Remember, even if you find it

I said as much earlier: http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=367532 and in olden-days: http://forum.iwethey....iwt?postid=98059

Of course, nothing in life is risk-free. Medical treatments, and even food, has risks. (There are toxins in mustard and beer.)

You didn't say "harmless", but other advocates have. https://www.google.c...&client=firefox-a

My points in all of this is that:

0) The human body is complicated. We don't really understand it. What seems "harmless" now may easily turn out to be otherwise. I'm suspicious of any categorical statements. (Including that one. ;-)

1) Yes, in general, bad and dangerous behavior should be punished rather than yes/no or 0.07%/0.08% BAC arbitrary limits for substances in the blood (that can get there other ways). But we know that it is human nature that those in power will apply power arbitrarily if they choose to do so. Some objective standards are necessary to protect against arbitrary incarceration. What's the balance?

2) The conventional wisdom is that too many people are in prison for small amounts of pot. Is that true? I dunno. Maybe they pleaded guilty to that, as it was easy to prove, rather than going to trial and risking conviction for something more serious (but more difficult to prove). I dunno.

In either case, something seems to be very wrong with the laws and how they are applied. Pot is not the same as heroin and should not be treated as such. Laws against "possession with intent to distribute" should not be used as an easy cudgel to throw people in jail if they should reasonably be charged with something more serious.

People should not have their chance at a professional career ruined by experimentation while they are young (as long as they do not hurt others).

3) There are "true believers" on both sides who have a strong case, but I'm not convinced they are right. Life is full of shades of gray.

MM has posted links about studies of what's in the smoke (thanks Mike!).

We've all seen horror stories about people who get caught up in overboard drug-prosecutions.

We know the history of the Opium Wars and earlier in China.

We know the horrors of what's going on now in Mexico, Columbia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

There has to be a better way.

4) In the US, decriminalization may be the way to go. Full legalization for adults in the US may be the way to go. I dunno. There are lots of details that need to be worked out either way. Purity and potency standards (Y/N)? Government stores (Y/N)? Wouldn't that encourage increased consumption to increase revenue (rather like lotteries)? Commercial farms (Y/N)? Exclusivity (Y/N)? Home grown (Y/N)? Tax a lot (encourage tax avoidance) or a little (make it easier to get physically or psychologically addicted)? Public consumption (Y/N)? "Coffee shop" consumption (Y/N)? "Private club" consumption (Y/N)? Car interlocks for stoners who cause accidents (Y/N)? Advertizing allowed (Y/N)? Offseting warnings about the dangers (Y/N)? Etc., etc.

Simply throwing up our hands and letting "the magic of the marketplace" sort it all out is a recipe for disaster.

Clearer now?

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #367,727 by crazy 12/12/12 8:14:48 AM Reply	Remember, even if you find it it doesn't matter. Many alternative input methods, that will be determined by your answering what your goals are. So what are your goals? Prescribed or legal?
Post #367,755 by Another Scott 12/12/12 12:51:45 PM Reply	My goals: Rational, sensible policy. I said as much earlier: http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=367532 and in olden-days: http://forum.iwethey....iwt?postid=98059 Of course, nothing in life is risk-free. Medical treatments, and even food, has risks. (There are toxins in mustard and beer.) You didn't say "harmless", but other advocates have. https://www.google.c...&client=firefox-a My points in all of this is that: 0) The human body is complicated. We don't really understand it. What seems "harmless" now may easily turn out to be otherwise. I'm suspicious of any categorical statements. (Including that one. ;-) 1) Yes, in general, bad and dangerous behavior should be punished rather than yes/no or 0.07%/0.08% BAC arbitrary limits for substances in the blood (that can get there other ways). But we know that it is human nature that those in power will apply power arbitrarily if they choose to do so. Some objective standards are necessary to protect against arbitrary incarceration. What's the balance? 2) The conventional wisdom is that too many people are in prison for small amounts of pot. Is that true? I dunno. Maybe they pleaded guilty to that, as it was easy to prove, rather than going to trial and risking conviction for something more serious (but more difficult to prove). I dunno. In either case, something seems to be very wrong with the laws and how they are applied. Pot is not the same as heroin and should not be treated as such. Laws against "possession with intent to distribute" should not be used as an easy cudgel to throw people in jail if they should reasonably be charged with something more serious. People should not have their chance at a professional career ruined by experimentation while they are young (as long as they do not hurt others). 3) There are "true believers" on both sides who have a strong case, but I'm not convinced they are right. Life is full of shades of gray. MM has posted links about studies of what's in the smoke (thanks Mike!). We've all seen horror stories about people who get caught up in overboard drug-prosecutions. We know the history of the Opium Wars and earlier in China. We know the horrors of what's going on now in Mexico, Columbia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. There has to be a better way. 4) In the US, decriminalization may be the way to go. Full legalization for adults in the US may be the way to go. I dunno. There are lots of details that need to be worked out either way. Purity and potency standards (Y/N)? Government stores (Y/N)? Wouldn't that encourage increased consumption to increase revenue (rather like lotteries)? Commercial farms (Y/N)? Exclusivity (Y/N)? Home grown (Y/N)? Tax a lot (encourage tax avoidance) or a little (make it easier to get physically or psychologically addicted)? Public consumption (Y/N)? "Coffee shop" consumption (Y/N)? "Private club" consumption (Y/N)? Car interlocks for stoners who cause accidents (Y/N)? Advertizing allowed (Y/N)? Offseting warnings about the dangers (Y/N)? Etc., etc. Simply throwing up our hands and letting "the magic of the marketplace" sort it all out is a recipe for disaster. Clearer now? HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,759 by drook 12/12/12 1:15:53 PM Reply	Seems the right time for this one http://steve-yegge.b...ed-marijuana.html Long, but worth it. See the second set of bullet points in particular. -- Drew
Post #367,764 by Another Scott 12/12/12 2:13:52 PM Reply	Excellent. Thanks. One of my favorite songs by JT: http://www.youtube.c...tch?v=bRrWdvtLqro (9:34) - SFW but use headphones. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,767 by folkert 12/12/12 3:39:30 PM Reply	Seen that one before... Its pretty damn poignant! -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C

Welcome to IWETHEY!