Legalizing THC (DJ Hall thread)

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
Yesterday I posted a comment on the DJ Hall arrest thread. I promised in that thread not to get into a long drawn out political discussion on it. It was about what happened with DJ, and not about my experiences or what I believed the laws should be. I do not feel so encumbered here.

What I have to say is admittedly anecdotal, but I see no other conclusions that I could draw based on what I have experienced. For many years of my life I was a flower child born a decade too late. I believed much as those who still do that tetrahydrocannabinal (THC) in whatever form was harmless. Many if not most of my friends used. In fact three of my closest friends during that time period seriously considered changing all of their names to Herb.

Two of these guys are the ones I spoke of in the post. They were serious about only one thing growing, perfecting and using marijuana. One afternoon at a party they were on the balcony getting high. No one really knows why he did it but one of them got up on top of the railing, and the other was following. When one fell the other tried to catch him and both of them fell to their deaths. The last time I saw the third “Herb brother” he was strung out to the point that he was almost unrecognizable.

This was the first of literally hundreds of episodes that color my thinking on this. I have seen practically every possible example of what even tinkering in this life can do to a person.

You cannot tell someone that THC is not a stepping stone drug who has seen it be one. When someone tells you that “Mary Jane is not doing it for me anymore, Crystal is taking care of me now.” There is no other conclusion.

You cannot tell someone who has experienced a friend die as a direct result that it is harmless.

You cannot tell someone who has seen people willingly give up everything they care about or own for a dime bag that it is not too addictive.

To those that use the argument that it is no worse than alcoholic beverages, this has not been my experience. No one I know who took the step from heavy alcohol use to heavy drug use has made it out of that world. Most of those that took the step from light alcohol use to light drug use at some point ended up much heavier drug users. In my experience drug use including marijuana/cannabis simply grabbed them too hard. Being immersed in that world, I have known many people before they tried it, and can say with certainty that continual use changed every one of them in a negative way. At some point in their lives the access to use this stuff reigns supreme.

Depending on your belief system, I was either lucky or blessed. I never touched it. My preferred drug was alcohol. In my position in the Navy I had too much to lose, and was randomly tested too often, to even try it. For a while I blamed myself for my friend’s deaths. The reason they went on the balcony to break out the bong was so I didn’t get exposed. I do believe alcohol use can be every bit as dangerous, and have had to break an addiction to it myself. It was very difficult for me to do so. I cannot imagine how difficult it is to break a stronger one.

Whether or not you chose to agree with, listen to, or even believe anything I have said, and still believe marijuana should be legalized, be careful what you hope for. The only reason our government or municipalities would allow it would be to regulate and tax it. If you believe that this will take away crime, I think you are not thinking it through. If it is made legal it will be sin taxed heavier than alcohol and tobacco. While there will be availability at a high price for those who wish to use and be law abiding, black markets will remain in place of the current ones. I believe all that you thought would be corrected will be worse.

I am not one of those people who go around as an activist trying to change laws and browbeating people. I agree that legislating morality is often a futile exercise. My belief is that while it is admittedly unfair at times (what isn’t?), the current system about the best we can do. For the most part light use is not prosecuted, only events that are influenced by heavy use and intent to distribute. If you insist on getting or even growing some for your personal use I doubt anyone will stop you, while I disagree you make your own choices and live with them. If you are careful you will probably get away with it.
However, if you try to sell it, if you try to give it away, even if you try to convince others to use it, I cannot help but have a big problem with you, and I will continue to fight against it fair or not.

Sorry for the length of this. I actually cut it down quite a bit.
 
Last edited:

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,733
2,659
182
52
Birmingham, AL
You appear to associate with weak-minded people with addictive personalities.
I know plenty of people who smoke pot and lead productive lives without it taking control of them.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
68,649
84,213
462
crimsonaudio.net
I guess the libertarian in me will always come back to this - if what someone does doesn't impinge on another's rights or liberty, it should be legal.
 

bayoutider

Administrator Emeritus & Chef-in-Chief
Oct 13, 1999
29,707
27
0
Tidefans.com
I have countless friends and associates who have smoked pot and to be honest I would rather work with someone who has smoked a joint than someone who was drunk there is no comparison between the two. The drunk is sloppy, unfocused and has impaired mobility while the person who is high still has control they are just slower. I think the government is missing out on some serious tax revenue if they made it legal.
 

