The Second "D" word

[Flori_DAMAN 24]

Originally posted by Alura

In 1997, there were 55,069 drug offenders in federal prisons (out of a total Federal prison population of 88,018 that year). Of these, 10,094 were in for possession, 40,053 were in for trafficking, and 4,922 were in for other drug crimes. Only 25 percent of Federal drug offenders were under the influence of drugs at the time of their offense

 

In 1997, there were 216,254 drug offenders in state prisons (out of a total State prison population of 1,046,706 that year). Of these, 92,373 were in for possession, 117,926 were in for trafficking, and 5,955 were in for other drug crimes. Only 41.9 percent of State drug offenders were under the influence of drugs at the time of their offense.

 

Did someone say back a ways in this thread that nobody goes to prison for possession any more?

 

Roughly half of the prison population at any given time are black males. Did someone say the poor are not more likely to be imprisoned than the rich?

 

Mr. Alura

 

I said it MR.

 

Its true too. I am a liberal you know. I was a big LBJ fan, but since Carter came in and MLK left no one has really promoted the true liberalism in our country. I get a bit out of shape by the defense of the current liberal party because they allow conservatives to run rampant.

 

ANd although I may sound like im a deep down conservative the opposite is true. I am a member of the true liberal beliefs. THe current liberals have caved in to ridiculous half thought out agenda's that ignore our national defense in favor of keeping monorities in their place. The Clinton administration was supposed to change that. The Clinton administration passed more leglislation that keeps minorities in check than any liberal presidency in recent memory.

 

John

[alabamafuntonig 20]

Quote

Did someone say the poor are not more likely to be imprisoned than the rich?

they are, but I belie it's an education thing!

[Flori_DAMAN 24]

Originally posted by alabamafuntonig

they are but i belive its a education thing!

 

Yeah, like the poor are uneducated. It is. The poor usually are raised to be uneducated. That doesn't make them more guilty when trial time comes around tho.

 

John

[alabamafuntonig 20]

Twist,Twist,Twist, john. Don’t take my points and twist them into some sort of anti poor rally. There are more uneducated people in jail than educated and im not talking about 8th graders. If most inner city youth had a good education instead of midnight basketball there may be less crime and fewer criminals. When you break the law you go to jail. Unless you’re rich then you just hire a real educated lawyer to talk your way out.

[alabamafuntonig 20]

Besides when did it become societies job to baby sit criminals, there criminals. They get a high school GED, they can earn collage credits. They have work camps. They can hold jobs, make money, read books, worship, eat, shower, cloth themselves much better than the homeless in this country. I feel no pity for a man doing” time” he got it easy. Not only does he get a vacation from the real world he gets paid to get educated and eats off the hog. I don’t think the prison system is tough enough. How can we expect people to not want to go to prison if there is no “hard time?” How about a few public executions and some harder labor camps maybe that will stop all the petty crimes. If you don’t do the crime then you wont do the time!

[Flori_DAMAN 24]

I was totally unwrongfully incarcerated at one point.

 

That may make a difference. IF it werent for the fact that I had a lot of money I would have done time too.

 

But there are so many that fall into that category I am an advocate now.

 

YOud just have to be there.

 

John

[alabamafuntonig 20]

ill make it a point to keep my freedoms! wrongfully accused is a way other story john! If a person gets stopped with a oz of pot and gets time it will be a small amount at best .if he does it again so let the chips fall! stupidity has no excuse!

[Flori_DAMAN 24]

My wrongful incarceration had to do with no drug issues.

 

IF a person gets caught yeah its stupid. It is stupid to run out of gas too.

 

John

[BradAndJanet 69]

Quote

Originally posted by Alura

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that in 1999, the nation spent $146,556,000,000 on the Federal, State and Local justice systems. In that year, the United States had 1,875,199 adult jail and prison inmates. Based on this information the cost per inmate year was:

-- Corrections spending alone: $26,134 per inmate

-- Corrections, judicial and legal costs: $43,297 per inmate

-- Corrections, judicial, legal and police costs: $78,154 per inmate

 

Is it really worthwhile to spend this kind of money to keep pot smokers in jail?

 

Mr. Alura

Really interesting numbers Mr. Alura. When you find the health care ones, be sure to let us know.

 

You ask if it's worthwhile. All I can think is that it must be good for somebody or it wouldn't be happening. Why continuance of this policy makes sense to our government is an even more interesting question.

