Congressional spending deal blocks pot legalization in D.C.

a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

You originally said first timers. you didn't say first time offenders. That's mis-communication. Not an honesty issue.
(Although my experience is those that accuse others are usually guilty of the same offense they assign others..

Assuming your being honest, then if you have a need for medical marijuana then I have no problem with it. That doesn't equate to carte blanch legalization. Frankly, it's stupid to place prescription usage into the same grouping as general use.
You just run into those of us that see further drug use and popularization as a bad move.

Anyone that suggests that abuse won't expand with legalization when abuse already occurs when it is illegal is myopic and self-serving. (Perhaps even profit motivated...)

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I can't see a single response to my points in your post that makes any sense whatsoever.

Just bright/glib spin.

Why do people do anything? That's an intelligent, well thought out response? Just how long have you been indulging?

I have no reason to believe the statement regarding Portugal. I see you've omitted England from that measurement. How about Belgium? Sorry, I see nothing in any of those countries that strikes me as shining eg.s in any way shape or form.

Your obviously agenda driven.

I can see a whole set of new problems that I have pointed out that you completely ignore in general legalization.

I desire less drug use, not more. I see a better, saner nation with less, not more.

Apparently, you don't. Your obviously not a parent, at least I hope not, and know nothing about that responsibility. Else you wouldn't have made such an ignorant statement about exposure to drugs and drug users. I am stunned at your self-serving attitude. Have a happy, drug-addled life...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Now there's a comment one could assign to a junkie. Follow the dope...LMAO.

figures voted legal means legal

we should have a national vote nation wide see how it works out

oh well once 26 states vote it legal than what

at what point will they realize the people want this

and anyone who dosent getter get out and vote
same for anyone who dose

seems so simple

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Anyone that suggests that abuse won't expand with legalization when abuse already occurs when it is illegal is myopic and self-serving. (Perhaps even profit motivated...)

I'm done with you.

You have been proven wrong with REAL LIFE data and still espouse this blatant bullsh*t. Portugal...Portugal...Portugal. The real life numbers aren't lying. Unlike some here.....

a reply to: Mandroid7

Sure, it's 'what kids do'. Now it's younger and younger temptations. Go ahead make your self-serving arguments.

It will only get younger, as it has by statistic in Colorado, and more prevalent when legalized, as in Colorado. The physical withdrawal of alcohol isn't the only problem with alcoholics, there's the psychological withdrawal as well. The physical aspect is well covered by detox which usually solves nothing.

You 'say' you smoke only for relaxation. That casual usage somehow doesn't add up to your posts. Have you considered, based on your statements of usage, that the reason you can no longer afford it is due to that very usage?

In my experience, most financially successful types, who compete in the economic world get there first, then indulge themselves. Somehow, call me ignorant, I don't see being stoned as any stepping stone to success.

If you think in your 'relaxed' state when smoking you can match your ability level when clear-headed then you don't even you have a problem. Kind of sad really...

a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

An intelligent response... thank you for the confirmation.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Kind of sad really...

The only sad thing I see is people who think prohibition works.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

An intelligent response... thank you for confirmation.

Yup. it sure beats the old "I am in the rehabilitation field but I don't know anything about what I'm talking about" response.

Try giving us some real life data that shows usage goes up when drugs are legalized. OOPS....you can't because the one country that did it is proving you wrong.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh. So there IS a limit to how far you'd go. Then what about those that support the legalization of all drugs.

After all, the same argument can be made for those drugs as well as pot. They will be, you can bank on it. It's the same mechanism that the 'left' made (limited analogy) with the gay issue. What started as the gov't has no business in the bedrooms of America has resulted in fines and possible imprisonment for not making a cake or marrying a gay couple based on religious convictions-so far.

There is a sliding slope.

Need to relax? Try meditation...it's cheaper...

a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

I'm 'not in the field'. I worked for six months in it and got out of it. (Lousy money, lousy hours and lousy conversation...hint, hint.)

All this makes me wonder which is worse, the pusher or the advocate?

Never killed anyone but still illegal, baffling.

I don't have a dog in the legalization fight and I really think that's a distraction from the whole problem. It doesn't matter what the vote was over, it passed by over 2:1 and when it came time to enact it the lawmakers chose to not do so.

If we don't have a system of democracy in our capital what does that say for the rest of the country?

Earlier info on the topic of states vs district rights and "Why Congress Is Unlikely to Stop Marijuana Legalization in Washington, D.C."

