1
   

What's your take on the War on Drugs?

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2004 12:31 pm
Joe, thus far you've
1) denied facts that clearly make marijuana harder to control, contribute to making marijuana harder to control.
2) Denied the obvious similarity between Native Americans smoking marijuana (which you denied also, but they do) in ceremony and some religions using alcohol in ceremony.
3) Denied that 22,360,000 people is a significant number of Americans.
4) Insisted that I accept one of four pre-defined points of contention as my own, despite the fact they don't fit my position as well as the one I clearly laid out for you. None of your points are more specific in any meaningful way, except that to accept one would deny me strong arguments that do apply to my original point. Sorry Joe, you don't get to decide what my position is, to make it easier for you to debate. My position remains clear enough for a below average 12 year old to understand.
5) You've also engaged in shameless attempts at burden shifting. I've indulged you to a certain extent, so I will share some of that responsibility. I assure you; I am getting just as tired of this as you, Frank, Craven and anyone else who would like to participate in a reasonable discussion. Let's examine that responsibility one last time:
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Do you really think you can mount an argument to demonstrate Marijuana being illegal while Alcohol is not; doesn't constitute hypocrisy?

Yes.
You did not say: "Yes… But only if you'll redefine your argument into one of 4 of my own predefined arguments." You did not say "Yes… But I don't know what you mean." You did not say: "No, unless you …" You simply answered yes. That being the case: It is reasonable for me to simply wait to hear you do so. If you now feel incapable of doing so without some help from me, than the answer to the original question "Do you really think you can mount an argument to demonstrate Marijuana being illegal while Alcohol is not; doesn't constitute hypocrisy?" should have been NO. Now, that certainly does appear to be the case anyway.
You have already conceded the main justification for my charge of hypocrisy when you wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Post 496581: "I am perfectly willing to concede, for the purposes of discussion, that marijuana is as harmful as tobacco and/or alcohol."

Post 508320: "I conceded only what I conceded: marijuana is as harmful as tobacco and/or alcohol."

Post 510009: "Remember, I conceded that marijuana is as harmful as alcohol."

So Bill, repeat after me: marijuana is as harmful as alcohol. Not less harmful, AS harmful.

I was surprised and remain very impressed that having done so, you hadn't totally given up your position. This is when you went into your bit about controllability. If you can prove marijuana is being controlled, you will have achieved your objective (assuming your objective was to fulfill the original challenge [as opposed to just annoying me]. I won't attempt to limit you to just that angle because, quite frankly, I didn't see that angle until you pointed it out… So there could conceivably be others. Possible candidates do not include anything that requires additional input from me. I'll ask you again to please abandon that strategy because you forfeited your opportunity to add conditions when you answered "yes" without conditions. I remind you that I had already given you ample opportunity to withdraw from what I considered an impossible task.
So far; you have introduced the possibility that marijuana can still be controlled while alcohol can not. This is your only contention so far, which fits within the parameters of the original challenge you accepted. In response to it; I asked you: "Can you give any example of its use being controlled?" and "If anyone who wants some can get some, how is that less futile than alcohol prohibition?"
Your answer to the first question and my response was:
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:

Presently, regular marijuana use is ten times less prevalent than alcohol use. That strikes me as pretty persuasive evidence that usage is being controlled by the current drug laws.
In order to make that conclusion, you would first have to demonstrate that there is a similar number of people who wish to use marijuana and alcohol.

To be sure, my "proof" rests on a counter-factual: if marijuana were legalized, more people would use it. But then I think that's an intuitively sound counter-factual -- one that, I believe, the proponents of legalization would support.
This is an assumption that can not be proved without first legalizing marijuana. Therefore, it constitutes no "proof" whatsoever.
The second question, which you ignored, was: "If anyone who wants some can get some, how is that less futile than alcohol prohibition?" I patiently await your answer. :wink:
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2004 12:43 pm
Bill, I await your response to my previous post.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2004 12:58 pm
Well, I've come to the conclusion there is almost no way of stopping this thing between you two -- so, at the possible expense of helping to prolong it, I really have to comment on something you (Joe) said that I did not catch until I read Bill's last post.

