No, you are going in circles. Education is encouraged in cultures with unquestioned access to education.
How is education unquestioned for whites? You still need to prove yourself and make good grades to get into a university system.
So, in addition to the judicial system, there is also blatant racism in the education system as well?
When people are artificially kept out of good, prestigious schools a culture that gives up on education is fostered.
You are attributing the lack of education to completely different causes.
A good education takes two things:
a.) Good grades, and
b.) Money
Last time I checked, black people are no less intelligent than others, so good grades is something any race can attain.
Money may be a bit harder for blacks, due to the average lower levels of income.
But how is that any way the fault of other races?
Especially when the education that most of them actually can access is quite bad.
The name of the high school you come from rarely matters when applying to college. What matters is your GPA and the money you have to pay for your tuition.
Again, how is it the white persons fault that black families cannot afford to pay for college?
What, you think that black people just don't care about education to the extent that white people and Asian people do without there being anything that happened to form this attitude?
Of course something had to happen to form this attitude. But what happened wasn't the cause of anyone but the black culture.
So we agree, then, that blacks families are disproportionately impacted?
Impacted by what? The crime they choose to commit? Because last time I checked, poverty or a lack of a father figure is not an adequate excuse to break the law.
But they don't participate in less drug crime, this is the point.
Less drug crime, maybe. But less crime overall, no.
You seemed to have dodged the point made about police interaction with crime-ridden societies.
The point is fairly simple. When you have more crime, you have more police interaction. And when you have more police interaction, you have higher arrest rates.
By being poor and coming from a line of undereducated homes.
That doesn't mean that they have any less access. It means they come from a society that value those things less.
Funny that you would bring those two up because crack is cocaine plus baking soda, yet crack carries a greater sentence than pure cocaine. Crack is used more by black people while powder cocaine is used more by white people (who are the ones who write the drug laws).
What you are looking at isn't a problem of race, but one of wealth. Blacks are much more likely to have lower incomes, and crack is much cheaper than cocaine.
As far as sentencing goes, the severity of a crime (other than violent crimes) is proportional to its effects on society. Since crack cocaine has a much bigger effect on society than cocaine, it has a steeper punishment.
This has nothing to do with race. You are making connections when there are none.
Real-life results tell you otherwise. Poverty statistics. Education statistics. Job statistics. Savings, houses, families and on and on.
Again, this isn't caused from suppresion of minorities, it is caused from a lack of importance bred by these particular societies.
The US justice system is majority white. That's all it takes.
What you are proposing is basically akin to a wide spread, nation wide conspiracy.
Are you seriously trying to say that most white people in the justice system are blatantly racist?
The problem, of course, is that this is not true. When white people use drugs, they are unlikely to "get caught, get busted and go to jail." When black people use drugs, they are more likely to "get caught, get busted and go to jail." This is the core disparity.
You're forgetting a lot of important variables in this statistic (also, I would appreciate a source; I'm assuming that blacks DO make up more conviction rates than other races, but I would still like the confirmation).
The biggest one being the inherent crime rate of blacks overall. Crime brings about police attention. And when you have a lot of crime, you have a lot of police attention. And when you have a lot of police attention, you get a lot more arrests.
True. They also might not be in jail if they were white.
Have you ever thought that the reason there are less white convictions is because they participate in less crime?
1) I have never done illegal drugs before.
2) I've never been arrested.
3) My window was open, so there's a large chance of someone flicking their butt into my car.
3 sources of doubt right there.
Those 3 are not sources of reasonable doubt.
1 doesn't matter at all, and cannot be proven.
2 doesn't matter at all until your sentencing, and
3 would be something that absolutely no one would believe.
I'm sorry, but in that particular hypothetical, you would be found guilty. There is no debate here.
To think you would not shows how little you know of our court systems and how cases are handled.
Our world views may be different, but the world is a complex place, and finding the simplest solution to problems is generally how I like it.
Compromise is key.
And by the looks of you, you don't have a compromising bone in your body.
To me marijuana is a relatively dangerous substance, compared to other things we normally ingest.
Most things are bad without moderation.
Most studies have been inconclusive on the dangers of marijuana, but none, or at least very few have outright said Marijuana is good for you.
For the billionth time, not once have I said it doesn't have negative consequences.
People don't smoke cannabis because it's healthy. They do it to get the effect.
And one thing you seem to be missing is that in some cases, it is healthy for you.
This means that making the argument black and white provides a simple solution.
Simple. But wrong.
It shouldn't be legalized. Nor should tobacco, alcohol, and trans-fats.
So what you're telling me is you want to take a good majority of enjoyment out of life.
You do realize theres more to these things then just their negative consequences?
People do them because it feels good.
Is it feasible to outlaw these products is another question, but Marijuana is already outlawed, why go backwards, when we should be trying to move forwards?
I don't see unlocking a freedom that should have been unlocked decades ago as a step backward. Personal choice is very high in my list of priorities.
Not so for you, it seems.
See above, not particularly fond of greasy food myself. Greasy food itself is bad for you. I'm not saying it's feasible to ban greasy food at this stage in time, but in the future I hope it would be.
I'm using that emoticon with you a lot, it seems.
We should be moving away from putting nasty things in our bodies, and especially things that affect our judgement, and our mind. You seem to forget your debating someone who is against most of the things you're trying to compare Marijuana with. To me comparing Marijuana to things that are already bad to humans is a silly way to argue. It may not be as bad as alcohol, but it's just as bad a tobacco. Cigarettes are different due to the things in cigarette smoke.
You do realize this doesn't constitute as a logical argument, right?
Everytime you say something like this, you lose more and more of what little credibility you had. Not just to me, but to the whole forum.
