Legalize It!

[Howlin' Wolf]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090313/us_time/08599188495600

Who is moving to California with me!?!

[Jesuslove]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090313/us_time/08599188495600

Who is moving to California with me!?!

As someone who has never smoked pot, I have to agree. It's time to legalize pot. Our government spends far too much money chasing down, prosecuting, and incarcerating marijuana users. We could use a fraction of that money for rehabilitation programs and save the government the difference. In addition, if pot were legal, it could be taxed, generating a huge income stream for the state. We're never going to rid society of marijuana, so it's time for the government to use it to it's advantage.

[HumanityisSaved]

As someone who has never smoked pot, I have to agree. It's time to legalize pot. Our government spends far too much money chasing down, prosecuting, and incarcerating marijuana users. We could use a fraction of that money for rehabilitation programs and save the government the difference. In addition, if pot were legal, it could be taxed, generating a huge income stream for the state. We're never going to rid society of marijuana, so it's time for the government to use it to it's advantage.

You know, I agree that marijuana should be decriminalized but I just can't help but laugh whenever the libbies rub their grubby hands together at the prospect of having yet another avenue to take the working man's money in the form of a tax. Booooo!

[HumanityisSaved]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090313/us_time/08599188495600

Who is moving to California with me!?!

Never in a million years would I move to the People's Rebublik of Kalifornia.

[Valpo]

ahhh some parts of california are just gorgeous though!

[HumanityisSaved]

ahhh some parts of california are just gorgeous though!

Beautiful as it is (I know very intimately the area around Chico, CA)the government there is broken and that severly limits one's ability to enjoy life amid the beauty.

[allyoop]

The beauty of California has been what's kept us here for so many years. My husband loves to surf, as well as our boys, and we love the dunes. But we are getting it coming and going, especially since the new budget was passed (doubling of the vehicle license fee for just 1 example). as for the original topic, I don't know how I feel about legalizing marijuana. It's kinda like alcohol, but I don't know. On the other hand I think there are legit medical reasons for it. I know someone who has a prescription for it, and it is the only thing that relieves his pain.

[danbos]

I wouldn't have any problem with them legalizing it. In my opinion it shouldn't be treated any different than alcohol.

[DareDevil]

Personally, I'm not so sure about what to think. 'Modern' marijuana is often grown under extremely optimised conditions in green houses. If I get this right then it is to regular marijuana as whiskey is to beer, i.e. considerably stronger.

[Pouye]

I believe that governments should never profit from medicines, foods, or drugs of any kind (including alcohol, cigarettes, etc.). The government should also not profit from medical procedures and the deaths of any individuals (from conception onward).

I believe that non-government, not-for-profit organizations such as NSF International (formerly National Sanitation Foundation), the UL (Underwriters Laboratories), Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), and others should be the kind of organizational bodies to test and inspect all such products and procedures.

I think ultimately it is immoral for governments gets tax revenue from alcohol, cigarettes, and other substances which cause millions of deaths per year. I think this make the government implicitly responsible for such deaths, similar to the government profiting from abortions. It sets a bad example for society when the government is involved in legally profiting from the damaging practices of some of its citizens.

I'm for smaller government and deregulation -- but not for regulation and decriminalization for the purpose of bigger government.

The only things I think should be possibly regulated by the government are things that are potentially or expressly dangerous to others. This would be to protect those who do not wish to participate in the damaging behavior or are too young to know they are being harmed. For instance, if a factory moves into a neighborhood and begins to be so noisy or smokey that it disrupts the quality of life of those who live there, the factory should be forced to either relocate themselves, the people who were living there when they came, or provide a way to reduce noise and smoke levels so as not to disrupt the quality of life of those who were legally there first.

Anyway, my two cents.

Rock

[Evanescence]

I believe that governments should never profit from medicines, foods, or drugs of any kind (including alcohol, cigarettes, etc.). The government should also not profit from medical procedures and the deaths of any individuals (from conception onward).

I believe that non-government, not-for-profit organizations such as NSF International (formerly National Sanitation Foundation), the UL (Underwriters Laboratories), Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), and others should be the kind of organizational bodies to test and inspect all such products and procedures.

I think ultimately it is immoral for governments gets tax revenue from alcohol, cigarettes, and other substances which cause millions of deaths per year. I think this make the government implicitly responsible for such deaths, similar to the government profiting from abortions. It sets a bad example for society when the government is involved in legally profiting from the damaging practices of some of its citizens.

I'm for smaller government and deregulation -- but not for regulation and decriminalization for the purpose of bigger government.

The only things I think should be possibly regulated by the government are things that are potentially or expressly dangerous to others. This would be to protect those who do not wish to participate in the damaging behavior or are too young to know they are being harmed. For instance, if a factory moves into a neighborhood and begins to be so noisy or smokey that it disrupts the quality of life of those who live there, the factory should be forced to either relocate themselves, the people who were living there when they came, or provide a way to reduce noise and smoke levels so as not to disrupt the quality of life of those who were legally there first.

Anyway, my two cents.

Rock

I agree...but could see myself growing some weed for Wolf and his crazy friends...

I know where I can get plenty of chicken manure...

[HumanityisSaved]

Doctors may prescribe oxycontin (one of the most powerful barbituates know to man) but cannot prescribe Canibis Sativa? Come on... prior to the turn of the century every pharmacist in America had pot for sale. Tom Jefferson grew it on his farm so did Washington. You never see those pictures hanging in the Whitehouse you know... of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin all sitting around hittin' that hogleg but they did use marijuana.

[Valpo]

oxycontin is wicked, had that after getting the wisdom chompers out, holy crapp

[freakysoccer]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090313/us_time/08599188495600

Who is moving to California with me!?!

i'll come...i really dont' see the big deal people are still gonna do it whether or not it's legal...in my opinion there's a much larger problem with perscription drug abuse in the country anyway.

[HumanityisSaved]

oxycontin is wicked, had that after getting the wisdom chompers out, holy crapp

That's what hooked Limbaugh I think. Were you on it long?

[Valpo]

That's what hooked Limbaugh I think. Were you on it long?

