Continuing that discussion...

"It's fallacious to claim weed is the cause of murder, but there are few saints selling it.
Damn few."

I visited a medical marijuana dispensary the other day next to the place we went for lunch, and while I think the people behind it are in it for the money, it was clear from the many many doctor referrals they had on hand, that many doctors believe and/or are ready to prescribe pot for relieving pain.

The dispensary itself was gorgeous. If they would franchise it, and I had the money I would. Not a hint of anything "pot" related. It was like visiting a very upscale jewelry store crossed with a pharmacy. Staffed by 10 or so 20 somethings all very clean cut, good looking, and wearing the standard polo shirt/khaki nerd uniforms. Lots of (thick) glass and lots of transparency and they said they followed every bit of advice from the local cops and claimed the cops loved them.

Color scheme in yellow and obviously an expensive and good looking logo, and not even a hint of green, or shape of a pot plant.

My guess is their target is aging boomers with big homes, kids out of the home, memories of college, and migraines.

It's also bizarre to claim that spouse/child murders were caused by pot. If only that was the common element between all of the horrific spouse/child murders we see every year.

I will note the picture of the guy in the LA Times makes me think he might be a Sontaran.

Alcohol-related crime is greater now than when it was illegal. It's true. There was a study made. -- Jason S at May 11, 2013 6:28 PM

A. There was a study made. Please give a little more reference than that. When, who, what where. Googling that is a black hole.

B. greater now than when it was illegal Did the study normalize for changing laws? Say that is like saying the incidence of criminal activity involving cocaine is 100% above what it was in 1913. But the rest of the sentence is that cocaine was criminalized in 1914. The number DUI has gone up probably a thousand fold because there weren't DUI's back then.

So don't think you can be a seagull manager.

Messy, yes, especially when abused by hucksters:

http://www.insanemedia.net/sandy-hook-actors-who-is-jennifer-greenberg-sexton/840

As bad, if not worse, than Sylvia Browne.

In "A Child's Garden of Grass", the authors state the belief of some folks that pot is bad because the Hell's Angels use it. The authors then say something like "Imagine if they DIDN'T." Funny book. Taught me about honey slides.

Anyway, if you think that marijuana use helped trigger that man to kill his family, you need to read the article again.

Most stoners I know don't move off the couch, let alone kill people....whole pizza's and 24's of coke, maybe.

If pot's so dangerous, why is "lighting the hill" a tradition? I'm pretty sure the cops wouldn't be letting a bunch of crazed stoners loose in the capital to kill all the mucky mucks. Might hurt their salaries.

"you need to read the article again."

That's true.

I guess the causation/coorelation is skewed when they list prior arrests, which might not have anything to do with this.

There's an interview with a pot grower who thinks that this is why marijuana is still illegal.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=KTWv_uzKzlg

Many drug users are business owners, nurses, teachers, , etc -- but they don't speak up for decriminalization. Law enforcement usually sees the ugly side of drug use and it reinforces stereotypes, so there's a disconnect.

The messy part of freedom for some, I suppose, is that it's better to keep a good reputation and career with a big wink, while others do time.

"Most stoners I know don't move off the couch, let alone kill people....whole pizza's and 24's of coke, maybe."

Exactly. I used to smoke a lot, shared space with a grower and his girlfriend, my closest friend. That wasn't his main source of income. We all had regular 40 hrs a week jobs. I was a library clerk, the guy sold carpet/tile, and my friend worked with computers at the university.

We didn't work stoned. We didn't drive stoned. We played Dungeons & Dragons stoned and that was friggin' hilarious. We girl geeks had a blast. That was one of the few times I was part of a group. (Insert wistful sigh.)It was a little looser than Big Bank Theory. We did eat a lot, because pot makes the most ordinary food absolutely delicious.

Oh, wow...now I'm picturing Sheldon stoned. Weird.

Oh, yeah, my point. My POINT is that none of us ever smoked up and thought is was time to go teach the boss or the old lady or whoever a good lesson. I don't know what it's like today, but the pot back then really was mellow, dude.

The messy part of freedom for some, I suppose, is that it's better to keep a good reputation and career with a big wink, while others do time. -- Jason S. at May 12, 2013 8:26 PM

Have you ever had a random search because a cop asked you to?

Why should anyone be a felon just because they have 1.01 ounces of pot?

When do you predict the "good" guys are going to win the war on drugs, let alone pot? The Second World War, was a global war that lasted from 1939 to 1945. That was six years. Ronald Reagan declared the War on Drugs in 1982. Where has that prohibition taken us in thirty-one years?

