Debra Medina's Stance on Drugs-- What she Really Said

[wgoforth]

I'm hesitant to post. I think marijuana should be legal. I've encountered a lot of pot heads and none of them wanted to fight me. I've encountered a lot of drunks and a lot of them wanted to fight me. Your argument about people stealing for pot money could be transplanted to just about anything. If people are lazy they are going to steal. I have a friend who smokes a lot of pot and he works hard everyday. It's more how the person handles themselves in general than what the drugs do to them. I mean come on that's like saying if you hand someone a gun they are more likely to go on a shooting spree. Some do but it's not because of the gun it's because of their mental state and way of handling things. Legalizing pot and making a law that it had to be grown here would harm a lot of cartels. I didn't say end I said harm. it should be handled like alcohol though. No smoking and driving, operating equipment, etc. Just my two cents.

I too have encountered many pot holes. Your right, most don't want to fight me... most don't want to do anything (again, not the occasional user, but the addict). My son in college over Christmas remarked "I thought people couldn't get addicted to pot, but I see kids all the time who cannot function because all they do is smoke." More research is showing the mental problems, including schizophrenia, that pot can cause. Certainly people steal every day. BUT you couple that with an addiction, needing a fix, and they will steal everything not nailed down to get it.

Once legalized, would we then have to hire agricultural agents to decide what forms of pot are legal and not? Newer strains out of Europe (ie, "skunk") are as addictive and trip inducing as as meth. The THC levels are 4 times today in the common pot in the US than what it was in the 1974 study.

As a minister, I have to deal with helping these people regularly once they have messed their lives up. I am the one who is called when their family doesn't have money because they have blown it on drugs (including alcohol) or expected to get them out of trouble they have gotten themselves into. Sometimes I can, sometimes I can't. Sometimes they are just permafried.

Point is leglizing will do nothing to keep people from becoming addicts, nor will it bring down the theft. Stop the cartels? I doubt it, they will just lower their price and sell more. Make it up in volume. Possibly leading to violence against American pot growers or demand a cut of the action.

[kalipsocs]

Well whether you agree or disagree with legalization of drugs, I don't think there is much of an argument these days showing that prohibition works. If there weren't demand, there wouldn't be a multibillion dollar business behind it. The cartels have so much money it threatens us all. Government, state or federal, can regulate and tax to their hearts content which not only gives them some of that much needed money as wells as dent the cartel's profits in one fell swoop. Not to mention that I firmly believe that a person should be able to determine what they want to or don't want to put in their own body.

Im not ignorant to the fact that many loved ones out there struggle with addiction, but if prohibition worked then we as a country shouldn't have addicts to illicit drugs. Now we have just packed the prisons with people chasing cheap thrills (based on the numbers of non-violent drug offenders in prison). You can't stop people's infinite thirst for the unknown. I don't pretend to have all of the answers, but we sure need to change something as a country because we can't stay the course. The drug war is, and has been, a losing battle.

But to redirect to the OP, I am all for someone who is open to change or advocate a change in state and national drug policy. Now I just gotta hear her on the rest of the issues

[OldCannon]

I know a lot of cops that would vote in favor of legalizing pot and banning alcohol. They point out that potheads aren't (generally) prone to episodic voilence and that (the ones I've talked to) have never arrested a pothead on a domestic violence call, but they get a lot of DV calls for drunken wife/kid beaters, or drunk drivers that have killed/maimed somebody (or themselves).

I'm not saying my anecdotes are cause for changing the law, I am just reiterating what I've gleaned in casual conversation. Hell, for all I know, those cops might change their story if they had more people consuming pot if it was legalized.

FYI: It seemed to work in Portugal (http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 46,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). I wouldn't be opposed if states were allowed to do their own decriminalization experiments, but don't look to me to participate in those experiments :)

[PUCKER]

What kills me (no, not literally) is that pot is a naturally ocurring substance...it grows in the wild, it's a plant...I'd personally rather just smoke a quality cigar, that's me. That's from a plant too...go figure.

[wgoforth]

What kills me (no, not literally) is that pot is a naturally occurring substance...it grows in the wild, it's a plant...I'd personally rather just smoke a quality cigar, that's me. That's from a plant too...go figure.

Arsenic is naturally occuring too. The pot people smoke is not the wild variety for the most part. These are carefully cultivated, bred and altered from their natural form. The pot of the 1960's is nothing like what we have today, and nothing like the Skunk and other varieties from Europe. These have been bred for the sole purpose of recreational use. So yes, the original mother plant was natural... but not what is generally used today.

BTW, opium and heroine all come from the pretty little poppy too.

[pbwalker]

The medicinal value of Cannibis will NEVER be explored as thoroughly as it should as long as we have the Pfizers, Astra Zenecas, Bristol Meyer Squibbs, Bayer, etc. around.