No I couldnt take it long at all bc it made me yack and in all honesty feel realllll weird. I think the yacking was due to not being on a full stomach however. But I remember when I took it just giggling and being realllly tired, so yeah

[Pouye]

No I couldnt take it long at all bc it made me yack and in all honesty feel realllll weird. I think the yacking was due to not being on a full stomach however. But I remember when I took it just giggling and being realllly tired, so yeah

The only time in my life I was seriously "high" on a chemical (besides being put out for surgery) was when someone put an LSD flake in my fast food when I was only about 14 years old. One of the scariest things I've ever felt. Oh... wait -- not quite true. I once had a strong adverse reaction to the anti-malarial drug Lariam/Mefloquine -- it made me hallucinate like crazy, too.

As far as marijuana goes, I don't believe any delivery system that does damage to a person's body (smoking) should be used. I have no problem with a physician prescribing a substance (even nicotine or THC) to treat an illness. But if a physician prescribed cigarettes as the delivery method to getting the nicotine into the body, I would think he was doing a disservice to the person. Pot smoke is far worse than cigarette smoke to the lungs, and nobody seems to care about that issue. If people actually need THC or some other chemical found in marijuana, they don't need to smoke it to get it. I'm not at all against allowing a doctor to prescribe chemical compounds to treat illnesses, but I am against doctors prescribing things that harm people when there are better, less harmful ways to treat them.

Rock

[Jesuslove]

That's what hooked Limbaugh I think. Were you on it long?

Limbaugh was on oxy, and viagra... a powerful combo.

[Evanescence]

The only time in my life I was seriously "high" on a chemical (besides being put out for surgery) was when someone put an LSD flake in my fast food when I was only about 14 years old. One of the scariest things I've ever felt. Oh... wait -- not quite true. I once had a strong adverse reaction to the anti-malarial drug Lariam/Mefloquine -- it made me hallucinate like crazy, too.

As far as marijuana goes, I don't believe any delivery system that does damage to a person's body (smoking) should be used. I have no problem with a physician prescribing a substance (even nicotine or THC) to treat an illness. But if a physician prescribed cigarettes as the delivery method to getting the nicotine into the body, I would think he was doing a disservice to the person. Pot smoke is far worse than cigarette smoke to the lungs, and nobody seems to care about that issue. If people actually need THC or some other chemical found in marijuana, they don't need to smoke it to get it. I'm not at all against allowing a doctor to prescribe chemical compounds to treat illnesses, but I am against doctors prescribing things that harm people when there are better, less harmful ways to treat them.

Rock

medical marijuana is used for people dying anyway....so, let them die high...

[Howlin' Wolf]

Behind every good man there is a woman, and that woman was Martha Washington, man, and everyday George would come home, she would have a big fat bowl waiting for him, man, when he come in the door, man, she was a hip, hip, hip lady, man.


Alcohol and cigarettes do far worse damage than weed ever has.

[VerbumReale]

. You never see those pictures hanging in the Whitehouse you know... of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin all sitting around hittin' that hogleg but they did use marijuana.


Could it be one of those meetings where Ben Franklin made his famous suggestion for what our national bird should be; the turkey? Just picture it. A very high Ben Franklin takin a big hit and then raising his head, unsquinting his eyes and saying "Wait, wait, wait, wait,....how about we make the turkey our national bird."

Awkward silence

Then Washinton and Jefferson burst out laughing. And then one of them says "I think Ben has had enough."

:cool: ;)

[Pouye]

medical marijuana is used for people dying anyway....so, let them die high...

I know someone who was paralyzed from the neck down because of marijuana (he was high and decided to dive off a boat into shallow water). Now he uses it medically to make him feel better. It ruined his life and now is medicating it -- how ironic is that? Marijuana has completely owned him.

Marijuana smoking is destructive behavior, just like abusing other substances (both illicit and legal), continually drinking alcohol to the point of inebriation, compulsively smoking cigarettes, and obsessive overeating. I don't believe anyone is doing themselves or anyone else a favor by doing any of these things, no matter if they are dying or not.

I feel very sorry for those who do not have God as their Savior and Comforter when they are suffering and/or dying. It doesn't really matter if they self-destruct or not. As for me, God is able to help me endure whatever pain and suffering I could face. No, I'm not against using medicines such as pain-killers -- but turning to self-destructive behaviors to medicate me rather than to God would simply be stupid and sinful.

Rock

[Pouye]

Alcohol and cigarettes do far worse damage than weed ever has.

The truth is, a chronic weed smoker can damage his lungs. Many of the same damaging things in cigarette smoke exist in marijuana smoke. Since people tend to smoke cigarettes more regularly than marijuana, the overall affects are usually worse (because such damage is cumulative), but the damage still happens. In fact, breathing ANY sort of smoke or fume is harmful to the lungs cumulatively.

It is is bull when people tell me that it can't hurt you. People intoxicated by weed have done stupid things that have affected the rest of their lives. It is best not do get intoxicated by ANYTHING. The Bible is clear that Christians should be of sober mind and judgment, both of which are impaired by marijuana. There is no Biblical justification to get high on a chemical. In fact, many places it says it is okay to drink wine, but not to be intoxicated by it. The Bible also says to care for your body, and doing things like overeating, physical laziness/inactivity, abusing drugs, etc. are all things that diminish our physical bodies and displease God. We are to "honor God with our bodies", and when we don't, we dishonor God.

Rock

[DareDevil]

Dutch towns plan to end drug tourism
Border towns Roosendaal and Bergen op Zoom want to shut down their coffee shops in an attempt to end drug tourism.

THE HAGUE—Coffee shops in Roosendaal and Bergen op Zoom will close definitively 16 September.

The mayors of both towns want to put an end to the stream of 25,000 weekly drug tourists and to the "crimes related to trafficking and the consumption of drugs."

They announced the joint marajuana policy Thursday afternoon in Roosendaal.

Starting in October of last year the mayors started implementing less tolerant, stricter rules for coffee shops, and announced their intention to ultimately close them down.

The maximum amount of stock on hand was to be reduced; as was the maximum amount that could be sold at any one time.

Both cities will now forego these measures until 16 September, but will introduce stricter police controls in their place.

If a coffee shop violates the lower tolerance ruling it will be shut down after a written warning.

Roosendaal and Bergen op Zoom assume that after closing the shops they’ll bring an end to drug tourism in their cities.

With fewer drug tourists the mayors hope that the market for illegal drugs will also become less interesting to dealers.

Lawyers advocating for the shops, Harrie Nieland and André Beckers, announced that there was nothing they could do to the fight the ruling for the time being.

“In September when the cities force the coffee shops to close, then we’ll come into the picture. It’s quite conceivable that we can obtain a court order to block the closings.”

