Wrong question. You need to show it the other way around: that most pot smokers go on to be hard drug users. It's entirely possible for 100% of hard drug users to have smoked pot prior to using hard drugs, and at the same time for only 1% of pot smokers to go on to hard drugs. All that's necessary is that there be 100 times as many pot smokers as hard drug users, which is probably the case.

Knowing the facts is only the first step. (And you seem to have some problems with that, too.) You also need to understand what they mean.

does anyone else want to take part in this intellectual beat down, rape, and dismemberment of dave_x's arguments?

__________________

I'm not going to sit here and do combat. You have stated that marijuana is only slightly more potent than it was 20 years ago, when it is officially 8 to 20 times stronger than it was 20 years ago. Single Convention on Narcotics & the Convention on Psychotropic Substances recently concluded with the governments of 112 countries that marijuana harms their citizens, either by the slave plantations such as Mexico has, or because of the direction of the nation as a whole.
The medical problems that are caused by cigarettes and alcohol are far greater than the taxes they generate. This is not going to be different with marijuana
Here are some of the folks that want this stuff legal.
The Lindesmith Center,
Chip Berlet
High times
normal
Cato Institute
George Soros
I'm not going to go through every single background of these individuals, but if you are in support of them, you can't possible know their motives for legalization.
I don't usually do this, but this time I think it might be OK Study this report
"On the Legalization — or Not — of Marijuana." New York Times, Freakenomics. October 30, 2007 - "The reason that marijuana is, and should remain, illegal is that the drug itself is harmful to the individual and to the community. This is the assessment of the medical and the law enforcement community. Increasingly, this is the assessment of young people as well, since marijuana use has plummeted by 25 percent over the past five years. Young people apparently agree with Australian researchers, who recently characterized marijuana, based on their comparative studies of youths who used versus those who did not, as 'the drug for life’s losers.' Removing legal penalties would only make this drug more accessible, its use more prevalent, and its damage more widespread, and would swell the number of those at risk for becoming 'life’s losers.'"
Then you bring in the cancer study. You guys are a little less than honest. You aren't trying to get pot legal because it has medicinal qualities. None of you.
By the way Norin Radd, can you give me a single law protecting our citizens that just dropped out of the sky? They almost all have come about because of experiences of people. So the only danger of carcinogens is cancer?
I leave you guys with this comment:
You guys have never launched a citizens movement to the magnitude that would be needed, because you can't. I'm not going to continue this banter, with studies being quoted that have no proof.
Case in point: I have seen several references to NIDA have you seen this one? NIDA - Research Report Series - Marijuana Abuse
I've mentioned people like Scott Pierce, and the only references to it by other people was to show proof they never even bothered to actually try and see what I was talking about. billywitchdr, you never looked up anything. Scott pierce was the president of EF Hutton when he was hauled into court for laundering money. He happens to be Barbara Bush's brother. He was fined a puny $500,000 for the millions he made off of laundering money. He never served a day in jail.
You guys aren't going to get this stuff legalized. You would have to have an organized movement. You don't have the drive. Pot took it from you!
See you guys! You will not win!

You claim to have done extensive research, but statements like this show me that you have been less then truthful concerning your alleged research. Hemp is one of the most useful plants known to man. Oh, you say Hemp and Marijuana are different things? Then your "extensive research" has misguided you again. Hemp is Marijuana and Marijuana is Hemp. This is a fact, so get used to it. As to your claims of seeing firsthand the horrible effects Marijuana has heaped onto civilized man, once again it is my contention that you have been less then truthful concerning your alleged "findings". What it all boils down to is this, You, as well as a lot of other people, should not do drugs because you, and others like you, do not have the genetic capacity , physically or mentally, to ingest them without suffering a major loss in your physical or mental health. But, under our rule of law, our Constitution, you are to be allowed to decide for yourself what is best for you. The unfortunate fact that nearly every elected official in the last 90 or so years has broken their oath of office and supported un-constitutional laws, does not change the rule of law. It makes criminals of every president, Congressman, senator, judge, agent and police officer who support any laws that go against our constitution...which is still our "rule of law".
May I suggest, while doing any research in the future, it would be best to stick to celebrity scandals or Sports trivia. Because not only do you lack the genetic ability to handle drugs, you also appear to lack the mental capacity to discuss them intelligently.

Does that mean that people watch 20 times as many cartoons and eat 20 times as many Fritos while under the influence of marijuana today?

Run for the hills!!!!

__________________
"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

Do you read this stuff before you cut and paste it? This paragraph you just posted claims that 112 countries have concluded that people high on Marijuana has changed the direction of their nations as a whole.
This statement is wholly absurd, unless they are trying to say that their Marijuana prohibition has changed them from a relatively free society to one that is now building up a greater number of prisons and quadrupling their police in order to control their populations more effectively.

I know why. Because laws against Hemp are un-constitutional.

It is no wonder you are so misinformed. The article you just cited is complete hearsay. There is no documentation of actual damage caused by Hemp. Australian researchers? Did they bother to research the causes of the alleged Hemp users problems? The biggest problems facing hemp users are the legal problems and social stigmas caused by its prohibition...I don't suppose they mentioned that, did they?

If you had ever been in close proximity with a friend or loved one who just underwent chemo-therapy treatment (which is the #1 cancer treatment used today) where they basically poison you for $16,000.00 per treatment, and have watched as someone you love waste's away to nothing because they cannot eat because of the nausea caused by the chemo-therapy. And then, seen with your own eyes them eating without nausea BECAUSE of Hemp treatment, then, maybe you could realize that Hemp saved their life and then you would know what the fuck you are talking about , because, Dave, you have no....absolutely no fucking idea what your saying....absolutely none.

