RobertNashville

Okay...I see now...if I didn't say exactly what you wanted me to say to make your point you just extrapolate and say I "kinda said it" It's pretty difficult to have a real discussion with someone who adds or subtracts from the statements of others so they can then argue against it. I also have no time for someone who complains about some rules they don't like but sees nothing wrong with making blanket rules against things he doesn't like...that's sort of difficult to reconcile with a nation that is supposed to protect and support individual liberty and freedom...when you have individual freedom and liberty people are allowed to make their own choices; sometimes those choices are bad. If your kid makes a bad choice and abuses alcohol then it's his choice. It would be nice if he made a different choice but making alcohol illegal (so he'll allegedly not have that bad choice to make) or making pot legal so he has, in your opinion a "better" bad choice to make is NOT the answer and frankly, a bit ridiculous to even suggest. I guess this is where my libertarian leanings start to come out...I have morals based on the Bible and very strong opinions about what is right/wrong...good/evil. However, I have equally strong opinions about the government telling me what I can or can't or should or shouldn't do. I'm the one and the only one who should decide what I do or don't do and if I chose poorly then whatever results from those choices are on me. I am okay with the drug laws (including those regarding alcohol) as they stand now...I see a CLEAR distinction between someone who enjoys alcohol casually and someone who is addicted and wrecks his life but I'm not going to tell everyone they can't enjoy a beer or a glass of wine just because some will abuse it. Bottom line is, while I don't think our drug/alcohol laws are perfect, I also see no significant reason to change them. But, if we are going to change them then the only change in keeping with the concepts of freedom and liberty as well as the only change based on logic is that it ALL be legal...there is simply no good or logical reason to single out "pot". With that said, have a nice day and I hope your kid(s) make good choices.

Really? Then why aren't I dead??? I have not said one word regarding alcohol being or not being dangerous. More to the point; I could sit here and without even trying hard, come up dozens of things that are "dangerous" when they are misused or used in excess; should we make all those things illegal too?

I'm starting to think that Mayor Bloomburg has moved from NYC to Memphis and is now posting on TGO. And I'm going nuts trying to figure out how someone is is perfectly okay with outlawing alcohol because it's so bad and then disparages 6.8 for telling marijuana users how to live their lives.

Alcohol is not bad. Alcohol abuse is bad. You don't have to convince me that alcohol abuse is bad and causes other bad things to happen. However, I have a better chance of winning the Powerball lottery and being elected president of United States and throwing the winning touchdown in a Super Bowl game and all happening on the same day compared to the chance of making alcohol illegal. It's also a bit disingenuous of you to claim that you want to make pot legal and that doing so will reduce crime and gang violence when what you really want is to make alcohol illegal. If making pot legal is going to reduce crime and gang violence what the hell do you think making alcohol illegal is going to do? Actually, we don't have to think about what making I'll call illegal will do because we already have plenty of experience with that.

I don't really give a you-know-what abut how many treatment centers there are. Common sense would tell most people that alcohol is far more widely used than pot... In other words, roughly eight times as many people use alcohol regularly compared to pot smokers...I'd say it stands to reason that with over half the U.S. population using alcohol on some sort of regular basis, it's likely that you are going to find more than a few who become addicted to it and have problems because of it and, hence, a corresponding number of treatment centers/12 step programs. You keep throwing around quite a few broad phrases and absolute terms but not a whole lot of facts to substantiate them. It's obvious you want pot legalized and maybe a case can be made for legalizing pot but I don't think the case can rest on "reduced crime" or "reduced gang violence". The only way that argument works is if all drugs are legalized...limiting it to pot is simply not logical.

And liberty is probably the only basis on which to make/change the public policy regarding drugs...my primary concern would be that if the laws are changed, there must be very strong (as in almost never get out of jail) penalties for anyone who, by their decision to use drugs, negatively impacts (or physically harms/kills) others.

I see zero reason to single out "pot"...I believe that if we are going to make any changes to drug laws as they now exist; then either it should ALL be legal or ALL be illegal. That's what I was trying to get across when I said...

To disagree is only logical because you are simply making an assumption - assumptions are fine so long as you recognize an assumption for what it is.My assumption is that gangs exist because gangs exist and will continue to exist and do their gang-related crimes whether drugs are or aren't legalized; just like they always have. They may move to different illegal activity to make their money but to think they that making something legal that used to be illegal is going to have any significant impact simply isn't logical. Edit: I didn't realize we measured the number of potheads by the ton.

Was there some part of the phrase "all recreational drug use of any drugs" that was unclear?I know they don't pay 100% now and didn't say that they did.

Well, I've never been and never will be a parent but it's been my understanding that a man's (or woman's) children making good (safer) choices was what parenting was about; not wanting them to have "safer" drugs to chose from. I'm not ignoring it; I just don't buy it as a valid connection. Gangs aren't going to go away just because you legalize pot and especially so if "pot" is all you legalize.