Nieland puts the new marijuana ruling under quotation marks: “Coffee shops and the tolerance ruling are a known phenomenon in the Netherlands. If you want to change anything, you’ll have to do it in dialogue with national politicians.”

The consumption and possession of small amounts of cannabis has been decriminalised in The Netherlands since 1976, as has its sale in licensed coffee shops. But mass cultivation and large-scale sale is still forbidden.

ANP/AFP/Lila Lundquist/Expatica

http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/local_news/Dutch-towns-plan-to-end-drug-tourism_50250.html


Does anybody here really think that there won't be any drug tourism in California, if Marijuana should suddenly become legal there? Chance is that the tourism industry there will rather experience a massive boost.

[DareDevil]

Dutch mayors meet to discuss drug tourism
About 30 municipalities will gather on Friday to discuss about the problems brought on by drug tourism.
18 November 2008

THE HAGUE - Dutch mayors are to meet Friday in a bid to clamp down on the nuisance they say is being created by foreign tourists drawn to the country's cannabis-vending coffee shops.

The gathering of municipal leaders, organised by the Association of Dutch Municipalities (VNG) in Almere, north-east of Amsterdam, was arranged to compile a list of "sticking points" which would be given to the ministries of health, justice and internal affairs.

"Border communities are increasingly contending with drug tourism and the nuisance associated therewith," the association said in a statement.

"Some municipalities have simply had enough. The time has come for discussion." Some 30 municipalities had indicated their participation by Monday, VNG spokesman Asha Khoenkhoen told AFP.

The meeting follows the announcement by Roosendaal and Bergen-op-Zoom, two southern Dutch municipalities close to the Belgian border, that they were closing their coffee shops, establishments with special licenses to sell cannabis, from 1 February 2009.

The mayors of the two towns, who claim to have seen a rise in the influx of Belgian and French drug tourists, contend that the 25,000-odd foreigners visiting their coffee shops every week had "a notably negative impact on the public order".

Last week, the Dutch government announced a ban from 1 December on the cultivation and sale of hallucinogenic mushrooms, another favourite among foreign visitors to Amsterdam.

The Dutch media has reported that some political parties, including the PvdA labour party, a member of the governing coalition, were becoming more and more critical of the country's tolerant approach to so-called "soft drugs" such as cannabis.

The ruling Christian democratic CDA has always criticised this approach, which allows coffee shops to sell five grams of cannabis to an individual per day.

[APF / Expatica]

http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/local_news/Dutch-mayors-meet-to-discuss-drug-tourism-_47405.html

[HumanityisSaved]

Could it be one of those meetings where Ben Franklin made his famous suggestion for what our national bird should be; the turkey? Just picture it. A very high Ben Franklin takin a big hit and then raising his head, unsquinting his eyes and saying "Wait, wait, wait, wait,....how about we make the turkey our national bird."

Awkward silence

Then Washinton and Jefferson burst out laughing. And then one of them says "I think Ben has had enough."

:cool: ;)

LOL ROFL That was an awesome visual image!!!

[Pouye]

http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/local_news/Dutch-towns-plan-to-end-drug-tourism_50250.html


Does anybody here really think that there won't be any drug tourism in California, if Marijuana should suddenly become legal there? Chance is that the tourism industry there will rather experience a massive boost.

But that would be good news for the economy in Cali! That's what they want, so let them have it. The government actually thinks that by taxing all of that crap that they can make a boatload of money and everyone will be happy. They can be just like Holland! Apparently it isn't working out as well for the Dutch as they thought it would. The increase in crime and degradation of the city is just too plain and obvious to ignore. When a leader encourages sin, the people follow suit. Sin destroys.

Rock

[HumanityisSaved]

Pot smoke is far worse than cigarette smoke to the lungs, and nobody seems to care about that issue.
Rock

Actually pot smoked in the SAME MANNER as cigarette tobacco is worse. Pot smoked in a water bong where the smoke is cooled is less dangerous than cigs/

[VerbumReale]

Actually pot smoked in the SAME MANNER as cigarette tobacco is worse. Pot smoked in a water bong where the smoke is cooled is less dangerous than cigs/


Not to mention a habitual cigarrete smoker is going to smoke a lot more tobacco in one day then a habitual pot-smoker is going to smoke marijuana in one day.

[HumanityisSaved]

Not to mention a habitual cigarrete smoker is going to smoke a lot more tobacco in one day then a habitual pot-smoker is going to smoke marijuana in one day.

Double true

[Gandalf]

Actually pot smoked in the SAME MANNER as cigarette tobacco is worse. Pot smoked in a water bong where the smoke is cooled is less dangerous than cigs/
Perhaps, but the marijuana vs tobacco comparison of joints vs cigarettes is still valid. If you want a head-to-head comparison with a marijuana bong, put it up against tobacco in a hooka, not a cigarette. Marijuana smoke has more carcinogens. The point could be made that not many people chain smoke joints, but (1) it's illegal and therefore more expensive and risky, which discourages such behavior, and (2) many tobacco smokers are more along the lines of a cigar once every few weeks, rather than constant cigarette use.

I don't think that is really the deciding factor in whether it should be legal or not. Personally, I wouldn't be gung ho about banning it if it were already allowed. But I also don't see any urgent reason to legalize it, either.

[HumanityisSaved]

Found this at Digg not sure if it is all true but I know for sure parts of it are. It may all be true but I have a pharmaceutical chemist in my family that says Pot is safer than asthma medicine and advil.

"Many people think smoking marijuana is just as harmful as smoking tobacco, but this is not true. Those who hold that marijuana is equivalent to tobacco are misinformed. Due to the efforts of various federal agencies to discourage use of marijuana in the 1970's the government, in a fit of "reefer
madness," conducted several biased studies designed to return results that would equate marijuana smoking with tobacco smoking, or worse.

For example the Berkeley carcinogenic tar studies of the late 1970's concluded that "marijuana is one-and-a-half times as carcinogenic as tobacco." This finding was based solely on the tar content of cannabis leaves compared to that of tobacco, and did not take radioactivity into consideration. (Cannabis tars do not contain radioactive materials.) In addition, it was not considered that:

1) Most marijuana smokers smoke the bud, not the leaf, of
the plant. The bud contains only 33% as much tar as tobacco.

2) Marijuana smokers do not smoke anywhere near as much as tobacco smokers, due to the psychoactive effects of cannabis.

