Dwayne Bowe arrested for speeding and Marijuana possession

[chicowalker]

Andy Johnson lists some of the concerns to your question. Understanding and respecting that you probably do not agree with it--I am just pointing out what the concerns are to answer your question(s).

I feel that we have moved ahead in the battle with cigarettes from where we were as a society in the past. We have seen more people quit smoking, have more programs and drugs like Chantix etc out there. People are more concerned with their health now today than they've ever been in the history of our society. We have seen outright bans on public smoking, and many jobs that I have seen are now not hiring anyone who has been a smoker in the past 90 days for fear of abuse from their health insurance benefits.

Personally, I find it hard to imagine us making a total 180 backtracking into a society where we suddenly battle (and win) vs something like cigarettes, then suddenly say "okay, marijuana's tar and resin which is about 15 times more potent than cigarettes is fine to inhale." That would be moving backwards in our society's cause for health etc, in my opinion.

The reason we're seeing a change in the states of Colorado and Washington is because they are done wasting the resources on having to build new jails, have their courts clogged up, and do not have the money or man power to consistently battle small pot offenses anymore. Basically, they gave up...it's not because they agree that it isn't harmful or are suddenly advocating it.

Again...you may not agree with it, and I totally respect that. I think we're just giving you the other side of the coin the same way that you are giving us the other side of the coin. It's going to continue to be very controversial and highly debated.

supafly, 2 more things now

First, re cigarettes and health concerns. I'm all for making the risks of usage of anything known. In fact, I think that's a valuable role government can play -- help determine risks, make regulations (and even taxes) that fit with those risks and try to make adults aware of the risks. But informed decision-making by adults is always preferable to outright bans by the government.

Also, pot doesn't have to be smoked -- vaporizers are probably much more healthy, and eating it is also an option. Both probably have drawbacks associated with them, but it should be kept in mind, particularly when weighing risks and bans.

Also, whether any governments are "giving up" really doesn't matter much, imo. The establishment has an interest in the status quo, and that includes the "war on drugs." Admitting that it has been a colossal failure would mean a huge blow to many people's egos and admission of wasting many lives and billions of dollars.

But states changing their laws on pot aren't simply "giving up" -- there has been a significant swing in public opinion on pot, and I'm sure that's related to (though not entirely based on) demographic / generational shifts. My grandmother thought pot was truly evil; yet there was a history of alcoholism in my family that I didn't learn about until I was over 30 -- but in her generation, booze was fine and weed wasn't, regardless of any actual facts involved. That's changed and continues to change.

 

[Ring 6]

When has use and abuse by minors "exploded"? Curious what time periods and usage rates you're referring to.

You don't think teenage pot use is at an alltime high?

I'm not sure legalization would increase use among minors. once distribution is in the hands of businesses who make money from adults but whose business are jeopardized by sales to minors, they have a vested interest in not selling to minors. Clearly illegal sales will continue, as will other usage by minors, but I don't know that it would necessarily increase.

I just totally and completely disagree there. We see that 180 degrees different. There is no point in debating it.

My argument doesn't rest on anecdotal examples. And if you're opposed to anecdotal examples, why did you bring up your own just a couple sentences later?

I will clarify.
If it acts as a gateway for ANYONE that is an issue to me.
So anecdotal examples of it not being a problem doesnt address the issue.
In other words if 20,000 people die by texting and driving this year, anecdotal evidence of it happening is important. Anecdotal evidence of texting and driving and not dying isn't very relevant.

But nothing you have said here actually backs up your claim that I'm "way off" on the gateway concept. Yes, some teens will use pot and then move on from that to other drugs. Without a doubt.

Where I find you 'way off' is that you appear to be approaching it from a preponderenace of evidence route, that is, that if it isn't a gateway for everyone it isn't a problem. I am approaching it the other way. If it is for a small minority of users it is a problem.

So, at least 2 obvious questions arise: (i) when do we prohibit adults from doing something because teenagers might be irresponsible with their usage and (ii) if we're really concerned about "gateway" drugs, how much of a gateway are various drugs?