You wrote, and Bill quoted:

Quote:
To be sure, my "proof" rests on a counter-factual: if marijuana were legalized, more people would use it. But then I think that's an intuitively sound counter-factual -- one that, I believe, the proponents of legalization would support.


Couple of comments:

1) Most of the people I know who do not smoke pot -- do not "not smoke pot" because it is illegal, but because they do not want to smoke pot. In fact, while I agree with the essence of your notion, I honestly don't see it as a major problem in the issue. Alcohol is legal -- and there are large numbers of people who do not use it -- or who use it in such moderation as to essentially not be using it.

And although the statistics you cited earlier show a large percentage of the population having had a taste of alcohol recently -- I dare guess that the VAST majority of the users are far from being problem users of alcohol.

My futher guess is, since it is my experience that people seem to have much less trouble handling pot than alcohol, that relationship will be the same or better if pot were decriminalized.

2) This second comment may come across as a joke, but it most assuredly isn't:

I personally know more people who would never touch a joint who seem that they would benefit from an occasional toke...

...than I know people who do use pot who would benefit from never ever toking again.

Many, many, many more people!

Pot may very well be a natural, and much superior, means to acheive what some people attempt to acheive through legal, prescription drugs.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2004 01:02 pm
Shocked You just received it Joe. Exiting the conversation leaves your original responsibility unfulfilled. Rolling Eyes Hence, you have failed to live up to your original, condition-less promise. Confused I'll continue to monitor the thread; in case you change your mind. :wink:
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2004 01:05 pm
Good points Frank!
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2004 09:47 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Shocked You just received it Joe. Exiting the conversation leaves your original responsibility unfulfilled. Rolling Eyes Hence, you have failed to live up to your original, condition-less promise. Confused I'll continue to monitor the thread; in case you change your mind. :wink:

You have had two chances to respond to my latest substantive post. I'll give you one more chance. To refresh your recollection, here is what I wrote:

(1) "Hypocrisy" is the holding of mutually inconsistent positions simultaneously.
(2) In the specific area of the law, "hypocrisy" would entail either treating similar things differently, or else treating different things similarly.
(3) The laws treat alcohol and marijuana differently.
(4) Thus, if alcohol and marijuana are similar, it would be possible to describe their disparate legal treatment as "hypocritical" (see point 2, above)
(5) Alcohol and marijuana, however, are different.
(6) Consequently, treating different things differently is not "hypocritical."


If you fail, on this third try, to respond directly to what I wrote, I'll have to conclude that you either have no interest in continuing this discussion or no ability to formulate a proper response. In either case, I'll understand.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2004 10:01 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
1) Most of the people I know who do not smoke pot -- do not "not smoke pot" because it is illegal, but because they do not want to smoke pot. In fact, while I agree with the essence of your notion, I honestly don't see it as a major problem in the issue. Alcohol is legal -- and there are large numbers of people who do not use it -- or who use it in such moderation as to essentially not be using it.

I'm not exactly sure I understand the point you're trying to make. If you're saying that people don't smoke pot primarily because they don't want to, rather than because it's illegal, I suppose that's a matter largely of conjecture. You don't know (despite your anecdotal evidence), and I don't know either.

But then we know something about the use of legal substances, such as alcohol and tobacco. For instance, the usage of tobacco decreased at around the same time that advertising restrictions were implemented. Now, without more evidence, this indicates a weak cause-effect relationship, but it certainly is worth noting. On the other hand, if marijuana were legalized and advertised in the same way that alcohol or tobacco are currently advertised, would we expect marijuana usage to remain at pre-legalization levels? I don't know, but I'd hazard a guess that usage might increase.

After all, one definition of "advertising" is "selling people things they didn't know they wanted." People who might not want to smoke marijuana now might want to give it a try after they see Britney Spears pitching it in a Super Bowl ad, or after looking at a "Marijuana Man" ad on the back cover of Time magazine.

Frank Apisa wrote:
And although the statistics you cited earlier show a large percentage of the population having had a taste of alcohol recently -- I dare guess that the VAST majority of the users are far from being problem users of alcohol.

