smoking surgeon cutting away on me or managing my funds, but hey, I guess im old fashioned.

The point is that pot isnt any good for any one. (spare me the medicinal speech cause thats not the issue) Marijuana smokers often progress to harder drugs that cause problems for not only themselves but the entire world around them. Legalizing Marijuana would cause more marijuana smokers and hence, more people to progress to harder drugs, and finally, more problems than we already have.
Its not that hard to see.

Ive stated my case here, and im about through with this thread because everyone keeps coming at me saying the same things over and over and not getting the point, so as i leave, I'll leave you with one though er.....question.

DO YOU WANT YOUR KIDS TO DO DRUGS?

If you say no, then you already know deep down that drugs are wrong.

If you say yes, you've got some serious issues.

Thanks all.

[Sideways]

Originally posted by LeatherFace
....
So I ask you, in whose best interest is it to make marijuana illegal?

I'd say oil and chemical companies are at greatest financial risk should pot become legal.
Next would be law enforcement agencies.
And foresting companies would also suffer.

Those are my top three whose best interest it is to keep marijuana illegal.

[Silver]

Oh......about your random canadian study, Its bullsh%$, no, i havent read it, and i dont care.

I can see by now that you don't care. You're obviously choosing to remain ignorant, but hey, your decision. In case you get curious though, here is the Cliff's Notes version from CNN.

Cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/americas/09/04/canada.pot/)

Just notice that this isn't a "random" study. This is a commitee of the Canadian government. Not exactly a bunch of "liberal hippie pothead smokers"

Here is the summary of the report:

Canadian Senate Commitee Special Report on Illegal Drugs (http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/rep-e/summary-e.htm)

[mrbigisbudgood]

Originally posted by LeatherFace

So I ask you, in whose best interest is it to make marijuana illegal?

OK I was just being stupid for a few seconds there......

Obviously, there are government officials jobs at stake should marijuana become legal. And like it or not Mr. Surly, that is the TRUTH.

Tobacco companies (huge contributers to government) would probably take a hit, then jump on the bandwagon and the cycle would start all over again.

Alcohol (another huge contributer to government)......I'd stop drinking if I could go to the store and pick up a pack of Northern Lights.

Then you have all the crap associated with rehab and the like.

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I buy it because I've seen it. I've seen it too many times and i still see it. Alchoholism is a big problem, so why allow others to legally follow?

My point is that the current system in which pot is illegal is a total failure and a huge waste of our national resources. The "War on Drugs" is a scam that hasn't made any impact on drug usage at all. Law enforcement is an industry like any other pot smokers are their bread and butter. Don't think I am pro drug because I am not, I think their use is a personal weakness of the worst kind.

" ... it is our judgment that the war on drugs has failed, that it is diverting intelligent energy away from how to deal with the problem of addiction, that it is wasting our resources, and that it is encouraging civil, judicial, and penal procedures associated with police states."

Read more here: National Review (http://www.ndsn.org/MARCH96/NATLREV.html)

[LOOnatic]

Well, Well, Well........

Lots of good opposing points have ben raised on this topic IMO.

I did a college paper along time ago re: some of this and i came across documentation that Marlboro already has a patent locked in on a marketable marijuana product.

So while they directly give lobbyists money and also to politicians to maintain the illegality of pot, they are hedging their own interests in case the status quo changes.

I heay ya BurlySurly about the fundamental message that legal drugs projects to kids and so forth, but isn't the high moral ground already corrupt with the leagal nature of alcohol and tobacco?

I mean, they are both drugs. And very heavily marketed to our youth. Why exactly would the legalization of pot enact the ultimate downward spiral? I guess you are going to mention the gateway effect of pot and i kinda agree but i also believe that if pot did not exist, people would still migrate to the harder stuff(cocaine, heroin, etc).


And Sideways, why exactly would oil companies(yes they are mostly evil) lose out if pot became legal? I am trying to draw a connection but i can't put it together.

[mrbigisbudgood]

Originally posted by LOOnatic

And Sideways, why exactly would oil companies(yes they are mostly evil) lose out if pot became legal? I am trying to draw a connection but i can't put it together.

If marijuana was to be legalized, hemp would probably be legalized as well......as in hemp oil and fibers.

[LOOnatic]

Originally posted by mrbigisbudgood
If marijuana was to be legalized, hemp would probably be legalized as well......as in hemp oil and fibers.

Ah, i forgot about that.
Good point.
Maybe the ultimate paradox will be that hemp oil or some other hemp derivitive will solve our global problems by negating the need for foreign oil and the subsequent problems involved with that .

Hmmmmmm...............:rolleyes:

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by LOOnatic
Ah, i forgot about that.
Good point.
Maybe the ultimate paradox will be that hemp oil or some other hemp derivitive will solve our global problems by negating the need for foreign oil and the subsequent problems involved with that .

Hmmmmmm...............:rolleyes:

Jack Herer wrote a book called "The Emporer Wears No Clothes" which basically says that if we utilized hemp, it would eliminate pretty much all of the world's problems i.e. fuel, food, medicine, textiles, pretty much everything--I mean, hemp growth was encouraged by the government when our country was founded--marijuana, and by default hemp, was only outlawed in 1937. Did we not care about our children before that time?

