Does anybody read Harper's Magazine ?

--virgil

tonyh.i lub ya man but if making pot legal will help get the innocent DHS kids in our state a better life by helping to get the budget back inline....i just cant go against it..everytime some political genius screws up and the balance is weighed it always hits them and the elderly first..No its not fair..and this could be a possible fix if it was handled right..

think about it..a strange irony to this would be their drug abusing parents would finally be helping to pay for them

 Tony,

you're not drinking expensive scotch tonight, are you ?

--virgil

 So, I take it,  that's a yes.

--virgil

I won't block you from my blogg, Tony.

--virgil

Virg, even I wish you would condense your 10-20 one-line comments into one 10-20 line comment.  They would fit easily.

I know you can do it, so do it.  ;)

Dawn,

even,  you ... I'll do my best.

--virgil

Tony,

" Maybe you should try drinking really aged stuff. there's more enjoyment in the flavor than anything else."

I don't do that because it kills brain cells.

--virgil

It's bad for the liver, too.

--virgil

The stuff still kills brain cells.

It don't matter how fast you drink it.

--virgil

Tony,

You blocked me because of the content of my blog.  Not  for the way I usually post.

You remember ... It' was about racist images of the President.  I was winning.

--virgil

Well,

That's okay, thanks for the appreciative comment  @ 9:27 .

--virgil

Hardly, 

Buddy ... I remember you deleted half of the argument, kept what you wanted, and then blocked me.

lol !

--virgil  

I just don't believe the ends justify the means in this case.

What do you mean, Nancy ?

--virgil

Nancy, that was a one-liner.

(~Sorry, just had to give you a hard time, no problem really~)

Edit: I don't know if Tony's drinking any whiskey, but I'm drinking some good Cabernet.

" I deleted 5 one-liners that didn't apply to the original post."

Too bad, we'll never really know .

That's the problem with book burning and related activities, once it's been done,  you'll never really know what may have been lost..

--virgil

AD, indeed it was.  You know what they say about payback. 

Virgil, think about it.

Tony, balancing the budget this way isn't the right way.  Where do we draw the line?

That was 3 one liners...

(mostly because I'm tired of arguing about it.)

 Tony,

Next time you're caught talking smack about those with disabilities, I hope you do remember those five one liners from me.

vanityfare stil has those five lines, I bet  ... you can ask her, if you need a reminder.

--virgil

Once we start rationalizing the legalization of mood altering substances, which one will be next..to help balance the budget?

When the line is drawn in the sand, will we just continue to move that line?  At what cost?

Legaliziing marijuana does not legalize meth, or alcohol .

--virgil

 Nancy,

They are all different things with different chemical effects.

--virgil

Virg, using Nancy's name doesn't count as a second line.  :(

I can see Nancy's view due to, if I remember correctly, her profession.

I'm not sure if I'm ready to sign off on the slippery slope, however.  There are some drugs whose detrimental effects are experienced by such a high percentage of users that we will always see a need to control them.

I wouldn't be surprised if half of the people who support legalizing marijuana would also support redoubling the enforcement against methamphetamine.  There are some drugs that are illegal almost only by tradition; there are others that are so indisputably damaging to so many people that one can make a good case for vigorous enforcement.

 nancy Once we start rationalizing the legalization of mood altering substances, which one will be next

umm nancy..the lines already been crossed..alcohol is alot more abusive than pot and its been legal for decades..killed and jailed millions of people..innocent as well as guilty..  have you ever had a glass of wine etc over the holidays? whats any different..if legalizing it will help the needy wheres the evil?? the abusers will keep on abusing legal or not..they are a drain on society so whats wrong with turning a negative cash flow into a positve cash flow..its only good buisjness..

If yoiur answer is you dont drink fine..then dont smoke either..let those that do deal with the problem..im sure even politicians etc smoke and or have..its not the demon drug its been labled for so many years.it also has its good points..admit it.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Sioux, I'm talking about the future, I can't do anything about the past where alcohol is concerned.  You're right, that line has already been crossed.  Now you want us to cross another line.  When does it stop?  A lot of people don't see anything wrong with a little "recreational" cocaine either.  Will that be the next line?

