Would you turn someone in for a weed-related crime?

[Antigen]

15.1%
Yes
 
   10.5%
Yes, if there's an award
 
   74.4%
No
 
 total votes: 86  

Cast your vote: http://www.oudaily.com/

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much
liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

--Thomas Jefferson, 1791, in a letter to Archibald Stuart

[Anonymous]

YES: 67%

NO,I would strangle them with my bare hands: 32%

What do you mean, weed's a crime?: 1%

[thepatriot]

If they sold weed to my Juvinile(under 18) kids, I would strangle them myself.

[xres8182]

nigga please

[Anonymous]

On 2004-04-13 09:20:00, xres8182 wrote:

"nigga please"

[kaydeejaded]

NO WAY

God please keep drug pushers away from my kid!

Any Irishman who doubts the reality of selective enforcement ought to take just a moment to comtemplate the etymology of the term "paddy waggon".
--Antigen

[kaydeejaded]

God yes I would if they tried to sell it to my son I really would.......

I'm a square now :eek:

To the extent that a society limits its government to policing functions which curb the individuals who engage in aggressive and criminal actions, and conducts its economic affairs on the basis of free and willing exchange, to that extent domestic peace prevails. When a society departs from this norm, its governing class begins, in effect, to make war upon the rest of the nation. A situation is created in which everyone is victimized by everyone else under the fiction of each living at the expense of all.

--Edmund A. Opitz

[Antigen]

I'm openly ambivalent about recreational drugs, even where my kids are concerned. Nobody, including myself, wants their kids to grow up to be junkies or compulsive, chronic stoners. However, I don't think there's a great danger of that happening, even if someone does sell them some pot. I think the fear of drugs tends to cloud one's thinking far more than the actual use of them. I think the manic abstinance freaks who have infiltrated the halls of power in our once free country have done a whole lot more harm already than those few, hated, unpatentable drugs ever could, even if they put the shit in our drinking water like fluoride.

This just landed in my inbox. I think it's relavent.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0413-02.htm

Published on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 by the Los Angeles Times
Drug War Led Bush Astray Before 9/11
by Robert Scheer

Why won't they just admit they blew it? It is long past time for the president and his national security team to concede that before the Sept. 11 attacks they failed to grasp the seriousness of the Al Qaeda threat, were negligent in how they handled the terrorist group's key benefactors and did not take the simple steps that might well have prevented the tragedy. While they are at it, they might also explain why, for more than two years, they have been trying so hard to convince us that none of the above is true. Most recently, we learned that President Bush decided to stay on vacation for three more weeks despite receiving a briefing that told him about "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks" by Osama bin Laden's thugs, who were described as determined and capable enough to pull off devastating attacks on U.S. soil. We also now know that the Bush administration coddled fundamentalist Saudi Arabia and nuclear-weapons-dealing Pakistan, the only nations that recognized the Taliban, both before and after the Sept. 11 murders.

But what is perhaps even more astonishing is that, because the Bush administration's attention was focused on the "war on drugs," it praised Afghanistan's Taliban regime even though it was harboring Bin Laden and his terror camps. The Taliban refused to extradite the avowed terrorist even after he admitted responsibility for a series of deadly assaults against American diplomatic and military sites in Africa and the Middle East. On May 15, 2001, I blasted the Bush administration for rewarding the Taliban for "controlling" the opium crop with $43 million in U.S. aid to

Afghanistan, to be distributed by an arm of the United Nations. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell announced the gift, specifically mentioning the opium suppression as the rationale and assuring that the U.S. would "continue to look for ways to provide more assistance to the Afghans."

Five months before 9/11, I publicly challenged the wisdom of supporting a regime that backed Al Qaeda: "Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998." I'm not clairvoyant, but I didn't need my own CIA to know that it's self-destructive to reward a regime that harbors the world's most dangerous terrorists.

After 9/11, the column was dug up by bloggers and widely distributed and debated on the Internet. Defenders of the administration attacked it as a distortion, arguing that because the money was targeted as humanitarian aid, the U.S. was not actually helping the Taliban. Yet this specious distinction ignored the context of Powell's glowing remarks, and it failed to explain a similarly toned follow-up meeting Aug. 2, 2001, in Islamabad, Pakistan, which gave the Taliban similar kid-glove treatment. That meeting, held between Christina B. Rocca, assistant secretary of State for South Asia, and Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, took place four days before Bush received his now-infamous briefing on the imminent threat from Al Qaeda agents who were already in sleeper cells in this country, armed with explosives. snip-

A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question
about it.
--GW Büsh, Business Week, July 30, 2001

[kaydeejaded]

yes and Tom Ridge of all people for homeland security.

Good lord wasn't he tied to Straight?

maybe on second thought I'll steal their pot and smoke it myself, no need to go involvin the law  :lol:

Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following
pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them
general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong,
gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises
at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom.  But the
tumult soon subsides.  Time makes more converts than reason.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679433147/circlofmiamithem' target='_new'>Thomas Paine, Common Sense

[Antigen]

I don't know of any tie between Ridge and Straight. But I know he won the state of PA on a "get tough on youth" platform. Scary dude!