[Flori_DAMAN 24]

Originally posted by BradAndJanet

Really interesting numbers Mr. Alura. When you find the health care ones, be sure to let us know.

 

You ask if it's worthwhile. All I can think is that it must be good for somebody or it wouldn't be happening. Why continuance of this policy makes sense to our government is an even more interesting question.

 

-B (who had better get back to painting or J will get him)

 

The feeling that it must be good for somebody or it wouldnt be happening.

 

Yeah its good for somebody. It is good for the polititians that appropriate more funding into the local law enforcement agencies. It is good for the people that staff the jails and prisons.

 

It isn't good for the people that are incarcerated for non-violent crimes or the families or taxpayers though that support this horrible injustice. IF it is good for somebody then we could in that respect impose the death penalty on pot users. It would be good for that guy that may smoke enough pot to fester his brain, but is it good for a lot of people?

 

The balance of justice should not be based on "its good for somebody", it should be based on "its good for the majority".

 

John

[bear_n_bunny 43]

Originally posted by Flori_DAMAN

There are hundreds of thousands of people in prison for possesion of marijuana. Over one ounce (bout the size of a pack of ciggarrettes, constitues possesion with the intent to deliver. When I used it I purchased a quarter lb per six months, so I could get a better price and not need to spend too much time at the dealers house.

 

When someone gets caught with even a gram over an ounce he is now subject to delivery felony laws. IF he has a previous record he could do years, if not life for this possesion. He could even have purchased seperate smaller packages, say quarter ounce bags, but just because they are packaged individually he is often arrested with the "intent" of delivery, a felony of delivering a schedule 1 narcotic is a serious offense....putting people in prison that cannot afford good attorneys. Check out the statistics on the income of those arrested for drug crimes and the incarceration rate taking into fact income. This is indisputable. Poor people arrested and go to jail or prison. RIch people skate.

 

Before saying it is a crock investigate the issue. Over 700,000 arrests per year do include simple possesion, however many of these were indeed sent to prison because they refused to play narc for the cops. Some of the lower income people do, but the people fortunate to have money just get a good attorney and wear the prosecutors out sooner or later, get the charges minimized to a misdemeanor, attend drug education and its over like a mole removal.

 

Concerning bringing it onto, into or around my personal property, I agree wholeheartedly. Your home is your castle and no one should jeapordize it in any way.

 

John

 

A crock I said and a crock I meant. Even the subsequent posts with all those "statistics" did not differentiate on the KIND of drug the "users" were in jail for; a nontrivial difference.

 

I was talking about marijuana, not cocaine, speed, heroin, or any other hard drug. And nobody goes to PRISON for possesion of recreational amounts of pot, and anyone who says otherwise is full of crap. And in most states, possession of "personal use" quantities of marijuana is a slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanor, period. And while going to jail for 90 days for possessing "paraphenalia" (and what kind of paraphenalia? rolliing papers or a crack pipe?), while idiotic in the extreme (another reason to stay the hell out of Ohio..., is not a five year PRISON term.

 

The statistics quoted are sufficiently vague as to be meaningless. The devil is in the details, which are conveniently left out. For instance, "possesion" of WHAT? "Users" of WHAT? They don't say. And was it "possession" or "possession with intent to distribute"? Again, they don't say. Possession and use of even small quantities of some drugs is indeed a felony. If you are a druggie, and get caught a half dozen times with dime bags of crank on you, especially if you throw the occasional felony conviction for robbery or burgulary into the mix, then yes, you might find yourself doing hard time. But that's not what we were talking about, was it?

 

And I'm not even going to get into this "it's just to lock up poor people and rich people always get away" drivel. Nor am I going to get into an argument on the relative merits of the "drug war", although having seen first hand the damage done by hard drug use, it's really not so hard to understand why it is pursued.

 

But the bottom line is that recreational pot users, if caught with the stuff, don't do hard time in prison. Or if one does, there is one hell of a lot more to the story than just getting caught with an ounce and a half bag of Mexican dirt weed in your car.

 

Bear

[bear_n_bunny 43]

Originally posted by Alura

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that in 1999, the nation spent $146,556,000,000 on the Federal, State and Local justice systems. In that year, the United States had 1,875,199 adult jail and prison inmates. Based on this information the cost per inmate year was:

-- Corrections spending alone: $26,134 per inmate

-- Corrections, judicial and legal costs: $43,297 per inmate

-- Corrections, judicial, legal and police costs: $78,154 per inmate

 

Is it really worthwhile to spend this kind of money to keep pot smokers in jail?