Okay, dealing with intoxicating people in any public area is probably the most annoying aspect of living in society right now (outside of perhaps politics!).
Dealing with illogical arguments all day long is much more annoying to me.
Drunk people are dangerous, and scary people to deal with. If their not making the normal social habits of life more difficult, then their being threatening and hard to deal with. I'm of course talking about the classic drunk archetypes here. Public intoxication is illegal of course, but that doesn't stop people.
Unless you're working at a Circle K third shift, you won't be dealing with that many drunks.
I've done a lot of retail in my life, and the drunks that I rarely encountered (I actually have dealt with a lot, since I HAVE done a gas station on third shift) weren't really dangerous. Just silly.
One of things I've noticed from reading about prop 19 is the lack of ability to enforce a legal limit.
Police officers have a way to distinguish if you are unable to drive a car due to cannabis, just like they do with alcohol.
There is a group of things, and it's a small group, that freedom begins to infringe upon other people.
You have yet to come up with an adequate argument as to how these people are infringing on your freedoms.
I doubt I'll get one.
This stuff includes guns, fighting, drinking, and smoking. Doing any of this stuff is illegal in public. You have specific places to fire your gun, if you fire it in public you'll get arrested. Fighting will get you thrown in jail for disturbing the peace.
Thanks, Cap't Obvious.
The best course of action is to try and stop these things at the source.
Your opinion on baby-sitting individuals literally leaves me aghast.
It's quite hard for me to comprehend.
Marijuana has a detrimental effect on the human psyche, for some it's minor, but for some it's major, and people who will smoke the drug religiously will become intoxicated in public, and that is a no-no for me. So, it's not just on the road, it's all of the public sphere.
I asked you for a legitimate reason as to why dealing with people who are intoxicated on cannabis is such a bad thing, and you give me this?
I'm simply arguing that the ability to hurt them is smaller then you think it would be.
Again, you are wrong.
And again, the numbers back me up.
I don't think we'll come to an agreement here, so I'm just going to take what you say and consider it, and I hope you do the same with my statements, though you seem to take offense to the fact that I do not share an opinion with you.
I'm not taking offense, I just don't understand why you keep responding when your argument is basically based on pure opinion.
Debates are won off logic. You have yet to show any.
The funding you're talking about is cannabis, but you say that cannabis isn't contributing to the rise of violence, it's the allure of easy money? Where's that easy money coming from? Cannabis.
The violence is stemming from ill-defined ranks and boundaries within the cartels.
The reason they have a pretty much infinite amount of foot soldiers to do their killing for them? The allure of easy money.
This is a product of the whole drug system, not just cannabis.
I agree with you that violence will continue there whether you cut off the funding or not. It's the violence that I want to stop. If it's not going to stop if you cut the funding, then why cut the funding?
...
...
Are you serious?
So, since we can't stop them with 19, theres no use even trying?
Is this what that paragraph of yours boiled down to?
I hope to god not.
Obviously the violence is being cause by a power struggle, and not the Cannabis. This is the point I'm trying to make. Stopping the drug cartels isn't a strong reason to support legalizing marijuana.
So why even bother, right?
Wal-mart. Wal-mart is proof positive that people are willing to pay lower prices for lower quality crap. It's a strange phenomenon, and I'm willing to accept it goes against all logic, but it's true.
Actually, Wal-mart mostly sells things that are available at other stores, but at a cheaper price :teach:.
You can't argue against this 'marijuana is a hobby.' Hobbies require disposable income, and when that income isn't there then people will deter to lower quality things because it is cheaper. Happens in MTG, people go to lower quality decks because they can't afford the 'good decks', they just want to have fun though, so they'll make that sacrifice to get that oh-so-good MTG hit.
You don't quite understand this concept, but I don't blame you, since you have apparently never attempted cannabis.
Higher end cannabis is always a better buy then lower end cannabis. The reason being the potency. You get less product, but it lasts twice as long, due to the THC concentation.
High end cannabis (usually dubbed 'Kush,' or 'Chronic') is vastly more popular then 'stress.'
Clearly the people at your job think that Marijuana is detrimental enough to affect job performance.
Of course they do. So do I.
If that's not the case then you think it is detrimental enough to effect job performance. This is a negative effect of marijuana, and I know you don't think this is a good argument.
It really is not.
Workplaces will still have full control on wether or not they let cannabis users work under them. Working with someone requires signing a binding contract with them, when they get to dictate the terms.
The banning of illicit drugs is one of the few things we have banned in this country that are 'bad for you', it's a step in the wrong direction to ban something that is 'bad for you', even if it's not as bad as other things. That to me is a horrible argument, as you're just justifying using something because it's less bad than something that is truly horrifying.
You really don't see the negative consequences of a heavy handed, baby-sitting government?
Really?
Good, still doesn't address the issues of public intoxication, and legal limits, etc,...
Public intoxication of marijuana will be allowed. Looks like you're just gunna have to suck it up on that one, cowboy.
Plus, if you're confined to smoking in your home, and being only in your home when you have smoked what have you really changed?
...Ummm, the freedom of not getting arrested for having cannabis on you?
Additionally, if you're fining people, and putting them in jail for being publicly intoxicated by marijuana, or smoking in public have you really legalized anything?
Smoking in public will be banned. But not being intoxicated in public. Is that clear enough?
And yes, you have legalized something. You've legalized cannabis :teach:.
Have you fixed any of the problems legalizing Marijuana would supposedly fixed?
Have you not read the bill at all?
EDIT: I just realized, right now, that my post was posted at exactly 4:20.
Yep, and I'm I am one to think that both of those substances should be illegal. Though try getting cigarettes made illegal would be extraordinarily difficult, evidenced by the fact that we're trying to legalize a substance that has been scientifically shown to significantly alter the brain chemistry of the user (impaired judgement, etc,...).
