Legalize it!

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

You're right in one sense but you're also forgetting about brand recognition. If Philip Morris starts package and distribute marijuana and spends its resources on advertising then people will generally tend to buy their product over the unknown dude with the cheap packaging and inferior looking product image. You can use tv's, shoes, over-the-conter drugs and just about any other product as an example. In the end Big Business wins out just about everytime. If the little guy is showing impressive sales success with a superior product then Big Business simply "makes him an offer he can't refuse" and buys the product. A good example of that would be Cisco Systems.

I think you're giving Beem WAAAY too much credit. He's making no sense.

People will seek out the cheapest and easiest route to getting their products. That will be buying a pack of joints over the counter made by Phillip Morris for five bucks a pack. Sure, you could grow your own. You could buy the seeds, shine lights on them, water them when needed, harvest the buds, dry them out, roll them up, and smoke them. Or you can run out to 7-11 and buy a pack for $5.

It's just like brewing beer. You could run out to the store to buy a keg of Miller Lite for $60-70, or you could buy the ingredients for $50, invest in brewing equipment, and put in the two months time it takes to brew up a keg of beer.

There are a few people in this world who brew their own beer because they think it's fun (me included). But I definitely DON'T do it because it's cheaper or easier. When I want a case of beer on the cheap and easy, I head to the effing beer distributer. Their costs of production are much lower than mine, that's why it costs just as much (if not less) and takes way less time to just go out and buy a case of Sam Adams than it does to brew one up. It makes no ****ing sense and I'm actually feeling angry and disappointed in the intelligence level of the person I'm debating with.

[MTK]

On a little side note, it's very interesting to see how state laws differ in regard to weed:

State By State Laws - NORML

[KLHJ2]

Those of you who use it would have to start paying taxes on it like cigarettes if it were legal. Stop complaining cause right now your getting your tax free fix.

[dall-assblows]

for some reason i thought this tread's title was LEGALIZED IT and i almost bought a gram, but my hopes were shot down......

[BigSKINBauer]

I'll start off by saying I do feel it should be legal. It is a drug and it should be used in moderation but it is no different than alcohol and I definitely don't think that should be illegal.

I do feel the main issue is the difficulty in testing for it, as said. No one should drive impaired and I don't have any sympathy for those that caught doing so. I have plenty of friends that say they drive better when high. I am never going to do that and think they are dumb to say that.


I have changed as a person since coming to college. I drank a bit in high school but i stayed away from weed. Now I get piss poor drunk twice a week and smoke occasionally. I do feel it is beneficial to mess around with this stuff in high school because it makes it easier to deal with in college. Now fooling around with it in high school is very dangerous. Ideally it would be nice if people could get somewhat accustomed to it but not addicted. That is obviously an ideal though. I am smoking up on 420 but that is it until next year.

Because of this I feel parents should never encourage the uses of these substances but should be informative. If I were a parent a my kid came home drunk I would think I would set him straight but I wouldn’t scare him enough to not be ready to call me if he is ever in trouble. In high school, I found that those that had understanding parectns were more unlikely to drive drunk or go home with a drunk person just to not get introuble. I don’t think a parents job is to scare their children. Its more for them to be there for them> Alcohol use isn’t that big of a deal in high school. It isn’t even an issue in college. My parents know I drink. My uncles and aunts know I drink. Even my grandmother knows I drink. I’m not going to lie at this point in college and I feel my relationship with them makes it easy for me to tell them. They aren’t happy but they understand I am in college and are more concerned of whether I abuse it or not.

I'll continue with random thoughts... I tried weed three times before I got high. The first few times I just got tired and was confused by the stupid ass people sitting there while i was drunk and excited. When i first got high.... oh baby. I was having the time of my life. I had an idea of what it was like but its true that you have to try it to know. There is no way that it can be explained.