People here on this blog have said they see no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to use anything they want to so there ARE people out there who advocate legalizing all mood altering chemicals and regulating them.

I'll give you an example of what motopoet says about marijuana.  As you all should know, since he's talked about it on here, he was a long time pot smoker.  His opinion is that most people have a drink or two and then go on about their business without getting high.  With pot, you're GOING to get high if you use it.  That's it's purpose and it's the purpose of the person using it.

Alcohol is way too often involved in fatal car crashes, no doubt about it.  So should it ever become legal,  do you want "recreational" pot smokers out driving with you?  I really think you'd be surprised at the number of people who got a DUI while under the influence of pot.  You should hear the stories I hear.  People don't always sit home on their couches when under the influence.  They're at a friends house using..at a party using..at a concert using.  How do you folks think they get home?

I've spent the last 8 years working directly with addicts and abusers and I'll take their word over some "pot head" who wants it legalized so he can legally use it.  (And no Sioux, I am NOT saying you use it or are a pot head, that was directed at whoever it fits.) 

Sioux, I don't know what it is you want me to admit but as for medicinal benefits, I've talked to many, many people who had a marijuana card who admitted they just got it to flash if they got caught.  It's a joke and everyone knows it.  The people who actally benefit from it are  far outnumbered by "recreational" smokers.

If people want it legalized just to balance the budget, I still don't think the end justifies the means.  If I need to balance my household budget I don't go out and do something that can cause harm to bodies, minds and society and say it's ok because I can make money off of it.

And then there's that slippery slope.

Just what we need. Stoned potheads on the road with our drunk drivers.

Doesn't federal law top state law in these matters?

I agree with you Neverleft drunk drivers, doped drivers, cell calls and texting.

Virgil:  First of all, let me comment on the fact that it's always a nice surprise to see that you can write -- and that you do write now and then. 

Second, let me say that you are without a doubt the king of the one-liners around these parts.  Nobody, but nobody, can touch you when it comes to posting one-liners, or even half-liners.  In that connection, there have been a few times when you and another commenter (sometimes even me) really have no business being on a blog thread but should, instead, get on a live chat.  Reason:  that's the way it looks to anyone "on the outside" reading the back-and-forth.  Just my opinion of that.  Oh, that, and the fact that so often your one- or half-liners so frequently can be misinterpreted.  (Heck, fire, even the most careful writing can be misinterpreted!  Which I suppose means that you can go on ahead with your one- and half-liners, I suppose.)

Third, your blog reminded me of stories and movies about moonshiners in Tennessee.  When my husband and I were traveling back and forth between home and the Smokies frequently, friends of ours knew a moonshiner around there and frequently purchased some of his product.  Our friend was generous enough (?) to give us some of it, too, which we took home in its Mason jar, packed very, very carefully in the bowels of the trunk of the car, hoping against hope we'd never have an accident while carrying it.  (We didn't.) 

I took some of it to work and shared it with one of the guys in the files department.  Jack Daniel's it ain't.  It was a novelty, though, and just as effective as Jack. 

This is all to say that the "revenuers" missed out on some revenue, which wasn't fair, or legal, and I suppose that my part in the deal was perhaps limited to "holding Joseph's coat." 

In addition, the revenuers are doubtlessly losing out on a great deal of revenue to be derived from the legal sale of pot. 

However, my opinion on this is that such revenue is tantamount to an invitation to murder brain cells.  I have neither the time nor the inclination to go into the reasons why revenue from the sale of alcohol is no different.  Let's just say for these purposes that it's res judicata. 

The jury's still out, however, on mj, and it may come out with complete legality of sale anywhere tobacco products may be sold.

(Sorry this was such a multi-liner.) 

I really know how to shut 'em down, don't I, Virgil? 

Neverleft,

"Just what we need. Stoned potheads on the road with our drunk drivers."