This just shows me you have a very bad habit of polarizing issues.
Black and white is not what this world is.
And insulting me is such a great argument in a debate forum.:rolleyes:
Not insulting at all. I just think it;s fairly obvious that your complete biasness is affecting your ability to make logical points.
Your argument boils down to: it has negative consequences, so it's awful.
Well, so does greasy food.
Most people can, but once again I'm not advocating the legalization of alcohol either. Both are bad substances, and both shouldn't be used by people at all.
See above. We cannot have a logical discussion with statements such as this.
I'll give you this one on my poor choice of words, but the effects of Marijuana prove that there is a negative effect when you decide to use Marijuana, and a significant one at that.
Significant to you. Mild to me.
We keep going around in circles about this, so I'm going to try to simplify it by getting you to centralize your opinion:
Other then your disdain for dealing with people who are under the effects of cannabis, what major problems arise with dealing with intoxicated people on a day to day basis? (other then on the road, obviously).
I have yet to get an answer for that.
It's not, but fat people generally don't make the choice to be fat.
Rubbish. They know exactly what will happen when they eat that double down.
Most high people just make the process harder as they can't figure out what the heck is going on.
More unsubstantiated claims.
That doesn't make Marijuana okay though if you're just getting a more mild effect, it's still proof positive that Marijuana has detrimental effects to the human psyche.
Going through your relatively long post, it's amazing to see how much of it boils down to this weak argument.
Yah, sucks for Mexico. Mexico and California are quite linked. What happens in Mexico does affect the United States. Violence in Mexico affects the safety of US tourists, but a greater effect is the effects on commerce between the US and Mexico. That's a direct effect to the US.
And that must be because of cannabis, correct?
For someone who is so concerned about these cartels, you think you would be much more willing to pass something that would hurt them.
Then why argue, as I agree with you. This then becomes a rather moot way to support legalizing Marijuana, if the effects on cartels will be rather minimal.
It's been shown that domestic growing operations have much more then just a minimal effect on these cartels. I posted a link in one of my earlier posts. But I can find many more if you wish.
I assume you think it will be larger then, but I am just arguing it will be smaller then what you expect.
Well, the numbers are on my side.
Your first premise, the one about small time growers, is irrelevant as violence is most certainty on the rise in Mexico, and that shows that nothing has actually worked to deter the violence.
You make the mistake of contributing this rise in violence to cannabis.
Violence will be wraught regardless. The allure of easy money will ensure to that.
The name of the game is 'stop the funding.'
Once again you're just viciously attacking me, and I really don't think that's suitable for a debate forum. You don't attack a persons knowledge, you attack their arguments.
How is that viscious? I'm saying that you don't have much knowledge when it comes to what these cartels are really about.
That would be a problem if I left it at that, but I followed with reasoning.
You don't cite sources, and thus you seem to just be speaking from opinion.
I've already cited the only source I need to.
California is one state of many border states, and once here those drugs will be transferred across the entire US. This means to make a true dent you'd need to start legalizing Marijuana across pretty much the entire country.
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Cannabis is already easily-obtained in literally every corner of the US. There is no problem with supply.
For your statement to make any sense, demand would have to rise significantly in other areas of the US after the cartels have lost their selling power in California.
Why, exactly, would that happen?
There is also the fact that these Drug Cartels may just legitimize their business in the US, but remain in power in Mexico.
How would they go about legitimizing?
One of the reasons that cannabis is so profitable for them is because they plant massive, massive amount of the plant, outdoors, with minimal supervision.
Growing 25 square feet per household domestically would completely and utterly butcher profits.
Another possible outcome is that cartels will just sell on the streets for cheaper then what stores would.
They already do. And yet pharmacies have still been growing exponentially every year since cannabis has been allowed for medicinal purposes.
Mexican-bourne cannabis is also of much lower quality.
It can be sold at the same price as regular marijuana, without all those pesky taxes. Best part? It's untraceable! Seems like a grade A business plan to me.
Except it can't be sold at the same price. Because it's not the same quality.
Demand for high-end cannabis (THC levels of 17% and above), is vastly higher then that of lower end cannabis.
You aren't understanding the limitations on cartels, and exactly what it means for them.
I'll try to break it down as simply as I can:
Cannabis is profitable to cartels for two main reasons:
a.)It is extremely easy to produce, and
b.)They can make massive amounts of it.
Except, theres a big downside to 'b'. For them to be able to cultivate it en masse, they are forced to grow cannabis that is largely inferior to the quality of product you see being grown in mom-and-pop operations, and being sold in pharmacies all across California.
If they attempt to grow high-quality cannabis, they will be forced to sacrifice 'b'. If they are forced to sacrifice 'b', their profibility takes a rather large hit. This has been seen in Northern California for years now.
If you would like to try to come up with a way they can keep their growing ratio, up the quality, and still compete, I'm all ears.
I'm sure they would be very interested as well.
My point is that eliminating the drug cartels is not a very good argument to legalize pot which many people make it out to be. I don't know if you're necessarily one of these people, but someone who does make it the core of their argument can read this make their own decision.
Why do we keep dancing this dance?
Why do you keep assuming the point being made is one of utter-destruction for these cartels?
I'm getting very tired of repeating myself on this matter.
I'd also like to point out two things, and these aren't aimed at you at all! First, is that the only people that seem to support legalizing marijuana are people who do it regularly.
I haven't smoked in a very long time, and cannot, due to my job.
I know MANY people who do not smoke, and do not have any plans on smoking, that support 19.