3) Not one case of lung cancer has ever been successfully linked to marijuana use.

4) Cannabis, unlike tobacco, does not cause any narrowing of the small air passageways in the lungs.

In fact, marijuana has been shown to be an expectorant and actually dilates the air channels it comes in contact with. This is why many asthma sufferers look to marijuana to provide relief. Doctors have postulated that marijuana may, in this respect, be more effective than all of the prescription drugs on the market.

Studies even show that due to marijuana's ability to clear the lungs of smog, pollutants, and cigarette smoke, it may actually reduce your risk of emphysema, bronchitis, and lung cancer. Smokers of cannabis have been shown to outlive non-smokers in some areas by up to two years. Medium to heavy tobacco smokers will live seven to ten years longer if they also
smoke marijuana.

Cannabis is also radically different from tobacco in that it does not contain nicotine and is not addictive. The psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, THC, has been accused of causing brain and genetic damage, but these studies have all been disproven. In fact, the DEA's own Administrative Law Judge Francis Young has declared that "marijuana in its natural form is far safer than many foods we commonly consume."

[Gandalf]

For the sake of argument, let's just assume that smoking either plant can potentially be harmful and leave it at that. Given that the government's motivation in banning the drug was not to protect people from doing things that might make them sick, I think that topic has relevance to whether it would be wise for an individual to practice smoking either one, if both were legal, but not to the question of legalizing it at all.

The reason marijuana is illegal is its psychoactive effects. Along with opiates and narcotics, it was part of a growing trend of major drug addiction problems in the 19th century, around the world. There was an international effort to control these substances because they were causing large numbers of people in China, and growing numbers of people in the US and other countries, to become unproductive, degenerate addicts rather than productive, law-abiding, sober citizens. There was a real problem, and it really did need to be addressed. Whether marijuana should be classified in the same league as the more powerful drugs is a legitimate question, but movements to legalize drug use in general usually lack a perspective on the real historical problems that led to controlled substance legislation around the world.

There is a valid argument that could be made that governments, while not having the responsibility (or in our case the authority) to be "nanny states," do have a duty to address problems that are detrimental to society at large. Widespread drug use turning large numbers of people into dependant "stoners" or "zombies" who are not capable or motivated to support themselves was such a problem that was rightfully addressed.

Now, there is a question as to whether marijuana is dangerous enough to be included as a controlled substance. If it were legal, would the increased number of unproductive potheads living in their parents basements and not willing to be bothered with working be sufficient to make it illegal? That is, would enough people not only use, but severely abuse, the drug to the extent that it had a detrimental effect on society? It's not an easy question to answer. But I think it's the real question that should be addressed in a discussion of legalization, not whether lung cancer rates could be marginally increased or not.

[Pouye]

Actually pot smoked in the SAME MANNER as cigarette tobacco is worse. Pot smoked in a water bong where the smoke is cooled is less dangerous than cigs/

Agreed. It isn't the amount of damage that bothers me, but the damage period. My lungs are healthier than yours if you have smoked anything, since I've never smoked anything.

But it isn't just the damage to the lungs or other parts of the body, but the intoxication that is the problem. However a Christians tries to spin it, getting intoxicated is not part of the Christian life. Jesus never became intoxicated on wine (although He drank it), and He would never smoke weed for the same reason. Most (if not all) people use illicit drugs or abuse prescription drugs for the intoxication affect.

Debate that.

Rock

[Pouye]

For the sake of argument, let's just assume that smoking either plant can potentially be harmful and leave it at that. Given that the government's motivation in banning the drug was not to protect people from doing things that might make them sick, I think that topic has relevance to whether it would be wise for an individual to practice smoking either one, if both were legal, but not to the question of legalizing it at all.

The reason marijuana is illegal is its psychoactive effects. Along with opiates and narcotics, it was part of a growing trend of major drug addiction problems in the 19th century, around the world. There was an international effort to control these substances because they were causing large numbers of people in China, and growing numbers of people in the US and other countries, to become unproductive, degenerate addicts rather than productive, law-abiding, sober citizens. There was a real problem, and it really did need to be addressed. Whether marijuana should be classified in the same league as the more powerful drugs is a legitimate question, but movements to legalize drug use in general usually lack a perspective on the real historical problems that led to controlled substance legislation around the world.

There is a valid argument that could be made that governments, while not having the responsibility (or in our case the authority) to be "nanny states," do have a duty to address problems that are detrimental to society at large. Widespread drug use turning large numbers of people into dependant "stoners" or "zombies" who are not capable or motivated to support themselves was such a problem that was rightfully addressed.

Now, there is a question as to whether marijuana is dangerous enough to be included as a controlled substance. If it were legal, would the increased number of unproductive potheads living in their parents basements and not willing to be bothered with working be sufficient to make it illegal? That is, would enough people not only use, but severely abuse, the drug to the extent that it had a detrimental effect on society? It's not an easy question to answer. But I think it's the real question that should be addressed in a discussion of legalization, not whether lung cancer rates could be marginally increased or not.

True! And that's the reason for my post above.

I say look at countries that have legalized it and see if it is making their society a better place or not.

Rock

[VerbumReale]

Agreed. It isn't the amount of damage that bothers me, but the damage period. My lungs are healthier than yours if you have smoked anything, since I've never smoked anything.

But it isn't just the damage to the lungs or other parts of the body, but the intoxication that is the problem. However a Christians tries to spin it, getting intoxicated is not part of the Christian life. Jesus never became intoxicated on wine (although He drank it), and He would never smoke weed for the same reason. Most (if not all) people use illicit drugs or abuse prescription drugs for the intoxication affect.

Debate that.

Rock

But the issue being discussed is not intoxication. Nobody is agruing the virtue of intoxication. The question is whether marijuna should be legalized or not. If something having the ability to intoxicate someone is a reason for it to be illegal then we should go back to prohibition of alcohol.

[VerbumReale]

If it were legal, would the increased number of unproductive potheads living in their parents basements and not willing to be bothered with working be sufficient to make it illegal? That is, would enough people not only use, but severely abuse, the drug to the extent that it had a detrimental effect on society? It's not an easy question to answer. But I think it's the real question that should be addressed in a discussion of legalization, not whether lung cancer rates could be marginally increased or not.

