Jeff Sessions: "Drugs Will Destroy Your Life," Recinds Cole Memo On Pot Legalization

a reply to: Krazysh0t

People are scared to death of a little freedom to choose. They know perfectly well that they themselves will not be forced, or pressured, to partake... but for these "people"... these "humans" (i use the word loosely here), the idea of Some Other Person choosing to do something, is just too much to fathom.

a reply to: 3n19m470

You should see the conflict between DC residents and the old fogies who want to keep it illegal. They are always complaining how they can smell pot everywhere. Of course they never acknowledge that second hand pot smoke won't get you high and is no where near as dangerous as second hand tobacco smoke.

It's seriously baffling why some people can't let other people just do things they want all because those original people disagree with that action. It's beyond stupid.

Personally, I think pot is too strong. I never smoke or drink alcohol. If you want drugs, coca cola is good enough for everyone. Russia and China ban pot because they care about their people. See opium wars. American politicians only care about money in their pockets.

a reply to: pv1984

China and Russia really have terrific human rights records in regard to their own....

Journalists too..

I like your everybody should be just like me argument.

a reply to: pv1984

Russia and China ban pot because they care about their people.

Funniest statement I've read all day.

a reply to: 3n19m470

Perhaps who gives a # why they stroked out.
Tired of this #.
All kinds of # that is legal kills or can kill people and sometimes it happens and when it does it's a bummer.

The weed is bad for you # gets old.
The drugs destroys lives # gets old too.
I agree that drugs can destroy lives. For sure.
They can also enhance lives if that's how a person likes to throw down.

People can be responsible and enjoy drugs
Been doing it myself for 25 years now.

People think they have a handle on it but most don't know #.
I know a guy that did drugs and messed his life up.

There are people in everyone's life that enjoy drugs to some degree. I'm positive of that.
Just cause you are not aware of it does not mean it is not happening.

Bottom line is if booze and ciggs are available to adults then grass should be too.
There is no rational argument against legalization and regulation.

That's the bottom line

a reply to: pv1984

If you want drugs, coca cola is good enough for everyone.

Didn't realize it was a drug, can you enlighten me?

a reply to: TinySickTears

And in fact the lack of regulated choices Make it more dangerous.

Ironic isn't it.

It would be nice to know if you were getting a sunny day or a steven Hawkin buzz.

Like you know a beer or a whisky in the same volume.

Or something full of heavy metal pesticides or mold...

But what about the children...

a reply to: pv1984

Yeah well for some it is too strong and let's be honest now. When you get it on the curb you don't know the content.
If legal though you can go to a dispensary and pick some super mild strain or super mild piece of candy.
High cbd low thc.

That would make too much sense though right.

And in 2018 we are still talking about contact highs?
Christ man. Anyone that thinks that actually happens knows # all

a reply to: luthier

Good post.
It would be safer insofar as people will know exactly what they are getting.

Not everyone can handle a korova 5150 or star of death. So they can get some mild # or none at all

a reply to: TinySickTears

Or hey I only have 45 minutes before I drive I don't want to be in a coma on the couch...or hey I don't have to drive wheel me out of here like Steven Hawking


Ps maybe coma was a bad choice of words with all this scary medical talk...
Yeah the hawking quote from weeds is offensive too but oh well..

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Caffeine, and arguably sugar, could be considered as such.

I'm not sure whether or not something is a "drug" should play much part in semi-serious discussion though.

@Tiny: "Contact high" is most certainly a thing, depending on what you think it is. Defined as some kind of strange osmosis, it is a bit silly, but growing up its what we called someone who was, say, in a car with people hotboxing even if they didn't actually smoke themselves. Interestingly, had a friend who preferred that..



I really don't think that the argument for legalization and regulation should revolve around whether or not it is "dangerous." Comparing to alcohol, it is quantifiably less harmful, however some who advocate against leg/reg also wouldn't mind seeing alcohol, tobacco, or even caffeine and sugar made illegal.

So, it turns into a case of both sides using exactly the same arguments, which will never, ever lead to anything other than entrenchment.