Secondly, I don't care all that much, the above reasons pale in comparison to my absolutely hating the fact that people would smoke it in public. This argument though isn't a very strong one in a debate sense, as it's mostly personal opinion, but I will say it's a driving force in my opinions of it.
Public smoking of cannabis will be illegal under 19.
Equating modern-day narcotics laws to archaic "silly" laws (which are often misquoted, taken out of context, or entirely fabricated in the first place) is barely worth responding to. Honestly, the leaps of logic drug users will make to justify their crimes is astounding.
You should take a crack at responding to it anyway. Because I'd love to see you try to explain how not nabbing someone going 1mph over the limit or partaking in one of these archaic laws isn't selective enforcement.
Because that's the very definition of selective enforcement.
Was the cop within her rights? Absolutely. Was she within her rights to not prosecute this man? Absolutely.
Freedom of using a particularly hallucinogenic substance?
Pretty much.
And tobacco and cocaine are both stimulants. Would you classify them as the same?
Okay, why not move on up to Cocaine and Heroin? Make those legal, I'm sure one can find some BS reason to give that away as a solution to medical problems, and then legalize it because you have the freedom to use something that can destroy your life quickly.
In the early 1900's, many hard drugs such as heroine and cocaine were available over the counter :teach:.
And lol at 'destroy your life quickly.' I'm sorry, but if you think that marijuana destroys the lives of everyone who uses it, I have lost what tiny little respect I have for you as a poster.
Not as quickly as Marijuana, that is a big point. I can spend the night drinking one or two drinks and have lost no motor function.
Good for you. Except not everyone can call it quits after two beers.
Besides, you are acting as if marijuana messes with a persons motor functions just as much as alcohol.
This is absolutely untrue.
I'm not talking about just driving, people who are high are generally problematic to society in that they really can't do anything at a respectable pace.
I really just gotta this one.
I hate getting them in my cashier line at work as they usually get through at 2 or 3 times slower of a pace then a normal customer. A high person is probably one of the most annoying people to deal with.
I didn't know being slow or annoying was against the law.
Fat people move slow, too...should we aim to outlaw obesity?
The drug cartels are violently overtaking the northern Mexico territory. We have to consider this, and they are a very powerful origination that have killed mayors, and done a plethora of terrors just across the border. They have power,
Sucks for Mexico. But this is California, not Mexico.
they won't give it up, legazling marijuana wont' fix this very bad problem.
It's already been shown that small time growers are making a huge impact on these cartels.
Stop insinuating I made a claim it will single handedly defeat them. I never made such a claim.
But will it hurt them? Absolutely.
This may be true, but they will just move into something else, and that something else can still easily effect the border of this united states, whether it be more hard drugs, or smuggling immigrants across the border for a fee. Their presence at the border will be detrimental to the security of the country.
This comment alone shows me that you really have no knowledge in regards to these cartels.
The reason they make so much money from marijuana is that it is incredibly cheap to manufacture.
It doesn't matter how much more cocaine they start trying to push through or whatever, they will be losing a lot of their customer base, as well as a humongous portion of sales of the most cost efficient drug that they deal in.
So you want to spread this pipe dream of a drug to more people? Honestly, I interact with high people all the time, and about 90% of the time I can't stand being around them.
I want to spread the freedom of being able to choose if you want to partake in this particular drug.
The difference between marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco is that marijuana is hallucinogenic, and that can effect concentration with just one puff of the magic dragon.
And alcohol trashes your motor functions. Your point?
I've already said I don't want people driving while under the influence. Continually citing the negativities of smoking marijuana is doing nothing to further your point.
Cigs are generally bad for your health, and are extremely addictive, this is a problem, but it is not going to effect your judgement. Alcohol is similar in that it does impair judgement, but it generally takes several drinks, and careless people can get addicted to it.
See above.
Alcohol is the most mentally addictive drug around. So what does that mean? Basically that there is little reason to not to legalize it, but there is one major difference. That is the instant change of judgement that comes from smoking marijuana, versus the slow change from Alcohol. This is difference enough for me to say that it shouldn't be legal.
Again, you are making no point here. The only time the negative effects of marijuana will affect someone other then the imbiber would be behind the wheel.
Not once have I said that driving while under the influence of marijuana would be a good thing.
Workplaces will still make it against the rules to be high while working, so that doesn't matter either.
Tax revenue is good, but I fail to see how it will generate significant amounts of income. The same outcome can be had with decriminalizing it, and imposing significant fines.
Until recently, they had fines for possesion under an ounce. You really think some kid busted with pot would be able to pay a 500 dollar fine?
Unlikely. Instead, they'll just skip the court date and have a warrant issued for them. It's happened to more friends than I can count.
Dealers are generally going to deal with more than just marijuana so they will be in jail either way. The drug cartels won't stop. They have power and they will not give that up!
Yeah, I keep hearing about this almighty drug cartel, whose power is so vast it completely controls every facet of drug life, down to the smallest dime-bag dealer :rolleyes:.
They will move into something else,
Good. They make the majority of their money from marijuana. Theres a reason for this.
or just impose more direct control over their territory.
Their territory being....mexico.
So that's a pipe dream, the Mexican drug cartels are going to stick around, they'll have to defeated in some other way.
Not once have I said it will stop them. But it WILL make them lose a lot of money. You really cannot argue against this; it's common sense.
Domestic growing operations account for about half of the marijuana in the US, the vast majority of it coming from Humboldt county.
Some of it is from the cartels, but the majority is from small family run operations.
not really they have other methods and things to use. these people didn't get where they are buy being stupid. they will compete.
Compete with who? Every single Californian citizen who wants to grow?
That's ludicrous. These cartel heads don't want a lot of violence in the US...they know that if they start butchering every person who is trying to grow or sell to pharmacies, they will end up focusing all the attention on themselves.
