Ive recently caught my son smoking marijuana. When i questioned him about it he "spilled" all the beans. He told me that an individual named Crishan salinas was supplying most of madison high school with his accomplice Ricky rivero. I was shocked when he told me they where big dealers as in they would deal in pounds. This was quite a shocker, to hear that madison high school was being supplied buy virtually two men.

I would like to see these men brought to justice. However i would like to remain annoymous, from what i heard these are very dangerous individuals and i wouldnt want my family to get stuck in the crossfire.

Your kid is a bitch.

It's weed, be grateful it isn't something more serious. Read up on it, realize it's not as bad as you think, then figure it out from there.

The so called "crossfire" between gangs won't be stopped by calling the cops. Petition your senators to legalize it and maybe your son won't have as easily of a time finding weed.

I guess i'm trying to say that your phone call won't do shit. If your kid has access to this information, bringing it to the cops attention will be redundant.

Focus on changing your parenting style, not on changing other people's kids.

First off, totally not cool to tell people the names of these kids. If they read this, they will probably retaliate. Also, it is kinda slanderous to say that when they are not being tried for such actions. As anonymous11 said, your kid could very well be a bitch, and bitches are apt to make things up, like giving you the names of some innocent high schoolers.

Marijuana also isn't that dangerous. I would be much, much, MUCH angrier at my child if he was drinking in high school than if he was smoking weed.

I'll level with you about the mental aspects of marijuana and say it does in fact comes from Satan and that it is addictive and makes you act like a lunatic and you might kill some people while driving intoxicated on it and hey, you might put your baby in the microwave, and forget about it, but that is exactly what alcohol does. The only difference is is that marijuana does not cause liver failure, deformities in babies, cardiovascular disease, liver disease, malignant neoplasms, hypertension, coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer of the respiratory system, digestive system, liver, breasts, and ovaries.

Your son might get a possession charge or two, but he can never be arrested for driving high, or being high in public. He is probably just going to end up with weakened lung function and memory.

Since you want to see those ignorant high schoolers brought to justice for scourging the earth with their marijuanas, I would like to see you visiting a shrink for you paranoid thoughts, feelings of persecution, and over-all anger.

Smoke a fucking joint and relax. Or get drunk and beat your kid. I think you'll do the latter.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"The horse jumped over the fucking fence." - Kurt Vonnegut



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2012 10:46PM by Blurp.

Blurp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First off, totally not cool to tell people the
> names of these kids. If they read this, they will
> probably retaliate. Also, it is kinda slanderous
> to say that when they are not being tried for such
> actions. As anonymous11 said, your kid could very
> well be a bitch, and bitches are apt to make
> things up, like giving you the names of some
> innocent high schoolers.
>
> Marijuana also isn't that dangerous. I would be
> much, much, MUCH angrier at my child if he was
> drinking in high school than if he was smoking
> weed.
>
> I'll level with you about the mental aspects of
> marijuana and say it does in fact comes from Satan
> and that it is addictive and makes you act like a
> lunatic and you might kill some people while
> driving intoxicated on it and hey, you might put
> your baby in the microwave, and forget about it,
> but that is exactly what alcohol does. The only
> difference is is that marijuana does not cause
> liver failure, deformities in babies,
> cardiovascular disease, liver disease, malignant
> neoplasms, hypertension, coronary heart disease,
> stroke, cancer of the respiratory system,
> digestive system, liver, breasts, and ovaries.
>
> Your son might get a possession charge or two, but
> he can never be arrested for driving high, or
> being high in public. He is probably just going to
> end up with weakened lung function and memory.
>
> Since you want to see those ignorant high
> schoolers brought to justice for scourging the
> earth with their marijuanas, I would like to see
> you visiting a shrink for you paranoid thoughts,
> feelings of persecution, and over-all anger.
>
> Smoke a fucking joint and relax. Or get drunk and
> beat your kid. I think you'll do the latter.

These men i spoke of are not high schoolers. They are Dangerous grown men. If they where high schoolers i would'nt feel the need to get the police involved. These are men in their 20's and from what i heard are armed and dangerous.

So your bitch of a son told you all their operations? Please, if they were even remotely "armed and dangerous," from the sounds of it, your kid wouldn't know jack shit about them.

And one more thing, think of it this way, imagine another set of parents catch their son smoking weed, the bitch kid rats out your kids name, and those parents post your kids name with accusations on this forum, how would you feel?

You are not the police, you are not the justice system, you are not an investigator, you are a bored housewife.

Well then, that changes everything. You can look up their records on here, if they have one, and you can see a bit what they are like. If they truly are dangerous, as in, they have been tried for murder, manslaughter, grand theft auto, larceny, whatever, THAT is when I would be concerned. The fact of the matter is, most people that sell weed, are not dangerous. The dangerous ones are the ones that sell coke and heroin and meth. They are the ones that sell drugs that you get hopelessly ridiculously addicted to. You know, the real money makers, the ones people can't get enough of, because they are 1 inch from the shakes and sheeves and will suck a dick for just a taste.