The statistics say what they say: about ten times as many people used alcohol in the last month as did people who used marijuana. According to the survey, that made them "habitual" users. It did not necessarily make them "problem" users.

Frank Apisa wrote:
My futher guess is, since it is my experience that people seem to have much less trouble handling pot than alcohol, that relationship will be the same or better if pot were decriminalized.

I wish I had your sense of optimism.

Frank Apisa wrote:
2) This second comment may come across as a joke, but it most assuredly isn't:

I personally know more people who would never touch a joint who seem that they would benefit from an occasional toke...

...than I know people who do use pot who would benefit from never ever toking again.

Many, many, many more people!

I put this kind of comment in the same category as comments like: "you need to get laid more often." Sure, some people could probably benefit from "getting mellowed out," but then it's just as likely that a significantly larger group of people would benefit from getting hit on the head with a two-by-four. Indeed, I can think of some people on this forum who would fit in that category.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Pot may very well be a natural, and much superior, means to acheive what some people attempt to acheive through legal, prescription drugs.

Maybe.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2004 05:40 pm
Joe, you made one valid point and I've addressed it up above. This point came first. I will not provide you additional positions to attack, at least until you finish what you started above, because I'm already bored with your evasive tactics. If that is unsatisfactory to you, so be it.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2004 08:25 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
1) Most of the people I know who do not smoke pot -- do not "not smoke pot" because it is illegal, but because they do not want to smoke pot. In fact, while I agree with the essence of your notion, I honestly don't see it as a major problem in the issue. Alcohol is legal -- and there are large numbers of people who do not use it -- or who use it in such moderation as to essentially not be using it.

I'm not exactly sure I understand the point you're trying to make. If you're saying that people don't smoke pot primarily because they don't want to, rather than because it's illegal, I suppose that's a matter largely of conjecture. You don't know (despite your anecdotal evidence), and I don't know either.



Don't read anything into what I wrote here except what I wrote. My comment begins with a very clear: "MOST OF THE PEOPLE I KNOW WHO DO NOT SMOKE POT..."

That is what I was saying!



Quote:
But then we know something about the use of legal substances, such as alcohol and tobacco. For instance, the usage of tobacco decreased at around the same time that advertising restrictions were implemented. Now, without more evidence, this indicates a weak cause-effect relationship, but it certainly is worth noting. On the other hand, if marijuana were legalized and advertised in the same way that alcohol or tobacco are currently advertised, would we expect marijuana usage to remain at pre-legalization levels? I don't know, but I'd hazard a guess that usage might increase.

After all, one definition of "advertising" is "selling people things they didn't know they wanted." People who might not want to smoke marijuana now might want to give it a try after they see Britney Spears pitching it in a Super Bowl ad, or after looking at a "Marijuana Man" ad on the back cover of Time magazine.


In this country, we have already decided that there are classes of substances where "advertising" will be limited. I suspect -- indeed expect -- that if pot is ever decriminalized, it will probably have lots of restrictions as regards advertising.

I can only speak for myself as an advocate for decriminalization -- but I not only would want strict prohibitions on where and how it could be sold, but also on any forms of advertising or other inducements. I, once again speaking for myself, would like to see more of these kinds of prohibitions on tobacco and alcohol products.

BTW -- I really object to using the expression "legalizing" in this context -- although for the sake of convention, I have occasionally used the expression myself.

Fact is, we don't "legalize" things. At times we, for good and compelling reasons, de-legalize or criminalize them. Right now, I am advocating for decriminalizing. It may seem a minor point, but if you think about it, it really isn't.


Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
And although the statistics you cited earlier show a large percentage of the population having had a taste of alcohol recently -- I dare guess that the VAST majority of the users are far from being problem users of alcohol.

The statistics say what they say: about ten times as many people used alcohol in the last month as did people who used marijuana. According to the survey, that made them "habitual" users. It did not necessarily make them "problem" users.


No, as a matter of fact, the statistics do not identify them as "habitual" users any more than it makes them "problem" users -- or at least, the way you presented the statistics don't.

