BF2S Forums We Want to Legalize it...

Ollie wrote:

Magpie wrote:

Ollie wrote:

Don't take this as a flame but that's a typical response of someone who is beaten and not man enough to accept they were wrong.

Dude its not about winning and losing its a discussion, not a pissing contest

I wrote that since I feel that whatever i write it will not make a difference.

All i can tell you is read up about the documented side effects about weed , don't ask for a link use google like everyone else

I think this is more of a "debate" than a "discussion". I'm just getting frustrated because of your inability to produce any hard evidence, lack of experiance and blatant stubborness. Also the fact that you point me vaguely in the direction of google as if to prove a point.

Ollie wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Ollie wrote:

Right, so you must agree that alcohol should be banned too because it leads to other drug abuse? Just because the drug is illigal dosn't mean people automatically seek out more ilicit drugs.

And you seem to be contradicting yourself all through that post. As with everything else in life, "some people will, some people wont". I fail to see your point.

PS: Sorry for the double post.

Could you point out exactly how I'm contradicting myself? Also, why are you working with the assumption that I think that alcohol is a great thing?

I'm not at all. I'm asking you whether you think it should be banned, because it is after all a drug.

And the contradiction is that you are favouring both sides of the arguement. "Some people will go on to other drugs from using cannabis, and some wont". Is it not exactly the same with alcohol, and if not, why not?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I would say that a person's personality has far more to do with the idea of continuing on to other substances than the thought of desensitization.  Some people have addictive personalities - and that could be the underlying theme in regards to "starting out with pot, then moving to heroin".  I know my experience is not universal by any means, but I can say from countless experience as a user, an addict, and alumnus from numerous rehabilitation programs that the underlying reasons for drug use and abuse seem to be, in no particular order: boredom; peers (not necessarily peer pressure; environment; isolation/inability to function normally in society; and pressure/anxiety.

The fact of the matter is, you cannot simply pigeonhole marijuana as a gateway drug.  While MJ's analogy may not be the most apt, it is correct in the idea that the correlation between marijuana and heroin is largely over-hyped and often misrepresented.

Magpie wrote:

Ollie wrote:

Magpie wrote:

Dude its not about winning and losing its a discussion, not a pissing contest

I wrote that since I feel that whatever i write it will not make a difference.

All i can tell you is read up about the documented side effects about weed , don't ask for a link use google like everyone else

I think this is more of a "debate" than a "discussion". I'm just getting frustrated because of your inability to produce any hard evidence, lack of experiance and blatant stubborness. Also the fact that you point me vaguely in the direction of google as if to prove a point.

OK hard facts a shitload of links for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_iss … f_cannabis .
And its sad that you could not type in a simple search on google. I told you to do that so you could find it yourself, but u clearly saw that as me not giving you "evidence"
My experience comes from interviews i did during  a uni course with Customs officials , Police and the University hospital  in my city I also contacted the The National Board of Forensic Medicine to get their expert opinion about drugs (not only cannabis) So I'm sorry that my experience in this area is not sufficient for you and your superb E-knowledge's.

Magpie wrote:

PluggedValve wrote:

Magpie wrote:

Dude its not about winning and losing its a discussion, not a pissing contest

I wrote that since I feel that whatever i write it will not make a difference.

All i can tell you is read up about the documented side effects about weed , don't ask for a link use google like everyone else

Mr Magpie.  I dont need google to know about weed.  I have first hand info about it.  I could write an entire encyclopedia about.  Now, for all of those ppl that just post a link to some anti-drug website, youhave no first hand knowledge of what you say.  You are basically a sheep being herded into a group.

I can tell you straight up, weed does not make you want to do harder drugs.  It is you that wants to do the harder drugs, and since you tried weed and it went well, you figure lets try some coke.  That is not weed telling you to do harder drugs, that is HUMAN CURIOSITY at its finest.

Mr. Magpie, your response to the guy you feel is defeated was childish.  He has a differing opinion to you and saw that neither were going to change each others, so He is the bigger man by agreeing to disagree, he is not defeated.

Bottom line is the "war on drugs" has been lost and was never winable.  Look at the dollars spent in the war on drugs and look at how many people who would otherwise not be criminals are in jail.  That is a waste of money and effort.

The marijuana laws were originally to boost the pulp + paper industry, as hemp is a far more efficient fibre to make paper with, and the "old boys club" were invested into the pulp industry already.  Also the cotton farm, slave owning MF's didnt want hemp to drive out cotton as the main clthing materiel. 

On top of that we all know how the US likes their black people, and the blacks were the ones that were doing most of the weed smoking back in the day.  By banning weed it would have minimal effect on the puritan white folks, so they would not be against the ban, and it would give "law enforcement" another way to get darkie behind bars.  The hippocracy in US drug laws are absolutely ridiculous. 