The first high is not the strongest or best, but it is the craziest. Things are just so new that it is enjoyable. For example, I felt as if my hands were dirty after eating some food. They weren’t that dirty but it was the only thing I could think of. Now if I get the same feeling I don’t think much about it when I am high because I know I am just making ti up. The newness of the feeling is the cool thing.

That is why I do feel weed is a gateway drug. Yes, I did start drinking first and it is possible alcohol led me to pot but there is no real reason for that. I will never do anyting more than weed but many chase that new feeling and try different things.

I like the feeling of weed a lot. I keep myself in check because I don’t want it to become a habit After getting high I did it 5 times before the end of the week. I now keep it to once every other week.

I also have to stop because an internship i am looking at this summer does have drug tests and its a family friend that is giving me the job. I swear I will be hung from my balls if I don't get the job because of the not passing a drug test.

[Sammy Baugh Fan]

I was going to reply again but.......

what's this thread about again?

Gonna eat yer tots?

lol
peace

[ArtMonkDrillz]

As far as people saying weed should remain illegal because there isn't a way to test drivers for it, I respond to that by asking: is there a way to test to see if a truck driver is too tired to be driving; is there a way to test to make the Claritin and percocet that an old lady just took impair her driving; how can you test to see if someone got into an accident because they were looking at street signs or something stupid like that?
Personally, I don't think people should drive when they're high but I absolutely do not buy the argument weed should stay illegal because cops can't test drivers for it.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

As far as people saying weed should remain illegal because there isn't a way to test drivers for it, I respond to that by asking: is there a way to test to see if a truck driver is too tired to be driving; is there a way to test to make the Claritin and percocet that an old lady just took impair her driving; how can you test to see if someone got into an accident because they were looking at street signs or something stupid like that?
Personally, I don't think people should drive when they're high but I absolutely do not buy the argument weed should stay illegal because cops can't test drivers for it.

This seems like a weak protest, AMD. You're saying that since we don't test tired truck driver's or drugged out old ladies then we should also not test for all people who are high? There will be truck drivers and old ladies that will be in that group that are tested for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana. Truck driver's are regular everyday people like you and me and old ladies who have glaucoma may use it to relieve their ailments.

That line of reasoning also seems to indicate that we should also just do away with breathalizer's. How else is a police officer going to have scientific evidence that a person is under the influence of a motor-skill inhibiting or hallucinogenic drug other than testing for it?

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

This seems like a weak protest, AMD. You're saying that since we don't test tired truck driver's or drugged out old ladies then we should also not test for all people who are high? There will be truck drivers and old ladies that will be in that group that are tested for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana. Truck driver's are regular everyday people like you and me and old ladies who have glaucoma may use it to relieve their ailments.

That line of reasoning also seems to indicate that we should also just do away with breathalizer's. How else is a police officer going to have scientific evidence that a person is under the influence of a motor-skill inhibiting or hallucinogenic drug other than testing for it?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't test people to see if they're DWHigh, nor am I saying that people who do cause accidents while high shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. I don't see how this line of thinking has anything to do with getting rid of breathalizers, because they're a proven method of proving that a driver is too impaired to be behind the wheel.
Hell, if they develop a test to see if drivers were high they should use it. For now, they should probably just use the standard roadside test (walk the line; touch your nose; etc) that they use for drunk drivers.

What I am trying to say is that I find the whole "you can't test drivers to see if they're high, so weed should remain illegal" argument to be rather weak. What I meant by my examples is that there is no test to see if (for instance) a trucker caused an accident because he'd been on the road too long and he was too tired, or that the old lady on allergy meds was just as out of it as if she just took a couple hits off a bong. To me, these are very similiar to DWH and they also can't be tested for.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

I'm not saying that we shouldn't test people to see if they're DWHigh, nor am I saying that people who do cause accidents while high shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. I don't see how this line of thinking has anything to do with getting rid of breathalizers, because they're a proven method of proving that a driver is too impaired to be behind the wheel.
Hell, if they develop a test to see if drivers were high they should use it. For now, they should probably just use the standard roadside test (walk the line; touch your nose; etc) that they use for drunk drivers.

