Huge pot bust in Northern Calif national forest

[vta]

Yes, Mr. Statistician, that is correct. Since society deems it acceptable to go out and drink, accidents involving alcohol will rise. That's also, what do they call it, common sense?

Arguing that alcohol isn't the pimary factor in the majority of these accidents is just silly though. And for you to think that weed is near as dangerous, not only medically, but in impairment of judgment makes me believe you're shilling me right now. The dangers of both are well documented in research and through millions of firsthand user accounts. The stats don't lie.

I never said alcohol isn't a primary factor, I'm stating the logic that because it's more prevalent on a scale of use, the comparison is inadequate. Neither did I compare the health effects of either.

As for health effects, who's missing the major contradiction/hypocrisy on display in this debate?

Cigarettes are to be dissuaded to the point of penalizing users through taxation. One excuse is to alleviate health care costs, yet let's introduce another carcinogen into the main stream and expect what?

 

[Hoofbite]

Because it's easier to sneak into school? I thought you were referring to guns with that. Be that as it may, that doesn't mean it's more accessible than alcohol. It's clearly not.

Then we differ in opinion.

I think weed is just as accessible to those who use it as alcohol is to those who drink.

 

[Hoofbite]

I never said alcohol isn't a primary factor, I'm stating the logic that because it's more prevalent on a scale of use, the comparison is inadequate. Neither did I compare the health effects of either.

As for health effects, who's missing the major contradiction/hypocrisy on display in this debate?

Cigarettes are to be dissuaded to the point of penalizing users through taxation. One excuse is to alleviate health care costs, yet let's introduce another carcinogen into the main stream and expect what?

Again, these are not issues you can lump together.

 

[gmoney112]

I never said alcohol isn't a primary factor, I'm stating the logic that because it's more prevalent on a scale of use, the comparison is inadequate. Neither did I compare the health effects of either.

As for health effects, who's missing the major contradiction/hypocrisy on display in this debate?

Cigarettes are to be dissuaded to the point of penalizing users through taxation. One excuse is to alleviate health care costs, yet let's introduce another carcinogen into the main stream and expect what?

Your scope is very narrow.

You need to take it off 16x and put it back on 4x.

We were discussing the entire aspect of legalization. Your basic point is that people will smoke pot if it's legal. Well, you're right I guess. They're going to smoke pot if it isn't legal so what difference does it make?

Cigarettes have been proven through time and time again to be cancer breeders. Marijuana, not so much.

If we were serious about alleviating healthcare costs we'd legalize weed, tax it and divert the tax dollars from prosecuting it to our healthcare system.

Anyone who wants to smoke pot can get pot. Legalizing it or not it doesn't make a difference.

 

[Vtwin]

You may get one you’re not going to get both. Any chance of making it legal will in large part come about because of the revenue they can get off of it.

Now let me ask should all drugs be decriminalized?

I'll answer yours when you answer mine.

Can we agree that the massive amount of resources currently spent on the war on drugs is having an insignificant effect on the availabilty of drugs and only makes them more expensive?

 

[Vtwin]

Well I'd have to question whether or not you're entirely clear on what accessibility and prevalence are. There exists advertising for beer ad-nauseum because of what? Because alcohol use is at an all time low? No, because people consume it like food. It's taxed like a ***** because it's so unpopular that it doesn't matter if the few are punished? No, because it's so highly consumed and integrated it's an enormous money maker for the government. Casual drinking is a part of our culture. That's an unavoidable fact.

The question as it stands is unanswerable on levels ranging from: I'm in no position to know to it's unrealistic without further details. 1. the conditions of each gathering 2. the social make up of the people involved.

Put it another way: how many weddings (i.e. 100+ people together with an open bar) have you been to? I've been to plenty and never witnessed a fight at one. Put that against a concert, (i.e. 100+ people with weed all over). Surely you're not going to ignore some of that mess if you've ever been to a concert

Your argument is based on advertising? I'm talking real world here. I personally know more people who have a couple hits after work than a couple beers. I know through the youngsters in my life that most of them smoke far more than they drink. Casual smoking is just as much a part of our culture as casual drinking. You just don't see it advertised because it is illegal. Just like alcohol once was.

My question is unanswerable in your terms only because you make it so. Of course I wouldn't include a wedding in that scenario (although it wouldn't take long to find more than one youtube video of weddings gone awry ) because not everyone is there to drink and it's a formal family gathering.