But my comment stands on its own merits -- and I think it was worthwhile to mention what I did.

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
My futher guess is, since it is my experience that people seem to have much less trouble handling pot than alcohol, that relationship will be the same or better if pot were decriminalized.

I wish I had your sense of optimism.


So do I. You are a very forceful advocate for the positions you embrace. I'd love to have you on our side, Joe, and if a "sense of optimism" would move you over at bit -- I'm hoping "optimism" hits you tonight.



Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
2) This second comment may come across as a joke, but it most assuredly isn't:

I personally know more people who would never touch a joint who seem that they would benefit from an occasional toke...

...than I know people who do use pot who would benefit from never ever toking again.

Many, many, many more people!

I put this kind of comment in the same category as comments like: "you need to get laid more often."


I don't think so, but I am not disposed to argue the point.


Quote:
Sure, some people could probably benefit from "getting mellowed out," but then it's just as likely that a significantly larger group of people would benefit from getting hit on the head with a two-by-four.


Too much by far. But also the kind of thing that allows for more diversion than I care to encourage.


Quote:
Indeed, I can think of some people on this forum who would fit in that category.


So can I, but you are going to have to get someone else to hit you, Joe. I like you too much.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2004 09:33 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
Don't read anything into what I wrote here except what I wrote. My comment begins with a very clear: "MOST OF THE PEOPLE I KNOW WHO DO NOT SMOKE POT..."

That is what I was saying!

And my point is that the reasons people have for not smoking pot are, to us, largely a matter of conjecture. That's what I was saying.

Frank Apisa wrote:
In this country, we have already decided that there are classes of substances where "advertising" will be limited. I suspect -- indeed expect -- that if pot is ever decriminalized, it will probably have lots of restrictions as regards advertising.

Very true. But there is, as far as I'm aware, no legal article of commerce that is subject to a total prohibition on advertising. As such, we can expect that marijuana, once legalized, will be advertised. Indeed, since the advocates of legalization hold that marijuana is less noxious than alcohol and tobacco, we should expect that, at most, limits on the advertising of marijuana will be no more stringent than those on tobacco.

Frank Apisa wrote:
I can only speak for myself as an advocate for decriminalization -- but I not only would want strict prohibitions on where and how it could be sold, but also on any forms of advertising or other inducements. I, once again speaking for myself, would like to see more of these kinds of prohibitions on tobacco and alcohol products.

I have no opinions on this subject.

Frank Apisa wrote:
BTW -- I really object to using the expression "legalizing" in this context -- although for the sake of convention, I have occasionally used the expression myself.

Fact is, we don't "legalize" things. At times we, for good and compelling reasons, de-legalize or criminalize them. Right now, I am advocating for decriminalizing. It may seem a minor point, but if you think about it, it really isn't.

The distinction is worthwhile in this debate. Those who favor de-criminalization often favor keeping marijuana usage a misdemeanor. "De-criminalization," in other words, does not equate to "legalization," since marijuana usage would continue to be illegal, but would be treated as a misdemeanor or a petty offense. "Legalization" would remove all penalties from usage.

Frank Apisa wrote:
No, as a matter of fact, the statistics do not identify them as "habitual" users any more than it makes them "problem" users -- or at least, the way you presented the statistics don't.

But my comment stands on its own merits -- and I think it was worthwhile to mention what I did.

You're right, the studies call them "regular users." Not much of a difference, to be sure, unless you consider "habitual" to be derogatory.

Frank Apisa wrote:
So do I. You are a very forceful advocate for the positions you embrace. I'd love to have you on our side, Joe, and if a "sense of optimism" would move you over at bit -- I'm hoping "optimism" hits you tonight.

Quite unlikely, I'm afraid.

Frank Apisa wrote:
So can I, but you are going to have to get someone else to hit you, Joe. I like you too much.

When it comes to swinging two-by-fours, it's good to know who one's friends are.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2004 10:48 pm
Joe,

There is no reason marijuana has to be commercialized at all if it is decriminalized, much less avertised.

I'd rather it stay illegal than be advertised.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 07:47 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
Joe,

There is no reason marijuana has to be commercialized at all if it is decriminalized, much less avertised.