 

Mr. Alura

 

Except that you have not shown that it's being spent to "keep pot smokers in jail".

[Alura 2,766]

Quote

Originally posted by bear_n_bunny

 

The statistics quoted are sufficiently vague as to be meaningless. The devil is in the details, which are conveniently left out. For instance, "possession" of WHAT? "Users" of WHAT? They don't say. And was it "possession" or "possession with intent to distribute"? Again, they don't say. Possession and use of even small quantities of some drugs is indeed a felony. If you are a druggie, and get caught a half dozen times with dime bags of crank on you, especially if you throw the occasional felony conviction for robbery or burglary into the mix, then yes, you might find yourself doing hard time. But that's not what we were talking about, was it?

 

The website of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, if I remember correctly, is where I found those stats, Bear. I didn't want to fill up the Swingers Board with such numbers so I just quoted those that seemed germaine. The statistics are broken down much farther on that website. Have a look.

[bear_n_bunny 43]

Originally posted by Alura

In 1997, there were 55,069 drug offenders in federal prisons (out of a total Federal prison population of 88,018 that year). Of these, 10,094 were in for possession, 40,053 were in for trafficking, and 4,922 were in for other drug crimes. Only 25 percent of Federal drug offenders were under the influence of drugs at the time of their offense

 

In 1997, there were 216,254 drug offenders in state prisons (out of a total State prison population of 1,046,706 that year). Of these, 92,373 were in for possession, 117,926 were in for trafficking, and 5,955 were in for other drug crimes. Only 41.9 percent of State drug offenders were under the influence of drugs at the time of their offense.

 

Did someone say back a ways in this thread that nobody goes to prison for possession any more?

 

Roughly half of the prison population at any given time are black males. Did someone say the poor are not more likely to be imprisoned than the rich?

 

Mr. Alura

 

No, what I said was is that nobody goes to prison for possession of recreational amounts of marijuana. As I mentioned in an earlier post, your statistics conveniently leave out just what was being "possessed". A nontrivial difference.

 

And if it is true that half the prison population is black, then looking at the numbers you do cite for drug-related offenses, then all this statement means is that black men are committing an awful lot of the crime in this country, most of it not directly related to drugs. This is not to say that drugs were not a factor, especially being under the influence of drugs while committing the crime, but according to your own stats most of the convictions were not for drugs, but some other felony.

 

Now, if it pleases you to think all these people, black or otherwise, were railroaded into prison just because they were black or poor or for whatever other politically correct excuse you want to throw out there, you go right ahead because I'm not going to waste my time trying to disabuse you of that notion.

 

Bear

[Alura 2,766]

Originally posted by bear_n_bunny

Except that you have not shown that it's being spent to "keep pot smokers in jail".

 

I meant to make only a very small point: It's a waste of money to put pot smokers in jail. That's all. Here is the last set of statistics I'm going to post. If anybody wants details, look them up.

 

 

The table below shows the average sentence (mean and median) imposed on Federal prisoners for various offenses in 2000.

 

Average Federal Sentence

Offense __Mean__ __Median__

All Offenses __56.8 months__ __33.0 months__

All Felonies __58.0 months__ __36.0 months__

Violent Felonies __63.0 months__

Drug Felonies __75.6 months__ __55.0 months__

Property Felony - Fraud __22.5 months__ __14.0 months__

Property Felony - Other __33.4 months__ __18.0 months__

Public Order Felony - Regulatory __28.0 months__ __15.0 months__

Public Order Felony - Other __46.5 months__ __30.0 months__

Misdemeanors __10.3 months__ __6.0 months__

Source:_US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Criminal Case Processing, 2000, With Trends 1982-2000 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, November 2001), p. 12, Table 6.

 

I doubt we'd find many pot smokers in Federal Prison. I would be interesting to see the breakdown on the Drug Felony convictions. I wouldn't be surprised to find everything from King Pins to GI's caught smoking in the barracks.

 

Mr. Alura

[OhioCouple 38]

And nobody goes to PRISON for possesion of recreational amounts of pot, and anyone who says otherwise is full of crap. And in most states, possession of "personal use" quantities of marijuana is a slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanor, period. And while going to jail for 90 days for possessing "paraphenalia" (and what kind of paraphenalia? rolliing papers or a crack pipe?), while idiotic in the extreme (another reason to stay the hell out of Ohio..., is not a five year PRISON term.