Seriously, how would ( do ) we know that stoned potheads go about driving in cars?

--virgil

 Alicen,

"However, my opinion on this is that such revenue is tantamount to an invitation to murder brain cells. "

Close to a million people a year in the United States are incarcerated for simple possession of marijuana. We spend 50 billions a year fighting a drug war where 90 percent of the combatants are marijuana smokers, not cocaine snorters or meth eaters, according to FBI stats.

We've been doing it for forty years with no positive results, like reduced crime or violence associated with the illicit drug industry.

On top of that, marijuana does not kill brain cells; yet, as alcohol consumers,  we spend a lot of money on people to tell us that it is okay - and, even sexy -  to kill brain cells. As long as we kill them responsibly,  and we don't allow our friends to drive while they are killing them.

--virgil

your post was a nice read Virgil. 

Whether or not you dislike the fact that, in the state that is basically the worlds breadbasket, marijuana is the #1 cash crop, you do have to recognize the significance of the sheer amount of money this plant can bring the people cultivating it.

i personally feel that alcohol is a more dangerous drug that marijuana, but thats my opinion

Thank You, Learnem .

--virgil

It is interesting that marijuana is one of the very few issues where most people discuss the actual substance (pun) of the question rather than descending immediately into partisan demonizing.

Nice job everyone.

If we could do that with every issue, I think a number of people would begin voting very differently than they now do.

its relatively a non-dangerous drug.  honestly, the only thing i could think of that would have a negative impact on society with it is there would be a national shortage of peanut butter and twinkies

spam code   BUDHI

"Seriously, how would ( do ) we know that stoned potheads go about driving in cars?"

I already explained that virgil.  Because they ALSO get DUI's.  Tell me, after a party or concert, how many times did you drive home?

Learnem, you said alcohol is a "more dangerous drug" than marijuana.  By that reasoning, we should make marijuana legal as well?  Then we have two dangerous drugs only one is more dangerous than the other?

Just sheer logic tells you that if you put an intoxicating chemical in your body is IS going to affect you.  Why is that so hard to admit?  You guys holler about the damage smog and tobacco does to lungs and health but it's ok to inhale pot?

And then there are those receptors getting fooled all the time.  Eh, who needs them anyway?

Spam code..no kidding..lol.  CLASH

"Because they ALSO get DUI's.  Tell me, after a party or concert, how many times did you drive home?"

Impaired drivers get DUI's . Impaired drivers get pulled for driving impaired. It happens with people who are prescribed certain medications, too.

With the number of people who admit to using marijuana, and the number we can reasonably surmise by the number of arrests related to marijuana use, people already drive after smoking marijuana.  Just like they do after leaving a bar or concert where state sanctioned brain cell killers are sold.

No one has ever died from marijuana use. But we know millions die each year related to alcohol use, and millions die from smoking tobacco, yet,  we spend Billions making sure some people who use marijuana are incarcerated for it.

It's Ironical, Nancy.

--virgil

Virgil:  I don't have a lot to go on, truthfully (that is, none of those infernal links), about the brain cell-killing effects of marijuana.  I knew one person who used it on a regular basis; he died recently of dementia at a relatively young age.  Now, I am not saying that the dementia and the marijuana were connected, but what's to say they weren't?  And before anybody gets their pants in a twist, I realize there are lots of people with dementia who've never touched marijuana. 

However, my understanding is that thought processes and reaction times are slowed after marijuana use; it would seem to follow that a user's place is not behind the wheel of a car. 

I know absolutely that alcohol can impair people's thought processes and reaction times, and that people who "use" it have no place behind the wheel of a car. 

It is certain that the judicial system needs to adjust its ways of dealing with marijuana users as opposed to alcohol drinkers; it seems absolutely absurd that sentences for the former are so much stiffer than the latter.  And, just for the effect of the differences in sentencing, compare the judgments against those caught with pot and those caught raping a child.  Total lunacy. 