Hell, thats how the war on drugs got started in the first place.
Do you not think they won't adapt? they have been adapting for years. they know this trade and they know this business. it isn't going to be this pipe dream that you keep making it out to be.
When you come up with a logical way that these cartels can stop a whole entire state from fulfilling the demand for marijuana, then maybe I'll start to listen.
And no, they won't start baking marijuana into bakery-bourne goodness.
Until then, please stop posting what you 'think' will happen.
Another thing you fail to take into account, is the quality of the marijuana that the cartels cultivate. Most of the time they are forced to grow outside, with minimal supervision, which leads to lower quality marijuana.
Smaller growing operations that are housed inside (which most people growing will assuredly do), yield much better quality, which gives these cartels even less power when selling. Why bother paying a set amount to get low quality product, when you can pay a little bit more and get something with a THC content of around 17-19%?
people are killed over drugs on a constant basis. they fight and kill each other over drug sales. they are not going to just lay back and let the government cut into their profit margin.
Ever notice how the streak of violence we see in northern Mexico pretty much stops at the border?
Please, use some common sense.
they will over the same services only try to cut out the government.
Again, this is just what you 'think.' We've seen nothing of the sort yet, so you're going to have to do better if you want to make a point.
not at all i think they are just in for a bigger problem than not.
I'm not interested in what you think. I'm interested in well made, logical points.
Thus far you haven't made any.
no they have been studied in detail by many different organizations over the years. the effects are quite real.
No ones saying the effects are not real. I'm saying they are not nearly as bad as you seem to think they are.
Only a moron will argue that marijuana isn't detrimental to certain cognitive and motor functions. But these effects are much less problematic then those of alcohol.
I don't like the idea of people driving high any more than you do.
there are very few people on the fence. it is something that people either do or don't do. the people that are against drugs will remain so.
Please stop with the ubsubstantiated claims. I know you're famous for them, but I'm genuinely interested in having a logical debate on this.
they did outlaw alochol it created a huge black market and made way for gansters such as capone. even today they still have major issues in enforcing drunk driving. this will be no different.
I never said they haven't, and said it's not currently illegal.
And thanks for making my point: they have problems with drunk driving, yet they still keep it legal. Hell, they even let you have a .08 ABC before they can even arrest you!
someone stoned on pot has the same reflexes as someone that is drunk.
This is untrue. The effects of alcohol and marijuana are largely different; you would be hard pressed to make a statement like this and expect me to buy it.
it is a known fact that reaction time and other reflexs go down.
No ones arguing this...
don't be so sure more so because other states are examining the same thing. i consider this a dangerous course of action. most drug users are have some what addictive personalities anyway. whether it is alochol or drugs it has the same effect.
Most people have addictive personalities. Drugs aren't the only thing you can get addicted to.
i see more issues than solutions coming from this. i mean really why not just make all drugs legal and the government can sale those as well.
There IS a group of people (who are comprised of retired police chiefs and other higher-end officials), who believe most drugs should be legal, but carefully controlled.
The drug cartels and dealers are not going to let the government move in on their territory. you thought the war on drugs were bad now you are messing with their bottom line they will not stand idlely by and let that happen.
Well, they haven't stopped Humboldt county from taking humongous portions out of their profits.
I highly doubt it will be a problem.
either that or they will drop the pot trade and market other drugs probably save them millions in pot production.
Pot is notoriously cheap to manufacture. Marijuana is the cartels bread and butter. Taking that away from them, even taking away a portion, will hurt.
Depends if they can get it on the street cheaper than the pharmacy they will do it. also if they can get it from their neighbor they will do that as well for free. if this passes it is not going to have the effect that they think it will.
You keep assuming there is no difference between getting marijuana from a pharmacy and getting it from a dealer. That's not true.
Pharmacies offer many things that most dealers do not, and will not. The biggest is edibles, which are VERY popular. They also offer pre-rolled marijuana cigarrettes, with and without tobacco.
Another thing they offer is quality. 'Vendors' who sell to pharmacies have to be licensed for growing, which ensures quality and safety.
Again, I'm not saying that 3rd party deals will NOT happen, becuse they most assuredly will. But I think you are vastly underestimating the role legit pharmacies play in the distribution of marijuana.
Not really. i have first hand seen the effects of pot. it isn't pretty. can't concentrate, can't think clearly half the time. can't wait to get to the next high.
And I've been smoking it for years myself. You have your personal experiences, but they vastly differ from mine.
And here's where you get suspended. Sorry, dude.
There will always be people set in their ways, but in all reality, the negative effects of marijuana are almost always overblown. Once people see both the good and the bad of it, I'm positive that those on the fence will see that it's not the demon drug that the federal government has been making it out to be for the past several decades.
which again goes back to enforcement issue's. more so they will have to put an age on it (21 more than likely). so you have the same problem as before.
Having a .08 ABC limit doesn't stop people from driving either. Yet they don't outlaw alcohol.
This argument is not logically sound.
not so much facts as common sense. like i said the real fact comes down to the government trying to collect taxes. the other thing is that CA is going to have a major issue with the FBI and the federal court system if it does pass.
They've been fighting with the federal government on the issue of weed, and California has not really been changed, or forced to change, at all. I don't see this as a problem.
They may threaten to cut some federal aid, but until that happens, they are only threats. Besides, judging by the amount of money northern California generates from marijuana related sales, California should be easily able to recoup those losses.
they are going to spend more in lawsuits and other things trying to defend this than not. more money that they don't have to spend.
so even if they pass it the feds can still arrest you. i see a lot of DEA vans in CA pretty soon if this does pass.