[Sideways]

1563 AD : English Queen Elizabeth I decrees that land owners with more than 60 acres must grow hemp or be fined 5 pounds.

1637 AD : The General Court at Hartford, Conneticut, orders that all families plant one teaspoon of cannabis seeds

1776 AD : Declaration of Independence drafted on hemp paper.

1791 AD : President Washington sets duties on hemp to encourage domestic industry. "Make the most of the Indian Hemp Seed" ........President George Washington. (Library of USA Congress 1794 vol. 33 p.270). President Jefferson calls hemp a necessity and urges farmers to grow hemp instead of tobacco.

1860 AD : First governmental commission study of cannabis and hashish conducted by Ohio State Medical Society. It catalogues the conditions for which cannabis is beneficial: neuralgia, nervous rheumatism, mania, whooping cough, asthma, chronic bronchitis, muscular spasms, epilepsy, infantile convulsions, palsy, uterine hemorrhage, dysmenorrhea, hysteria, alcohol withdrawal and loss of appetite.

1930 AD : Henry Ford makes his motor cars out of hemp with hemp paint and hemp fuel. New machines invented to break hemp, process the fibre and convert the pulp or hurds into paper, plastics etc. 1200 hash bars in New York City. Racist fears of Mexicans, Asians and African-Americans lead the cry for cannabis to be outlawed.

1941 AD : Henry Ford's car runs on cannabis.

1962 AD : President Kennedy using cannabis as a pain relief.

1997 AD : An 8-year study at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Medicine, concluded that long-term smokers of cannabis do not experience a greater annual decline in lung functions than non-smokers.
Researchers said: "Findings from the present long-term follow-up study of heavy, habitual marijuana smokers argue against the concept that the continuing heavy use of marijuana is a significant factor for the development of [chronic lung disease]"
"No difference were noted between even quite heavy marijuana smoking and nonsmoking of marijuana."
Volume 155 of the American Journal of Respiratory and Clinical Care Medicine 1997

1999 AD : March 21: USA: Government Study Labels Marijuana A Useful Medicine

2000 AD: September 14: USA CA: Feds Rule Doctors May Recommend Pot

2000 AD: October 20: UK: Cannabis Less Harmful Than Aspirin, Says Scientist:

2000 AD: November 24: USA: CA: Study Of Pot's Benefits To AIDS Patients Gets DEA's Blessing

[Damn True]

That is a very NORML reply. :D :D

I think that hemp should be grown as a substitute commodity to cotton (very wasteful crop) and wood pulp etc. but I don't dig the idea of legalizing the sale / use of pot.

However if it is done it should be regulated beyond belief to prevent the tobacco companies (who are cocked and loaded with production, marketing, and packaging plans right now) from turning it into a chemically altered substance like tobacco. We know that people can become dependant on pot, we don't need Phillip Morriss adding something with similar properties as nicotiene to the mix to enhance dependancy.

That being said, it is now illegal and I don't have a problem with testing. I know I'll pass.

[LoboDelFuego]

Sorry for the personal attack. "your sorry ass" was a reference to all drug users, not to any particular person.

Let me sum this issue up and we can start a new thread about whether or not it should legal to grate cheddar cheese.

I will use simple logic.

1. The ideal society has no negative effects.
2. We try to acheive the ideal society.
3. We already have problems with substance abuse (negative)
4. Legalisation of certain drugs would lead to more substance abuse and to abuse of more dangerous substances.
5. Legalisation of those drugs would not be beneficial to the ideal society.

Now let me use my patented Flipside Argument Predictor:

"oooh but Pete, people won't use harder drugs if pot is legalized"

Yes they will. especially kids. Kids like to do things that are illegal. Make it legal and it will only be a matter of time before that stuff is for the pussy wimps who don't want to get caught.

"oooh but Pete, you can never get an ideal society anyway so why bother trying to make one."

Because its all we have. If we're not trying to get the best, we should just all commit suicide and let Nature recuperate.

"oooh but Pete, pot isn't bad for you."

Yeah it is. Try this: smoke some every day. regularly. I won't. every year, we'll get our physicals and send them to each other. guess who's gonna be healthier? (hint: it isn't you)

Thats all. Lets make a new thread or we're going to start having to make it Two Words

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Sideways
I'd say oil and chemical companies are at greatest financial risk should pot become legal.
Next would be law enforcement agencies.
And foresting companies would also suffer.

Those are my top three whose best interest it is to keep marijuana illegal.

Oil companies:
Only if hemp is cultivated as a replacement for many products currently produced with petrochemicals. Though it is doable, the timeline for the change is so long as to render it irrelevant.

Chemical companies:
A bit of a stretch. Bio-tech / Pharmaceutical companies have quite a bit to lose to be sure, but you'll have to explain how DuPont would be affected. Even still the illness' that pot is alleged to be effective in treating represent a pretty small, and unprofitable segment of the drug markets.