Having worked in an industry that had me in close personal contact with as many as 40-50 young men and women at any given time, more than one spent some time in jail for possession of paraphenalia. In their cases it was usually what they call a 'roach clip' and remnants of a marijuana butt. (I don't really know what all this stuff is called.) Some had pipes that had residue etc. Now granted they went to 'jail' not 'prison', but in my eyes, incarceration is incarceration. As for going to prison, it does happen here in the state of Ohio. Hubby had an employee, who granted had two DUI's under his belt in a ten year period, but the last time he was pulled over for a head light being out, the police officer spotted a marijuana pipe in his ashtray. He was cited with possession (he wasn't under the influence of anything at the time) and received one year in which at the time was known as "The Workhouse" as he was a repeat offender. It has since closed, but was similar to a prison rather than a jail. About the only difference is that it held non-violent offenders and many had work releases. Basically it housed those inbetween one awaiting sentencing or serving short terms in the county/city jails and those that were violent offenders or had to spend more than a year.

 

So in the state of Ohio, at least up until about 5 years ago (that I know of, speaking only for Montgomery county) , you could do some lengthy time for mere personal possession.

[wrnakedru 38]

We, like others in this thread, have defined the D&D free self-labelling or requested definition of possible party partners, to mean disease and drug free.

We believe the disease free reference is anything in the STD category.

As to the drug free, this is sometimes an iffy definition. But it seems probable that those who have taken a hard line, no exceptions stance are likely not to hear the total truth from others. In fact, we can think of some we know who have friends who are occasional pot smokers. But these same people draw a hard line against even meeting with anyone who may be just as infrequent pot smokers.

There are many aspects of people's lives they may choose to keep private from folks until they are known better. These are not necessarily of a dishonest nature, but an effort to keep from being judged in total based on one item that may not be of day-to-day importance.

So here again is a reason to spend some time getting to know folks in casual situations before spending intimate time with them. If one allows an opportunity for social exposure, those items that "red flag" the relationship are more likely to become evident.

We feel that reliance upon legal or illegal substances shows itself given the venue. Be it alcohol or more, be it the participation of one partner to please the other, the truth will show.

After all, many other threads have dealt with "untruths" in profiles, and this is certainly an area many would choose to be less than completely telling about.

It's just a matter of allowing for the opportunity to ascertain the truth for yourself.

[Yummi 16]

I'm with Alura on this one. One could argue that marijuana is illegal, so of course should be included in "D&D FREE" - but I don't consider marijuana or alcohol to be included.

 

I assume disease means anything you could get by having sex with each other.

[Vjklander 136]

Originally posted by Flori_DAMAN

If anyone could come up with a clear cut rational reason that alcohol use is legal and pot use is illegal I would welcome it. I just have to go by facts rather than hysteria and the facts demonstrate that pot is not even in the same category as alcohol concerning effects, addiction, abuse, or deaths associated with its use.

John

 

Very simple John - The tobacco and alcohol lobbies. If everyone could get high and smoke growing their own, those industries would lose Billions. And none of it would go in the coffers of the policos.

J

[OhioCouple 38]

Originally posted by bear_n_bunny

Hell, I don't care. As long as you don't bring it around me or mine, when it comes to pot I don't really give a rat's ass what you do. And if this bothers you all that damn much, then go give you money to the "Marijuana Policy Project" and get the damn laws changes (although given the lack of logical rigor I've seen in this discussion, I wouldn't expect much in the way of results...

A tad touchy are we , Bear? Actually, I am with you, I don't really care what someone does in their own privacy or with their own like minded people, I just don't want it around me. I can think of hundreds of other reasons worthy of spending some time in jail for. Like ridding the world of one less child abuser, pedophile or cold blooded, no concious murderer to name a few.... That would be worth spending time in jail for. A half smoked joint isn't. Just my opinion.

[bear_n_bunny 43]

Originally posted by OhioCouple

A tad touchy are we , Bear? Actually, I am with you, I don't really care what someone does in their own privacy or with their own like minded people, I just don't want it around me. I can think of hundreds of other reasons worthy of spending some time in jail for. Like ridding the world of one less child abuser, pedophile or cold blooded, no concious murderer to name a few.... That would be worth spending time in jail for. A half smoked joint isn't. Just my opinion.

 

No, not "touchy". I've just decided I'm wasting my time trying to disabuse you all of the silly notion that anyone still goes to prison for a "half smoked joint". But if it pleases you to think so, go right ahead.