BFANLC

Suspended
Nov 25, 2005
3,077
0
0
54
In a dream world
I have countless friends and associates who have smoked pot and to be honest I would rather work with someone who has smoked a joint than someone who was drunk there is no comparison between the two. The drunk is sloppy, unfocused and has impaired mobility while the person who is high still has control they are just slower. I think the government is missing out on some serious tax revenue if they made it legal.
Id rather not work with either and shouldnt have to.No matter what any one here says, test show it impairs you,and over time destroys your brain cells. It is addictive and anything addictive cant be controlled correctly or without crime or without people being arrested.I have seen too many lives destroyed by it.
 

kyallie

FB Moderator
Staff member
I guess the libertarian in me will always come back to this - if what someone does doesn't impinge on another's rights or liberty, it should be legal.
I have countless friends and associates who have smoked pot and to be honest I would rather work with someone who has smoked a joint than someone who was drunk there is no comparison between the two. The drunk is sloppy, unfocused and has impaired mobility while the person who is high still has control they are just slower. I think the government is missing out on some serious tax revenue if they made it legal.

I agree with both the above. I no longer use pot, I stopped 10 years ago. I believe the gov't could save a lot of money by controlling the sale of drugs and taxing them, as alcohol is. It would stop drugs from crossing the border and solve other problems as well. It won't happen in this lifetime, maybe never.
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
You appear to associate with weak-minded people with addictive personalities.
I know plenty of people who smoke pot and lead productive lives without it taking control of them.
I would not call those people weak minded at all. Obviously everyone's experience is different. I too know some who I would say live productive lives, and if that was the only measure used to determine whether or not it has taken hold of them I would agree. The problem is that it does impair. It does affect, and in my experience inevitably has consequences.

I guess the libertarian in me will always come back to this - if what someone does doesn't impinge on another's rights or liberty, it should be legal.
Generally I agree. The problem is it does infringe on other people, whether it is associated health care, loss of life and property, theft to pay for the next purchase. When I lived in the San Diego area there were teenage girls prostituting themselves to pay for it in front of my home. Didn't bother me much back then. Now it is haunting.

I have countless friends and associates who have smoked pot and to be honest I would rather work with someone who has smoked a joint than someone who was drunk there is no comparison between the two. The drunk is sloppy, unfocused and has impaired mobility while the person who is high still has control they are just slower. I think the government is missing out on some serious tax revenue if they made it legal.
That is a measure of degrees. A single joint or a single drink. Someone stoned out of their mind or silly drunk.

I agree with both the above. I no longer use pot, I stopped 10 years ago. I believe the gov't could save a lot of money by controlling the sale of drugs and taxing them, as alcohol is. It would stop drugs from crossing the border and solve other problems as well. It won't happen in this lifetime, maybe never.
Yes the government is missing out on tax revenue. A source I have no problem missing out on. As I said in my post. I strongly suspect any benefit to this would be quickly eaten up by trying to control the black market that would spring up. I could very likely be wrong, but there is every reason not to think so. Also think about who you would be taxing.
 

twofbyc

Hall of Fame
Oct 14, 2009
12,222
3,377
187
I have countless friends and associates who have smoked pot and to be honest I would rather work with someone who has smoked a joint than someone who was drunk there is no comparison between the two. The drunk is sloppy, unfocused and has impaired mobility while the person who is high still has control they are just slower. I think the government is missing out on some serious tax revenue if they made it legal.
^^^^^This. And to the OP, I know many, many MANY peple who made it through what you speak of and came out the other side alive, and in most cases, relatively physically and mentally/emotionally unharmed (at least as far as is known).
So...my argument is that it would not lead to other drugs if they all weren't "illegal". Alcohol just leads to more alochol, and that is never, ever, under any circumstances a good thing, and most of the times it is dangerous.
 

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,733
2,659
182
52
Birmingham, AL
Yes the government is missing out on tax revenue. A source I have no problem missing out on. As I said in my post. I strongly suspect any benefit to this would be quickly eaten up by trying to control the black market that would spring up. I could very likely be wrong, but there is every reason not to think so. Also think about who you would be taxing.
A black market would not need to "spring up." It already exists and government is already spending a ridiculous amount of our money and filling prisons by trying to fight it.
 

twofbyc

Hall of Fame
Oct 14, 2009
12,222
3,377
187
A black market would not need to "spring up." It already exists and government is already spending a ridiculous amount of our money and filling prisons by trying to fight it.
I don't understand the reference to the "black market", either; what do you call what is going on everday, right now?
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
A black market would not need to "spring up." It already exists and government is already spending a ridiculous amount of our money and filling prisons by trying to fight it.
I don't understand the reference to the "black market", either; what do you call what is going on everday, right now?
This is valid point. My use of the term Black Market is not correct. I believed the term to be used just for trafficing in goods that were legal, but taxed at such a rate that a remaining underground economy is a certainty.

I do believe that if legalized this would occur. Crime would not change, the tax rate would be so high that we would be back the days of moonshiners and revenuers. Again I could be wrong, but believe there is strong evidence to the contrary.
 