Again, the DEA already DOES shut down pharmacies periodically for selling marijuana. Yet the amount of pharmacies that have been erected in the past 7 years haS grown by factors of ten, if not more.
DEA doesn't mess with personal buyers; I doubt they will start with the passing on 19.
How is education unquestioned for whites? You still need to prove yourself and make good grades to get into a university system.
So, in addition to the judicial system, there is also blatant racism in the education system as well?
You are attributing the lack of education to completely different causes.
A good education takes two things:
a.) Good grades, and
b.) Money
Last time I checked, black people are no less intelligent than others, so good grades is something any race can attain.
Money may be a bit harder for blacks, due to the average lower levels of income.
But how is that any way the fault of other races?
The name of the high school you come from rarely matters when applying to college. What matters is your GPA and the money you have to pay for your tuition.
Again, how is it the white persons fault that black families cannot afford to pay for college?
Of course something had to happen to form this attitude. But what happened wasn't the cause of anyone but the black culture.
Not when it comes to the blame game. When it's a question of race, responsiblity plays a much smaller role.
When it's a question of culture, responsibility becomes a much larger factor.
Maybe because that culture doesn't encourage education as much?
It seems we're kinda goin in circles...
I don't understand how you can't realize that culture is the driving force in this, and not race.
Can you sit there and honestly tell me that education is pushed hard by the black community?
Harder than the white community? Or the asian community?
Impacted by what? The crime they choose to commit? Because last time I checked, poverty or a lack of a father figure is not an adequate excuse to break the law.
Less drug crime, maybe. But less crime overall, no.
You seemed to have dodged the point made about police interaction with crime-ridden societies.
The point is fairly simple. When you have more crime, you have more police interaction. And when you have more police interaction, you have higher arrest rates.
I don't see how this can be argued.
That doesn't mean that they have any less access. It means they come from a society that value those things less.
What you are looking at isn't a problem of race, but one of wealth. Blacks are much more likely to have lower incomes, and crack is much cheaper than cocaine.
As far as sentencing goes, the severity of a crime (other than violent crimes) is proportional to its effects on society. Since crack cocaine has a much bigger effect on society than cocaine, it has a steeper punishment.
This has nothing to do with race. You are making connections when there are none.
Again, this isn't caused from suppresion of minorities, it is caused from a lack of importance bred by these particular societies.
What you are proposing is basically akin to a wide spread, nation wide conspiracy.
Are you seriously trying to say that most white people in the justice system are blatantly racist?
I certainly hope not...
You're forgetting a lot of important variables in this statistic (also, I would appreciate a source; I'm assuming that blacks DO make up more conviction rates than other races, but I would still like the confirmation).
The biggest one being the inherent crime rate of blacks overall. Crime brings about police attention. And when you have a lot of crime, you have a lot of police attention. And when you have a lot of police attention, you get a lot more arrests.
Have you ever thought that the reason there are less white convictions is because they participate in less crime?
Those 3 are not sources of reasonable doubt.
1 doesn't matter at all, and cannot be proven.
2 doesn't matter at all until your sentencing, and
3 would be something that absolutely no one would believe.
I'm sorry, but in that particular hypothetical, you would be found guilty. There is no debate here.
To think you would not shows how little you know of our court systems and how cases are handled.
I mean, c'mon guys...this alone should tell you just how eager Fade_To_Black is to have an actual logical discussion.
He has yet to respond to anything having to do with selective enforcement, and what selective enforcement actually means.
Compromise is key.
And by the looks of you, you don't have a compromising bone in your body.
Most things are bad without moderation.
For the billionth time, not once have I said it doesn't have negative consequences.
People don't smoke cannabis because it's healthy. They do it to get the effect.
And one thing you seem to be missing is that in some cases, it is healthy for you.
Simple. But wrong.
So what you're telling me is you want to take a good majority of enjoyment out of life.
You do realize theres more to these things then just their negative consequences?
People do them because it feels good.
I don't see unlocking a freedom that should have been unlocked decades ago as a step backward. Personal choice is very high in my list of priorities.
Not so for you, it seems.
I'm using that emoticon with you a lot, it seems.
You do realize this doesn't constitute as a logical argument, right?
Everytime you say something like this, you lose more and more of what little credibility you had. Not just to me, but to the whole forum.
Dealing with illogical arguments all day long is much more annoying to me.
Unless you're working at a Circle K third shift, you won't be dealing with that many drunks.
I've done a lot of retail in my life, and the drunks that I rarely encountered (I actually have dealt with a lot, since I HAVE done a gas station on third shift) weren't really dangerous. Just silly.
Police officers have a way to distinguish if you are unable to drive a car due to cannabis, just like they do with alcohol.
You have yet to come up with an adequate argument as to how these people are infringing on your freedoms.
I doubt I'll get one.
Thanks, Cap't Obvious.
Your opinion on baby-sitting individuals literally leaves me aghast.
It's quite hard for me to comprehend.
I asked you for a legitimate reason as to why dealing with people who are intoxicated on cannabis is such a bad thing, and you give me this?
Again, you are wrong.
And again, the numbers back me up.
I'm not taking offense, I just don't understand why you keep responding when your argument is basically based on pure opinion.
Debates are won off logic. You have yet to show any.
The violence is stemming from ill-defined ranks and boundaries within the cartels.
The reason they have a pretty much infinite amount of foot soldiers to do their killing for them? The allure of easy money.
This is a product of the whole drug system, not just cannabis.
...
...
Are you serious?
So, since we can't stop them with 19, theres no use even trying?
Is this what that paragraph of yours boiled down to?
I hope to god not.
So why even bother, right?
Actually, Wal-mart mostly sells things that are available at other stores, but at a cheaper price :teach:.
