sex and drugs, where's the rock and roll??

[gypsyman]

Prostitute's in France are rallying against the legalization of bordello's. They claim they would be working for a company. Govt. claims it would help in their safety, keep better control of STD's. I think the girls just don't want to pay tax's or union dues. Smart girls!!
Second, in California this year, on the ballot is the legalization of pot. There was a meeting in Humbolt county, where according to the article, is some of the best weed grown. They had a meeting with some of the growers. They were afraid that there might be some imitation weed start showing up, and would drive the price of their "prime stuff'', would go down. Plus, they surprisingly, don't want to pay tax's on it. When I read these 2 article's, I thought, welcome to capitalism. Be careful what ya wish for. You might just get it. gypsyman

[Victor3]

 I live in CA and being 'anti-drug' I'm kinda torn on the whole pot thing.

 I wouldn't smoke it regardless. I don't think I know a single person who would take up pot if it were completely decriminalized. Doctors are prescribing the stuff left and right in CA now anyway, and we have legal pot 'dispensaries' all over the place. Statistically speaking, one would be able to find illegally posessed pot in the Los Angeles area by walking no more than 1/4 mile.

 The mexican mafia is moving in on the pot growing in CA now. Making it legal would (I'd hope) put them out of business. If it were taxed, it might help the state get out from under our crippling debt.

 The fiber is good stuff for all kinds of uses. It grows like crazy and is a good source for bio-fuel production.

 On the downside, however....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Twre6ItGEI&feature=related

[Oldshooter]

From what I can see it looks like its "legal" on the left coast now! May as well tax it.
Dont have any opinion on prostitutes in France or anywhere else for that matter.
Rock and Roll has "went south" like most everything else these days.

[Graybeard]

As far as rock and roll is concerned they just renamed it. Most of it is being put out as country music these days. Dunno where REAL country music went but it seems to be dead now.

[rex6666]

As far as rock and roll is concerned they just renamed it. Most of it is being put out as country music these days. Dunno where REAL country music went but it seems to be dead now.

+1
Willie's place on serius radio, is the only place i find old country.

[williamlayton]

Being an old time red neck pot smoker---never grew long hair---I, as usual, have an opinion.
I don't care what it is you are trying to control/outlaw/defend your kids about, some stuff is gonna happen.
I never had a problem with pot/MJ/Weed/dope---either getting it, using it or controlling it--and--during those days the Boys just turned their heads unless it got out of hand.
Would I smoke it again--yea, probably. I liked it much better than beer or booze.
I never felt a moral conviction against it. I liked it.
It just became too much of a hastle.
I guess you can find reasons to not like it---but you are not going to find a way to deter the use because too many folks know the truth about it.
Blessings

[GRIMJIM]

I haven't endulged in many years but I used to be a heavy pot smoker. Long hair, menthol cigarettes and all.

I tried it after not smoking for a while and I felt the effects for two days so anyone that tries to tell you it doesn't effect you for extended periods is someone that smokes on a regular basis and can't tell anymore.

Would I smoke it again? I really stopped enjoying the way it made me feel so I would say no. If I had some disease and the doctor said it might help. I would try it and see.

[teamnelson]

Well, we just put the government in charge of our health. If you look over government funded studies over the last couple decades, the preparation has been in the works. The logic will be, if we are all paying for your medical care, we all have a right to limit your access to harmful materials and activities to reduce our overall health costs. I don't think a Sin Tax is difficult to imagine in our future. Your right to indulge will be affirmed, but it will cost you. Some will be okay with a tax on dope, tobacco, alcohol ... but you better not tax my little debbies, ammunition, or guns. Its no different than the hunters now who don't say a word when they come after their neighbors AR, as long as they don't touch my bolt.

Never done pot or any other illegal substance, never will. Holds no interest for me. But putting the government in charge of telling other folks they can't do things I don't like will one day come around and bite me in the butt. It really is an all or nothing issue. I have to fight to protect the rights of others to make stupid choices because some day they'll redefine stupid and I'll be the one needing protection.

[Brett]

+1   Yup, what he said.  The new health bill has a tax on tanning beds.  Now I don't give two hoots about tanning beds, in fact I think intentionally subjecting yourself to radiation is a pretty dumb idea but what this does is open the door a little wider for additional  'sin' taxes.  Junk food, fast food, fast cars, semi-automatic weapons, all weapons, when would it end?   

[Victor3]

I don't think a Sin Tax is difficult to imagine in our future. Your right to indulge will be affirmed, but it will cost you. Some will be okay with a tax on dope, tobacco, alcohol ... but you better not tax my little debbies, ammunition, or guns. Its no different than the hunters now who don't say a word when they come after their neighbors AR, as long as they don't touch my bolt.

 Don't get me wrong; I'm not for taxing pot. However, I think it's eventually gonna happen just as it has for tobacco products. Taxation to reduce deficits/crime might be the only way the government will get a majority to accept widespread decriminalization in today's economy.