We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark.  The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.  
--Plato

[Anonymous]

I've with held repling to this; wanting to wait and see just how othersmight define weed related.
I wouldn't 'bust' someone for having or even selling pot - but I can think of weed related things I might bust them on.
The wole marijuana sub culture has changed a lot since my time.
Back then it was cheep. Real cheep; and people didn't get hurt over it.
Now, its not at all cheep.
People can and do hurt one another over it; and various forms of theft take place in relation to obtaining it.  I would indeed call 582 clue in regard to some of this.

[Antigen]

According to ONDCP and NIDA, today's pot is super pot; far stronger than what they smoked in the `70's. But, if you actually write down the numbers they spew, you'll find that, in order for their story to hold water, today's pot has to be around 113% THC.

Truth is, the pot hasn't changed much. The only thing that's changed to make the stuff so much more expensive and high risk has been the manic obsession on the part of the federal government with erradicating this plant.

So, how would calling the cops help to reverse that trend? It wouldn't. It would only add to the problem.

That plant has been grown and used in a variety of ways since Biblical days and probably before. (gasp! yes, I said before Biblical days. It's true. The Old Testament leaves out at least 10k years of history that we know of from archeological findings.)

In all that time, this particular plant never caused anyone any trouble till the Mad Monk (aka Trickey Dick) lost his ever lovin' mind and went to war w/ it. Prior to that, the most notable conflict over hemp had been the War of 1812 when Napleon's Treaty of Tilset cut off Britain's Russian hemp supply.

It's not the plant that's causing all the crime and strife. It's the prohibition.

To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty, to find the best in others; to leave the world a little better; whether by a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is the meaning of success.
--Ralph Waldo Emerson

[notworking]

I'm just constantly amazed that American culture is turning into a group of 6 year olds.  Do people really have so little else to do that they'd turn in people for drugs?  If you're that bored, I have a WHOLE LIST of organizations across the country that need volunteers.  

Plus, even though I don't use,  I think weed should be legal, so I just pretend like it is in my little corner of the world.

As for my kids, we talk about this stuff all the time, even though they're 4 and 5.  Some things -- like alcohol and cigarettes if they're not in our house -- are for adults.  They're not good for your body and if you use them when you're a kid, you'll end up short and stupid.  Other things -- like drugs -- can be really dangerous, so they're against the law.  Anybody who uses them can end up dead or in jail for a long long time.  We talk about people on the news or other places who have broken their bodies and brains with drugs or alcohol.  I really believe that if you start talking about these issues very early on, kids develop deep seated beliefs about them.  You also create an environment where your kids can come to you about pressure they feel from their peers so you can help them think of ways to deal with it.  When they're older, they might experiment, but they're not going to view substances as an ongoing coping option.

[Antigen]

Notworking, I'm right with you on this one. But it's so important to tell your kids the truth, the whole truth and nothing but.

One of these truths that's not well understood by most people is that MOST of the problems associated w/ illegal drugs are caused by the prohibition, not the chemical compounds.

Just compare the problems that medical professionals were seeing w/ methamphetamines prior to their rescheduling in the CSA in the early `80's. Before reschedueling, we had some few patients who were very heavy users developing amphetamine psychosis in the long term and some few ppl w/ underlying heart or vasculer conditions having trouble from that. But we had no black market, no junk speed cooked in hotel rooms, no violent black market.

In other words, 99% of the problems we now have w/ meth simply didn't exist when anyone who wanted some could just tell their doctor that they wanted to lose weight and ask for a Sched III or IV (can't remember offhand) RX. These included mostly cross country truckers, graduate students cramming for exams and young women who thought their theigs were too big, mostly.

Right now, your kids are very young and they will believe everything you say w/o question. But they'll get older and, if they find out you were wrong about some of these things, you risk your credibility in other areas.

I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.

--Thomas Carlyle

[notworking]

Oh, right.  Totally we have to revise our talk as they get older and I'm sure they'll understand.  They actually get the idea that some things are too complex for us to explain right now.  Mostly I just want them to a) not drink beer out of the refrigerator and b) tell us if someone tries to get them to take a pill.  And since getting taller and smarter, plus not going to jail, are really big things for kids their age, it works out fine.  At this point, I think that security -- giving them the idea that laws and adults are there for benign reasons -- is more important than teaching them the nuances of political agendas.

But when they're older I'm going to be honest with them -- specifically that I think it's stupid that marijuana's illegal and you bet I've smoked it but things were really different when I was a kid because if you got caught (and didn't get sent to a mind control cult), there were really pretty minor consequences.  You might have to appear in juvenile court and pay a fine, but that was pretty much it.  Whereas now you can get caught at 16 and spend 20 years in prison, thanks to mandatory minimums.  Part of being an adult is accepting that some rules are stupid, but it's easier to follow them than not.  

You are 100% right about the problems from prohibition, which is why I don't EVER want my kids to take a pill from someone.  Again, it's just not safe anymore.  I had a long conversation the other day about the declining quality of meth with a former addict.  She'd been a Hell's Angel's mama -- has the tattoos and the sun damage and the permanent track marks -- and she was just appalled at the crap they're selling today.  It's mostly battery acid, which IMO is why we're seeing so much violence.  People aren't strung out, they're brain damaged.

FYI, You can actually still get meth if you have ADHD, it's called Desoxyn.  I wonder why we don't hear more about it.