Legalize it!

Not really, I believe he's saying that the government's message and the parent's message may or may not be the same. Ultimately the parent's are responsible for how a child grows up and how his/her regard for their society's laws are a direct reflection of his parent's guidance. The government can use fear tactics like "this is your brain on drugs" or whatever as their message for not doing drugs because they conclude that drug-use in general is directly related to more criminal behavior. Parent's can try different methods to show their child that putting unknown/unregulated chemicals in their body for the sake of personal/social gratification is typically not a good thing. Teaching your child to use good judgement is the parent's job as well as teaching them to respect society's laws.

I am not talking about the governments campain, even Schneed agreed that the government is sending mixed messages to our youth. I am backing up a point made orignally by RobH
Originally Posted by RobH4413 http://www.thewarpath.net/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-warpath-parking-lot/17774-legalize-post296118.html#post296118)
I think society sends an inconsistent message by profiting off of town drunks day in and day out, yet adamantly opposing marijuana legalization
(especially medicinally).

What exactly are we saying to the youth?

"It's wrong to smoke marijuana, even in moderation, but if you want to go down to the bar and have at it... knock yourself out."

That's damn confusing growing up, and probably why many lose faith in a lot of the reasoning the government uses.


Scheed agrees with Rob, but he thinks that parents are the final person responsible for teaching kids and the government is sending wrong and mixed signals by saying being drunk is ok. Yet at the same time he earlier said that we have to tell our kids to follow the laws of the land(he said that to TMC I think).

Basically he is acknowledging the government sends mixed messages to kids, and he doesnt give a damn about what they think. Yet he thinks we should affirm these mixed signals and laws of the land because we are obligated as parents.

I think that is a problem in his argument.

I am not talking about the governments campain, even Schneed agreed that the government is sending mixed messages to our youth. I am backing up a point made orignally by RobH
Originally Posted by RobH4413 http://www.thewarpath.net/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-warpath-parking-lot/17774-legalize-post296118.html#post296118)

"It's wrong to smoke marijuana, even in moderation, but if you want to go down to the bar and have at it... knock yourself out."

I could be wrong but I think you can be arrested by being publicly intoxicated even inside an establishment that serves alcohol. Cops aren't normally going to because on most occasions people don't cause trouble when they're drunk (or stoned for that matter). So if weed is legalized and you can go to a bar and smoke up it will still probably be illegal for you to exhibit behavior that directly shows that you are under the influence of a substance.

Here is the thing guys.weed isnt actually illegal.It is only against the law to posses it without a government tax stamp that ,surprise surprise they dont give out.They did this in the fifties as a way to deter all the mexican immagrents from crossing the border.

I also feel that it is only a matter of time before The government makes the realization that they are spending millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars on trying to get rid of something that people want and will get no matter what.Think about how much money the gov would make if they stopped spending money on pot and started taxing it.

I myself smoke it and have had no negetive effects from it.I also can personally atest for its abilaty to get rid of stomach pains.I have been living with a very painful stomach condition and there is no perscription med that can even come close to the speed and effectivness of pot.

as for the legality of smoking it ,I say let the first person who has never gotten behind the wheel of a car after just two drinks be the first to cast a stone.

That's interesting about the tax stamp. I never knew that. I'm sure the primary reason why marijuana is illegal has nothing to do with the government's assertion that it is harmful but rather more to do with profitting from its sale and use.

I want some BBQ without beer or weed. Hurry up and open a joint in NOVA =p

Soon my son....soon.

That's interesting about the tax stamp. I never knew that. I'm sure the primary reason why marijuana is illegal has nothing to do with the government's assertion that it is harmful but rather more to do with profitting from its sale and use.
As with most things in this country...

Unfortunately I had to be away from the computer from 5:15 until now, and was disengaged from the conversation, and now there are way too many points to counter. But I'll address a couple:

If you guys want to argue with me on economics, you're probably better off arguing with me on salary cap issues. Yes, weed can be grown in any moderate climate. Yes, it can be grown in a garage. But it can be grown much more cheaply in South America, where there is already infrastructure set up with vast fields used to grow the stuff. Here in the states we would require capital investment to clear fields, irrigate, plant, grow, and harvest. That requires money. We could use fields that we're already using for tobacco or any other crop, but the net effect on our GDP would be zero, as any revenues generated by the weed fields would be offset by the corresponding loss in revenues in tobacco.