 

And the last time I looked, if someone is caught abusing children in whatever way, or murdering another, they do hard time. At least they do here in Texas...

[Alura 2,766]

Originally posted by bear_n_bunny

No, not "touchy". I've just decided I'm wasting my time trying to disabuse you all of the silly notion that anyone still goes to prison for a "half smoked joint". But if it pleases you to think so, go right ahead.

 

Perhaps there is noone in prison for mere possession these days, Bear. If that is true, it hasn't been very long since it was not. You've asked us to support our position with "unbiased" facts. I was going to suggest the NORML website, but you'd probably consider them biased. May I ask, please, where you get your opinion that there are no longer any people incarcerated for simple possession?

 

I'd be interested to know, also, why you seem to get so upset when people disagree with you?

 

Mr. Alura

[alabamafuntonig 20]

Bear

I’m sure there are a lot of people that get put in prison for a while on marijuana charges. What those stats do not get into is how many of those that did time did time because it was there 2nd or third or even 4th offense. People do go to prison for pot. It may not be on there first offense. If it is I can assure you the government, atf or dea has something on them to start with and use everything they can and include the laws on the book about pot to convict such criminals. Remember they put Al Capone in prison for tax evasion not all the murders and gang land slayings he was involved in. If a government organization is investigating you do not stand a chance they will find something. And hey most people do pot that are in inner city gangs. So the cops just use the possession law as a tool.

[bear_n_bunny 43]

Originally posted by Vjklander

Very simple John - The tobacco and alcohol lobbies. If everyone could get high and smoke growing their own, those industries would lose Billions. And none of it would go in the coffers of the policos.

J

 

J, I think you've been spending too much time off with your buds looting and pillaging the Saxons...

 

The "tobacco and alcohol lobbies"? Jeez, at this rate, the black helicopters will be getting into the mix....

 

Hate to tell you this, but making alcohol illegal has been tried already. It was called "Prohibition", and it was a dismal failure, which is why the Halstead Act was repealed some years later. People are always trying to make some kind of connection between alcohol and illegal drugs, especially marijuana. What they don't take into account is that alcohol and its usage has been around for as long as there have been humans on this planet (ancient documents, dating back thousands of years, have been found that turned out to be recipes for making beer), whereas by comparison pot just showed up last week. Furthermore, most people use alcohol with no deletorious effects.

 

Now, I personally don't have a problem with pot being legalized, as the risks using pot are no more than those associated with alcohol. However, that is not how the stuff is perceived by a lot of people, especially in years past, and hence it is still illegal, although the penalties for possessing it are nowhere near as steep as they once were (despite what you may have read to the contrary here), unless you are caught with ton lots of the stuff.

 

But the notion that it is kept illegal because of some conspiracy of the alcohol and tobacco (I can't even fathom what the hell the tobacco industry has to do with this; that notion is so around the bend I'm not going to bother with it) industries is just plain silly. If the day ever comes that pot is made legal, do you really think it's going to make any difference to the relative consumption of alcohol? The effects are different, the way they are ingested are different. It is a classic "apples and oranges" situaiton.

 

If pot is made legal, it won't make a damn bit of difference to those who already use and enjoy alcohol; they will continue to use it; the beer and booze makers will still make their money, and the pols will still get their cut. The only difference is that if pot is legalized, the politicians will tax the shit out of it, just as they do alcohol and tobacco now, which if anything will make the politicians happy as it will give them more money to blow.

 

Bear

[alabamafuntonig 20]

Bear are you nuts

The tobacco lobbied that pot be taken of the market in the roaring 20s. Before that the hemp market was bigger than tobacco in this country and legal to smoke!. They used the politics of the times because pot came from hemp fields, Hemp bear remember ropes tents etc ww2 ww1 yea the tobacco lobbyists have a lot to do with the making of pot illegal. Hell I can’t grow tobacco in my basement but I sure could grow enough pot to last a year. Supply and demand bear supply and demand.

[bear_n_bunny 43]

Originally posted by Alura

Perhaps there is noone in prison for mere possession these days, Bear. If that is true, it hasn't been very long since it was not. You've asked us to support our position with "unbiased" facts. I was going to suggest the NORML website, but you'd probably consider them biased. May I ask, please, where you get your opinion that there are no longer any people incarcerated for simple possession?

 

I'd be interested to know, also, why you seem to get so upset when people disagree with you?

 

Mr. Alura

 

You are mistaking being "upset" with amusement. On the other hand, you are correct that the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws is not an unbiased source; they most definitely have an axe to grind.