All other drugs are illegal.

I've never claimed that pot can't lead to harder drugs. What I've said is that marijuana isn't the starting point. Everything you said here applies to cigarettes and booze.

Well you made my point. If it leads to harder drugs for some, and I think we can all agree that harder drugs are a tremendous problem (the incidence of death in harder drug users is alarming to say the least) then it can be prevented.
I don't know why you are bringing cigarettes and alcohol into it other than to have a binky to cling to in your argument.
Since almost everyone uses alcohol its pretty easy to say it causes just about anything.
The decision to have a beer and the decision to smoke weed are two very different things.
The percentage of pot smokers who use harder drugs is of course higher than the percentage of alcohol users.
Whether it is common or somewhat rare, common sense says that there are some kids who cross the line into drug use with weed, and it just simply makes the decision to try something worse that much easier.

Do you dispute that if weed were totally eliminated from society that there would be a decrease in the use of harder drugs, however small it may be?

Actually, I alluded to this earlier.

That goes away if weed is legalized and regulated. Marijuana should become much safer for users once its cultivation and distribution are taken out of criminals' hands.

Doubtful, but at what cost?
Why should I pay more taxes so that drugs can be legal? What are you regulating?
If you think criminals will be out of the business I think yuo are wrong.

Of course. But that in and of itself isn't much of an argument for something to be illegal.

And the reality is that most users do not suffer serious consequences.

While I disagree, it does not matter to me if 'most' do not. It is a harmful substance that we have the ability to attempt to prevent our children from using and abusing. Someone very close to me almost ruined their future because of weed. One is one too many.

 

[supafly]

Also, whether any governments are "giving up" really doesn't matter much, imo. The establishment has an interest in the status quo, and that includes the "war on drugs." Admitting that it has been a colossal failure would mean a huge blow to many people's egos and admission of wasting many lives and billions of dollars.

I think we saw people realize that it was a colossal failure when their mandatory minimum laws began to see incarceration spikes of hundreds of percentages. The laws that were brought to light during the Regan and Bush eras regarding mandatory minimums have totally screwed the entire criminal justice system up--or at least contributed to it mightily.

But states changing their laws on pot aren't simply "giving up" -- there has been a significant swing in public opinion on pot, and I'm sure that's related to (though not entirely based on) demographic / generational shifts. My grandmother thought pot was truly evil; yet there was a history of alcoholism in my family that I didn't learn about until I was over 30 -- but in her generation, booze was fine and weed wasn't, regardless of any actual facts involved. That's changed and continues to change.

The truth probably lies in the middle of our two opinions. Yes, you're right that the general opinion regarding weed has changed--no doubt about that, but I would also be right too that many of these taxpayers and legislators no longer wish to continue wasting resources and tons of money. You can't just keep building new prisons, clogging up courts, and wasting tons of resources on a battle that you're going to lose; especially with weed smoking at an all time high already. They were pushed...pushed hard, and we're seeing some of them start to throw in the towel.

Keep in mind that I realize the controversial nature involved, and by no means wish to come off as if I am right and you are wrong. I don't believe that for a minute. I am simply expressing my opinions from being in that field, studying/majoring in it, having had a past drug problem myself, and also having lost someone extremely close to my from an overdose. My opinion will be a bit biased.

 

[manxman2601]

It would be really interesting to see the percentage of people who don't do marijuana who want it legalised. It seems to me that the vast majority who want it legalised indulge and are therefore motivated by self-interest more than anything else. That's fine because it's how we all tend to operate in the political sphere but it does open to question their interpretation of the facts.

 

[Ring 6]

It would be really interesting to see the percentage of people who don't do marijuana who want it legalised. It seems to me that the vast majority who want it legalised indulge and are therefore motivated by self-interest more than anything else. That's fine because it's how we all tend to operate in the political sphere but it does open to question their interpretation of the facts.

That is how our system should work. Everyone should vote based upon self interest, and then the true result is the majority.
If I have no kids in school anymore I should vote for low school budgets. That doesn't mean I don't care about the kids, it means I am reflecting my needs so that the end resuilt reflects everyone.