The guy using hydrophonic lamps is using electricity to produce the pot, which isn't nearly as cost-effective as letting the sun shine on it. His cost per unit is much higher than South America's. But from an economic standpoint, I'm not interested in talking about the guys who would grow it in their garage, collectively they wouldn't produce enough weed to make a dent in the nation's demand. If weed became legalized, big business would take over and produce it in mass quantities. South America already has fields, equipment, irrigation, and the process set up to grow and produce the stuff at a marginal cost that is much lower than we could here in the US. One big reason: land in the US is much more expensive than in south America. We could generate pot here in the states for sure, but once Phillip Morris realizes that South America has them beat on labor costs (Columbians will work for 25 cents an hour), the cost of land, and the capital investments required, Phillip Morris will quickly decide not to push forward with a major pot-growing initiative. The nation will still end up importing most of it's pot, and as I said before, the trade deficit broadens, and the dollar weakens.

I don't care if you "buy it" or not, that's what would happen. Go find your friendly neighborhood economics professor and ask him. I know we have several guys around here with MBAs besides me, go ahead, do a SWOT analysis on the American pot industry assuming it were legal. There are too many barriers to entry to compete in a global market.

Secondly, Matty, I've seen recent information saying weed is being found with crystal meth scattered throughout. Crystal meth is made so cheaply (like out of Sudafed), dealers don't mind using it to lace. I'll try to find links because I know this statement is worthless without supporting documentation.

As for my problems with the healthcare system, and I have many given that I work for a chain of hospitals and see the whole gory picture, yeah there's something wrong with a family of 6 paying the same insurance premium as a family of 3. There are more people to cover, you should pay more if you're covering more people. Secondly, a non-smoker shouldn't have to pay as much as a smoker. Life insurance costs more if you smoke, why not the same for health insurance? Smokers are a bigger drain on the healthcare system's financial resources, why should I (a non smoker) get the same rates as him, thereby helping to bear the burden that people like him are causing?

All the sudden you dont give a damn about what the government says, yet earlier you said it is a "parents responsibility to make sure your children ahead to the laws of this land". So you dont give a crap about the law and its messages yet you expect parents to teach it blindly otherwise that is wrong??

That seems to be a huge contradiction in your argument.

To clarify, whatever the government's rules are, the parents should uphold them. We can get into the debate of what the rules should be, but once the laws are made, they must be upheld.

In other words, whatever message the government is trying to send through the creation of it's laws, I couldn't care less. I care about what the law is, and making sure my children understand that you have to heed the law, no matter how fervently you disagree with it.

If you legalize it, how do you check an individual to see that they are within the legal limits of consumption? With alcohol, a breathalizer can determine if you're too drunk to drive. Is there any field equipment that is used to determine how high on pot you are? If not, then it shouldn't be legalized. There are enough adults and older teenage kids out there that have no concept of restrained use .

One can only fear a world infested with teenagers doing 40 on the highway while paranoid that nearby truckers are plotting something with those CB's.

Not really, I believe he's saying that the government's message and the parent's message may or may not be the same. Ultimately the parent's are responsible for how a child grows up and how his/her regard for their society's laws are a direct reflection of his parent's guidance. The government can use fear tactics like "this is your brain on drugs" or whatever as their message for not doing drugs because they conclude that drug-use in general is directly related to more criminal behavior. Parent's can try different methods to show their child that putting unknown/unregulated chemicals in their body for the sake of personal/social gratification is typically not a good thing. Teaching your child to use good judgement is the parent's job as well as teaching them to respect society's laws.

Thank you, I should have read this post before I responded to Hooskins, because this says it better than I could have (thanks for returning the favor).

Arguing against a law that's in place and actually breaking that law are completely different things. When my daughter is older, I welcome her to engage me in a thoughtful debate on what the law should be on this subject. Then when she leaves the house, I expect her to heed what the law is. There's a big difference between "should be" and "is".

Yeah, sometimes the government is hypocritical and sends mixed messages. Tobacco is legal, pot isn't. Doesn't make sense. But if you get busted for dealing marijuana, what are you going to do, yell at the judge and tell him he's a hypocrite? That'll surely get you somewhere.

That's ultimately the parent's role. To draw the line between thoughtful discussion and debate based on your moral principles versus taking illegal action based on your moral principles.