You don't quite understand this concept, but I don't blame you, since you have apparently never attempted cannabis.
Higher end cannabis is always a better buy then lower end cannabis. The reason being the potency. You get less product, but it lasts twice as long, due to the THC concentation.
High end cannabis (usually dubbed 'Kush,' or 'Chronic') is vastly more popular then 'stress.'
Of course they do. So do I.
It really is not.
Workplaces will still have full control on wether or not they let cannabis users work under them. Working with someone requires signing a binding contract with them, when they get to dictate the terms.
You really don't see the negative consequences of a heavy handed, baby-sitting government?
Really?
Public intoxication of marijuana will be allowed. Looks like you're just gunna have to suck it up on that one, cowboy.
...Ummm, the freedom of not getting arrested for having cannabis on you?
Smoking in public will be banned. But not being intoxicated in public. Is that clear enough?
And yes, you have legalized something. You've legalized cannabis :teach:.
Have you not read the bill at all?
EDIT: I just realized, right now, that my post was posted at exactly 4:20.
F@$#ing AWESOME.
This just shows me you have a very bad habit of polarizing issues.
Black and white is not what this world is.
Not insulting at all. I just think it;s fairly obvious that your complete biasness is affecting your ability to make logical points.
Your argument boils down to: it has negative consequences, so it's awful.
Well, so does greasy food.
See above. We cannot have a logical discussion with statements such as this.
Significant to you. Mild to me.
We keep going around in circles about this, so I'm going to try to simplify it by getting you to centralize your opinion:
Other then your disdain for dealing with people who are under the effects of cannabis, what major problems arise with dealing with intoxicated people on a day to day basis? (other then on the road, obviously).
I have yet to get an answer for that.
Rubbish. They know exactly what will happen when they eat that double down.
More unsubstantiated claims.
Going through your relatively long post, it's amazing to see how much of it boils down to this weak argument.
And that must be because of cannabis, correct?
For someone who is so concerned about these cartels, you think you would be much more willing to pass something that would hurt them.
It's been shown that domestic growing operations have much more then just a minimal effect on these cartels. I posted a link in one of my earlier posts. But I can find many more if you wish.
Well, the numbers are on my side.
You make the mistake of contributing this rise in violence to cannabis.
Violence will be wraught regardless. The allure of easy money will ensure to that.
The name of the game is 'stop the funding.'
How is that viscious? I'm saying that you don't have much knowledge when it comes to what these cartels are really about.
That would be a problem if I left it at that, but I followed with reasoning.
I've already cited the only source I need to.
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Cannabis is already easily-obtained in literally every corner of the US. There is no problem with supply.
For your statement to make any sense, demand would have to rise significantly in other areas of the US after the cartels have lost their selling power in California.
Why, exactly, would that happen?
How would they go about legitimizing?
One of the reasons that cannabis is so profitable for them is because they plant massive, massive amount of the plant, outdoors, with minimal supervision.
Growing 25 square feet per household domestically would completely and utterly butcher profits.
They already do. And yet pharmacies have still been growing exponentially every year since cannabis has been allowed for medicinal purposes.
Mexican-bourne cannabis is also of much lower quality.
Except it can't be sold at the same price. Because it's not the same quality.
Demand for high-end cannabis (THC levels of 17% and above), is vastly higher then that of lower end cannabis.
You aren't understanding the limitations on cartels, and exactly what it means for them.
I'll try to break it down as simply as I can:
Cannabis is profitable to cartels for two main reasons:
a.)It is extremely easy to produce, and
b.)They can make massive amounts of it.
Except, theres a big downside to 'b'. For them to be able to cultivate it en masse, they are forced to grow cannabis that is largely inferior to the quality of product you see being grown in mom-and-pop operations, and being sold in pharmacies all across California.
If they attempt to grow high-quality cannabis, they will be forced to sacrifice 'b'. If they are forced to sacrifice 'b', their profibility takes a rather large hit. This has been seen in Northern California for years now.
If you would like to try to come up with a way they can keep their growing ratio, up the quality, and still compete, I'm all ears.
I'm sure they would be very interested as well.
Why do we keep dancing this dance?
Why do you keep assuming the point being made is one of utter-destruction for these cartels?
I'm getting very tired of repeating myself on this matter.
I haven't smoked in a very long time, and cannot, due to my job.
I know MANY people who do not smoke, and do not have any plans on smoking, that support 19.
Public smoking of cannabis will be illegal under 19.
You should take a crack at responding to it anyway. Because I'd love to see you try to explain how not nabbing someone going 1mph over the limit or partaking in one of these archaic laws isn't selective enforcement.
Because that's the very definition of selective enforcement.
Was the cop within her rights? Absolutely. Was she within her rights to not prosecute this man? Absolutely.
Pretty much.
And tobacco and cocaine are both stimulants. Would you classify them as the same?
In the early 1900's, many hard drugs such as heroine and cocaine were available over the counter :teach:.
And lol at 'destroy your life quickly.' I'm sorry, but if you think that marijuana destroys the lives of everyone who uses it, I have lost what tiny little respect I have for you as a poster.
Good for you. Except not everyone can call it quits after two beers.
Besides, you are acting as if marijuana messes with a persons motor functions just as much as alcohol.
This is absolutely untrue.
I really just gotta
I didn't know being slow or annoying was against the law.
Fat people move slow, too...should we aim to outlaw obesity?
Sucks for Mexico. But this is California, not Mexico.
It's already been shown that small time growers are making a huge impact on these cartels.
Stop insinuating I made a claim it will single handedly defeat them. I never made such a claim.
But will it hurt them? Absolutely.
This comment alone shows me that you really have no knowledge in regards to these cartels.