Maybe we should make all recreational drug use of any drugs legal; no controls...BUT...if you are caught driving under the influence or operating machinery under the influence or if, under the influence, you do anything else that puts the lives of others in danger then you go to JAIL for 10 years if no one is actually harmed or killed; and you go away FOREVER if someone is injured/killed.Also, anyone who uses any drug of any kind has to pay for their own medical care 100%...their choice to use a drug cannot have any negative financial impact on someone else...no subsidized medical care...medical insurance...welfare, AFDC, food stamps, or any other form of tax payer support. I might go along with those changes

For someone who doesn’t particularly like pot I don’t really understand why you keep going back to pot as what you want to discuss? Further, I find the argument about pot and its relation to crime odd - most aficionados of de-criminalizing marijuana are quick to say how it doesn’t make sense for alcohol to be legal to consume while marijuana is illegal…how, for various reasons, it’s a much better “drug†than alcohol (not physically addictive [while ignoring psychological addiction] etc.). You also seem to be implying that legalizing marijuana will positively affect (i.e. decrease) crime but I’m left to wonder exactly how that will happen? I wonder because by the very argument for legal pot, those who chose to imbibe aren’t negatively affected…they aren’t addicted…they lead normal, productive lives, etc. etc. and if that’s the case; how many of those potheads who aren’t addicted and lead normal, productive lives are breaking into homes to steel stuff to sell so that they have money to buy pot? Is pot really THAT expensive that potheads can’t afford it without steeling money or things they can sell for money? If they are leading normal, productive lives shouldn’t they have all the money they need to buy their drug of choice? Moreover, if people want to legalize drugs then shouldn’t ALL drugs of any kind be “legal†to buy…buy without a prescription…without a doctor being involved at all…without “liquor stores†or “pot storesâ€â€¦just put it all on convenience store and grocery store shelves for anyone who wants it with no controls of any kind? If not, why not and if not; if we, as a society shouldn’t legalize all drugs and eliminate all controls what possible argument makes sense to make “some†legal and uncontrolled while making others illegal/highly controlled? Maybe all drugs should be legal; maybe they shouldn’t be but it’s my opinion that anyone who believes that legalizing drugs will have any positive impact on society or crime is, at best, being naive.

Really? You know that or you just believe it or want to believe it? If you know that then please feel free to share the data that shows that statement to be true. And...you know that or you just believe it or want to believe it? If you know that then please feel free to share the data that shows that statement to be true. If you can provide facts I'll be happy to look at them. In the meantime, where do you get the idea that we are talking about and only about marijuana??? The issue is de-criminalizing "drugs" and if the argument for de-criminalize marijuana is to take money out of the hands of "ganbangers" and take away the alleged motive for crime then you can't just stop at marijuana or the argument makes no sense and loses what little creditability it has. Strictly for myself, if alcohol was made an Illegal drug it wouldn't affect me much at all...I could easily give my two or three bottles of wine and the two or three mixed drinks I indulge in each year but at the same time, I see no reason to change the status-quot. I've seen what alcohol addiction does to individuals and families and I've seen what drug addiction (narcotics, opiates, etc) does to individuals and families; neither is good but if we are going to start ascribing levels of "bad" to each type of category then from my experience, drug addition would win every time as the worst.

I guess that if we aren't winning the "war on drugs" we should stop fighting? I would assume, then, that since we haven't stopped crime, drug related or not, we should just go ahead and diss-ban all aw enforcement agencies; after all, no need to waste all that money on a war we aren't winning.

I'm not sure I care about the mfg quality of the addict's drug of choice. I do care a if he becomes a burden on society.I don't think the quality of the drug will make addiction any less likely.

Leagalizing drugs is a mantra of many but as to evidence that it would actually reduce crime or have any positive results at all is dubious to non-existant. Crime and gangs existed before we had any drug laws in this country and crime and gangs would exist if all drug laws were suddenly eliminated...it might reduce crime or some types of crime some but most crime really flows out of a person's general depravity, lack of compassion and lack of moral fiber - those shortcomings don't get fixed just because somehing that was illegal is made legal.

Yeah...if we started giving IQ tests to people before allowing them to exercise their rights about about half the people wouldn't pass. Just think about it...just under 53% of the voting public are idiots (they voted for Obama in 2008)

nevermind

I shoo higher grain than 55 but It's always done well for me.

Perhaps is some of those who are so sad that their friends died were, insted, angry that there are gangs operating in their neighborhoods there woudl be less "gang related violence".

Obviously, you missed the point.

Pejorative comments like that makes reasonable discussion impossible.

Amen and amen.

For any of our TGO members who are into cars, cruise-ins, car shows (whether that involves bringing your cars and participating in the shows or just appreciating beautiful cars, trucks and motorcycles) here is an opportunity to do that and help the families our veterans. Much like Ronald McDonald House, the Fisher House program is a unique private-public partnership that supports America's military in their time of need. The program recognizes the special sacrifices of our men and women in uniform and the hardships of military service by meeting a humanitarian need beyond that normally provided by the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. Because members of the military and their families are stationed worldwide and must often travel great distances for specialized medical care, Fisher House Foundation donates "comfort homes," built on the grounds of major military and VA medical centers. These homes enable family members to be close to a loved one at the most stressful times - during the hospitalization for an unexpected illness, disease, or injury. WHAT: Crusie-in Car Show for the VA Fisher House - cruise in vehicles receive badges for a $10 donation. WHEN: Saturday, September 29th, 2012 - 8am-1pm(parking starts at 7am) BENEFITS: the Fisher House which just began construction for the Alvin C. York VA Medical Center WHERE: 567 S.Lowery St in Smyrna,TN (next to Bank of America in the old Kroger Store parking lot www.tennesseefisherhouse.org http://fisherhouse.org/ http://www.lohud.com...ts-Fisher-House

I don't see anything "funny" about these threads...we are talking about the future of the republic...regardless of where one stands on the issues I can hardly imagine a more serious subject to discus.