 

As for where I get my "opinion", I'm going to hazard a guess and say I was smoking pot before you were born, and have watched the evolution of the laws regarding this stuff over the past 35 years or so. Yes, there was a time (especially back in the 1960s and earlier) when you could do hard time in prison for possesion of even a small amount of pot. But as the years have passed, the powers-that-be saw the futility of these laws, and by the 1980s, the laws for simple possession were decriminalized to the point where the most that might happen is you spend a few days in the local lock-up, if that much. But no one gets hard time in prison for simple possession anymore, and it has been thus for upwards of 20 years now.

 

Now, Mr. Bama makes a good point when he says that some people may get sent up for possession of pot, BUT, there is always more to it than simply Mr. Alura, honest citizen, being pulled over for a busted tail light and being arrested for that half-smoked doobie in the ashtray and getting five years in the state slammer. That simply is not going to happen, NORML wet dreams to the contrary notwithstanding. It will be a matter of the person having several prior felony convictions, a parole violation, or something of this nature. Again, a nontrivial difference.

 

Bear

[bear_n_bunny 43]

Originally posted by alabamafuntonig

Bear are you nuts

The tobacco lobbied that pot be taken of the market in the roaring 20s. Before that the hemp market was bigger than tobacco in this country and legal to smoke!. They used the politics of the times because pot came from hemp fields, Hemp bear remember ropes tents etc ww2 ww1 yea the tobacco lobbyists have a lot to do with the making of pot illegal. Hell I can’t grow tobacco in my basement but I sure could grow enough pot to last a year. Supply and demand bear supply and demand.

 

Yes, Bama, I know what "hemp" is. Until just a few years ago the government still grew it in Mississippi in case a supply was ever needed again. The advent of superior artificial fibers made it superfluous, and the government stopped growing the weed. I recall there was a joke going around afterwards about people standing downwind of the bonfires when the Feds burned the stuff...

 

As for the tobacco indistry having anything to do with it's being made illegal, you are going to have to prove that one, as that was not in any of the histories I've read on the subject.

 

Bear

[alabamafuntonig 20]

bear

the political cash crop from 1700-1900 was hemp not tobbaco . now its tobbaco. hey either way they do play a major part in the delegalization of pot. vlk make a good point on the growing it at home theory. were not saying conspericy but just reality. imagine if it was leagal the cash most farmers would make. the monies diverted from the war on pot to education , the money saved in law enforcment of gangs that traffic the stuff. it cant be any worse to enforce than alcohol. just a thought .

[Alura 2,766]

Originally posted by bear_n_bunny

 

Hate to tell you this, but making alcohol illegal has been tried already. It was called "Prohibition", and it was a dismal failure, which is why the Halstead Act was repealed some years later.

 

We Okies made prohibition a part of our state constitution in 1907 and continued that "dismal failure" until 1959. You're right, it never worked and created a huge underground and untaxed industry. The same is true of pot now.

 

What they don't take into account is that alcohol and its usage has been around for as long as there have been humans on this planet (ancient documents, dating back thousands of years, have been found that turned out to be recipes for making beer), whereas by comparison pot just showed up last week.

 

The earliest evidence of alcohol use I'm aware of is beer made by the ancient Babylonians some 5,000 to 6,000 years ago. The Egyptians came later. Evidence of pot use by both Cro-Magnon man and Neanderthal man would take us back to 25,000BCE and 3,000,000 years BCE to approximately 25,000 years ago. I'm unaware of any alcohol use by either.

 

...the penalties for possessing [pot] are nowhere near as steep as they once were (despite what you may have read to the contrary here), unless you are caught with ton lots of the stuff.

 

I think we can agree with this, just not that there are no people incarcerated for possession.

 

Mr. Alura

[Alura 2,766]

Originally posted by bear_n_bunny

As for where I get my "opinion", I'm going to hazard a guess and say I was smoking pot before you were born, and have watched the evolution of the laws regarding this stuff over the past 35 years or so.

 

Damn! You're old, Bear! You must have been smoking pot since the 1930s.

 

Now, Mr. Bama makes a good point when he says that some people may get sent up for possession of pot, BUT, there is always more to it than simply Mr. Alura, honest citizen, being pulled over for a busted tail light and being arrested for that half-smoked doobie in the ashtray and getting five years in the state slammer.