Do you not realize that Scott Pierce, and the drug lords he laundered money for are in business BECAUSE of the laws that you support? People like you are the reason that drug cartels exist. You are supporting and advocating the very laws that keep them in business. How do you sleep at night, Dave?

I'm sure that's true, or anyway I'm sure it's true of alcohol and tobacco, but you need to compare the right variables and those aren't the ones. Or not properly the only ones. If you want to do a cost benefit analysis, you need to do it this way:

In one column (benefits), put taxes to be generated by drug commerce, reductions in (or elimination of) drug-related crime (which generally are functions not of drugs themselves but of drug criminalization), reductions in (or elimination of) civic corruption by drug money (ditto), and the reduction in (or elimination of) health problems which arise from drug crimalization rather than the drugs themselves (although this last is minimal for marijuana, it's significant for certain other drugs).

In the other column (costs), put any health and safety risks that are associated with a reasonably-expected increase in drug use.

So -- if we assume that drug use willl increase somewhat with legalization (which is likely, although how much is far from clear), then the question becomes whether the resultant health and safety problems (if any) outweigh the vast reduction in organized crime and corruption and violence that would result from removing the biggest factor in these civic evils: drug criminalization.

Marijuana, whether or not completely innocuous, is certainly less dangerous a drug than alcohol, and there was a brief period when alcohol was illegal in this country. When we look at the results of alcohol prohibition in breeding criminal networks and civic corruption, and examine the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of prohibition enforcement, we can arrive at a clear answer: NO.

Or, as put by a poem written after a government study affirmed all the dire results of prohibition but still endorsed it:

Prohibition is an awful flop
We like it.
It can't stop what it's meant to stop.
We like it.
It breeds a trail of graft and crime,
It fills the land with vice and crime,
It don't prohibit worth a dime --
Nevertheless, we're for it.

That's just as true of marijuana prohibition as it was of alcohol prohibition, and since marijuana is a less dangerous drug than alcohol, there is less weight on the minus side of legalization for that drug -- and yet the scales come down heavily on leaving alcohol non-prohibited, despite the fact that alcohol genuinely IS a harmful and dangerous drug.



I haven't smoked pot in over 10 years. And yes, we will. Starting probably right here in California. We will.

I did, I did!......How could I not. Dave is a shining example of empowered ignorance, stamping down his foot boldly stating "I have something to say"....Yes Dave, you have something to say, but you should pick your battles carefully. Here is an old saying that might help you:" It is better to be thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt" . That's all I have for you, buddy.

The US government says that nationwide averages of seized samples doubled from when they first started testing,from 4% THC to just over 10%THC. Misleading since the social costs of prohibiting those drugs far outweigh the social gains from prohibiting them, the same will be true for marijuana.
They must recognize that marijuana is a far safer alternative to legal drugs, recognize that the prohibition of marijuana funds criminal syndicates and fuels violence, and recognize that the prohibtion of marijuana flys in the face of the American values of personal responsibility and liberty.
No specific instances backed by proof on any of their assertions, there is really not much else to say here.
Yes I support the use of cannabis by adults, so why would I not support those to use it to ease their medical complications.
The law reform movement is up against the nearly unlimited resources of the US government yet it has made major leaps and bounds. Over a dozen states have medical marijuana protections, a 3rd of the US population lives in a state or municipality that practices lowest law enforcement priority for marijuana or decriminalization. I can post the source to every claim I have made, just ask. You on the other hand...
NIDA is a biased source, it would be like us posting from NORML, you can do better than that.I looked it up on google and the first result was a blog about chinese mind control so no thanks. I have said it time and time again, prohibition fuels organized crime and violence and funds shady people.
6 out of 10 registered west coast voters are for legalization. Once it gets on a voter initiative it will be legalized.

Typical response from people who would love to see a country fall apart. You took nothing down.
You can claim that gravity doesn't exist, but that does not make it true. Making claims prove nothing.
I did site studies and you folks ignored them. What I did not do, was insult you.
If I don't pee my pants, throw fits and spew insults you people don't seem to be able to follow anything I say. For that reason, I don't think I fit in here. I guess this is just proof that insulting ones character is evidence of crippled arguments.
Bye.

Yeah, man, you're totally right. I'm still waiting for the country to collapse ever since they got rid of Prohibition.

No. I make a motion for a more humanitarian form of development.

Dude, take a cold shower or something. The creepy-meter is hitting the red zone.

__________________
"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

*wanders ondeck eatin' cheetos'*

me arguement fer it?

i loves herb, very much so.

thar be entire days...weeks...months, that i be usin' the mighty W. at work, away from work, when i retire fer bed, when i rise in the mornin'. i live in a nice condo and own two businesses and imma pretty peaceful pirate, when it comes down to it.

its me only vice...no meat, no grog, no fried food!

this be me arguement, though;

at $400.00 an ounce fer kind bud, i find the price draconian. if it were legalized, i wouldn't have to pony up such horryfyin' fees.

aye!

- MeadHallPirate

Contrary to your belief, the country is falling apart and I'm not loving it. I've followed all that you've said. Do you believe that I didn't pay attention to you because I still cannot agree with your argument?....no.... I would apologize for being rather insulting to you in my earlier posts, but I have little sympathy for people like you, thus I don't feel the need to coddle you nor be considerate of your offensive pretzel logic. As long as people like you feel the need to share your views publicly, people like me will be right there to give you their views. You have to be a little thick skinned here or you won't last.