One of the more recent arguements i have heard for the anti-drug crowd is that it helps them put "real" criminals in jail.  They may not be able to put "killer A" in jail due to  lack of evidence, but they dont want to release him to public yet, so they hit him hard on minor charges, like Possesion.  That seems like a fraudulant way of holding a suspect without due cause.  If you cant hold him on the evidenc obtained, he shouldnt be held for an unrelated "crime".

FACT:  there are more white marijuana users in the US than Black users (the ratio might be the other way i will admit, but...).  Yet there are WAY more blacks held in prison on drug charges than whites.  Racial profiling much???  Im not even an american but i see the racism in everything american.  Government, laws, employment, wealth right down to the childish meaningless comments that 12 year old kids say.  Its time the US changed these mental stereotypes and actually let people make their own choices as adults about things. 

In a free country, anyone should be able to anything they want, as long as it doesnt infringe on someone elses freedom.  And dont say your free to make a law prohibitting weed, because that infringes on others choices.  As many of todays laws do.

DId you even bother to read anything i wrote to him?
1 I never told YOU to google for facts , i told him to do that so he could find some damm links by himself so that i would not be accused to posting ani drugs links

2 I wrote my experience with it a few posts up READ
3 Im the one that wrote "We can agree that we disagree and im going to leave it at that..." But he couldent leave it at that

Last edited by coke (2008-02-05 14:31:57)

Ollie wrote:

mikkel wrote:

When you're faced with a question of whether or not something should be legalised, though, it's completely open to influence, and the same question presents itself. Do the pros outweigh the cons? Personally, I don't see how they can.

Now we are touching on the real issue. Freedom of choice.

mikkel wrote:

Ollie wrote:

mikkel wrote:

When you're faced with a question of whether or not something should be legalised, though, it's completely open to influence, and the same question presents itself. Do the pros outweigh the cons? Personally, I don't see how they can.

Now we are touching on the real issue. Freedom of choice.

As far as I can tell, the premise for this entire discussion is based off of freedom of choice.

PluggedValve wrote:

Ok Magpie, I must have misread the "agree to disagree" part.  So, sorry bout that mate.
I would check your links if you post them.

I have no links, just alot of life experience and unfinanced research.  The reason i am so skeptical of "experts" is because most have not experienced drugs themselves, and they are always financed by someone who has an agenda, whether it is to keep weed illegal or to promote it as the cure to all the worlds problems.

But personally, i have somewhat more faith in the pro-pot "experts" because they have first hand experience with it, rather tha the word of some crack head trying to get some cash doing medical experimets. (Obviously it is the expert that words the report, but based on the subjects observations is what i mean).  Also, the "expert" has been knwn to "interpret" what the subject says, which can end up inaccurrate.

Last edited by Ollie (2008-02-05 14:49:42)

Des.Kmal wrote:

Kmal wrote:

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/24518.html#
by Joel Turtel

"Look, Mr. Straun, John, can I call you John? We've been at this for 25 days. We're all sick of this. We all want to go home. You're the only one left. You're the one keeping us here. I got things to do at home. I got to go to work and make a living. All of us do. The judge is mad as hell at us. You're going to hang this jury. You're going to make this three-month trial into a farce and waste of time. You have no right to vote acquittal. You heard the judge's instructions. The jury is not allowed to judge the law, only the facts."

"The fact are clear as day, aren't they?" Dillard ranted. "You even admitted that to us. The guy was found with marijuana in his car. That's against the law. And the guy admitted the marijuana was his. What more do you need?" said Raymond Dillard, the jury foreman. Raymond Dillard was tall, beefy, in his 30's, and he was getting mad, so mad he wanted to beat John Straun's head in.

Straun was a small, slim man in his 30's, with a straight back, dark brown hair, large, steady eyes, and a firm mouth. He seemed not to care at all about all the trouble he was causing. And he seemed to be fearless.

John Straun said, "I don't care what the judge said. I happen to know for a fact that a jury has the right to judge the law. Jury nullification has a long history in this country. A jury has the right to judge the law, not just the facts."

Raymond Dillard and a few other jurors sneered. Dillard said, "Oh, are you a lawyer, Mr. Straun? You think you know more than the judge? What history are you talking about?"

John Straun said calmly, "No, I'm not a lawyer. I'm an engineer. But in this particular case, I do know more than the judge. When I found out I was going to be on this jury, I did a little research about the history of juries, just for the hell of it. Most people don't know this, but jury nullification has been upheld as a sacred legal principal in English common law for 1000 years. Alfred the Great, a great English king a thousand years ago, hung several of his own judges because they removed jurors who refused to convict and replaced these courageous jurors with other jurors they could intimidate into convicting the defendant on trial."