What I am trying to say is that I find the whole "you can't test drivers to see if they're high, so weed should remain illegal" argument to be rather weak. What I meant by my examples is that there is no test to see if (for instance) a trucker caused an accident because he'd been on the road too long and he was too tired, or that the old lady on allergy meds was just as out of it as if she just took a couple hits off a bong. To me, these are very similiar to DWH and they also can't be tested for.

Okay, I gotcha. My whole contention is ensuring that the roads do not get any more dangerous than they already are. It's a safety concern I have for family. I, as an individual, am not all that particularly worried about anything happening. I've always had a "devil may care" attitude. But now that I'm married and with a 20 month old I always look for any potentially dangerous situations. I can't control the actions of a drunk driver nor a person who is high (or tired or drugged out). I can try to help pass legislature that puts into effect a screening process that law enforcement can use to help keep those irresponsible f*ckups off the street.

We're not going to be able to control every possible reason why a person is impaired but we can take preventative actions to reduce the potential for an even greater number of traffic accidents.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

Okay, I gotcha. My whole contention is ensuring that the roads do not get any more dangerous than they already are. It's a safety concern I have for family. I, as an individual, am not all that particularly worried about anything happening. I've always had a "devil may care" attitude. But now that I'm married and with a 20 month old I always look for any potentially dangerous situations. I can't control the actions of a drunk driver nor a person who is high (or tired or drugged out). I can try to help pass legislature that puts into effect a screening process that law enforcement can use to help keep those irresponsible f*ckups off the street.

We're not going to be able to control every possible reason why a person is impaired but we can take preventative actions to reduce the potential for an even greater number of traffic accidents.

I understand what you're saying about highway safety and I do agree 100% that people should not be driving while high; I just don't think that's a reason it should remain illegal.
That being said, even if it were legalized (or decriminalized, which is far more likely) drivers should be held accountable for DWH just like drivers are held accountable for DUI/DWI's.

[Sammy Baugh Fan]

Remember this song and video?
YouTube - Afroman - Because I Got High (Uncensored)
But Then I Got High by Afroman


lol

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I think that the examples you mentioned though require a lot more work than something as natural as marijuana. People don't really have a lot of access to making their own TVs and prescription drugs as much as they do to planting a lot of seeds.

Typically if you're considering the organic quality of pot itself, most people who buy produce, consider the "farmer's market"-type stuff to be superior, so while I think that big companies might compete, they'd also have some competition from home growers as well.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I think that the examples you mentioned though require a lot more work than something as natural as marijuana. People don't really have a lot of access to making their own TVs and prescription drugs as much as they do to planting a lot of seeds.

Typically if you're considering the organic quality of pot itself, most people who buy produce, consider the "farmer's market"-type stuff to be superior, so while I think that big companies might compete, they'd also have some competition from home growers as well.

Well yeah, when you're talking about apples, anybody can grow an apple and sell it at a farmer's market, TMC. But there would be major government regulation on weed, just as there is for tobacco. Not anybody would be allowed to grow weed and sell it. I mean, we're talking about legalizing weed and everything, but that doesn't mean the government wouldn't watch its production like a hawk just as it does for tobacco. There would be strict government regulation and red tape, which would be a major barrier to entry for anyone but big business.

That's why you don't hear much about mom & pop ciggarrette makers.

[724Skinsfan]

Also, the farmer's market may have the best produce but Kroger and Wal-Mart are closer to the neighborhoods that has the largest buying power which means their produce generates more profit. People inherently seek out the most efficient method of expending energy/time/effort. We have a Wal-Mart 250 yards away from our house, literally. We also have a country store about 2 miles away that sells local fruit and vegetable produce that clearly are superior in quality. Wal-Mart's closer so I go there and buy a bag of apples so I can get back home and read this thread.




It's really disgusting how much time I spend on this site, btw.