Law enforecment:
They would actually benefit from it. They would be able to direct rescources at real crime rather than trying to find the guy you are buying your pot from.

Forresty:
You are spot on if hemp is cultivated as a replacement for wood pulp. I recall a study that showed that the per acre yield of pulp from a hemp field is on the order of over 500 times that of sustainable forrestry. The reduction of negative impact on the environment is astronomical. I am fully in favor of the cultivation of hemp as a replacement for wood pulp.

The biggie though is this. The largest contributor to the anti-legalization lobbies is Anhuser Busch. Yup, the folks at Budweiser don't want you to have pot.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by LeatherFace
I suppose I should preface who I am and where I am coming from. First of all, according to your profile, I'm over ten years older than you--research has shown that the more education a person has, the more liberal his/her views are. Now, I am not saying you are uneducated, please....you are very articulate and can form very convincing arguments. But you are young, and have not been exposed to other information besides what has been given to you in your high school classrooms, plus what you call "common sense" based on either personal experiences or anything else.

As for my talk about crime, prison populations and the like, my information doesnt come from "hippy, pro pot" feelings. I'm a graduate student at the College of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University. I think I have a little more knowledge about crime than the average Joe. So my views arent just "non-conformist," they are based on my education, my studies, and whatever other knowledge I try to fill my head with.

So please dont think that I'm some pot smoker who just wants to have an excuse to get high. I dont smoke pot or do any drugs for that matter. I used to, but I was by no means a pothead. I was not what you seem to think the typical pot smoker was: burned out, loser, eating doritoes in my friend's basement while taking bong hits and playing tony hawk's pro skater.

I would love to see what your attitude is about this in ten years.


.....and I'm older than you and I still think pot should not be legal. Because it's really bad for the user and people around the user.

[Damn True]

This is a great thread. Good stuff from both sides of the issue.

But a couple of things come to mind in reply to some folks arguments.

"Drugs do not belong in schools because they hamper the learning process and create a hostile environment."

The hostility is not from the pot smoker. We all know that belligerance is not a side effect of pot smoking. But you cannot deny that there is no small amount of violence associated with the trafficing and sale of drugs and amongst compteting "retailers". That sort of thing has no place in schools.

"Alcohol and tobacco are drugs that ARE legal and they are responsible for a greater number of deaths than drugs."

That reply is valid, but it is only 1/2 of the answer. If a legal and easilly attainable drug is responsible for a high number of deaths can we not extrapolate that into the possibility that other drugs if made legal and easilly attainable might also be responsible for a similar number of deaths? If a driver is impaired he will crash regardless of the source of the impairment. Booze, Benedryl, Vicodin, and pot all impair your judgement and reactions. The result is the same.

"Pot is not a gateway drug."

Yes, it is. Drugs are about feeling the effect on ones system. After repeated use the effect of a given dosage decreases. The user then seeks higher dosages or more potent drugs.
The people you personally know may not have gone further, but the vast majority of pot smokers do.

"Marijuana use is not a social problem because it dosent hurt anyone else."

Kids being stoned in class and not learning however is. Kids (or adults for that matter) driving cars while stoned is a problem. Drug dealers hanging out around schools is a problem. The violence that goes along with drug sales is a problem. Using drugs negatively affects other people. When something negatively affects other people it is a problem.

"Smoking pot is not dangerous."

Any activity, regardless of how benign, is made more dangerous when the participant is impaired.

In closing I submit the following observation........
The dominant theme that I keep seeing is that drug users don't really care about the legality of drug use but the legitimacy of drug use. They want society to make right what they know is wrong.

....and to back that up I will quote Burly Surly,
"DO YOU WANT YOUR KIDS TO DO DRUGS?

If you say no, then you already know deep down that drugs are wrong.

If you say yes, you've got some serious issues."

[Silver]

"DO YOU WANT YOUR KIDS TO DO DRUGS?

I'll bite on that one:

If a child of mine is mature and responsible enough to handle it, it would be his decision. I wouldn't pressure one way or the other. And if they asked me a question, I wouldn't lie to them. This goes for drugs, sex, drinking oven cleaner, etc.

Obviously, an 8 year old, no. I wouldn't let an 8 year old kid go to the park by himself unsupervised either. But a 16 or 17 year old....would depend on his or her maturity level. I certainly would not lie to a kid about the facts of something to try to scare him away from it. And, my biggest concern would be the trouble that may result from the substance being illegal, not from the use of the substance itself.

Once again, this debate is not really about drugs for me. It's about allowing people to make their own decisions about what to do with themselves.

Yeah yeah, I know. "It affects me when you smoke pot!" Drunk drivers kill a ton of people a year, but alcohol is still legal. Criminalize alcohol, and then you have a leg to stand on in the debate.

[Damn True]

Hello. You have reached the California department of child protective services how may I help you?

[Silver]

Or, I guess I could just tell them never to do drugs, lie to them them about the dangers with dogma and hyperbole, and then sleep soundly at night knowing that they will be drug free for life.

Ahh.......