Yes and that is the question. And to answer the question about the potheads living in their parent's basements, it would have to first be determined whether one is unproductive and lazy because they smoke pot or whether one smokes pot because they happen to be unproductive and lazy. From my experience, FWIW, I tend to think the latter to be true. I have known many people who smoked pot quite regularly, and still manage to be productive members of society. And I have known some who would fit into the sterotypical stoner unporoductive person living in their parent's basement image. And for the most part, they were just unproductive and lazy. Take pot away and they would find something to replace it. And even in those cases they still grew out of the stoner stereotype and led more productive lives. I think for the most part the image that was presented on the 70s sitcom Taxi of Jim Ignitowski going from Harvard over-achiever to unporoductive stoner all because he takes a few hits off a joint is a myth.

[Pouye]

But the issue being discussed is not intoxication. Nobody is agruing the virtue of intoxication. The question is whether marijuna should be legalized or not. If something having the ability to intoxicate someone is a reason for it to be illegal then we should go back to prohibition of alcohol.

Actually, if you read my first post, you would know that I don't think alcohol should be in the hands of government regulation. I don't believe the government should profit from alcohol, nor regulate it -- unless the people (that's you and me) determine that because of the harmful affects on society it should be regulated. Almost any chemical can be abused. Paint fumes can intoxicate a person, and "huffing" has become a huge problem in some places in the world. Over the counter medicines can not only intoxicate, but even kill with high doses. Even water, if taken excessively, can dangerously thin the blood and cause a high. So obviously the possibility of intoxication is not the only basis for making something illegal. There are many factors to consider, not just one.

Let's consider some factors for alcohol:

1. Can a person drink occasionally and never reach intoxication? Yes.
2. Can a person drink regularly in moderation (without intoxication) without experiencing harmful affects? Yes.
3. Is there potential for addiction/abuse? Yes.
4. Can a person function fully in society if they drink without intoxication, including driving and operating dangerous equipment? Yes
5. Does casual drinking in moderation do damage to the body? None. In fact, there are some positive health benefits to this sort of drinking.
6. Do people who drink casually in moderation feel guilty for doing so? No.
7. Do people who drink casually in moderation do so because they are depressed? No.
8. Can a person drink casually in moderation live an active, healthy, and productive lifestyle? Yes.
9. Are there any other dangers associated with casual drinking in moderation? No.

BOTTOM LINE: A person can casually drink in moderation and lead completely healthy, active, productive lives with no ill affects to health and no ill affects toward others. It can only become a problem if abused -- otherwise it is as safe as consuming water.

Now let's compare this to smoking cigarettes:

1. Can a person smoke occasionally and never reach intoxication? Yes.
2. Can a person smoke regularly in moderation (obviously without intoxication) without experiencing harmful affects? No intoxication, but there is evidence that even moderate smoking damages lung tissue and has other health risks.
3. Is there potential for addiction/abuse? Yes.
4. Can a person function fully in society if they smoke, including driving and operating dangerous equipment?
For the most part: Open flames and smoking are restricted in many work environments for safety and health reasons.
5. Does casual smoking in moderation do damage to the body? Yes. It can also irritate others, especially those allergic to tobacco smoke or have other health issues.
6. Do people who smoke casually in moderation feel guilty for doing so? Some do, some don't.
7. Do people who smoke casually in moderation do so because they are depressed? Usually not.
8. Can a person smoke casually in moderation live an active, healthy, and productive lifestyle? For the most part. The cumulative health affects are negative, however. Most people who smoke regularly experience a decrease in their quality of life and negatives to overall health.
9. Are there any other dangers associated with casual smoking in moderation? Yes. Smoking is a fire hazard, and accounts for many deaths per year through careless handling and littering. Smoking in bed causes many house fires per year, and many damaging outdoor fires are caused by careless smokers each year.

BOTTOM LINE: So far, smoking tobacco scores far worse for society than does casually drinking in moderation. It is obvious that people are better off not smoking for the sake of themselves and/or others. It is certainly worse for the smoker and others than water is.

Now lets look at marijuana smoking:

1. Can a person smoke marijuana occasionally and never reach intoxication? It is possible, but not likely. Almost all people smoke marijuana for the purpose of the intoxication affects.
2. Can a person smoke marijuana regularly in moderation (without intoxication) without experiencing harmful affects? No. First off, it is almost always smoked for the intoxication affect. Secondly, there will be cumulative damage to the lungs, just like with tobacco smoke. The damage is usually less because usually less is smoked than with tobacco users, however.
3. Is there potential for addiction/abuse? Yes.
4. Can a person function fully in society if they smoke marijuana without intoxication, including driving and operating dangerous equipment? No, because people smoke it for the intoxication affect. Nobody intoxicated should drive or operate dangerous equipment. Just because some people seem to be able to "pull it off" while high doesn't mean they should.
5. Does casual smoking of marijuana in moderation do damage to the body? Yes, but not significantly unless used extensively and for a long period of time.
6. Do people who smoke marijuana casually in moderation feel guilty for doing so? Most do, some don't.
7. Do people who smoke marijuana casually in moderation do so because they are depressed? Some do, some don't.
8. Can a person smoke marijuana casually in moderation live an active, healthy, and productive lifestyle? For a medium percentage, yes; for the most part. But in cities where marijuana have been legalized, crime rates increase and quality of life decreases. Also, marijuana use has strong ties to criminal records and to crime in general. The facts are the facts.
9. Are there any other dangers associated with casual marijuana smoking in moderation? Yes. Fire hazards like tobacco smoking. Also, because most people who smoke marijuana do so for the intoxication affect, the potential for harmful or fatal accidents to themselves or others goes up. People intoxicated by marijuana have injured themselves and/or harmed others.

BOTTOM LINE: So far, smoking marijuana scores far worse for the individual and society than does casually drinking in moderation and tobacco smoking. It is obvious that people are better off not smoking marijuana for the sake of themselves and/or others. Because of the significant contribution to crime and other health and social problems, it is probably best left in the illicit category.

I'm just curious: How many people on this forum are trying to justify marijuana use because they have used it or are using it? I've never used it. I just wonder if most of those in favor of legalization are users or have been users. Users or past users who wish to use it again are going to be far more biased than non-users on the topic.

Since I have also never abused alcohol, (I drink casually in moderation, but I'm not a regular drinker), I would be only slightly biased if alcoholic beverages were outlawed.

