why would i not vote for METH? or HEROINE OR CRACK?

Seriously? you have to ask that?
Besides I already told you. its got no chance of passing regardless of whether its "right" or not. and lumping it in with pot will drag it all through the dirt and nothing will get passed.
I want pot legal. at this point thats the only goal (drugwise) i'm looking at. its about choosing your battles. i see meth legalization as a) a fucking retarded idea because meth has ZERO redeeming qualities and is absurdly dangerous and b) a losing fight that does nothing but harm your other struggles.

Yes I have to seriously ask that. I am not asking why you think it's a tactical error to try for legalization of all drugs. I asked why you would vote against it. As for redeeming qualities that's a poor argument. Some people claim that no recreational drug has any redeeming qualities and their opinion is as valid as yours. How do we measyre the relative qualities of each illegal drug? Do we legalize pot and outlaw alcohol? After all alcohol is more dangerous to your health and easier to OD on. And if redeeming qualities becomes the measuring stick how do justify cigarrettes and chicken mcnuggets??

__________________
The most important political office is that of the private citizen.
Justice Louis D Brandeis

I seem to recall discussing this with you before. If I recall correctly, your only interest in the matter is getting yourself high as expediently as possible - you're not interested in sensible public policy.

Is that right?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

The prison guard angle is an interesting one. Since there are certainly a lot of people tasked with guarding people incarcerated for criminal drug possession, those jobs might go away. However, I wouldn't view that as a huge barrier, since those jobs in particular could be swapped over to something like beefing up border security or homeland security in general.

I doubt that the state and fed governments would simply say, "well, let's get rid of all these prisoners and lay off the prison guards."

Also, since a prison guard produces no useful good or service from an economic standpoint, the only greater impact of the loss of such a job would be the lack of their dollars creating market demand (and perhaps the cost of welfare/unemployment).

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I'm with you on the matter. As soon as you start differentiating between degrees of harmfulness of the substance in terms of legality, you've painted yourself into a logically untenable position.

Either the government's job is to save you from yourself and bad things or it's not. Saying, "well, I want the government to leave people alone with their choices, unless they're making bad choices" doesn't really work.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

read the post there honcho.

Its about what will work. youre not going to be able to jam this big drug dick up the nations collective brownhole without taking it slow and using some lube. this isn't prison you know. think of pot as the head. proceed down the line as you see fit. i'd pick coke for 2nd choice. or maybe shrooms. coke would make more money i think.

I don't plan on using meth, nor do i particularly care for it or see any advantages from it, so yes, i'm not apt to support it.

The reverse is true for marijuana so of course i'm more willing to support it.

But it still comes down to picking your battles and doing it slow.

Oh, I agree. pot will be legalized incrementally, in baby steps. And since we're being honest here, let's just come right out and say it: medical marijuana is one of those baby steps forward. We don't really give a fuck that pot has medicinal properties (unless we're actually sick), we just want to get high legally.

But maybe it will be legal in CA by 2014. *shrug*

I find it strange that everyone has their own drug "acceptability list". Alcohol is legal, that's ok. Marijuana currently isn't, but it's moving in that direction. Oh, but coke isn't all that bad... crack is very bad though... look, let's cut the crap, legalize everything. (I know it won't happen, just thinking out loud here... again, lol...)

So, you bristle at my take on your position and then completely confirm it?

You want to get high on marijuana and don't care about meth. You view linking the two as detrimental to the potential legality of your drug of choice, and this is the entire basis for you not wanting the drugs linked. Ergo, your interest in the matter is doing whatever it takes to grease the skids to you getting high on your drug of choice.

(The reason I point this out so starkly is that you're presenting the exact rationale that a hard-drinking anti-drug type would present to you about your pot - why should we make it legal when everyone can just drink?!?)

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

will smoking weed fall under the same rules and regulations as smoking tobacco?
does marijuana have any of the effects on the body that tobacco does?
will people be confined to weed smoking sections?

__________________
Liberals are like slinkies, not really good for anything but they make you smile when you push then down a flight of stairs.

Usually this relates heavily to the "drugs I'm interested in" list.

Further complicating matters is that a drugs legal/illegal status in our current society has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not "it's bad for you."

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

My guess is that is what will happen in the medium term. In the long term, when the current anti-tobacco fad passes, restrictions will probably ease up on pot as well. I'd imagine that for the long term future, as tobacco goes, so will pot. When the next anti-smoking fad kicks in, "smoking" will probably refer to both pot and tobacco.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

see crack IS very bad though. seriously i know of zero redeeming qualities. its doesn't even last very long for petes sake. meth is bad news. tweakers get violent, self mutilatory, paranoid and crazy. no thanks. heroin? can you say aids? i can. aids. along with the other problems that go with it that would be a reason for no heroin right there.

coke is on the fence imo. i'm not that big a fan (not to say i didnt' like it cause anyone who did coke and says "it didn't feel good' is a damn liar) but its way too expensive, it hurts like a bitch, has shitty side effects, doesn't last, etc. but hey man if we legalize it think of the cash in our pockets and out of the gangs pockets? its tempting. especially if you use the revenue to prosecute and take down meth heroin and crack and other still banned substances.

Oh, fuck that. You don't have to pay anything if you're brewing your own beer, do you? A person ought to be able to grow a certain number of plants without having to report it. It'll be the next baby step.

dude i can get high now. i'm not impeded in the slightest.

youre just reading into my posts what you want to see.
I don't want the drugs linked because together NONE OF THEM WILL PASS AT ALL. Individually, over time, in stage of "danger" or "stigma" they CAN and WILL get passed. But if you don't take it slow youre going to fuck all of us over. Its again about what WILL WORK.

And again dude youre asking for my vote. I don't see a good reason for meth, so i'm unlikely to vote for it. its my vote. perhaps instead of trying to attack my character you could come up with a compelling reason for meth? instead of being derisive you could try to persuade me to your point of view.

i think not. if youre brewing in your garage i wouldn't let the atf know about it. they might be irrate.

why? the whole rationale (to the those that don't enjoy some smoke) is that its a CASH CROP FOR THE GOVERNMENT. TAXATION is the reason its gonna get legalized, not because its "right". not enough people see it that way or even give a fuck. the key to success is in compromise and how you hook them. money is a damn good hook, 2nd only to pussy.