[LoboDelFuego]

Originally posted by Silver
tell them never to do drugs, lie to them them about the dangers with dogma and hyperbole, and then sleep soundly at night knowing that they will be drug free for life.


In this case, the ends justify the means.

[Lucee]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
In this case, the ends justify the means.

And what would you tell that kid when s/he finds out that you dabbled when you were younger? Now you've become a liar and a hypocrite.

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Damn True
.....and I'm older than you and I still think pot should not be legal. Because it's really bad for the user and people around the user.

Yeah, but you have some other personal feelings tied into this whole drug issue and that is why you think drugs should never be legalized. It's a hard thing when you are bombarded with facts that scream the opposite of what your heart tells you...

[LoboDelFuego]

Originally posted by Lucee
And what would you tell that kid when s/he finds out that you dabbled when you were younger? Now you've become a liar and a hypocrite.

I'm 15 and don't plan to "dabble." So I would just be a father who protected his child/ren from things that would hurt them.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Lucee
And what would you tell that kid when s/he finds out that you dabbled when you were younger? Now you've become a liar and a hypocrite.

Don't have that problem. Never did it.

However, even if I had I would tell them that it was something that I did that was STUPID and that if they did it they would be STUPID as well.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by LeatherFace
Yeah, but you have some other personal feelings tied into this whole drug issue and that is why you think drugs should never be legalized. It's a hard thing when you are bombarded with facts that scream the opposite of what your heart tells you...

Oh really?
Tell me what that might be.

The truth is the stuff is bad for you. It can cause dependancy. It is and should be illegal.

[Lucee]

Originally posted by Damn True
Oh really?
Tell me what that might be.

The truth is the stuff is bad for you. It can cause dependancy. It is and should be illegal.

And what are your thoughts on alcohol? Should that be illegal as well? It's been proven time and again that it definitely causes dependancy.

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by Silver
If a child of mine is mature and responsible enough to handle it, it would be his decision. I wouldn't pressure one way or the other. And if they asked me a question, I wouldn't lie to them. This goes for drugs, sex, drinking oven cleaner, etc.

I'm glad I'm not your kid. What happened to a parent being a role model who provides guidance?

"Hey dad, I'm going to smoke a bowl. Be back in 15 minutes."
"Ok son. Dinner will be ready in 20 minutes, so hurry back."

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Damn True
Oh really?
Tell me what that might be.

The truth is the stuff is bad for you. It can cause dependancy. It is and should be illegal.

Hmmm, I think you told me some things in private (I think there was an IM conversation a while ago) about why this "War on Drugs" hits so close to home, and I was respecting your privacy, but if you want me to air it in front of everyone--well, i still wont because I respect your wishes of not telling...

[Spud]

Anybody know anything about the alcohol screenings using some sort of an oral swab thing? Our ski area is using them on employees and volunteers this year. Supposed to be a screening thing that would be backed up by breath-alyzer or blood alcohol test down in town.

Have no idea what kind of false positive rate they have.

[indieboy]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
I'm 15 and don't plan to "dabble." So I would just be a father who protected his child/ren from things that would hurt them.

i said that growing up to......i've dabbled, not smokin but chemicals n i didn't like it, really didn't have a big effect on me. well one of the substances i took did. something that i didn't like n won't do again......

[Damn True]

Originally posted by LeatherFace
Hmmm, I think you told me some things in private (I think there was an IM conversation a while ago) about why this "War on Drugs" hits so close to home, and I was respecting your privacy, but if you want me to air it in front of everyone--well, i still wont because I respect your wishes of not telling...


Ahh I see.
My opinion on drugs has always been the same so I don't think that my opinion on the legality of drugs is affected by that event.

What about alcohol? Lame reply that I already answered. But I'll say it again; The lame argument du-jour is, "Alcohol and tobacco are drugs that ARE legal and they are responsible for a greater number of deaths than drugs."

That reply is valid, but it is only 1/2 of the answer. If a legal and easilly attainable drug is responsible for a high number of deaths can we not extrapolate that into the possibility that other drugs if made legal and easilly attainable might also be responsible for a similar number of deaths? If a driver is impaired he will crash regardless of the source of the impairment. Booze, Benedryl, Vicodin, and pot all impair your judgement and reactions. The result is the same. Why exacerbate the problem?



In closing I submit the following observation........
The dominant theme that I keep seeing is that drug users don't really care about the legality of drug use but the legitimacy of drug use. They want society to make right for them what they know is wrong.

....and to back that up I will quote Burly Surly,
"DO YOU WANT YOUR KIDS TO DO DRUGS?

If you say no, then you already know deep down that drugs are wrong.

If you say yes, you've got some serious issues."

[Silver]

The dominant theme that I keep seeing is that drug users don't really care about the legality of drug use but the legitimacy of drug use. They want society to make right for them what they know is wrong.

Wrong, I could care less about the legitimacy of drug use. The legality part really irks me though. For the same reasons that I'll eat fish on Friday if I want to, pork anytime I please, and sleep late on Sunday, wear tight jeans like a cowboy, dye my hair bright red, drink Drano, have anal sex with a man in Texas, or perform oral sex on my wife in Utah, look at scat porn from Japan, whatever.....because it's none of your damn business what I do with myself.