I'd rather it stay illegal than be advertised.


I think I can sign on to that also, Craven.

If the politicians ever get up the guts to de-criminalize pot, I hope they use that opportunity to set up a class of product for which NO advertising can be done.

Advertising, as Joe pointed out, is an attempt to induce usage -- and with pot, tobacco, liquor -- I see no valid reason to allow such attempts. I realize that there may be constitutional hurdles to the idea -- but none that I see as being insurmountable.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 08:18 am
Joe

A question, if I may: You wrote:

Quote:
The distinction is worthwhile in this debate. Those who favor de-criminalization often favor keeping marijuana usage a misdemeanor. "De-criminalization," in other words, does not equate to "legalization," since marijuana usage would continue to be illegal, but would be treated as a misdemeanor or a petty offense. "Legalization" would remove all penalties from usage.


I've heard others assert this, but I've been skeptical every time -- and I disagree.

I may be wrong -- and I would appreciate any help you can give to understand the distinction -- and if you can document it, so much the better. I've been unable to come up with anything after a search of the Internet.

In any case, if you read my remarks on this, you will see that I am not discussing the difference between "decriminalization" and "legalization" from the standpoint of what you are suggesting here, but rather from the position of...

...in our form of government, we do not "legalize" things. All activities are considered to be legal -- although for good and compelling reasons, we sometimes make things illegal. (Murder, theft, perjury...come immediately to mind.)

We did not "legalize" liquor in the 1930's -- we merely repealed the prohibition against it.

I would prefer to use the word "decriminalization" over "legalization" because I think it gives a better understanding of what we are doing -- not because I think there is a significant difference in the result. (Sort of like the difference between the use of "regular users" and "habitual!")

(And if I may, please spare me any lectures on rights at this point! We can do that again elsewhere if necessary.)
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 09:19 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
Joe,

There is no reason marijuana has to be commercialized at all if it is decriminalized, much less avertised.

I'd rather it stay illegal than be advertised.

Ah, Craven, welcome to the law of unintended consequences.

I suspect that there are a lot of marijuana advocates who believe that the commerce in weed after legalization will be identical to that before legalization. Yet if legalized marijuana is a commercial product, sold for a profit, there is no reason to think that it will not be marketed and sold like any other legal commercial product. Indeed, I believe it is naive to think that multinational corporations will market marijuana in the same manner as is done now by petty criminals and basement agriculturalists. After legalization, it won't be long before RJReynolds or Philip Morris start marketing marijuana as "the cigarettes for people who don't like cigarettes."

And there's nothing the government can do to stop this kind of advertising, short of amending the constitution. As the Supreme Court has ruled in a number of commercial speech cases, such as 44 Liquor Mart, Inc. v. Rhode Island and Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass'n v. U.S., the government has a severely limited ability to restrict truthful advertising of legal commerce, even if that commerce involves "vice activities" (e.g. alcohol or gambling).

Right now, of course, the government can ban advertising of marijuana completely. We can presume, however, that marijuana will only be legalized upon a showing that it is no more harmful than any other comparable substance or activity, such as alcohol, tobacco, or gambling. Consequently, there could be no advertising ban of marijuana that would be compatible with the First Amendment, just as a total ban on alcohol, tobacco, or gambling advertising would likewise fall afoul of a First Amendment analysis.

Craven and Frank: to accept the legalization argument is to accept all of its consequences. One of its inevitable and unavoidable consequences is marijuana advertising.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 09:33 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
I've heard others assert this, but I've been skeptical every time -- and I disagree.

I may be wrong -- and I would appreciate any help you can give to understand the distinction -- and if you can document it, so much the better. I've been unable to come up with anything after a search of the Internet.