Last edited:

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
^^^^^This. And to the OP, I know many, many MANY peple who made it through what you speak of and came out the other side alive, and in most cases, relatively physically and mentally/emotionally unharmed (at least as far as is known).
So...my argument is that it would not lead to other drugs if they all weren't "illegal". Alcohol just leads to more alochol, and that is never, ever, under any circumstances a good thing, and most of the times it is dangerous.
This is the usual conundrum. Everyone's experience including mine is anecdotal. Practically every study is done to prove a point instead of truly trying to find the truth of the matter.

I too know many that fit your "alive, and in most cases, relatively physically and mentally/emotionally unharmed" criteria, and do not believe this is inconsistent with what I wrote. I know very few that have used continually with no negative consequences.

You can refuse to believe me, I understand, I am just some poster on a message board.

You can believe me, but think my experience is slanted due to extreme cases. I will say that my sample size is not small either.

At one time for a law of this magnitude to be put in place in this country an amendment to the constitution would be necessary. In my opinion still should be. The problem is that those that want it legalized know that it would be too difficult to get passed and try to get around it.

What happens now is that I make my pleas and you make yours. Recently and usually my side has been winning out on the argument. That does not mean that people that hold your view go away. When and if your view starts winning out, you can be sure those that believe as I do will not go away.

 

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,733
2,659
182
52
Birmingham, AL
There is no need for an amendment for this type of policy. The policy is in federal law, and could be repealed or modified by Congress should there ever be a political will to do so. Paranoia about drugs is far too widespread, however. My elementary school teachers just about flipped when I wouldn't promise never to try drugs. So much for honesty.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
68,649
84,213
462
crimsonaudio.net
When you look at what the FedGov had to do to even create the anti-drug legislation, it should be obvious to even the casual observer that:
1- the laws are against the spirit of the US Constitution, and
2- the government is always trying to find ways around said Constitution...
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
When you look at what the FedGov had to do to even create the anti-drug legislation, it should be obvious to even the casual observer that:
1- the laws are against the spirit of the US Constitution, and
2- the government is always trying to find ways around said Constitution...
I would be very interested in how you make the case for point 1.

Point 2 cannot be disputed. I believe the interstate commerce clause has been particularly abused. This may be what you are talking about in point 1.
 
Last edited:

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
There is no need for an amendment for this type of policy. The policy is in federal law, and could be repealed or modified by Congress should there ever be a political will to do so. Paranoia about drugs is far too widespread, however. My elementary school teachers just about flipped when I wouldn't promise never to try drugs. So much for honesty.
I guess I can agree with you here. I am no lawyer, and definantly not a constitutional scholar. My comment was a reference to prohibition and it's repeal.

While I may admit that my fear of drugs, even the perscription ones extreme, I would not consider it irrational.

You may want to consider forgiving your elementary school teachers. The honesty was likely actually appreciated (if they thought you were not just trying to get a rise out of them, which is what I would have done if there were pledges like that in the 60's and 70's ;)), The reaction was likely based on caring about what could happen if you ever did.
 
Last edited:

disneybama

Suspended
Oct 7, 2010
1,738
0
0
American drug laws have destroyed millions of lives. It is a failed policy that has actually created more demand and use over time. It is time to try something else.
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
American drug laws have destroyed millions of lives. It is a failed policy that has actually created more demand and use over time. It is time to try something else.
This is a statement I keep hearing, without any substantiation, phrased in such a way to remove all personal responsibility, and without any advice as to what that something else should be.

How a drug law creates more demand is beyond me. If someone wants it they want it. If there is a law against it, there will be some that want it, but will be law abiding and not obtain and use it.

Those whose lives have been destroyed by drug laws for the most part broke them. Phrasing it the way you did ignores the personal responsibility.

Families whose lives have been destroyed by drug laws for the most part have had family members that broke the laws. At some point the family has to determine whether they are enabling that person and let them suffer the consequences.

The ones I feel for most are those living in areas that are caught in the middle of it. As I said before, I believe legalizing will only drive the legally attained product price up so high that the illegal market will remain. Those people will still be caught in the crossfire. I have never heard a remotely compelling argument that this would not be the case.

In our current legal environment I can see a repeat of all of the tobacco lawsuits suing companies that provide these now legal “recreational” drugs. This will drive the cost of the legally attainable ones up even further.

When you use the phrase try something else, you need to specify what, and really think through intended and unintended consequences of your advice.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
68,649
84,213
462
crimsonaudio.net
I would be very interested in how you make the case for point 1.
If you haven't, do some research to find out how they initially developed the modern 'drug laws' in the early 20th century - they knew it was unconstitutional to ban the drugs directly (primarily opium and its derivatives, at the time), so they side-stepped the Constitution by making it a taxable/licensable (read: controllable) substance.

Even today it's about not having the proper 'license'...
 

New Posts

Latest threads