[Damn True]

Wrong,
Looking at porn or going down on your wife dosen't hurt anyone else.

Drug use hurts other people, and increases the shared costs of the rest of the populace. That is what makes it our business. That is why it should remain illegal

It is different, and you know it.

[Silver]

You still haven't explained to me how prohibiting drugs is any different, or working any better than Prohibition did.

How many shootings happen between bootleggers nowadays anyways?

[D_D]

I am in the UK.
Here is my take,

I occasionally smoke pot, I don't see that because of a few people that can become dependant move on to hard drugs or any of the other reasons should stop me from having a bit enjoyment every so often.

It's like putting all the kids at school together and only teaching them stuff all of them can under stand. It only caters to the stupidest kid.

Most drugs are very available here the effect of them being illegal on drug use is small.

Would I let my kid do drugs?
If they where educated then yes.

I would like to ask another question.
Would you let your child use a car as transportation?

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Damn True
Wrong,
Looking at porn...dosen't hurt anyone else.


I think it depends on what sort of porn you are looking at.

[Skookum]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I know we already went over this a couple times, but lastly, as Lobo Del Fuego pointed out, intoxicated drivers and money hungry drug dealers can quickly impede all of those things.
pulling a quote from LDF, now that's reaching....:rolleyes: :devil: ;)

[Skookum]

Originally posted by Damn True
Wrong,

Drug use hurts other people, and increases the shared costs of the rest of the populace. That is what makes it our business. That is why it should remain illegal

It is different, and you know it.
Ok since it's our business, (irony aside) give me a moment to babble.
Drug use does not hurt me. There are ton's of people that share wine in their own home, drink at bars, celebrate new years. There are those who abuse the priveledges and drive while drinking, or get in a fight, but those are crimes. Now we get past the gray area into the realm of drug abuser's. Your punishing people on the presumption that if they are influenced by a drug made illegal they will inevitably do something illegal. To me that's illogical and it's anti-american.
As far as shared cost's to the rest of the populace... Me well i pay the payroll of alot of persons within the government whose job's depend on drug's being illegal. I say go to school and get retrained in some other proffession, i'm tired of supporting you guys because your not defeating the problem!
Create a system that attacks the problem of chemical dependency for those who suffer, and choose to have a better lifestyle. You cannot force people to come to this conclusion, obviously but instead of prison's and greedy lawyer's sucking the tax money, perhaps their should be money given to programs to help people, not harden them into transformed criminals further incapable of becoming useful in society.
A good point was raised by Burly Surly about making drugs illegal will make it acceptable by society. Not an educated society. Look at how cigarrettes are faring in the popular view now.
As far as Serial Midges comment of character flaw, being an addict is not a character flaw, it's a disease that when you are in the process of using creates character flaws, and is an avenue of which to neglect self betterment, and ultimately with some an avenue to ultimate self-destruction.
As far as seeing my own kids using, well arent their laws against kids drinking and smoking?:rolleyes:
We all reach an age where we supposedly become adults and make our own choices, but i keep forgetting i live in the U.S.A..
A little understanding goes a hell of lot further than a little fear.

[LoboDelFuego]

Originally posted by Skookum
Your punishing people on the presumption that if they are influenced by a drug made illegal they will inevitably do something illegal. To me that's illogical

Lets just assume that the drug is legal. The drug hinders a persons ability to do _____. This increaes the possibility of someone getting hurt when the drugged person is doing _____.

This is logical, and it is used in other laws. The speed limit for example. No one is saying that if you go above the speed limit, you are going to have an accident. The risks of having an accident just become greater. Everything comes down to probability, and drugs increase the probability of doing harm.

Fear is what keeps everything in check. You go to work because you fear that if you don't, you will have no money and you fear losing shelter or food and you fear death. What stops many people from doing drugs is fear of doing something illegal and getting caught. All governments and all human societies are based on fear, so don't say things like "A little understanding goes a hell of lot further than a little fear" People are stupid, many of them won't get that little understanding. Everybody senses fear. My dog senses fear. One works for a small part of the population (which is going to be choosing the right course of action anyway, because they are intelligent) while the other works for every member of the society.

Large groups have to be ruled by fear. Making things legal reduces the amount of control and leads to chaos.

[D_D]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Lets just assume that the drug is legal. The drug hinders a persons ability to do _____. This increaes the possibility of someone getting hurt when the drugged person is doing _____.

<cut>

Large groups have to be ruled by fear. Making things legal reduces the amount of control and leads to chaos.

Legalising drugs would cause anarchy? That is complete rubbish.
Why doesn't alcohol cause the world to end?

Most people just want to live with food on the table a roof over their head and a smile on their face, they don't need to be in fear to stop them from killing each other.

Pehaps if you looked around the would at other cultures you would see how it is possible not to live in fear even when some drugs are legal.

People are stupid because they don't think the same way as you or have different ways of calculating risk?
How do you know it's not you thats stupid?