I actually think it would be funny to see what would happen if everyone was given random drug/alcohol tests -- and base on those tests they would have the right to buy certain drugs/alcohol or not. That would mean that those who abuse any substance wouldn't be able to buy it legally, even if it were legal otherwise. I know this is impossible and would be draconian, but it would be an interesting experiment in my mind.

Rock

[cheewiee]

I'm just curious: How many people on this forum are trying to justify marijuana use because they have used it or are using it? I've never used it. I just wonder if most of those in favor of legalization are users or have been users. Users or past users who wish to use it again are going to be far more biased than non-users on the topic.


So, I have never used Marijuana, and I am for decriminalizing it (not legalizing it mind you).

Pot posession should be a fine, not jail time. We spend far to much time and energy in the drug war persuing this "gateway" drug. If we eliminated the criminal impacts of posession (meaning dime bag or less) for personal use, and slapped a hefty fine, say $250 for a nickle bag $500 for a dime bag I think that would have far greater impact.

As it is, Our jails are so over crowded, most locations fail to enforce the criminal statues anyway, charges are dropped, sentances are reduced to fines for possession already. So why spend the time, energy, and money tying up the court systems.

[Jesuslove]

So, I have never used Marijuana, and I am for decriminalizing it (not legalizing it mind you).

Pot posession should be a fine, not jail time. We spend far to much time and energy in the drug war persuing this "gateway" drug. If we eliminated the criminal impacts of posession (meaning dime bag or less) for personal use, and slapped a hefty fine, say $250 for a nickle bag $500 for a dime bag I think that would have far greater impact.

As it is, Our jails are so over crowded, most locations fail to enforce the criminal statues anyway, charges are dropped, sentances are reduced to fines for possession already. So why spend the time, energy, and money tying up the court systems.


I totally agree with Cheewiee's stance... and I've never tried pot either.

[VerbumReale]

Actually, if you read my first post, you would know that I don't think alcohol should be in the hands of government regulation.


And if you would read my post you would know that I never suggested you did. I am sure you have some insightful information here, but not really having a strong opinion on this issue I have no desire to really get dragged into this . I am not running from this argument, this just isn't a dog that I wish to hunt. It just seemed to me that you were making the argument that because pot has the ability to intoxicate then it shouldn't be legal. Well if that's the case for pot then why shouldn't it apply to alcohol? I never said anything about the degree to which you belived governemnt should regulate alcohol. Maybe you are the one who needs to read people's posts better.

I am curious where you got your "data." Much of the answers to these questions you pose seem presumptuous. Are these based on surveys or just your own perceptions. If it's your perceptions, then I have to ask how many people who smoke pot do you know? If they are based on surveys and studies then provide sources. I am not saying they are not true but I just think you should provide sources.


I'm just curious: How many people on this forum are trying to justify marijuana use because they have used it or are using it?

I find this question incredibly insulting and quite possibly something that should be brought to the attention of the mods. I never tried to justify pot-smoking. I simply posed a few questions and made a few comments. And not that it's any of your business, but yes I have smoked marijuana in the very distant past. It never did much for me. So no I do not smoke it currently and have absolutley no intention of ever doing so again, but regardles that has nothing to do with how I feel about this. I have no problem admitting that smoking pot was a stupid thing for me to do and fortunately, like I said, it never did much for me, so stopping was not a problem. But I think too much time, nergy and resources have gone into combatting marijuana while it's use has only increased over the years.

[VerbumReale]

So, I have never used Marijuana, and I am for decriminalizing it (not legalizing it mind you).

Pot posession should be a fine, not jail time. We spend far to much time and energy in the drug war persuing this "gateway" drug. If we eliminated the criminal impacts of posession (meaning dime bag or less) for personal use, and slapped a hefty fine, say $250 for a nickle bag $500 for a dime bag I think that would have far greater impact.

As it is, Our jails are so over crowded, most locations fail to enforce the criminal statues anyway, charges are dropped, sentances are reduced to fines for possession already. So why spend the time, energy, and money tying up the court systems.

That seems very reasonable.

[Valpo]

As it is you have to get caught with copious amounts of weed to go to prison. I've known people who have been busted with nickels and dimes and have never seen the inside of a prison cell. And I also know people who have gotten busted with wayyyy more than nickels and dimes and along with other goodies and have never seen the inside of a jail cell.

I must be living in the wrong part of the country where stoners are being thrown into prison by the droves. Are we counting an overnight stay as "jail time?"

I have a whole bunch of friends who smoke mary j and do it just to get ripped, not like a glass a wine or a beer at the end of the day to wind down. At the same token there are people who abuse the heck out of alcohol. But sadly I have seen many people: friends, family, etc be brought down by marijuana. It has made them uber lazy and has introduced them to other drugs. I never bought the gateway drug thing for a moment....until I saw friends trying heroin and crack after smoking weed for a while.

So in short, I am torn as to whether marijuana should be legalized or not. What doesn't help the cause are the amount of wooks running around demanding it be legalized so they can get as high as a kite w/o legal consequence.

[cheewiee]

As it is you have to get caught with copious amounts of weed to go to prison. I've known people who have been busted with nickels and dimes and have never seen the inside of a prison cell. And I also know people who have gotten busted with wayyyy more than nickels and dimes and along with other goodies and have never seen the inside of a jail cell.

I must be living in the wrong part of the country where stoners are being thrown into prison by the droves. Are we counting an overnight stay as "jail time?"


Because of alot of reasons, Pot laws are hardly enforced anyway. People with dimebags simply have the pot siezed and let go, Because the DA won't press charges, and the police don't feel like having to do the arrest paperwork, when they will only be released with no consequense in a matter of hours.

By decriminalizing it, and assigning a fine to it, it means the cop simply writes a ticket. The paperwork becomes minimal, and the DA isn't involved. Yes the perpetrater can fight the ticket, but regardless, just like when a cop witnesses you speeding, you pay the fine, most people will pay the pot fine. if not, they go to court, and when the cop testifies that he busted you with a dime bag, the judge is going to believe the cop and not you. You get ordered to pay the fine, and the additional court costs....

[Valpo]

^^ fair enough

[VerbumReale]

I never bought the gateway drug thing for a moment....until I saw friends trying heroin and crack after smoking weed for a while.