 

Mr. Alura, automotive maintenance freak, is unlikely to be pulled over for a broken tail light. A half-smoked doobie is even less likely to be in the change-filled ashtray. Even if Mr. Alura still cared to smoke pot, it's not likely he'd even be able to buy any. I can't imagine a dealer being willing to sell weed to a senior citizen like myself.

 

Mr. Alura

[OhioCouple 38]

Originally posted by Alura

Originally posted by bear_n_bunny

Even if Mr. Alura still cared to smoke pot, it's not likely he'd even be able to buy any. I can't imagine a dealer being willing to sell weed to a senior citizen like myself.

Only a rumor, Mr. Alura, but I think if you show your AARP card you get a 10% discount....

[alabamafuntonig 20]

Mr alura

you would be surprised on the availability of pot for senior citizens. Like any other business the baby boom generation is a vast market to tap into even for the drug trade. I just wonder if they give a aarp discount!

[Alura 2,766]

Originally posted by OhioCouple

Only a rumor, Mr. Alura, but I think if you show your AARP card you get a 10% discount....

 

Far Out! (Does that date me enough, y'all?)

 

Mr. Alura

[Alura 2,766]

Originally posted by alabamafuntonig

Mr alura

you would be surprised on the availability of pot for senior citizens. Like any other business the baby boom generation is a vast market to tap into even for the drug trade. I just wonder if they give a aarp discount!

 

Then how come none of my neighbors has ever turned me on? How come nobody has ever stepped over while I was digging out a tree root and said, "Man, that's hard work! How about if you and Mrs. Alura and we get into the hot tub and smoke a doob?"

 

I guess I might be tempted to relive some of my "Youthful Indescetions" if the situation was ... say... "Just right!"

 

:lol:

 

Mr. Alura

[alabamafuntonig 20]

mr alura

Its not that freewheeling 60's attitude like it was "back in the day" I'm sure if you looked close you would find a few of your "buds" who smoked the green stuff. if your every around alabama ill be sure to hook you up! untill then keep your nose up and im sure you will be surprised who smells like what!

 

"are you sure you can try it it wont affect any of that geratric meds or any thing will it":rofl:

[Alura 2,766]

Originally posted by alabamafuntonig

 

"are you sure you can try it it wont affect any of that geratric meds or any thing will it":rofl:

 

I don't do any "geratric meds" either, Alabama. Are you aware of any good ones?

 

Mr. Alura

[alabamafuntonig 20]

viagra, all those anti aging stuff..lipator!

[OhioCouple 38]

Originally posted by Alura

How come nobody has ever stepped over while I was digging out a tree root and said, "Man, that's hard work! How about if you and Mrs. Alura and we get into the hot tub and smoke a doob?"

Well, Mr. Alura, this must be where the age differnce steps in. In my era it was called a 'doobie'. Did the younger genereation shorten it to just 'doob'? I thought you were older than me, now I am totally confused! But then that is me, I live in a state of confusion. Regardless, Y'all are still sexy in my book whether you doobie or dontbee.

[Flori_DAMAN 24]

I lost the original thread. My short term memory has been affected tho. Has anyone seen it?

 

AARP isn't your fathers AARP.

 

JOhn

[alabamafuntonig 20]

jibba ,joint ,spliff,BLUNT,jay,trees,bud,bones,cronic,sensimalia,gangi,- those are the slang of today ! so mr alura when that person came over and said hey dude want some bud "you probly said no i like hiniken and when he said no man want some trees " you said why would i pull out these roots if i want trees" he then said no man do ya want a jibba "at that point you thought he was on crack and kicked his ass. see there was probley a hundred times some one offered you just need to bone up on your lingo

[Vjklander 136]

Getting back to the original thread then, we just don't share pleasures with illegal drug users because of the legal ramifications to things like kids, job, etc. We also avoid drunks. That just loses the appeal altogether, a couple drinks is fine, but getting drunk is a definite turnoff.

 

Getting off the topic again, I registered and vote Libertarian, they might not win, but they sure can make enough of an impact to get the attention of the Republicrats. Or is that Demicans?

 

J

[Flori_DAMAN 24]

Originally posted by Vjklander

Getting back to the original thread then, we just don't share pleasures with illegal drug users because of the legal ramifications to things like kids, job, etc. We also avoid drunks. That just loses the appeal altogether, a couple drinks is fine, but getting drunk is a definite turnoff.

 

Getting off the topic again, I registered and vote Libertarian, they might not win, but they sure can make enough of an impact to get the attention of the Republicrats. Or is that Demicans?