[Lucee]

Originally posted by Damn True
Ahh I see.
My opinion on drugs has always been the same so I don't think that my opinion on the legality of drugs is affected by that event.

What about alcohol? Lame reply that I already answered. But I'll say it again; The lame argument du-jour is, "Alcohol and tobacco are drugs that ARE legal and they are responsible for a greater number of deaths than drugs."

That reply is valid, but it is only 1/2 of the answer. If a legal and easilly attainable drug is responsible for a high number of deaths can we not extrapolate that into the possibility that other drugs if made legal and easilly attainable might also be responsible for a similar number of deaths? If a driver is impaired he will crash regardless of the source of the impairment. Booze, Benedryl, Vicodin, and pot all impair your judgement and reactions. The result is the same. Why exacerbate the problem?



In closing I submit the following observation........
The dominant theme that I keep seeing is that drug users don't really care about the legality of drug use but the legitimacy of drug use. They want society to make right for them what they know is wrong.

....and to back that up I will quote Burly Surly,
"DO YOU WANT YOUR KIDS TO DO DRUGS?

If you say no, then you already know deep down that drugs are wrong.

If you say yes, you've got some serious issues."

*Yawn*, I'm already bored w/this whole topic. You haven't submitted any emprical evidence to back up your theories. (I know, neither have I.) If you wanna continue this discussion in person, I'd be down for that. But, please keep name calling out of it, mmmmkay???

[Lucee]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Lets just assume that the drug is legal. The drug hinders a persons ability to do _____. This increaes the possibility of someone getting hurt when the drugged person is doing _____.

This is logical, and it is used in other laws. The speed limit for example. No one is saying that if you go above the speed limit, you are going to have an accident. The risks of having an accident just become greater. Everything comes down to probability, and drugs increase the probability of doing harm.

Fear is what keeps everything in check. You go to work because you fear that if you don't, you will have no money and you fear losing shelter or food and you fear death. What stops many people from doing drugs is fear of doing something illegal and getting caught. All governments and all human societies are based on fear, so don't say things like "A little understanding goes a hell of lot further than a little fear" People are stupid, many of them won't get that little understanding. Everybody senses fear. My dog senses fear. One works for a small part of the population (which is going to be choosing the right course of action anyway, because they are intelligent) while the other works for every member of the society.

Large groups have to be ruled by fear. Making things legal reduces the amount of control and leads to chaos.

Lots of interesting points you make. Where's your data that you extraploted all this from?

[Skookum]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Lets just assume that the drug is legal. The drug hinders a persons ability to do _____. This increaes the possibility of someone getting hurt when the drugged person is doing _____.

This is logical, and it is used in other laws. The speed limit for example. No one is saying that if you go above the speed limit, you are going to have an accident. The risks of having an accident just become greater. Everything comes down to probability, and drugs increase the probability of doing harm.

You are correct in the fact that drugs increase the probability of negative things happening, but what you fail to prove is that drug use will become more prevailant thereby causing these risks. I stand on the notion that these things are happening today regardless, and that the laws ill effect only those who are responsible in their consumption of mind altering substances.

Fear is what keeps everything in check. You go to work because you fear that if you don't, you will have no money and you fear losing shelter or food and you fear death. What stops many people from doing drugs is fear of doing something illegal and getting caught. All governments and all human societies are based on fear, so don't say things like "A little understanding goes a hell of lot further than a little fear" People are stupid, many of them won't get that little understanding. Everybody senses fear. My dog senses fear. One works for a small part of the population (which is going to be choosing the right course of action anyway, because they are intelligent) while the other works for every member of the society.

Your use of the word fear is general and is in too vague of terms for my liking. What i decipher from your definition of fear is "common sense". Things which every person in their lifetime lacks from time to time, EVERYONE. Your hastiness to discount understanding does nothing to build your argument. While your statement of using fear to discourage is a valid one, albeit obvious as well, your eagerness to marry it with ignorance, and arrogance is disturbing and more of a problem than drug abuse itself. People are not stupid yet we are all capable of stupidity, and whether you like it or not your part of the people as are the govenments we choose to work for us.

Large groups never have to be ruled by fear, certainly there are consequences to actions and no one here is asking to abolish law. Fear is corrosive and will ultimately pull a society apart. Making things legal increases the amount of control we as a PEOPLE have over addiction and lead us away from the chaos our current drug war policies.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Lucee
*Yawn*, I'm already bored w/this whole topic. You haven't submitted any emprical evidence to back up your theories. (I know, neither have I.) If you wanna continue this discussion in person, I'd be down for that. But, please keep name calling out of it, mmmmkay???


There is no name calling in what I said.

Just truth.

[Lucee]

Originally posted by Damn True
There is no name calling in what I said.

Just truth.

Quote:
What about alcohol? Lame reply that I already answered.

Okay, True, now are you telling me it's true that I'm lame that I brought up alcohol?

Must be nice to know you're always right....a staunch viewpoint not backed up by any facts does not make truth. Only a narrow minded opinion. But thanks for the reply.