The reason they make so much money from marijuana is that it is incredibly cheap to manufacture.
It doesn't matter how much more cocaine they start trying to push through or whatever, they will be losing a lot of their customer base, as well as a humongous portion of sales of the most cost efficient drug that they deal in.
I want to spread the freedom of being able to choose if you want to partake in this particular drug.
And alcohol trashes your motor functions. Your point?
I've already said I don't want people driving while under the influence. Continually citing the negativities of smoking marijuana is doing nothing to further your point.
See above.
Again, you are making no point here. The only time the negative effects of marijuana will affect someone other then the imbiber would be behind the wheel.
Not once have I said that driving while under the influence of marijuana would be a good thing.
Workplaces will still make it against the rules to be high while working, so that doesn't matter either.
Until recently, they had fines for possesion under an ounce. You really think some kid busted with pot would be able to pay a 500 dollar fine?
Unlikely. Instead, they'll just skip the court date and have a warrant issued for them. It's happened to more friends than I can count.
Yeah, I keep hearing about this almighty drug cartel, whose power is so vast it completely controls every facet of drug life, down to the smallest dime-bag dealer :rolleyes:.
Good. They make the majority of their money from marijuana. Theres a reason for this.
Their territory being....mexico.
Not once have I said it will stop them. But it WILL make them lose a lot of money. You really cannot argue against this; it's common sense.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/us-pot-growers-pose-threat-to-mexican-cartels-20091011-gseo.html
Domestic growing operations account for about half of the marijuana in the US, the vast majority of it coming from Humboldt county.
Some of it is from the cartels, but the majority is from small family run operations.
Compete with who? Every single Californian citizen who wants to grow?
That's ludicrous. These cartel heads don't want a lot of violence in the US...they know that if they start butchering every person who is trying to grow or sell to pharmacies, they will end up focusing all the attention on themselves.
Hell, thats how the war on drugs got started in the first place.
When you come up with a logical way that these cartels can stop a whole entire state from fulfilling the demand for marijuana, then maybe I'll start to listen.
And no, they won't start baking marijuana into bakery-bourne goodness.
Until then, please stop posting what you 'think' will happen.
Another thing you fail to take into account, is the quality of the marijuana that the cartels cultivate. Most of the time they are forced to grow outside, with minimal supervision, which leads to lower quality marijuana.
Smaller growing operations that are housed inside (which most people growing will assuredly do), yield much better quality, which gives these cartels even less power when selling. Why bother paying a set amount to get low quality product, when you can pay a little bit more and get something with a THC content of around 17-19%?
Ever notice how the streak of violence we see in northern Mexico pretty much stops at the border?
Please, use some common sense.
Again, this is just what you 'think.' We've seen nothing of the sort yet, so you're going to have to do better if you want to make a point.
I'm not interested in what you think. I'm interested in well made, logical points.
Thus far you haven't made any.
No ones saying the effects are not real. I'm saying they are not nearly as bad as you seem to think they are.
Only a moron will argue that marijuana isn't detrimental to certain cognitive and motor functions. But these effects are much less problematic then those of alcohol.
I don't like the idea of people driving high any more than you do.
Please stop with the ubsubstantiated claims. I know you're famous for them, but I'm genuinely interested in having a logical debate on this.
I never said they haven't, and said it's not currently illegal.
And thanks for making my point: they have problems with drunk driving, yet they still keep it legal. Hell, they even let you have a .08 ABC before they can even arrest you!
This is untrue. The effects of alcohol and marijuana are largely different; you would be hard pressed to make a statement like this and expect me to buy it.
No ones arguing this...
Most people have addictive personalities. Drugs aren't the only thing you can get addicted to.
There IS a group of people (who are comprised of retired police chiefs and other higher-end officials), who believe most drugs should be legal, but carefully controlled.
I'm not of that same opinion, but eh....
It's actually alcohol :teach:.
Well, they haven't stopped Humboldt county from taking humongous portions out of their profits.
I highly doubt it will be a problem.
Pot is notoriously cheap to manufacture. Marijuana is the cartels bread and butter. Taking that away from them, even taking away a portion, will hurt.
You keep assuming there is no difference between getting marijuana from a pharmacy and getting it from a dealer. That's not true.
Pharmacies offer many things that most dealers do not, and will not. The biggest is edibles, which are VERY popular. They also offer pre-rolled marijuana cigarrettes, with and without tobacco.
Another thing they offer is quality. 'Vendors' who sell to pharmacies have to be licensed for growing, which ensures quality and safety.
Again, I'm not saying that 3rd party deals will NOT happen, becuse they most assuredly will. But I think you are vastly underestimating the role legit pharmacies play in the distribution of marijuana.
And I've been smoking it for years myself. You have your personal experiences, but they vastly differ from mine.
And here's where you get suspended. Sorry, dude.
There will always be people set in their ways, but in all reality, the negative effects of marijuana are almost always overblown. Once people see both the good and the bad of it, I'm positive that those on the fence will see that it's not the demon drug that the federal government has been making it out to be for the past several decades.
Having a .08 ABC limit doesn't stop people from driving either. Yet they don't outlaw alcohol.
This argument is not logically sound.
They've been fighting with the federal government on the issue of weed, and California has not really been changed, or forced to change, at all. I don't see this as a problem.
They may threaten to cut some federal aid, but until that happens, they are only threats. Besides, judging by the amount of money northern California generates from marijuana related sales, California should be easily able to recoup those losses.
Again, the DEA already DOES shut down pharmacies periodically for selling marijuana. Yet the amount of pharmacies that have been erected in the past 7 years haS grown by factors of ten, if not more.
DEA doesn't mess with personal buyers; I doubt they will start with the passing on 19.