I can now have my house or car searched on reported smell. A group of local police officers can kick in my neighbor's door for supposedly me dealing drugs. And they can't sue the government that did it. And my door can be kicked in for supposedly having .5 ounces of pot off an anonymous tip.

Oh, cripes. The Big Bank Theory? Oh, well, it's not like they aren't making money.

Portugal has had beneficial results treating drug use as a health problem rather than a crime:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-01/news/ct-met-portugal-drugs-20130502_1_treatment-facility-portugal-drug-policy

Still, if marijuana is legal or illegal, it's a plant. And if it's legal or illegal, there will still be problems associated with it.

How is "it's just a plant" convincing anybody older than 25 to change the law?

""It's fallacious to claim weed is the cause of murder, but there are few saints selling it.
Damn few."

That was my quote, and it's completely true. For every public servant or pro bono doctor in a California clinic, there are thousands who simply think that what they want is simply more important than anything else.

It is fallacious to claim that marijuana causes murder; this is because it cannot be shown to be the single cause. Greed - manifested in the desire of a dealer to make money in the face of the law, and manifested in the user's disregard of the law in order to get high - causes the violence that attends the drug trade.
This is true of other ventures in which the law is willfully disobeyed, violated, whatever you want to call it.

If you want to get high, and you say "Fuck everyone else, I want my weed!", you don't have any sympathy from me at all. That's not citizenship - that's the petulant whine of the adolescent, for whom others actually suffer without a whit of concern on his part.

"Ronald Reagan declared the War on Drugs in 1982. Where has that prohibition taken us in thirty-one years?"

I thought it was Nixon.

I linked to a chart here a month or so ago, showing the folly of drug war spending compared to rates if addiction.

I agree, it hasn't worked.

there are thousands who simply think that what they want is simply more important than anything else.

So, have you ever met anther human?

Of course, luj. What do you hope to do by taking that out of context?

It looks like you're just going to make another excuse for a stoner's hobby fueling the drug trade, with the attendant violence. Is that the case?

My theory is this: A particular drug is not a problem, although a lot of political hay can be made from demonizing one drug over another, and witch hunts have remained popular through out human history.

The problem is that a certain number of people are going to use something, and become addicted to something, and those addictive types are going to get their fix.

Therefore when you stamp out or tightly control one substance, the demand will ultimately leak over into another area, possibly something easier to get or easier to make at home.
So the heroin epidemic of the 1970's becomes the oxycodon epidemic of the 21st century.

It was long recognized that marihuana in the grand scheme of things, is not a good candidate for a really rip roaring addiction, so it had to be a "gateway drug" so the nannies could work themselves into a snit over it.

"It looks like you're just going to make another excuse for a stoner's hobby fueling the drug trade, with the attendant violence. Is that the case?"

Sure, just like the attendant violence for those with a a caffeine, nicotine, sugar, or alcohol "hobby." Oh that's right, there were innocents killed by attendant violence when alcohol was illegal.

Prohibition fuels violence, not demand.

From what I understand (according to historian Richard Shenkman) Prohibition DID lower alcohol use - but at too high a cost. In multiple ways.

First off Rad, I dont think it is out of context.

Secondly, I was trying to highlight the fact that the whole of human existence is guided by the principle you noted.

People want what they want regardless of what others want, its why harmless drugs are illegal, its why beer sold in Utah is basically water, its why every law ever crafted exists

I linked to a chart here a month or so ago, showing the folly of drug war spending compared to rates if addiction. -- Jason S. at May 12, 2013 9:48 PM

Since you aren't quite a regular poster, I probably missed that chart. Can you give us that link again?

But you still haven't shown where Alcohol-related crime is greater now than when it was illegal. It's true. There was a study made.

Or should I just ignore that in favor of your new assertion without facts?

http://m.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/10/chart-says-war-drugs-isnt-working/57913/

Here's the link to drug war spending compared to addiction.

As far as the alcohol study goes, I was being lazy and thought somebody might find one. It might be wrong.

On second thought, I don't think I've ever been wrong. Lol

"Prohibition fuels violence, not demand."

You really need to read what you write before hitting the "Submit" button.

You've never seen bums in a soup kitchen fight over food when there is plenty, let alone figure out that demand precedes prohibition.

In the case of alcohol, the goal of Prohibition was to stop alcohol. In our amazing wisdom, we have decided that ~16 thousand direct alcohol deaths per year is JUST PEACHY.

I ride a motorcycle. I don't pretend to know everything about riding, and I understand the risks well enough to lecture on the subject. All activities have risks, from which we should never hide just because they are unpleasant.