[Sideways]

Originally posted by Damn True
...That reply is valid, but it is only 1/2 of the answer. If a legal and easilly attainable drug is responsible for a high number of deaths can we not extrapolate that into the possibility that other drugs if made legal and easilly attainable might also be responsible for a similar number of deaths? If a driver is impaired he will crash regardless of the source of the impairment. Booze, Benedryl, Vicodin, and pot all impair your judgement and reactions. The result is the same. Why exacerbate the problem?
...


People who would drive high on legalized pot would not be responsible for any great number of deaths.
Any extrapolation one tries to make is completely bogus.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Lucee
Quote:
What about alcohol? Lame reply that I already answered.

Okay, True, now are you telling me it's true that I'm lame that I brought up alcohol?

Must be nice to know you're always right....a staunch viewpoint not backed up by any facts does not make truth. Only a narrow minded opinion. But thanks for the reply.


I wasn't saying you are lame. Just the "what about alcohol" argument is lame.
It's like saying to a CHP officer, "What about the other cars that are speeding."

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Sideways
People who would drive high on legalized pot would not be responsible for any great number of deaths.
Any extrapolation one tries to make is completely bogus.

So being impaired by pot is different than being impaired by booze, vicodin, bendryl or another depressant? By your logic I guess it's ok if we give it airline pilots then?

You are stoned.

Pot has a negative effect on judgement, slows reaction times, dulls visual acuity, and retards fine and gross motor-dexterity.

It has the same net effect on one's ability to operate a motor vehicle, machinery, or bicycle for that matter as alcohol or any other depressant.

[mrbigisbudgood]

Originally posted by Damn True
So being impaired by pot is different than being impaired by booze, vicodin, bendryl or another depressant? By your logic I guess it's ok if we give it airline pilots then?

You are stoned.

Pot has a negative effect on judgement, slows reaction times, dulls visual acuity, and retards fine and gross motor-dexterity.

It has the same net effect on one's ability to operate a motor vehicle, machinery, or bicycle for that matter as alcohol or any other depressant.

I don't know who fed you that crap, but that's exactly what it is......crap. Sounds like BurlySurly propaganda.

[Silver]

It's like saying to a CHP officer, "What about the other cars that are speeding."

That's a perfectly valid complaint. Selective enforcement is NOT a good thing, and it's one of the biggest reasons why the war on some drugs needs to stop. It leads to massive corruption of law enforcement and the judicial system.

Let me ask you a question...If Noelle Bush was black and her daddy wasn't governor of Florida, where do you think she would be right now?

[Damn True]

Originally posted by mrbigisbudgood
I don't know who fed you that crap, but that's exactly what it is......crap. Sounds like BurlySurly propaganda.


"Duuuuude, [cough-cough] like I am toooootally a better driver and stuff when I am high."

Lol, whatever.

If you honestly believe that pot does not impair your senses and reactions you may be stoned right now.

FACT. Pot IS a depressant, and has the same effect on your body as OTHER depressants. FACT.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Silver
That's a perfectly valid complaint. Selective enforcement is NOT a good thing, and it's one of the biggest reasons why the war on some drugs needs to stop. It leads to massive corruption of law enforcement and the judicial system.

Let me ask you a question...If Noelle Bush was black and her daddy wasn't governor of Florida, where do you think she would be right now?


LOL, Oh my god!

One cop can only pull over one speeder at a time. It isn't selective enforcement.

The point is that the argument offered is just finger pointing.

As for Noelle Bush.....I really could care less. The wealthy and influential will always live under a different set of rules. There is nothing I can do about that so I refuse to let it cause me to lose sleep.........and it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

[D_D]

Originally posted by Damn True
I wasn't saying you are lame. Just the "what about alcohol" argument is lame.
It's like saying to a CHP officer, "What about the other cars that are speeding."

No it's like having a law that make green cars exempt from speeding laws.

[Damn True]

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/marijuana/
Interesting stuff from both sides of the issue, but here are a couple of gems that jumped out at me.

Cannabis link to mental illness strengthened

The link between regular cannabis use and later depression and schizophrenia has been significantly strengthened by three new studies.

The studies provide "little support" for an alternative explanation - that people with mental illnesses self-medicate with marijuana - according to Joseph Rey and Christopher Tennant of the University of Sydney, who have written an editorial on the papers in the British Medical Journal.

One of the key conclusions of the research is that people who start smoking cannabis as adolescents are at the greatest risk of later developing mental health problems. Another team calculates that eliminating cannabis use in the UK population could reduce cases of schizophrenia by 13 per cent.

Until now, say Rey and Tennant, there was "a dearth of reliable evidence" to support the idea that cannabis use could cause schizophrenia or depression. That lack of good evidence "has handicapped the development of rational public health policies," according to one of the research groups, led by George Patton at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute in Melbourne, Australia.

The works also highlights potential risks associated with using cannabis as a medicine to ease the symptoms of muscular sclerosis, for example.