 

[BradyFTW!]

It would be really interesting to see the percentage of people who don't do marijuana who want it legalised. It seems to me that the vast majority who want it legalised indulge and are therefore motivated by self-interest more than anything else. That's fine because it's how we all tend to operate in the political sphere but it does open to question their interpretation of the facts.

Well, 58% of people want marijuana legalized. In the same poll, 38% admitted to having tried it, and a smaller percentage would be active users currently. So either A) the majority Americans actively smoke weed, or B) there are a whole lot of non-users who want it legalized. Pretty sure it's not A, but even if it is, that's just another reason to be pro-legalization.

Also, I was initially skeptical of that 38% number, since I assumed that people were underreporting. But that number has stayed pretty consistent since the 1980s. 33% of Americans admitted to having tried weed in 1985, vs. 34% in 1999 and 38% in 2013. In that same time period, support for legalization has grown from 23% to 58%.

So, according to Gallup's numbers, there's been only a 15% increase in people who have tried marijuana, coinciding with a 152% increase in support for legalization. That pretty strongly indicates that non-users are the primary drivers of the increase in support for legalization.

 

[chicowalker]

You don't think teenage pot use is at an alltime high?....

I don't know whether it is. But if it is, why not simply show me the stats that demonstrate this explosion you're referring to?

... I just totally and completely disagree there. We see that 180 degrees different. There is no point in debating it.
...

We only see it 180 degrees different if you think there is no possibility of that. I offered it up as a possibility, and it's a reasonable one. But, yes, it could prove not to be the case as well.

...I will clarify.
If it acts as a gateway for ANYONE that is an issue to me.
So anecdotal examples of it not being a problem doesnt address the issue.
In other words if 20,000 people die by texting and driving this year, anecdotal evidence of it happening is important. Anecdotal evidence of texting and driving and not dying isn't very relevant. ...

The problem, then, isn't anecdotal evidence. But honestly, it sounds like you're just cherrypicking.

Your football posts are much more reasoned and supported than what you're putting forth here.

...Where I find you 'way off' is that you appear to be approaching it from a preponderenace of evidence route, that is, that if it isn't a gateway for everyone it isn't a problem. I am approaching it the other way. If it is for a small minority of users it is a problem. ....

OK, this I get -- though I disagree. Or, to be more clear, I disagree that it is a problem that must be addressed through the law.

I also don't understand why, given your approach, you don't seem to have a problem with cigarettes or alcohol being legal.

If you do want those to be illegal, we could have avoided this entire conversation. I would disagree vehemently with your point of view, but there wouldn't have been much point in a discussion, either.

...All other drugs are illegal. ...

No. Alcohol is legal. Nicotine is legal.

Many other drugs -- notably painkillers and muscle relaxants -- are legal via prescription, even though they are used recreationally and likely are much more dangerous than weed.

For purposes of the "gateway" discussion, the first 2 are more relevant. For purposes of consistency of our laws, all are relevant.

... Well you made my point. If it leads to harder drugs for some, and I think we can all agree that harder drugs are a tremendous problem (the incidence of death in harder drug users is alarming to say the least) then it can be prevented.
I don't know why you are bringing cigarettes and alcohol into it other than to have a binky to cling to in your argument.
Since almost everyone uses alcohol its pretty easy to say it causes just about anything.
The decision to have a beer and the decision to smoke weed are two very different things.
The percentage of pot smokers who use harder drugs is of course higher than the percentage of alcohol users.
Whether it is common or somewhat rare, common sense says that there are some kids who cross the line into drug use with weed, and it just simply makes the decision to try something worse that much easier.

Do you dispute that if weed were totally eliminated from society that there would be a decrease in the use of harder drugs, however small it may be?

....

The reason why cigarettes and alcohol are relevant is that they are legal despite causing incredible amounts of damage. So when people make the argument that marijuana shouldn't be legal because of the damage caused, but they're perfectly fine with cigarettes and alcohol being legal, there is a huge inconsistency in their argument.