Assert what? That some people favor de-criminalization (i.e. keeping marijuana usage illegal, but making it a misdemeanor)? Do what I did: run a Google search with the terms "marijuana decriminalization misdemeanor." You should come up with this as one of the hits:

"The state that lives by the motto "Live Free or Die" will decriminalize marijuana, legalize medical marijuana and permit farmers to grow hemp if Rep. Timothy N. Robertson has his way. The Democrat from Keene will introduce legislation in the New Hampshire legislature early next year to decriminalize the possession of an ounce or less of marijuana, as well as legislation to permit a patient and his/her caregiver to possess and cultivate up to three cannabis plants. The decriminalization legislation will reduce marijuana possession offenses from a class A misdemeanor to a violation, the same status as a parking ticket."

In other words, marijuana possession would remain illegal, but would be treated as a minor offense. And note that, while possession would be "de-criminalized," medicinal marijuana would be "legalized." That's the difference, and that's why "de-criminalization" is not the same thing as "legalization."

Frank Apisa wrote:
In any case, if you read my remarks on this, you will see that I am not discussing the difference between "decriminalization" and "legalization" from the standpoint of what you are suggesting here, but rather from the position of...

...in our form of government, we do not "legalize" things. All activities are considered to be legal -- although for good and compelling reasons, we sometimes make things illegal. (Murder, theft, perjury...come immediately to mind.)

We "legalize" things all the time. First, of course, they need to be "illegalized," but once that's accomplished, it's perfectly sensible to talk of "legalization." I suppose if you want to be hyper-technical, you could favor "re-legalization." I, for one, wouldn't object.

Frank Apisa wrote:
I would prefer to use the word "decriminalization" over "legalization" because I think it gives a better understanding of what we are doing -- not because I think there is a significant difference in the result. (Sort of like the difference between the use of "regular users" and "habitual!")

As long as people involved in the marijuana debate continue to acknowledge the difference between "legalization" and "de-criminalization," I will do so too.

Frank Apisa wrote:
(And if I may, please spare me any lectures on rights at this point! We can do that again elsewhere if necessary.)

I've lectured you on rights? When?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 10:35 am
joefromchicago wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
(And if I may, please spare me any lectures on rights at this point! We can do that again elsewhere if necessary.)

I've lectured you on rights? When?


I thought you would easily catch on to the little joke here, Joe, but you seem to be a bit exercised this morning.

To refresh your memory:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=508730#508730

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=508752#508752
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 10:45 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Joe,

There is no reason marijuana has to be commercialized at all if it is decriminalized, much less avertised.

I'd rather it stay illegal than be advertised.

Ah, Craven, welcome to the law of unintended consequences.


And there's nothing the government can do to stop this kind of advertising, short of amending the constitution.As the Supreme Court has ruled in a number of commercial speech cases, such as 44 Liquor Mart, Inc. v. Rhode Island and Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass'n v. U.S., the government has a severely limited ability to restrict truthful advertising of legal commerce, even if that commerce involves "vice activities" (e.g. alcohol or gambling).


Inportant caveat there, wouldn't you say, Joe.



Quote:
Craven and Frank: to accept the legalization argument is to accept all of its consequences. One of its inevitable and unavoidable consequences is marijuana advertising.



Oh no it is not -- and even you acknowledged that up above.

Your last sentence is nonsense.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 12:15 pm
Yes, it's complete nonsense.

There is no reason whatsoever that decriminalization (or even legalization) has to allow for advertising.

It doesn't even have to allow for it's sale.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 12:33 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Yes, it's complete nonsense.

There is no reason whatsoever that decriminalization (or even legalization) has to allow for advertising.

It doesn't even have to allow for it's sale.



GREAT POINT!

Wish I had thought of it.

Weed ain't called weed for nuthin'.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 12:42 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
Inportant caveat there, wouldn't you say, Joe.

I must say, Frank, I've noticed you have been particularly jocular lately, but this time up you have definitely cracked me!

OK, fine: I suppose that, in comparison to the struggle to legalize marijuana, the effort to amend the constitution will look like mere child's play. Perhaps the overwhelmingly mellow mood of the country will facilitate the quick alteration of the nation's foundational document.

I'm just glad that you are candid enough to acknowledge that the legalization of marijuana will also necessitate the rewriting of the First Amendment. There may be many victims left in the wake of the Stoner Revolution, but it seems clear that the first will be free speech.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2021 at 07:02:16