Pharmacological effect

Patton's team followed over 1600 Australian school pupils aged 14 to 15 for seven years. Daily cannabis use was associated with a five-fold increased risk of depression at the age of 20. Weekly use was linked to a two-fold increase. The regular users were no more likely to have suffered from depression or anxiety at the start of the study.

The reason for the link is unclear. Social consequences of frequent cannabis use include educational failure and unemployment, which could increase the risk of depression. "However, because the risk seems confined largely to daily users, the question about a direct pharmacological effect remains," says Patton.

In separate research, a team led by Stanley Zammit at the University of Cardiff, UK, evaluated data on over 50,000 men who had been Swedish military conscripts in 1969 and1970. This group represents 97 per cent of men aged 18 to 20 in the population at that time.

The new analysis revealed a dose-dependant relationship between the frequency of cannabis use and schizophrenia. This held true in men with no psychotic symptoms before they started using cannabis, suggesting they were not self-medicating.

Genetic factors

Finally, researchers led by Terrie Moffitt at King's College London, UK, analysed comprehensive data on over 1000 people born in Dunedin, New Zealand in 1972 and 1973.

They found that people who used cannabis by age 15 were four times as likely to have a diagnosis of schizophreniform disorder (a milder version of schizophrenia) at age 26 than non-users.

But when the number of psychotic symptoms at age 11 was controlled for, this increased risk dropped to become non-significant. This suggests that people already at greater risk of later developing mental health problems are also more likely to smoke cannabis.

The total number of high quality studies on cannabis use and mental health disorders remains small, stress Rey and Tennant. And it is still not clear whether cannabis can cause these conditions in people not predisposed by genetic factors, for example, to develop them.

"The overall weight of evidence is that occasional use of cannabis has few harmful effects overall," Zammit's team writes. "Nevertheless, our results indicate a potentially serious risk to the mental health of people who use cannabis. Such risks need to be considered in the current move to liberalise and possibly legalise the use of cannabis in the UK and other countries."

Journal references: British Medical Journal (vol 325, p1195, p1199, p1212, p1183)

Emma Young

From NewScientist.com's news service, 21 November 2002


Cannabis smoking 'more harmful' than tobacco

Smoking pure marijuana is at least as harmful to lungs as smoking tobacco, a report from the British Lung Foundation concludes. And in some key ways, it may be more dangerous.

For example, the BLF's review of previous research highlights that just three marijuana joints a day causes the same damage to the lung's airways as 20 cigarettes, mainly because of the way joints are smoked.

Individually, cannabis and tobacco produce the same constituents and quantities of chemicals known to be toxic to respiratory tissue, other than nicotine, the report says. But when cannabis and tobacco are smoked together, the health effects are worse.

"These statistics will come as a surprise to many people, especially those who choose to smoke cannabis rather than tobacco in the belief it is safer for them," says Mark Britton, chairman of the BLF. A UK survey conducted earlier in 2002 found that 79 per cent of children believed cannabis to be 'safe'.

Deep breath

A key finding highlighted by the review of 90 published papers is that the amount of smoke taken into the lungs is two thirds larger if cannabis is being smoked. The smoke is also taken one third deeper into the lungs - and that smoke is held an average of four times longer before being exhaled.

"You inhale deeper and hold your breath with the smoke for longer before exhaling. This results in more poisonous carbon monoxide and tar entering into the lungs," says Helena Shovelton, BLF's chief executive.

Other points in the report include:

* Tar from cannabis cigarettes contains up to 50 per cent higher concentrations of carcinogens benzathracenes and benzpyrenes than tobacco smoke

* THC, the primary psychoactive ingredient of cannabis, decreases the function of immune system cells that help protect the lungs from infection

* The average cannabis cigarette smoked in the 1960s contained about 10 milligrams of tetrahydrocanabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive ingredient. Today, it may contain 150 mg.

"This means that the modern cannabis smoker may be exposed to greater doses of THC than in the 1960s or 1970s," says the report. "This in turn means that studies investigating the long-term effects of smoking cannabis have to be interpreted cautiously."

Mouth spray

Cannabis is the most widely consumed illegal drug in the UK. In 2000, almost 45 per cent of 16 to 29 year olds in the UK said they had used cannabis at some point.

"We are not making any policy recommendations. The aim of this report is to try to inform the public that if you do choose to smoke cannabis, be aware of the health risks," says a BLF spokeswoman.

Cannabis-based medicines could be prescribed for medical use in the UK as early as 2003, following the recent success of final-stage trials. But medicinal cannabis is supplied through a mouth spray or in tablet form.

"We have always been keen to find additional ways of administering cannabis as a medicine," says Nina Booth-Clibborn of the UK's Medicinal Cannabis Research Foundation. "It did seem that smoking would not be the best way."

Lyndon Pugh, editor of pro-cannabis magazine CC Newz, is not impressed by the report: "These allegations have been made before countless times. Lot of things are dangerous, like driving."

Emma Young

From NewScientist.com's news service, 11 November 2002

[LoboDelFuego]

LOL I love how these threads always go way off topic...we should detect a change in argument and make a new thread for it.

[indieboy]

how many ppl can say "tool" and "puppet" ? just curious....