I've been to hundreds of concerts. Only problems I've ever seen involved alcohol or someone who od'd on something other than pot. I know two people who quit drinking entirely just becasue it turned them into a-holes and they were always in trouble. If you've spent any time at all around drinkers and smokers surely you know that alcohol can most certainly flip a switch in an other wise stable person. The term "mean drunk" didn't come from nothing. Never heard of a mean stoner.

Why do some stadiums stop selling alcohol after a certain point? Have you ever been to a pro sporting event in a city like Philly or Boston?

 

[zrinkill]

I would have to agree that weed is easier for a teenager to get than alcohol.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Dude, you need to comprehend what I'm saying, which is: Comparing weed to alcohol is not a fitting comparison.

Alcohol is far more prevalent, due to availablity. Far more acceptable and usable in a wider range of social conditions. You can approach a cop and ask for directions with an unopened bottle of liquor. Drive with a sealed bottle and bagged six pack of unopened beers. You can access liquor for dinner, for parties, for whatever you wish, therefore the rate of incidents in relation to it are far greater.

Alcohol isn't inherently more dangerous as was wrongly stated above, it's just easier for anyone to get. It's in the house, it's at dinner, it's at work during happy hour. So there ups the chances of drunk driving, impaired judgment in acting like an *** etc.

Weed has never been as widely accepted, socially or casually, therefore the negative incidents aren't as prevalent. Not to mention in cases where it is a factor, the fact that it's illegal will keep someone from reporting an incident. Having to hide your use of a thing restricts the when, where and how of your use and the odds of something happening.

Hence the idea that comparing it to alcohol is not a fitting comparison.

This trying to restrict this to what kids do is not the whole picture and I'm not really sure why anyone is ignoring the broader picture for this corner of the whole.

VTA, I usually agree with you. But you're view seems a bit misguided. Alcohol kills more people and is more dangerous than guns.

Around 35%-45% of Americans regularly smoke, too. So I'd say it's about the same as alcohol. I never drink. My friends now don't either. But they have jobs, work out and so drinking doesn't really fit in for them. Some that did drink, 2 in fact, were dead before 30 as drinking was the cause in both. And we all hunted as kids too.

Just sayin'.

Availability is about the same as are breaking laws with alcohol or pot.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Your argument is based on advertising? I'm talking real world here. I personally know more people who have a couple hits after work than a couple beers. I know through the youngsters in my life that most of them smoke far more than they drink. Casual smoking is just as much a part of our culture as casual drinking. You just don't see it advertised because it is illegal. Just like alcohol once was.

My question is unanswerable in your terms only because you make it so. Of course I wouldn't include a wedding in that scenario (although it wouldn't take long to find more than one youtube video of weddings gone awry ) because not everyone is there to drink and it's a formal family gathering.

I've been to hundreds of concerts. Only problems I've ever seen involved alcohol or someone who od'd on something other than pot. I know two people who quit drinking entirely just becasue it turned them into a-holes and they were always in trouble. If you've spent any time at all around drinkers and smokers surely you know that alcohol can most certainly flip a switch in an other wise stable person. The term "mean drunk" didn't come from nothing. Never heard of a mean stoner.

Why do some stadiums stop selling alcohol after a certain point? Have you ever been to a pro sporting event in a city like Philly or Boston?

Good post.

 

[vta]

Your argument is based on advertising? I'm talking real world here. I personally know more people who have a couple hits after work than a couple beers. I know through the youngsters in my life that most of them smoke far more than they drink. Casual smoking is just as much a part of our culture as casual drinking. You just don't see it advertised because it is illegal. Just like alcohol once was.

My question is unanswerable in your terms only because you make it so. Of course I wouldn't include a wedding in that scenario (although it wouldn't take long to find more than one youtube video of weddings gone awry ) because not everyone is there to drink and it's a formal family gathering.

I've been to hundreds of concerts. Only problems I've ever seen involved alcohol or someone who od'd on something other than pot. I know two people who quit drinking entirely just becasue it turned them into a-holes and they were always in trouble. If you've spent any time at all around drinkers and smokers surely you know that alcohol can most certainly flip a switch in an other wise stable person. The term "mean drunk" didn't come from nothing. Never heard of a mean stoner.