Same goes for any "gateway" argument made regarding pot while ignoring cigarettes and alcohol. Take any stats you wish regarding marijuana being a "gateway" drug, and apply the same test to cigarettes or alcohol.

Or, since you consider anybody moving onto something harder, at least show some consistency when it comes to cigarettes and alcohol. Why is it a problem for you if somebody moves on from pot to coke, but you're OK with somebody moving on from alcohol to pot to coke, or from cigarettes to pot to coke?

You say almost everyone uses alcohol. That's false, particularly when we're talking about teenagers. if you're really concerned about people slipping into a life of drugs, the primary concern is teens -- and if the concern is teens, you can't just focus on pot and ignore cigarettes and alcohol usage.

As for "The percentage of pot smokers who use harder drugs is of course higher than the percentage of alcohol users." -- That's probably true, but it doesn't address causation. The percentage of harder drug users who use pot is probably pretty similar to the percentage who use alcohol.

But, again, if you really have a problem with even a small # of people moving on to harder drugs, you should have a problem with alcohol, too.

"Do you dispute that if weed were totally eliminated from society that there would be a decrease in the use of harder drugs, however small it may be?: I don't. I think it would be small but I think there would be a decrease. I don't, however, view that as a basis for banning usage by all adults.

... ...Doubtful, but at what cost?
Why should I pay more taxes so that drugs can be legal? What are you regulating?
If you think criminals will be out of the business I think yuo are wrong.
....

Why is it doubtful? I don't think it would happen immediately but it would happen. How much criminal activity exists today with regard to alcohol?

When something is legal, it's much more difficult for criminals to make a living with it.

Everything about it would be regulated -- cultivation, distribution, etc. Just like alcohol, tobacco, food, etc. Quality measures, purity, etc.

And you should not be paying anything. Regulation should be funded through taxes on marijuana.

... ... While I disagree, it does not matter to me if 'most' do not. It is a harmful substance that we have the ability to attempt to prevent our children from using and abusing. Someone very close to me almost ruined their future because of weed. One is one too many.

And this explains actually explains your point of view here, especially versus your posts on football related matters.

While I hope the person close to you is OK, I also hope you realize that our government can't protect us from everything. We should do what we can, within reason, to keep pot out of kids' hands -- just as we should do what we can to keep alcohol, cigarettes, and other drugs out of kids' hands. But that doesn't mean we ban usage for adults.

and if you don't know anybody who has been killed, or had their future ruined, by alcohol, or cigarettes, you are actually pretty fortunate, and I'm sure you are in the minority.

 

[chicowalker]

I think we saw people realize that it was a colossal failure when their mandatory minimum laws began to see incarceration spikes of hundreds of percentages. The laws that were brought to light during the Regan and Bush eras regarding mandatory minimums have totally screwed the entire criminal justice system up--or at least contributed to it mightily.




The truth probably lies in the middle of our two opinions. Yes, you're right that the general opinion regarding weed has changed--no doubt about that, but I would also be right too that many of these taxpayers and legislators no longer wish to continue wasting resources and tons of money. You can't just keep building new prisons, clogging up courts, and wasting tons of resources on a battle that you're going to lose; especially with weed smoking at an all time high already. They were pushed...pushed hard, and we're seeing some of them start to throw in the towel.

Keep in mind that I realize the controversial nature involved, and by no means wish to come off as if I am right and you are wrong. I don't believe that for a minute. I am simply expressing my opinions from being in that field, studying/majoring in it, having had a past drug problem myself, and also having lost someone extremely close to my from an overdose. My opinion will be a bit biased.

just to be clear, I definitely think what you've cited re wasted resources is a factor. No question.

and sorry about the person you were close to -- and congratulations (and good luck?) in getting past your own problem. Congratulations, as well, on being able to discuss this rationally given your background.

 

[chicowalker]

It would be really interesting to see the percentage of people who don't do marijuana who want it legalised. It seems to me that the vast majority who want it legalised indulge and are therefore motivated by self-interest more than anything else. That's fine because it's how we all tend to operate in the political sphere but it does open to question their interpretation of the facts.