See I've seen both. I have seen people who smoke pot who would end up experimenting with other drugs. But then I have seen far more people who smoke pot but never so much as think about touching another drug, including alcohol. I believe the gateway drug myth is a correlation that isn't necessarily causative. I think there was studies of people who used heorin, cocaine etc and it was determined that most of them started out with pot so hence pot was determined to be a gateway drug. But you could probably ask those same people how many of them ate Doritos and the majority of them probably had. Does that mean Doritos are going to lead to someone using heroin?

I will concede that it is a gateway drug in the sense that it puts one's defenses down when it comes to the whole idea of drug use in general, but I don't think there is anything in marijuana that creates an innate desire to experiment with other drugs.

[Howlin' Wolf]

See I've seen both. I have seen people who smoke pot who would end up experimenting with other drugs. But then I have seen far more people who smoke pot but never so much as think about touching another drug, including alcohol. I believe the gateway drug myth is a correlation that isn't necessarily causative. I think there was studies of people who used heorin, cocaine etc and it was determined that most of them started out with pot so hence pot was determined to be a gateway drug. But you could probably ask those same people how many of them ate Doritos and the majority of them probably had. Does that mean Doritos are going to lead to someone using heroin?

I will concede that it is a gateway drug in the sense that it puts one's defenses down when it comes to the whole idea of drug use in general, but I don't think there is anything in marijuana that creates an innate desire to experiment with other drugs.
I used to live with a former crackhead, who is now a pothead. i agree. Pot doesnt lead to other drugs. Pot is just something that all addicts have tried.

Tulip

[Howlin' Wolf]

I'm just curious: How many people on this forum are trying to justify marijuana use because they have used it or are using it? I've never used it. I just wonder if most of those in favor of legalization are users or have been users. Users or past users who wish to use it again are going to be far more biased than non-users on the topic.

Ive tried it....many times. I never enjoyed it, just coughed alot....It tasted nasty.

Why do I support it's legalization? Because alcohol is far worse than weed could ever be. Hipocrisy is ********. Legalize it.

[Pouye]

I totally agree with Cheewiee's stance... and I've never tried pot either.

I agree with it, too. I don't think anyone should go to jail unless they are a danger to the people outside of the jail.

Rock

[Pouye]

See I've seen both. I have seen people who smoke pot who would end up experimenting with other drugs. But then I have seen far more people who smoke pot but never so much as think about touching another drug, including alcohol. I believe the gateway drug myth is a correlation that isn't necessarily causative. I think there was studies of people who used heorin, cocaine etc and it was determined that most of them started out with pot so hence pot was determined to be a gateway drug. But you could probably ask those same people how many of them ate Doritos and the majority of them probably had. Does that mean Doritos are going to lead to someone using heroin?

I will concede that it is a gateway drug in the sense that it puts one's defenses down when it comes to the whole idea of drug use in general, but I don't think there is anything in marijuana that creates an innate desire to experiment with other drugs.

I agree with your last thought above. There is something about willingly doing something illegal that makes it easier to break other laws. In that way, I would see it as a gateway to either other drugs or criminal behavior. It could be the other way around. Maybe the people who are more prone to take risks and already a bit defiant will experiment with weed, risking getting busted. It could be more of a personality thing. I agree with you that pot doesn't necessarily open the door to other drugs, and the "gateway" idea is probably more myth than factual. But when you have your foot in the door of illegal behavior, it is much easier to continue into the door when you get used to having it partially open than when it is closed. If a person is already using an illegal substance and is offered another illegal substance, they have already made it over the "illegal" hurdle.

Rock

[Pouye]

Ive tried it....many times. I never enjoyed it, just coughed alot....It tasted nasty.

Why do I support it's legalization? Because alcohol is far worse than weed could ever be. Hipocrisy is ********. Legalize it.

Do you really want the government in the pot business? That's my problem with legalization. Decriminalization is a better option in my book. I don't like the idea of the government making a ton of money off of pot. I don't like the idea of how much money the government makes on alcohol and prescription drugs already. Nothing wrong with taxes per se, I just don't like the government in the drug industry at all, nor the food industry.

Rock

[Howlin' Wolf]

Do you really want the government in the pot business? That's my problem with legalization. Decriminalization is a better option in my book. I don't like the idea of the government making a ton of money off of pot. I don't like the idea of how much money the government makes on alcohol and prescription drugs already. Nothing wrong with taxes per se, I just don't like the government in the drug industry at all, nor the food industry.

Rock


I dont like it at all. But it is what it is. I dont like the fact that my paychecks are taxed 35%.

[Evanescence]

If they tax it..they'll just tax more..and waste more....it wont change anything down there...

I tried it once...and it did nothing. maybe I am already crazy and thats why it didnt work... :P

[prayercloth sis]

I can just see it now...Cheech and Chong all over again...driving down the highway in van...and the cops getting high off the fumes...hello...lol...tha t's funny....

[Pouye]

I am curious where you got your "data." Much of the answers to these questions you pose seem presumptuous. Are these based on surveys or just your own perceptions. If it's your perceptions, then I have to ask how many people who smoke pot do you know? If they are based on surveys and studies then provide sources. I am not saying they are not true but I just think you should provide sources.


The questions come from my experience. My father and many of my uncles were pot users, so I grew up around it. I grew up around a lot of crap, mind you. Seeing your father high on marijuana is quite a sight, let me tell you. Watching years of use around my family and seeing those destructive behaviors justified can teach a guy something.


I find this question incredibly insulting and quite possibly something that should be brought to the attention of the mods. I never tried to justify pot-smoking. I simply posed a few questions and made a few comments. And not that it's any of your business, but yes I have smoked marijuana in the very distant past. It never did much for me. So no I do not smoke it currently and have absolutley no intention of ever doing so again, but regardles that has nothing to do with how I feel about this. I have no problem admitting that smoking pot was a stupid thing for me to do and fortunately, like I said, it never did much for me, so stopping was not a problem. But I think too much time, nergy and resources have gone into combatting marijuana while it's use has only increased over the years.

I'm sorry. I shouldn't have asked the question, so I agree with you. I have made an observation over the years. When someone is a former user of something (pretty much anything), they usually are less likely to take the "hard line" against it. This is just human nature. Sorry to offend you.

I also agree that combating marijuana use should be done differently. I don't believe ignoring it is the best solution, however.

Rock

[VerbumReale]

The questions come from my experience. My father and many of my uncles were pot users, so I grew up around it. I grew up around a lot of crap, mind you. Seeing your father high on marijuana is quite a sight, let me tell you. Watching years of use around my family and seeing those destructive behaviors justified can teach a guy something.