Why do some stadiums stop selling alcohol after a certain point? Have you ever been to a pro sporting event in a city like Philly or Boston?

No, it's based on the unavoidable influence advertising has in the real world. Advertising is real world and is not separable at this point. It's why advertising is so successful and the profits humongous: it just works.

The question is vague and doesn't consider conditions. We can cite seamy bars and crappy football stadiums that have to include demographics of the city, but what are the identifiable correlations between the 'Linc' and The Sands or The Borgata in AC, where 100+ people are drinking and watching a show Or a Dead or Phish concert where the prevailing opiate is weed and there is no shortage of fights?

It's fine to cite personal experience, but who's personal experience is more valid? In my life, my dealings with drug users has varied greatly. Will my experiences hold water in an objective discussion?

VTA, I usually agree with you. But you're view seems a bit misguided. Alcohol kills more people and is more dangerous than guns.

Around 35%-45% of Americans regularly smoke, too. So I'd say it's about the same as alcohol. I never drink. My friends now don't either. But they have jobs, work out and so drinking doesn't really fit in for them. Some that did drink, 2 in fact, were dead before 30 as drinking was the cause in both. And we all hunted as kids too.

Just sayin'.

Availability is about the same as are breaking laws with alcohol or pot.

One is made to propel compressed metals at high rates of speed to cause destruction to whatever it hits. The other is water, grain, barley, grapes. You can't fondle a gun at the dinner table, nor wave one around at a dinner party. Why?

Alcohol only kills more because it is easier to access and attain as well as a broader social acceptance of it. There aren't unregulated or unlicensed gun parties, happy hour shoot-offs or casual shooters with dinner.

Comparing alcohol to guns is even worse.

And where are you getting those numbers?

 

[Doomsday101]

I'll answer yours when you answer mine.

I'm sorry, was not trying to avoid it.

Can we agree that the massive amount of resources currently spent on the war on drugs is having an insignificant effect on the availabilty of drugs and only makes them more expensive?


Can we agree that the massive amount of resources currently spent on the war on drugs is having an insignificant effect on the availabilty of drugs.

I agree I think truthful education on the down fall of drug use is more likely to succeed than the war on drugs.

War on drugs? Only makes them more expensive? Somewhat but again it would be taxed at such a high rate that the cost would very likely increase. Example the price for medical Marijuana is sold in small quantity for a much higher price than you could buy illegally.


So now tell me would you decriminalize all drugs?

 

[vta]

Comparing alcohol to guns is even worse.

But I should clarify that I know that the abuse of alcohol is worse than the misuse of guns.

 

[Dallas]

But I should clarify that I know that the abuse of alcohol is worse than the misuse of guns.

Huhhu...DUDE....that's so true... wait what?

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

No, it's based on the unavoidable influence advertising has in the real world. Advertising is real world and is not separable at this point. It's why advertising is so successful and the profits humongous: it just works.

The question is vague and doesn't consider conditions. We can cite seamy bars and crappy football stadiums that have to include demographics of the city, but what are the identifiable correlations between the 'Linc' and The Sands or The Borgata in AC, where 100+ people are drinking and watching a show Or a Dead or Phish concert where the prevailing opiate is weed and there is no shortage of fights?

It's fine to cite personal experience, but who's personal experience is more valid? In my life, my dealings with drug users has varied greatly. Will my experiences hold water in an objective discussion?



One is made to propel compressed metals at high rates of speed to cause destruction to whatever it hits. The other is water, grain, barley, grapes. You can't fondle a gun at the dinner table, nor wave one around at a dinner party. Why?

Alcohol only kills more because it is easier to access and attain as well as a broader social acceptance of it. There aren't unregulated or unlicensed gun parties, happy hour shoot-offs or casual shooters with dinner.

Comparing alcohol to guns is even worse.

And where are you getting those numbers?

Mixing alcohol and guns is worse. The numbers for cigarettes was in the 400,000 per year range in the states from some site I snatched off a study. But MILLIONS worldwide.

Alcohol, I just know for a fact more people are killed from alcohol related diseases and accidents than guns specifically, but a lot of times guns and alcohol don't make a good mix.

Anyway, I get the comparison isn't apples to apples... but that doesn't mean a point can't still be had from making the comparison.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Huhhu...DUDE....that's so true... wait what?

Typical uniformed bigotry.