 Even with taxes, pot might not be as expensive as it is now. I'm thinking it wouldn't be prudent for the government to deny itself $$$ by making it more expensive to buy legally than the plentiful illegal supply available. It's become obvious that illegal domestic production and importation is near impossible to control. I remember reading back in the early 80's that pot was estimated to be #12 on the list of California's cash crops. That's huge, considering all crops grown in the state.

 Apart from the drug aspect, pot may come into favor now because it's 'green.' It has less of an environmental impact than other plants that are now used for purposes that pot could supplement. Paper, clothing, construction material, bio-fuel (fuel that doesn't compete with food use like corn), even certain plastics that are now only cost effective to produce using petroleum products.

 We all agree that new taxes are generally not a good thing. However, if an entire new domestic industry were to spring up that would benefit the US overall, I might could live with a bit of tax to accomodate it if need be. It's not like anything similar would ever come into being free of the government taking its cut.

 You have only three avenues to produce volumes of new wealth...

 1. Farming

 2. Natural resources

 3. Manufacturing

 Legal pot production on a large scale in the US would have a positive impact on all.

[Graybeard]

Legal pot production on a large scale in the US would have a positive impact on all.

No I don't buy that line. Might as well go ahead and say the same for heroin and cocaine as well if you buy into that line of thinking. They are all drugs and are all bad for the body especially with regular use and abuse.

Those who have used it regularly try to convince us it has no harmful effect on them and that they can operate at full efficiency when taking it but many studies have indicated that is not true as have my observations of folks I've seen using it. It is a hallunigenic product and you are impaired to do things like drive when under its influence same as if driving while drunk on alcohol. Unlike alcohol it stays in your blood and continues to affect you for a lot longer.

Saying it does not is a cop out by users and abusers.

[williamlayton]

GB makes some good points---he offers no solutions though. if it was a simple as saying NO, then we wouldn't need to be discussing this.
I am not trying too convince and convict--ANYBODY. i said what I said because it is a personal choice.
I am not saying that we should be walking around in a purple haze or drunk, all of the time. Lord knows that is abuse that will cause major complications.
But, just as personal choices abound, so will abuse---I defy anyone too come up with a plan that will work.
As for personal use--as with alcahol--where do you draw the line. A couple of beers can impair you for hours--so don't use a couple of beers as an arguement.
Blessings

[Oldshooter]

I'd say make it all available, legal and Tax it,  BUT  you'd have to pass a drug screen to get government assistance, or  FREE medical care.

It would be kinda like a thinning of the herd sort of thing.

But the nanny state would never allow its minions to be left out in the cold or held responsible for their actions.

[teamnelson]

To both protect liberty and the public may suggest decriminalization, along with isolation or ejection from community. In other words I protect everyone else from you. It's a tough question. A growing number of folks are on legal meds that are as mind altering if not more but because the drug is legal we don't question until they hurt themselves or others. That can't be the expectation for decriminalization. Use may limit job eligibility, opportunity for education, emergency health care.

[Victor3]

Legal pot production on a large scale in the US would have a positive impact on all.

No I don't buy that line. Might as well go ahead and say the same for heroin and cocaine as well if you buy into that line of thinking. They are all drugs and are all bad for the body especially with regular use and abuse.

Those who have used it regularly try to convince us it has no harmful effect on them and that they can operate at full efficiency when taking it but many studies have indicated that is not true as have my observations of folks I've seen using it. It is a hallunigenic product and you are impaired to do things like drive when under its influence same as if driving while drunk on alcohol. Unlike alcohol it stays in your blood and continues to affect you for a lot longer.

Saying it does not is a cop out by users and abusers.

 My line that you quote here has to do with the previous paragraphs starting with "Apart from the drug aspect." I guess I didn't make that clear.

 It would be nice if a variety of pot were genetically engineered to remove the drug the plant produces. It could then only be used for its other properties, and those would have a positive impact on farming, natural resources, and manufacturing without any possible negative impact caused by people smoking it.

[P.A. Myers]

During WW2 hemp production was encouraged by the Feds.  The expression 'smokin rope' was reality based. Also makes a good paper. Smoke it? Who cares?

[williamlayton]

AND, Indiana ditch is a term used for wild hemp grown in Indiana for this purpose.
The problem with controlling it by removeing the high by engineering is that those who want the high will still do it illegaly too get the high--so there you are--right back where you started--in the 30's.
My mother who was a product of that era told me stories of how it was legally available in her era and was not a problem.
Blessings

[jlwilliams]

Legal pot production on a large scale in the US would have a positive impact on all.

No I don't buy that line. Might as well go ahead and say the same for heroin and cocaine as well if you buy into that line of thinking. They are all drugs and are all bad for the body especially with regular use and abuse.

Those who have used it regularly try to convince us it has no harmful effect on them and that they can operate at full efficiency when taking it but many studies have indicated that is not true as have my observations of folks I've seen using it. It is a hallunigenic product and you are impaired to do things like drive when under its influence same as if driving while drunk on alcohol. Unlike alcohol it stays in your blood and continues to affect you for a lot longer.

