Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Bill Introduced to End Federal Marijuana Prohibition

Yes,it's an escape mechanism. I've already agreed with you that everyone who recreationally uses pot would be better off without it,just like people who use alcohol and tobacco would be better off without it. That's not the question that needs to be answered though. I've repeatedly said,and you know it's true that we aren't going to be able to get rid of it or stop people from using it by making it illegal.The question then becomes how do you manage it so that it does the least amount of harm and the most good. Until you are ready to have that conversation,then you really are sticking your head in the sand,respectfully.

Yeah, he can't focus on the facts, can't even conceive that Cannabis might have medicinal uses. Something went on behind the scenes once upon a time that made Fireball hate MJ users. Pothead stole his girlfried in HS? Couldn't be a "popular kid" cause he didn't smoke? You can bet something damaged his psyche..

I don't much care anymore, provided they come up with a reliable test for determining the level of "intoxication" so employers and accident victims have some basis to protect themselves and recover damages from miscreants.

You're operating under the false assumption that MJ use is in some way harmful. Drug abuse is a victimless crime, I read that here.

Do you want users of alcohol and tobacco beaten and put to hard labor too or does that just apply to the drugs you deem bad? I don't think I want to live in that society. It sounds way too much like N Korea to me.

Instead I would rather see pot sold and regulated like alcohol and the money used to treat the problem rather than punish the symptom.The problem is the reason people want to escape their life through the symptom of drug abuse.

Oh, man! Kewl! I thought I had to drive all the way to Bend or somewhere to get it.

Thanks! I'll be back in a while, or not...


Seriously, I had read that a pot shop opened in Baker County, probably in the Idaho Statesman. At that time that was the first and only one on this side of the state so prices were high and quality was low, and Idaho state troopers were hanging out in unmarked cars watching for people with Idaho plates going into the store, then they follow them back across the Idaho state line to bust them. From your link I see three of them opened up so I wonder if the Idaho cops are trying to cover all three or just grab a random sampling from each.

Oh, well, I'll just keep making the drive to Bend, I know some cool dudes there who will let me shoot it up and crash at their drug pad...

You raise some hard questions. Agreed, the abuse of these chemicals one and all due to the escape from life is the root. And just like raising kids, when they can't see the way to doing what's right, they need to be "incentivized" to find their way. That can be done though negative or positive reinforcement, which is exactly what I think responsible leadership should be doing to disincentivize drug abuse and incentivize responsible living.

Let's put distillers, brewers, wine producers, and those employed in the tobacco industry in that group, too.
Also porn makers and all those associated with that industry as well. Then there are the candy makers.

Doin' good never stops, does it, as hatreds grow and grow. Before long we'll all be muslims, or a version thereof. That's how they roll.

Not that the govt should be the solution to a personal problem, but drug abuse has societal ramifications and therefore becomes an issue for authorities to "manage".

Interesting game pondering federal vs. state control. I think the feds should incentivize the states to make wise decisions regarding drug abuse, same as the state should incentivize individuals. not saying the feds shouldn't have direct personal consequences for drug abuse, but both and all lesser entities should be on the same page, pushing hard against substance abuse.

I wouldn't make it legal federally or state wise. I'd make abuse of chemicals very unattractive on all levels of govt.

Obviously anything can be abused to the point of detriment, and that includes weed. And based on national obesity statistics, also includes food/drink. We will never control free citizens daily lives, not the minds of obsessive individuals that can't display self control...we're human.

Mind altering substances that contribute to about 90% of societies crime problems really can't be compared to candy.

Except on the fire.

Exactly right Ricky.The solution has never been,to make people do right.Love,joy,peace,goodness,meekness,gentleness,and self control,cannot be reached by forced compliance.

Notice how some women have babies to collect more welfare? Govt is rewarding them, so they do it. Govt could just as easily not reward them. All it takes is policy change.

Legalizing a drug is condoning it's use, like it or not. If it's illegal but tolerated/not prosecuted, then the same message is sent.

The best position for society, although not perfect, is making it illegal for recreational use, and enforcing it. Plus encouraging responsible choices.

A key point left out of most of these discussions is where the proceeds from marijuana sales go. Prohibition did nothing to stop the sale of pot. It will always be here. , and money will be made off it. Should the proceeds continue to go to the cartels, or......

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/03/09/denver-fbi-youth-program-funded-pot-taxes/

Like it or not, anyone in authority over you, whether a parent or a govt, makes choices about what they discourage, encourage, condone, punish. My position is that the govt should dis-incentivize drug abuse and hold people accountable for the choices they make. Also part of the program might be to reward chronic offenders for making good choices and staying clean for a period of time.

If govt under Barrack Obama was responsible for so many ills in society, like the nonsense from BLM et all, then why can't it be said equally that the govt can be an agent for positive change? Why can't the govt put in place policies that reward right choices and discourage poor ones?

The obvious answer is they can.

It's more the money from blackmarket prices caused by laws against the product that cause most of the crime.
It's all about the money on both sides of the isle.

I know Oregon is making serious bank from pot sales. Most of you also know that Oregon seems to have lost it's moral compass, so it's no surprise that leadership condones pot use, both for the money and for the "in your face" to authority in general that it represents. Sorry to sound like a broken record, but the 60's generation is now in charge, so what do you expect society to look like under their leadership?

The fact that weed is another lever for greed and corruption to entangle itself in society is good enough reason for me to vote against it.