"Jury nullification also goes back to the very beginning of our country, as one of the crucial rights our Founding Fathers wanted to protect. Our Founding Fathers wanted juries to be the final bulwark against tyrannical government laws. That's why they emphasized the right to a jury trial in three of the first ten amendments to the Constitution. John Adams, second President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, third President and author of the Declaration of Independence, John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Alexander Hamilton, First Secretary of the Treasury all flatly stated that juries have the right and duty to judge not only the facts in a case, but also the law, according to their conscience."

"Not only that, more recent court decisions have reaffirmed this right. In 1969, in "US. vs. Moylan," the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of juries to judge the law in a case. In 1972, the Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the same principal."

Raymond Dillard said, "Yeah, if that's the case, how come the judge didn't tell us this?"

"That's because of the despicable Supreme Court decision in "Sparf and Hansen vs. The United States in 1895." John Straun said. "That decision said juries have the right to judge the law, but that a judge doesn't have to inform juries of this right. Cute, huh? And guess what happened after this decision? Judges stopped telling juries about their rights."

"The judge knows about jury nullification. All judges do. But they hate letting juries decide the law. They hate juries taking power away from them. That's why judges never mention a jury's right to judge the law, and most judges squash defense attorneys from saying anything about it in court. Remember when Jimmy Saunders' defense lawyer started talking about it? The judge threatened him with contempt if he didn't shut up about jury nullification."

"And since you asked me," Straun continued, "I'll tell you a little more about jury nullification. Did you ever hear of the Fugitive Slave Act? Did you ever hear of Prohibition? Do you know why those despicable laws were repealed? Because juries were so outraged over those laws that they consistently refused to convict people who violated them. They refused to convict because they knew that these laws were unjust and tyrannical, that Congress had no right making these laws in the first place. So, because juries wouldn't convict, the government couldn't make these laws stick. They tried for many years, but finally gave up."

"What do you think this mad War on Drugs is that we've been fighting the last sixty years? It's the same as Prohibition in the 20's. It's the same principle. A tyrannical government is telling people that they can't take drugs, just like in the 20's they said people couldn't drink liquor. What's the difference? A tyrannical law is telling people what they can or can't put in their own bodies. Who owns our bodies, us or the self-righteous politicians? Does the government own your body, Mr. Dillard? Do you smoke, Mr. Dillard? Do you drink beer?"

Dillard nodded his head, "Yeah, I do."

"Well, how would you like it if they passed laws telling you that can't smoke or drink a beer anymore. Would you like that, Mr. Dillard?"

Dillard looked at John Straun, thought about the question, then admitted, "No, I wouldn't, Straun."

John Straun turned to the others around the table. "You, Jack, you said you're sixty-five years old. You like to play golf, right? What if they passed a law saying anyone over sixty-five can't play golf because the exercise might give him a heart attack? You, Frank, you said you eat hamburgers at McDougals all the time. What if they passed a law saying fatty hamburgers give people heart attacks, so we're closing down all the McDougal restaurants in the country, and they make eating a hamburger a criminal offence? You, Mrs. Pelchat, I see you like to smoke. Everyone knows that smoking can give you lung cancer. How would you like it if they passed a law banning all cigarettes? What if they could crash in the door of your house without a warrant to search for cigarettes in your house, like the SWAT teams do now, looking for drugs? Mrs. Pelchat, how would you like to be on trial like Jimmy Saunders because they found a pack of cigarettes you hid under your mattress?"

"Do you all see what I mean? If they can make it a crime for Jimmy Saunders to smoke marijuana, why can't they make golf, hamburgers, and cigarettes a crime? If you think they wouldn't try, think again. They had Prohibition in the 20's for almost ten years, till they finally gave up. The only reason they haven't banned cigarettes is because there are thirty million cigarette smokers in this country who would scream bloody murder. They get away with making marijuana and other drugs illegal only because drug-users are a small minority in this country. Drug users don't have any political clout."

Raymond Dillard sat down in his chair. The others started talking among themselves. John Straun started seeing heads nodding in agreement .

mikkel wrote:

Ollie wrote:

mikkel wrote:

As far as I can tell, the premise for this entire discussion is based off of freedom of choice.

I wouldn't have said so. We were mostly discussing the reasons why cannabis is illigal, and why it should be legal. Lets not be pedantic.

Pedantic? This discussion is about the legalisation of cannabis, the legalisation of consuming an intoxicating substance. If that doesn't deal with freedom of choice, I don't know what does. I wouldn't say it's pedantic to keep track of the discussion.

I would, however, say that it's entirely unproductive to cite the premise of a discussion as a resting argument. There's no sense in bringing us full circle. Do you have any comments to my previous reply?

Last edited by Ollie (2008-02-05 15:06:19)