No easy answers.  We do need to start asking questions, though.  You've done a good job of that here. 

Virgil, it's a myth that people are locked up in prisons for JUST the USE of marijuana.  In  cases where a person is on parole or probation and they test dirty, yeah, because it's a violation of their agreement to use ANYTHING.

By the way, thanks for making my point here >   "Impaired drivers get DUI's . Impaired drivers get pulled for driving impaired. It has with people who are prescribed certain medications, too"

Remember, there's no "drunk" in DUI.

"Virgil, it's a myth that people are locked up in prisons for JUST the USE of marijuana."

Actually, Nancy,  it's not.

Why would the FBI fibb about something like that ?

--virgil

Here ya go Alicen...

http://www.nida.nih.gov/inf...

 Alicen,

about the notion that marijuana use brings on degenerative brain diseases, this is from the abstract of a US patent filed in 2003 for cannabis,  because the opposite has been found to be true :

The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH.sub.3, and COCH.sub.3. ##STR1##

Here's the link for the patent : http://patft.uspto.gov/neta...

--virgil

virgil, most marijuana charges are in conjunction with another offense.  Possession of amounts intended for sale, parphernalia, transporting, priors, violation of probation or parole.  You are NOT going to prison just because you have marijuana in your test if you are an average citizen.

I hope you and others will take the time to read the NIDA article in my link above.

Nancy,

Here's a breakdown of  US crime stats from the FBI,  from 2008 all the way back to 1980:

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms...

--virgil

virgil, we can sit here and have a link war all day and it won't change your opinion nor mine.  I'll pass thank you.  I make it my business to check out articles to use in groups so nothing you post here is new to me.   In fact, you aren't the one I post for anyway.  It's the folks out there in the real world who need to hear the facts...not rationalization.

I don't have any more time today to sit and argue with you. 

Nancy,

In 2008, for example,

847,863 arrests were made in US. for marijuana.  Out of that number, 754,225 arrests were for simple possession, 93,640. were arrested for trafficking related activities.

--virgil

I would say that Virgil's link combines the data from all states; therefore data from non-lenient states gets mixed with data from lenient states.

While users in California may rarely be arrested after being caught using marijuana, other states most likely offer different experiences.

I am in favor of legalization along the same lines as alcohol, but I would not get into a car with anyone who has been using.

I couldn't find the link to the data supporting this assumption.

" While users in California may rarely be arrested after being caught using marijuana, other states most likely offer different experiences."

--virgil

It is reasonable speculation and nothing more.  Take it for what it is.

I will now echo Nancy and state that I am not in the mood for a link war.  :)

Virgil:  LINK WAR!  LINK WAR!   (Thanks, Nancy and AD, for the appellation for that particular syndrome.)

I don't have any.  Oh, I might have some sausage links in the freezer, but that's as close as I'll get. 

For purposes here, Virgil, I didn't read your entire link about what is apparently a patent or patent application for treatment of stroke victims.  You could probably get into all kinds of links and information about other potential uses for marijuana, and I have no doubt that it has its palliative, soothing effects for a mind shattered by brain synapses that will never again "snap." 

I believe we're all aware of the potential for addiction to pain-killing medications.  Whether marijuana is among those, I don't know, although I believe it is probably as addictive as alcohol or pain medication to some people.  I simply do not know of its effect on every human who inhales or otherwise ingests it. 

I do agree, as I've already said, that I believe the laws need to keep up with reality, changing laws that would treat someone in possession of marijuana in a different way than, say, someone who robs a store at gunpoint.  In other words, it shouldn't be a "federal crime" to be in possession of an amount obviously not intended for sale.  Just where it should be sold is a whole 'nother question.

As I also said, it's a complicated issue, one that I've really not given a whale of a lot of thought.  This is the most I've ever thought about it at all, except that all my life I've had a fairly negative attitude about it.  And, truthfully, my attitude used to be that people who sold drugs should be shot on the spot, making it fairly unattractive to do so.  I've changed.  My parents are probably rolling over in their graves right now.