"Cannabis is less harmful than alcohol and should therefore be legal!"

Versus

"Alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis, and should therefore be illegal!"

They are conflicting moral arguments and because of that, no ground will ever, ever be given.

I strongly feel the discussion should focus on the overarcing notion; Does making something illegal solve a given problem?"

I really don't think it does. In fact, the only thing that happens is easier access and a determination of the type of people who will control said market.

It appears to be an issue that goes far beyond simply cannabis. Essentially, we are deciding who will profit from and control a market (as well as who would profit from and control the fight against that market), and absolutely nothing more.

Making something illegal because someone(s) find it immoral in some aspect tends to be more of a case of projection and wishing than any sort of solution based in reality. My argument is that, perhaps this is the problem, rather than any specific substance. A good first step might be removing the notion that legality somehow means tacit, blind, total societal approval and everything we don't approve of should be illegal. It completely ignores reality in favor of moral righteousness.

Does making something illegal actually make it "go away," or is it a case of wishful thinking coupled with the never-ending desire to convert others to our own moral convictions?

a reply to: Serdgiam

I know what a contact buzz is supposed to be.
It's bull# though.

Sure everyone has stories of how they got stoned cause they were in a room with people smoking maaaaan but it's bull#.

Definitely not stoned.
Thanks for engaging but this is not something I care to debate.
You know it's real and I know it's not so lets leave it at that

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

I can only guess he/she is referring to caffeine ?
I see another poster pointed out sugar..good catch.

a reply to: shawmanfromny Sessions is too elderly for his position at the DOJ- He sounds like a man with a paper asshole and needs to be put out to pasture.Sad to see some one in his position so ignorant of the facts about weed. Trump needs to dump this toad and find a younger more aggressive AJ that will support the President and go after Comey,the clintons and Barry O for their treasonous actions not the same old tired war on weed.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
I strongly feel the discussion should focus on the overarcing notion; Does making something illegal solve a given problem?"

What's amazing is that we conducted a country wide study of this very question back in the 1930's, found out that the answer was "no, you can't" then three years after ending that "study" we made pot illegal.

a reply to: TinySickTears

I can never leave well enough alone, eh?

I honestly thought you were talking about a seemingly "newer" definition of contact high, where the person somehow gets "high" simply by being near someone who has consumed elsewhere. I do believe in such a case there can be some psychological mimicry, which is fascinating, but strictly physiological causes are unlikely.

The lungs do not absorb all active components in the smoke instantaneously or with absolute efficacy. So, when it is exhaled it is still quantifiably active, albeit at much lower concentrations. It's exactly the same mechanism that enables inebriation in the first place, and roughly similar to how water can be used in the process (in our lungs, surface tension in the air-water interface is different, among other things). Its also why holding it in increases the amount absorbed, even though the lion's share occurs pretty quickly.

Personally, I prefer exploring what I think I know through everything from scientific inquiry to input from others. Hard for a tiger to change its stripes. I certainly don't expect you, or anyone, to share that approach but I would actually appreciate it if you would share your reasoning or point out where my own is flawed. Its that very type of discussion that I feel is imperative to moving forward on this topic, and many others.

a reply to: Serdgiam

To be honest, in order to get the kind of quantity of exposure to get high from exhaled pot smoke you need it to be directly shotgunned into your mouth.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Funny, isn't it?

It was made abundantly clear that even if one was morally opposed to alcohol, about the worst "solution" possible is to make it illegal.

There are just more dynamics in play than determining legality by whether or not there is moral approval. Schadenfreude (punish the wrongdoers!) seems to be more important than whether or not a particular problem is addressed.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Schadenfreude (punish the wrongdoers!) seems to be more important than whether or not a particular problem is addressed.

This a thousand times. Our entire criminal justice system is plagued with this problem. Even the violent crime problem could be solved or made easier if we stopped focusing on punishing people as opposed to helping them improve their lives so they don't HAVE to be criminals. Not that would fix everything, but the "punish the wrongdoers" mentality is really old hat and needs updating.