 

J

 

what the fuck did you say

[bccpl77 15]

All this debate just shows that everyone views are so different on the subject. I myself wouldn't put the second D only because I don't want to be a liar. I wouldn't want people with strong views on smoking, drinking and marijuana thinking we were clean even though we don't do much and we don't think it's a big deal, many do. I would rather someone find out we are so bad than to think we were liars.

wanted to write more but gotta go

take care

[Flori_DAMAN 24]

Debate?

[bccpl77 15]

sorry if i used the wrong word. how about talk. Was just confirming that there is lots of different opinions and views on this subject. And because of that I would like to respect those opinion and views.

sorry if i make no sense. not feeling too articulate.

[Flori_DAMAN 24]

hey maybe it was a debate an maybe i was being sarcastic.....so maybe i should apologize

[bccpl77 15]

No worries

[Alura 2,766]

Thanks, Mrs. O. What a nice thing to say!

 

Actuallty, my kid brother may be the only person in the world to call it a "doob." Truth is, he's a little bit lazy if given a chance and may have done the shortening himself. He's about your age.

 

Mr. Alura

[bear_n_bunny 43]

Originally posted by alabamafuntonig

bear

the political cash crop from 1700-1900 was hemp not tobbaco . now its tobbaco. hey either way they do play a major part in the delegalization of pot. vlk make a good point on the growing it at home theory. were not saying conspericy but just reality. imagine if it was leagal the cash most farmers would make. the monies diverted from the war on pot to education , the money saved in law enforcment of gangs that traffic the stuff. it cant be any worse to enforce than alcohol. just a thought .

 

While hemp was a cash crop as you indicate, so was tobacco, and for the same or even longer time frame (the American Indians turned the Europeans on to tobacco not long after they first came to these shores, and it was a big hit right off the bat). Of course, hemp was used for making high-grade rope, whereas tobacco was for smoking, and their status as a "cash crop" ran concurrently.

 

Not only that, but even assuming people were also smoking marijuana as commonly as tobacco, nobody but an idiot smokes pot in the same way as most people smoke tobacco, whether it was 200 years ago or today. If you did, you'd be in a stupor most of the time, and basically useless as teats on a boxcar.

 

So your notion that somehow the tobacco industry had something to do with the outlawing of marijuana is just silly. They already had their "market share" and plenty of people eager to grow it for them. So the bottom line is your "reality" never existed.

 

In fact, as I recall, marijuana was outlawed not too many years after other drugs like cocaine and most opiates were, because the users of these drugs often also smoked pot, and it was seemingly just thrown into the mix. Of course, during this time frame (early 20th century), there was a big move to ban much of anything that was considered "mood" or "mind-altering" (the lead-up to Prohibition was taking place at the same time).

 

I had to laugh about the taking of the "the monies diverted from the war on pot to education" bit. That argument is soooo old. Indeed the basic theme seems to be "if we only took all the money the government spends on (insert whatever government activity you don't like here) and spent it on (insert whatever government activity you DO like here), everything would be ever so much better", etc, ad nauseam. Just once I'd like to see someone come up with something original for a change in a discussion like this...

 

 

Bear

[bear_n_bunny 43]

Originally posted by Alura

What they don't take into account is that alcohol and its usage has been around for as long as there have been humans on this planet (ancient documents, dating back thousands of years, have been found that turned out to be recipes for making beer), whereas by comparison pot just showed up last week.

 

The earliest evidence of alcohol use I'm aware of is beer made by the ancient Babylonians some 5,000 to 6,000 years ago. The Egyptians came later. Evidence of pot use by both Cro-Magnon man and Neanderthal man would take us back to 25,000BCE and 3,000,000 years BCE to approximately 25,000 years ago. I'm unaware of any alcohol use by either.

 

I am well aware of what you say regarding the Babylonians and alcohol. I used the Egyptians as an example that most people would more likely be aware of, moreso than the Babylonians. Now, in all my reading on archeology and anthropology, I've never come across anything about Cro-Magnon or Neanderthal using marijuana. I went back and did a web search, and all I found was an article that reported the earliest known use of cannabis was on the island of Taiwan around 10,000BC, and then for it's fibers. Indeed, through ancient China, Persia, Greece and Rome, it's main use was for making cloth, paper and rope, and it's intoxicating effects were very peripheral to this more important use. Indeed, there is no mention of Cro-Magnon or Neanderthal man using it at all, nor any indication that cannabis even grew in Europe until seeds were brought in from the Far East much later.

 

Bear