It still blows my mind that you can go and buy a 12 pack of beer, but smoking a marijuana cigarette in the comfort of your own home is illegal.

[Oldgringo]

I have never had the desire to "smoke a rope" but did y'all know that hemp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)) was a cash crop in the U.S. during WW II? The Japs had cut off the hemp supply from abroad and the U.S. needed ropes for its war efforts.

I've not heard of it being a social problem of the Greatest Generation when and where it was legally grown. Why is it a problem today when it's illegal? Just askin'...

[PUCKER]

If you'd like to smoke/take arsenic...feel free, I'm not going to stop you!

Just don't give any to me...I'll take some poppy seed bagels though...yummy!

And cocaine from cocao (sp?) leaves...and so on...I'm glad folks are here to "save us from ourselves..." LOL

Just throwing this out there - if the "pot" lobby had as much (or more) money as the cigarette lobby, do you think things would be different? I do. I personally CANNOT stand cigarettes...to me they are "the worst thing" out there (yes, there are worse, but I hate them). But give me a quality cigar ANY day...speaking of which...grabbing a few from my humidor and about to enjoy them on this beautiful evening...over and out!

What kills me (no, not literally) is that pot is a naturally occurring substance...it grows in the wild, it's a plant...I'd personally rather just smoke a quality cigar, that's me. That's from a plant too...go figure.

Arsenic is naturally occuring too. The pot people smoke is not the wild variety for the most part. These are carefully cultivated, bred and altered from their natural form. The pot of the 1960's is nothing like what we have today, and nothing like the Skunk and other varieties from Europe. These have been bred for the sole purpose of recreational use. So yes, the original mother plant was natural... but not what is generally used today.

BTW, opium and heroine all come from the pretty little poppy too.

[marksiwel]

The medicinal value of Cannibis will NEVER be explored as thoroughly as it should as long as we have the Pfizers, Astra Zenecas, Bristol Meyer Squibbs, Bayer, etc. around.

It still blows my mind that you can go and buy a 12 pack of beer, but smoking a marijuana cigarette in the comfort of your own home is illegal.

If pot was legalized expect to see those names on the packets

[marksiwel]

Legalize it all and let those who would kill themselves do so *shrug*

This

I would suggest insanely harsh sentences for using and Driving, Using Heavy Machinery, or while possessing a Firearm

[chabouk]

The pot people smoke is not the wild variety for the most part. These are carefully cultivated, bred and altered from their natural form. The pot of the 1960's is nothing like what we have today, and nothing like the Skunk and other varieties from Europe. These have been bred for the sole purpose of recreational use.

The higher concentration is a result of prohibition: the risk of getting busted is the same whether it's strong or mild, so the supply chain opts for the more profitable stuff.

We saw exactly the same thing during the Volstead years, when suppliers and drinkers switched from beer to liquor.

[wgoforth]

The pot people smoke is not the wild variety for the most part. These are carefully cultivated, bred and altered from their natural form. The pot of the 1960's is nothing like what we have today, and nothing like the Skunk and other varieties from Europe. These have been bred for the sole purpose of recreational use.

The higher concentration is a result of prohibition: the risk of getting busted is the same whether it's strong or mild, so the supply chain opts for the more profitable stuff.

We saw exactly the same thing during the Volstead years, when suppliers and drinkers switched from beer to liquor.

And would tokers be likely to go back to less potent stuff if we legalized it now? I mean if the purpose is to get a buzz, wouldn't they still be wanting the stronger bred stuff?

[marksiwel]

The pot people smoke is not the wild variety for the most part. These are carefully cultivated, bred and altered from their natural form. The pot of the 1960's is nothing like what we have today, and nothing like the Skunk and other varieties from Europe. These have been bred for the sole purpose of recreational use.

The higher concentration is a result of prohibition: the risk of getting busted is the same whether it's strong or mild, so the supply chain opts for the more profitable stuff.

We saw exactly the same thing during the Volstead years, when suppliers and drinkers switched from beer to liquor.

And would tokers be likely to go back to less potent stuff if we legalized it now? I mean if the purpose is to get a buzz, wouldn't they still be wanting the stronger bred stuff?

Depends, people still drink Moonshine.

[TexasGal]

The crackhead would still stick a gun in your face for your money.

When was the last time you heard of someone being mugged for a pack of cigarettes? Without the prohibition, few drugs could maintain such high prices.

Respectfully, I must say cigarettes do not achieve the same high as meth. A nicotine fit can not compare to the addicts' desire for meth or cocaine, nor does nicotine do the kind of permanent damage to the mind as PCP. Few cigarette smokers become so embroiled in smoking they do not care if they go to work or even eat. I have seen quite a few brain scans of the damage hard drugs do and none that show the damage of nicotine other than atherosclerosis.

I apologize for straying off topic, so I will bow out of the personal debate on legalizing of drugs in this thread