Of course, the same would apply equally to those who don't indulge, wouldn't it? If you don't smoke weed and oppose legalization, your "interpretation of the facts" must also be questioned.

(fwiw, I smoke weed rarely at this point. I also oppose many bans on cigarette smoking though I am not and have never been a cigarette smoker. my own view comes much more from a libertarian perspective than from a personal use perspective)

 

[chicowalker]

That is how our system should work. Everyone should vote based upon self interest, and then the true result is the majority.
If I have no kids in school anymore I should vote for low school budgets. That doesn't mean I don't care about the kids, it means I am reflecting my needs so that the end resuilt reflects everyone.

I disagree with this. Voting shouldn't simply reflect self interest. There are also things like principles and what we believe to be good for the country.

That's especially the case when voting involves telling other people what to do or not do, rather than electing an official. 51% can tell 49% who their representative will be, out of necessity to fill that role. 51% of the people shouldn't be telling 49% that if they do something they should be imprisoned.

 

[Galeb]

A few comments.


3) What no one has mentioned yet is the predominance of other drugs being mixed in with weed by drug dealers, including cocaine and other harmful substances. I get this information directly from an emergency room doctor who has witnessed it many times.

Over the last few decades, THC content in marijuana has skyrocketed. There used to be a lot of bad weed out there, and occasionally some dealers would spray the weed with things like ammonia or acetone to make it seem more potent. The practice wasn't common because experienced smokers could usually spot it as soon as it burns, if not before. It also usually turned the weed brown and dried it out very quickly. These days, weed is so potent, there is no need to spray it anymore. Bad weed is almost unheard of and there is a lot of high quality weed grown locally.

Some people would lace weed with other actual drugs, but that was almost exclusively for personal consumption as it was expensive and could have severe legal and social consequences. Usually when someone smoked laced weed accidentally, it was because it was stolen or some type of mistake was made. Although this still happens today, it is rare.

Few people are honest with their Primary Care Physicians about how much they drink or smoke, and fewer still about the drugs they do. It would stand to reason that junkies would not be honest with a random ER doctor on the subject. It seems odd that a doctor would take such words at face value in that situation. I wonder if he believes that the vast majority of objects that get stuck in rectums are from falls. Doctors are not law enforcement. It is foolish to not be up front about them with what you are putting in your body.

Many other drugs are laced, or even something completely different than advertised. Acid, coke, heroin, E (molly) and the like fall into this category. The problem is getting worse, and the designer drugs and synthetic marijuana aren't helping.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Can't directly quote the member who wrote this, since I have him on ignore, but I saw the question posed as a quote in a reply:

For anyone concerned about legalization costing the taxpayers, one of the most compelling reasons for legalization (and one of the biggest reasons why it's getting traction now, IMO), is because it's a net-positive on the budget. Just on direct costs, the government can make way more in taxes on the sale of marijuana than it costs to legalize. Not to even mention the indirect benefits assocatied with no longer imprisoning millions of nonviolent offenders.

Even the skeptics out there are only debating how profitable it will be; nobody is even trying to claim that it won't be profitable

Even if demand remains completely static (which is absurd, but let's assume it), legalizing it would just take the revenue out of criminals' hands and turn it into government revenue. Does anyone actually think that's a bad thing?

 

[manxman2601]

Well, 58% of people want marijuana legalized. In the same poll, 38% admitted to having tried it, and a smaller percentage would be active users currently. So either A) the majority Americans actively smoke weed, or B) there are a whole lot of non-users who want it legalized. Pretty sure it's not A, but even if it is, that's just another reason to be pro-legalization.

Also, I was initially skeptical of that 38% number, since I assumed that people were underreporting. But that number has stayed pretty consistent since the 1980s. 33% of Americans admitted to having tried weed in 1985, vs. 34% in 1999 and 38% in 2013. In that same time period, support for legalization has grown from 23% to 58%.