 

[vta]

Shut yer trap, you're losing brain cells.

Huhhu...DUDE....that's so true... wait what?

 

[Vtwin]

No, it's based on the unavoidable influence advertising has in the real world. Advertising is real world and is not separable at this point. It's why advertising is so successful and the profits humongous: it just works.

The question is vague and doesn't consider conditions. We can cite seamy bars and crappy football stadiums that have to include demographics of the city, but what are the identifiable correlations between the 'Linc' and The Sands or The Borgata in AC, where 100+ people are drinking and watching a show Or a Dead or Phish concert where the prevailing opiate is weed and there is no shortage of fights?

It's fine to cite personal experience, but who's personal experience is more valid? In my life, my dealings with drug users has varied greatly. Will my experiences hold water in an objective discussion?

The common denominator in your comparisons is still alcohol. Sure the crowd at the Linc might be more inclined to get into trouble than the crowd having a couple glasses of wine before they see the play on Broadway but that is not the point. If you take alcohol completely out of the picture does the Linc still have a judge on premises? I've never been to a Phish show but I have seen the Dead a half dozen times. Have you? I only ask because I find it rare to see fight at any concert and even more so at a Dead show.

I obviously can't put as much stock in your experiences as I can in mine. Just as the reverse is true I'm sure. I can only form my thoughts based on my personal experience. I live in the same area I grew up in. I've seen people I know die from alcoholism and from accidents that happened while under the influence. I've never known anyone who just smoked a little weed have the same problems that the drinkers do.

 

[Vtwin]

I'm sorry, was not trying to avoid it.

Can we agree that the massive amount of resources currently spent on the war on drugs is having an insignificant effect on the availabilty of drugs and only makes them more expensive?


Can we agree that the massive amount of resources currently spent on the war on drugs is having an insignificant effect on the availabilty of drugs.

I agree I think truthful education on the down fall of drug use is more likely to succeed than the war on drugs.

War on drugs? Only makes them more expensive? Somewhat but again it would be taxed at such a high rate that the cost would very likely increase. Example the price for medical Marijuana is sold in small quantity for a much higher price than you could buy illegally.


So now tell me would you decriminalize all drugs?

The price per qty might not change but the massive drain of resources would be gone. I also don't believe the price would remain as high as it is. The stuff is easy to grow.


Decriminalize all drugs.....

That my friend is a good question. Part of me sees the futility of trying to keep people from having what they really want to have. "Governments" exist because of man's desire for drugs. Trillions of dollars are made by the planet's worst scumbags by feeding the desire to get high. No matter what any authority tires to do to stop it it will never be stopped. That part of me says why fight and unwinnable fight.

Another part of me has seen the devastation that can come from going to far down that road. There but by the grace go I.... That part of me seperates the relatively harmless drugs like alcohol and weed from the stuff that can twist your mind up and leave you broken. That part of me doesn't want my young family and friends to have too easy of a time getting a chance to try that stuff.

My folks never talked about drugs. Nancy Reagan was there to tell me to just say no. We all laughed at her. I make it a point to be completely honest and open with the youngsters in my life. The good the bad and the ugly. No matter what the laws say they will be exposed to it all. I hope they make the right choices.


I guess that is the long winded way of saying, I don't know to answer your question.

 

[vta]

The common denominator in your comparisons is still alcohol. Sure the crowd at the Linc might be more inclined to get into trouble than the crowd having a couple glasses of wine before they see the play on Broadway but that is not the point. If you take alcohol completely out of the picture does the Linc still have a judge on premises? I've never been to a Phish show but I have seen the Dead a half dozen times. Have you? I only ask because I find it rare to see fight at any concert and even more so at a Dead show.

I obviously can't put as much stock in your experiences as I can in mine. Just as the reverse is true I'm sure. I can only form my thoughts based on my personal experience. I live in the same area I grew up in. I've seen people I know die from alcoholism and from accidents that happened while under the influence. I've never known anyone who just smoked a little weed have the same problems that the drinkers do.

Phish yes, the Dead no. I just ignorantly lumped them together because they're so much alike in terms of fan culture.

That said, Phish fans are very fast to brag that they're not violence-fests like other bands shows, so I won't be dogmatic on this point.

 

[Cowboy Brian]

Typical uniformed bigotry.

Now now, I know potheads that are exactly like that.