Saying it does not is a cop out by users and abusers.

  Do you feel the same way about alcohol?  You should.  No debate that alcohol can, will and does diminish a user's abilities.  True enough that an alcohol user isn't drunk when he's not drinking, but a habitual drinker is less that 100% all the time.  Dependancy is pretty wide spread.  Yet we, as a nation proved long ago that prohibiting alcohol was just plain innefective and destructive.

  I worked (briefly) at an Indian Casino.  The whole idea that an activity that is illegal everywhere else but was OK since it was on reservation land always made me wonder "how long untill they have marijuana cafes and bordellos?"  If the logic is going to be aplied and followed to it's logical extension; why not allow other vices?  Don't get me wrong, I don't think that's a good idea.  I do, however, stop and wonder at the lines of reasoning that have brought us to our current self contradictory state of affairs.

  I don't want to see legalization of all drugs.  Right now, cocaine is #2 for the numbers of emergency room admissions and deaths related to substances (alcohol being #1 (source; Cocaine, by Domenic Streatfield))  I can't help but imagine that if cocaine were legal and therefor less stygmatized and cheaper that it would take the #1 position quickly.  I do not buy the notion that marijuana is in any way equivalent to cocaine or heroin.  The effects and physiology of the use are so different that the comparison is aples to oranges.  I respectfully but veheomently disagree with the comparison.  I also don't think that pot is completely harmless.  I used enough of it for long enough to see that the "harmless" claim is just not true.  At the same time, I don't support spending $20k+ a year on average to keep a pot head in jail.  That's just not good use of taxpayer's resources.  I no longer have any interest in a "buzz" of any sort.  I don't like the feeling of diminished capacity.  At the same time, I think that if someone want's to tie one hand behind their back, that's stupid, but OK go ahead.

  Last point. I promise.  The whole debate over medical marijuana is frustrating.  It hasn't been brough up in this thread, but it relates.  As witnessed by the Obamacare fiasco, we don't need politicians making medical decisions.  If a doctor thinks that marijuana is a viable medical option, that's their professional opinion.  We trust doctors in this country to dispense drugs far more dangerous than pot.  They can prescribe opiates, barbituates and more.  Drugs that could save one life or take another depending on the individual.  Yet we won't trust them to prescribe a drug with no known lethal dose and not a single death attributable to solely it's use (driving under the influence will kill you, you'll get rear ended by the Domino's truck)  They seem to think that allowing doctors to use it would in some way legitamise it's recreational use.  No one seems to have a big issue with doctors prescribing Valuum or hydrocodone, both of which are widely abused.  The adicts who use them illegaly are seen as such, and patien't who use them are seen as patients.  Why should it be different for medical marijuana?  Because of hippies?

[Beers]

Conservatives are supposed to favor free markets, individual liberty, and small government. Prohibition goes against all three of these core conservative values.

Any so-called conservative who supports the war on (some) drugs has some serious ideological conflicts to resolve. Unfortunately, most seem far more willing to rationalize said conflicts.

[teamnelson]

For the sake of argument, lets say you decriminalize all currently illegal substances, to include everything not FDA approved. Lets say you turn it over to the free market, and tax it as you would say any other natural product, like groceries. Lets roll alcohol and tobacco in there too ... no more special government taboo against them. As products they become value neutral; we're less concerned about the products themselves. However, those who use them in such a manner as to harm others will be arrested accordingly. [Is that not similar to some arguments I've seen here against gun control? Its the criminal not the tool that we should focus on?]

So let's imagine the worst case scenario happens: there is a spike in drug related hospitalizations and death, particularly amongst our young people. In keeping with the spirit of the argument, so what? Name one part of life in which I should be protected from the consequences of my actions, informed or otherwise? Are there already laws in place in reference to crimes committed against others? Would those not already encompass any crime someone might commit under the influence of drugs?

Of all the arguments I've heard in favor of decriminalization, that is the strongest. Arguments about generating revenue, or reducing costs, or medical benefits, or just one drug but not another ... meaningless. It all really boils down to what is the role of the government. If you believe it is to protect us from ourselves, then lets outlaw everything. If you believe it is to protect us from each other, then we've got way too much law written already.

And if a community decides to make something taboo, then let them - no laws necessary for that. I think swearing in front of women and children is offensive; there are no laws against it, but I'll confront you if you do it. So they may decriminalize drugs, but I won't hire you, recommend you for any position of responsibility, ride, hunt or shoot with you, trust your judgment in any circumstance or conversation, if you're a user ... same as an alcoholic. I think character was sufficient for most things back in the day before our present litigious society emerged.

[Oldshooter]

What he said!

Seriously, good post TN!

[williamlayton]

DANG IT ALL TN---don't make such good sense.
I may add----
We have NEVER instituited a law that would prevent----NEVER.
LAWS provide paper work for those who would report a violation that has ALREADY occurred.
I wish folks were as level headed as I--said the man and he handed his beer to his friend and said---"WATCH THIS."
Blessings