Thanks for your willingness to share. And I hope my question did not come across as if I doubted your sincerity. I think you are to be commended for not allowing yourself to get caught up in those destructive behaviors.



I'm sorry. I shouldn't have asked the question, so I agree with you. I have made an observation over the years. When someone is a former user of something (pretty much anything), they usually are less likely to take the "hard line" against it. This is just human nature. Sorry to offend you.

I also agree that combating marijuana use should be done differently. I don't believe ignoring it is the best solution, however.

Rock

No problem. I porbably overreacted.

[Pouye]

Thanks for your willingness to share. And I hope my question did not come across as if I doubted your sincerity. I think you are to be commended for not allowing yourself to get caught up in those destructive behaviors.
No problem. I porbably overreacted.

Thanks for your willingness to engage in the conversation. I've always appreciated your sincerity. I don't think your reaction was unwarranted. This is a public forum and it was unwise of me to ask such a probing question. Thanks for being gracious and being willing to go the extra mile with me. It's an emotional topic and with all of the different experiences out there, it can get tied up in knots pretty quick. I will readily admit I have some strong biases regarding this topic because of my experiences, and that is part of the reason I asked such a stupid question to begin with.

All is forgiven,

:cool:

Rock

[bajagill]

another 2cents...........when I was young and stupid (being young is over with as is being stupid...most of the time) I smoked pot also. Not proud of it, don't encourage it, and do not believe any good can come of it due to my experiences and watching those around me and the effects of it in their lives. One fellow I'll call "T" serves as a good example of smoking pot doing "nothing" for/to you. Before T started smoking he was a reasonably intelligent person. Actively involved in life in general. School, family, etc. After he started getting high things went downhill quickly. Grades, family life, friends, attitude, everything. He turned into a lazy, disrespectful jerk. While I cannot say whether or not it was a gateway drug in his case (he moved 100's of miles away after graduation) I can say how much he changed after he started. During the time we were acquainted he didn't do any "heavy" drugs with the weed, though he did drink, so there were no other influences to lay any blame on for his change in behavior since his drinking was FAR outweighed by the amount of weed he smoked. When I saw him last at our 10 yr. h.s. reunion he had not changed one iota other than being older. Sad to watch someone still acting like they were 15 years old and the only desire in their life was the next hit or where to find it. Just like the old TV commercial, " I been smoking weed since I was 15 yrs. old and I haven't changed at all." Yeah, we could tell :rollseyes:

As for pot not having a negative effect on people w/ asthma, in my case I would have to say Bull. Smoking pot had a far worse effect on my asthma than did than did the cigs which I smoked after I quit weed. ( I quit those too)

I do think that chewiee has a good idea, however. Don't put the idiots in jail, fine the crap out of them! Want to fight the ticket? Go right ahead. Probably lose and have to pay even more due to court costs. If we could only keep the extra money out of the gov't's hands. **oh goody!! Even MORE $$ to waste!!**

If someone has a valid medical reason to seek relief from pain why not just use hash oil? Hash has a higher level of THC in it than does marijuana. ( or is this another stoner myth?)

[Beachcomber]

The point could be made that not many people chain smoke joints,.

Oh really????????:eek: ;)

[Pouye]

another 2cents...........when I was young and stupid (being young is over with as is being stupid...most of the time) I smoked pot also. Not proud of it, don't encourage it, and do not believe any good can come of it due to my experiences and watching those around me and the effects of it in their lives. One fellow I'll call "T" serves as a good example of smoking pot doing "nothing" for/to you. Before T started smoking he was a reasonably intelligent person. Actively involved in life in general. School, family, etc. After he started getting high things went downhill quickly. Grades, family life, friends, attitude, everything. He turned into a lazy, disrespectful jerk. While I cannot say whether or not it was a gateway drug in his case (he moved 100's of miles away after graduation) I can say how much he changed after he started. During the time we were acquainted he didn't do any "heavy" drugs with the weed, though he did drink, so there were no other influences to lay any blame on for his change in behavior since his drinking was FAR outweighed by the amount of weed he smoked. When I saw him last at our 10 yr. h.s. reunion he had not changed one iota other than being older. Sad to watch someone still acting like they were 15 years old and the only desire in their life was the next hit or where to find it. Just like the old TV commercial, " I been smoking weed since I was 15 yrs. old and I haven't changed at all." Yeah, we could tell :rollseyes:

As for pot not having a negative effect on people w/ asthma, in my case I would have to say Bull. Smoking pot had a far worse effect on my asthma than did than did the cigs which I smoked after I quit weed. ( I quit those too)

I do think that chewiee has a good idea, however. Don't put the idiots in jail, fine the crap out of them! Want to fight the ticket? Go right ahead. Probably lose and have to pay even more due to court costs. If we could only keep the extra money out of the gov't's hands. **oh goody!! Even MORE $$ to waste!!**

If someone has a valid medical reason to seek relief from pain why not just use hash oil? Hash has a higher level of THC in it than does marijuana. ( or is this another stoner myth?)

Thanks for sharing this testimony. This also touches on the "pot" lifestyle. Some pot smokers don't get into the pot lifestyle. They use it (on the side - sometimes with moderation), retaining their pursuits in life. Same with drinking. Some get into the drinker's lifestyle (bars, parties) and some simply use alcohol (on the side - usually with moderation).

Alcohol is different because it can be used in moderation and have no negative affect on the person whatsoever. Personally, I've never been drunk. But I've had a glass of wine occasionally, with no negative affects. I could drive, operate heavy machinery, etc. The purpose in having a glass of wine was as a beverage to accompany a meal, not to become intoxicated.

Marijuana is almost always used for the intoxication affect (unlike alcohol).

I would personally say that alcohol abuse is the ultimate gateway drug. Almost everyone I know who has abused alcohol has also tried other forms of intoxication.

Rock

[SueQ]

Could it be one of those meetings where Ben Franklin made his famous suggestion for what our national bird should be; the turkey? Just picture it. A very high Ben Franklin takin a big hit and then raising his head, unsquinting his eyes and saying "Wait, wait, wait, wait,....how about we make the turkey our national bird."

Awkward silence

Then Washinton and Jefferson burst out laughing. And then one of them says "I think Ben has had enough."

:cool: ;)

ROTFLOL! (Thinking of that as a modification to the scene in "1776"!) I teach American History to my 5th graders...don't think I can include that!