Even if the House and the Senate both passed a resolution against Initiative 71, it would still need President Obama's signature. "The White House is already on record opposing interference with D.C.'s marijuana law," Piper notes. Last summer, after the House Appropriations Committee approved an amendment introduced by Andy Harris that was intended to stop the D.C. Council from decriminalizing marijuana possession, the White House objected:

The Administration strongly opposes the language in the bill preventing the District from using its own local funds to carry out locally passed marijuana policies, which…undermines the principles of States' rights and of District home rule. Furthermore, the language poses legal challenges to the Metropolitan Police Department's enforcement of all marijuana laws currently in force in the District.

Strictly speaking, "states' rights" do not apply to the District of Columbia, which was created by Congress and is subject to much more extensive federal control than the states are. But as Obama suggests, the arguments for federalism—in particular, the idea that political decisions should be made at the lowest feasible level to facilitate citizen influence, policy experimentation, and competition among jurisdictions—apply to D.C. as well as the states. Given the president's views on the subject, it seems reasonable to assume that he would take a dim view of attempts to nullify Initiative 71.

Source

They just keep pushing and pushing their will on the people that don't freaking want it. They have ZERO right to undermine the people they represent yet they do. I hope this slap in the face infuriates people in DC and they vote these bastards out or do something worse.

a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

Good, move to Portugal...

I prefer a drug free environment. That makes me a liar.....

a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

LOL. I thought you were done with me.

Don't like the message? Shoot the messenger.

Decriminalize, not legalize. Simple. Need a prescription? Go get one. Simple.

Just stay away from me and mine is all I ask.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

Good, move to Portugal...

I prefer a drug free environment. That makes me a liar.....

No one is forcing you to take drugs.

But you NO RIGHT to dictate what one does to there body in the privacy of there own homes and anyone who does is a tyrant.

IF it does not hurt you then you are no moral right to dictate to other people.


O I am not a partaker in MJ and I barely even drink but I dont want my tax money being used by the government to tell people what they can and cant do with there own body's in there own home.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh. So there IS a limit to how far you'd go. Then what about those that support the legalization of all drugs.

Wouldn't bother me one bit. I'm just willing to stop fighting the drug war at decriminalization. If the public wanted to go further, I wouldn't care and would probably support it.

After all, the same argument can be made for those drugs as well as pot. They will be, you can bank on it. It's the same mechanism that the 'left' made (limited analogy) with the gay issue. What started as the gov't has no business in the bedrooms of America has resulted in fines and possible imprisonment for not making a cake or marrying a gay couple based on religious convictions-so far.

There is a sliding slope.

Need to relax? Try meditation...it's cheaper...

After all, I'm for personal choice, so I don't care if all drugs are legal. I'm for proper education so one can make the right choices and personal responsibility.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I can't see a single response to my points in your post that makes any sense whatsoever.

Just bright/glib spin.

Why do people do anything? That's an intelligent, well thought out response? Just how long have you been indulging?

How about you stop insinuating things about me that I haven't admitted to? The T&C exists and says we aren't allowed to discuss personal usage, well you should have some courtesy and not accuse people of doing it either. My usage or not is irrelevant to the topic, stick to my points.

You made a comment on why someone would risk themselves for drugs, and my answer is that people have dozens of reasons for these things. Asking why someone does something is a VERY complicated answer that deserves its own thread and I wouldn't do that question justice no matter how I answered it in this one, so that is why you got that response. Think on it though, it is actually quite wise in its simplicity.

I have no reason to believe the statement regarding Portugal. I see you've omitted England from that measurement. How about Belgium? Sorry, I see nothing in any of those countries that strikes me as shining eg.s in any way shape or form.

England hasn't legalized drugs and neither has Belgium, what do they have to do with anything? I posted an example of a country that decriminalized all drugs and the resultant effect on the drug culture there. That is a VERY relevant piece of information and you jumping through hoops like this isn't going to make it go away. How about posting some counterevidence that says I'm wrong instead of all the fallacies and distractions?

Your obviously agenda driven.

Who isn't?

I can see a whole set of new problems that I have pointed out that you completely ignore in general legalization.

I desire less drug use, not more. I see a better, saner nation with less, not more.

Well the current "solution" is creating MORE drug use. Again there are more drug users than ever and more drugs in this country than ever. So what you desire and the action you are taking to achieve this are in conflict. Why are you advocating an answer that isn't working?

Apparently, you don't. Your obviously not a parent, at least I hope not, and know nothing about that responsibility. Else you wouldn't have made such an ignorant statement about exposure to drugs and drug users. I am stunned at your self-serving attitude. Have a happy, drug-addled life...

Appeal to emotion and ad hominem. You didn't address my point, which still stands regardless of how uncomfortable it makes you feel. Truth hurts buddy, and if you want real solutions, you have to be willing to confront it. You apparently are unable to do that.