So, according to Gallup's numbers, there's been only a 15% increase in people who have tried marijuana, coinciding with a 152% increase in support for legalization. That pretty strongly indicates that non-users are the primary drivers of the increase in support for legalization.

Good stuff. Nice find.

 

[manxman2601]

That is how our system should work. Everyone should vote based upon self interest, and then the true result is the majority.
If I have no kids in school anymore I should vote for low school budgets. That doesn't mean I don't care about the kids, it means I am reflecting my needs so that the end resuilt reflects everyone.

I can't agree with this at all. What happens to the rights of permanent minorities in this scenario?

 

[manxman2601]

Of course, the same would apply equally to those who don't indulge, wouldn't it? If you don't smoke weed and oppose legalization, your "interpretation of the facts" must also be questioned.

No because we're not acting out of self interest. We don't gain by keeping drugs banned (at least in the immediate sense).

(fwiw, I smoke weed rarely at this point. I also oppose many bans on cigarette smoking though I am not and have never been a cigarette smoker. my own view comes much more from a libertarian perspective than from a personal use perspective)

This I can absolutely appreciate.

 

[chicowalker]

No because we're not acting out of self interest. We don't gain by keeping drugs banned (at least in the immediate sense).

This I can absolutely appreciate.

I believe that's the case for you, but I think many -- not all, by any means -- people who don't smoke and don't want others to be able to do so are in fact acting out of self-interest -- even if it said interest may not be "immediate."

There are emotional reasons, "moral" reasons, I've even heard people say they want it to be illegal because they don't like how it smells.

 

[manxman2601]

I believe that's the case for you, but I think many -- not all, by any means -- people who don't smoke and don't want others to be able to do so are in fact acting out of self-interest -- even if it said interest may not be "immediate."

There are emotional reasons, "moral" reasons, I've even heard people say they want it to be illegal because they don't like how it smells.

Sure. I can buy moral reasons and I can understand there might be families who have been adversely affected by drugs who would be opposed but I suspect for the vast majority of people, the reason to oppose legalisation would be because of their worries over how it would affect society.

 

[supafly]

Can't directly quote the member who wrote this, since I have him on ignore, but I saw the question posed as a quote in a reply:

For anyone concerned about legalization costing the taxpayers, one of the most compelling reasons for legalization (and one of the biggest reasons why it's getting traction now, IMO), is because it's a net-positive on the budget. Just on direct costs, the government can make way more in taxes on the sale of marijuana than it costs to legalize. Not to even mention the indirect benefits assocatied with no longer imprisoning millions of nonviolent offenders.

Even the skeptics out there are only debating how profitable it will be; nobody is even trying to claim that it won't be profitable

Even if demand remains completely static (which is absurd, but let's assume it), legalizing it would just take the revenue out of criminals' hands and turn it into government revenue. Does anyone actually think that's a bad thing?

I think it could be very profitable for additional state and government programs.

There is also definitely a concern that trying to fight it is causing way too much money through the addition of new prisons from overcrowding due to the the inception of mandatory minimums, and other resources that are wasted through taxpayer money such as slower courts, a heightened need for additional parole/probation officers, etc.

These are some of the reasons why I'd be great with the decision to decriminalize it altogether, although my opinion on outright legalization is a bit different from a personal standpoint. We'll have to see where it goes from here in the next decade or so. I'm definitely far from being one of those who are opposed to any kind of change. It's pointless to continue to punish people with misdemeanor (and felony) offenses that include jail time, being introduced into the system, etc.

 

[larryo]

Clueless comes to mind.

"Since almost everyone uses alcohol its pretty easy to say it causes just about anything.
The decision to have a beer and the decision to smoke weed are two very different things." AndyJohnson

wow you guys are wasting your time with this dinosaur

same dink that says emergency room doctors tell him drug dealers put cocaine in the weed

 

[Ring 6]

I can't agree with this at all. What happens to the rights of permanent minorities in this scenario?

Acting on your own self interest also includes doing the right thing. My self interest includes whether or not or is important to me that such a group is treated fairly.