Your kid will not and will never suck a dick for a gram of weed. People do that for booze. Be glad there is no listerine equivalent to weed.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"The horse jumped over the fucking fence." - Kurt Vonnegut



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2012 10:59PM by Blurp.

anonymous11 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So your bitch of a son told you all their
> operations? Please, if they were even remotely
> "armed and dangerous," from the sounds of it, your
> kid wouldn't know jack shit about them.

Obviously not, but he can tell the diffrence between grown men or teens that go to his high school. We dont need you spouting your ignorance in this thread take your opionins else where.

Let me let you in on something, if your kid had any legitimate connection with these thugs (let's assume you/your kid are right), they were not selling dime bags to him. Most likely, your kid is dealing himself, or he would never have these connects.

From someone whos been there, if you're picking up quarters or less at a time, you won't be meeting dealers that deal in pounds.

So to bring a "investigation" on this, would probably be bad for your son too.

Concerned Parents Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> anonymous11 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So your bitch of a son told you all their
> > operations? Please, if they were even remotely
> > "armed and dangerous," from the sounds of it,
> your
> > kid wouldn't know jack shit about them.
>
> Obviously not, but he can tell the diffrence
> between grown men or teens that go to his high
> school. We dont need you spouting your ignorance
> in this thread take your opionins else where.

It's weed.

jesus lady, if i was in high school- i'd probably smoke too. Safer than acholol, espically for a teenager.

you've got a good kid.



As for dealers, it's fairfax. no hardened pushers around here. don't have a fit over nothing.

troll post fools... someone got ripped off buying dime bags. i heard that was a rare occurrence in high school.

wow the responses on this are scarier than the post, this was a father who seems genuinely interested on making high school a better place, F the rest of you

Anonymous11 is obviously:
A) a marijuana user
B) friends with drug dealers, if not a dealer himself
C) defensive about citizens who rightly want to eradicate drugs from schools
D) scared to defend marijuana publicly with his real name because he does not want to live in his parents basement all his life, trying to find a job.
E) not a parent and likely never will be. If he became a parent maybe he would learn how to see issues from outside himself - how they affect communities and society. Go down to Mexico and see how a lawless society that is easy on drugs and drug dealers is doing. 43 dead bodies on the side of the highway this weekend. Nice. Wow, you are right, drugs aren't so bad...

You're an idiot.

Weed's been illegal for quite some time now, there has always been dealers, and there still will be after this bullshit phone call with no reliable information. Let's assume the OP's son actually has insider information, and has it without being a dealer himself (doubt it), and the parents call the cops, what the fuck will that do? DEA raid on two mexicans that sell weed? Seriously?

And a step further, let's say it actually works, these two mexicans actually go to jail for this, so what? Will there really be no more dealers in this area then?

OP caught his son smoking weed, and it's suddenly turned into a whole investigation on dealers in fairfax county.

If his parenting style was effective, he shouldn't have to worry about this shit.

As for "defensive about drugs in school", please, do you know how many drugs are already in schools? Antidepressants, adhd pills, but no NOT MARIJUANA, that shit will ruin the school system.

Idiot.


roughbook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anonymous11 is obviously:
> A) a marijuana user
> B) friends with drug dealers, if not a dealer
> himself
> C) defensive about citizens who rightly want to
> eradicate drugs from schools
> D) scared to defend marijuana publicly with his
> real name because he does not want to live in his
> parents basement all his life, trying to find a
> job.
> E) not a parent and likely never will be. If he
> became a parent maybe he would learn how to see
> issues from outside himself - how they affect
> communities and society. Go down to Mexico and
> see how a lawless society that is easy on drugs
> and drug dealers is doing. 43 dead bodies on the
> side of the highway this weekend. Nice. Wow, you
> are right, drugs aren't so bad...

This is a perfect example of why a REGULATED LEGAL market would be good. Consider how easy it is for your son to be involved with the black market for cannabis vs trying to walk into a store and purchase alcohol. If you have a problem with the black market providing products that people obviously want to consume then you should support creating a REGULATED LEGAL marketplace.

Cannabis could provide fuel, food, fiber, medicine and safe recreation. Education is the answer. No one has ever died from the consumption of cannabis. It doesnt make you unmotiviated, you were most likely that way before.

People, are we really going to take the opening post at face value? Bullshit. That's someone with an axe to grind.

roughbook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anonymous11 is obviously:
> A) a marijuana user

So he has something in common with Doctors, Lawyers, past and current presidents, congressmen and politicians

> B) friends with drug dealers, if not a dealer
> himself

Two points here
1) Its pretty difficult to buy drugs without being friends with a drug dealer
2) There are many a drug dealer I would rather have my name associated with than many of the aforementioned politicians.

> C) defensive about citizens who rightly want to
> eradicate drugs from schools

I think you meant to say "helpful to a concerned parent by providing valuable insight into how the game really works" He was correct, you know. People that deal in pounds dont sell dimebags. a pound of hydro goes for $4000 or more. So to deal a minimum of 2 pounds, they would have to make 800 transactions just to cover their cost? If your kid knows someone moving pounds of marijuana, he is 90% involved to some extent.

> D) scared to defend marijuana publicly with his
> real name because he does not want to live in his
> parents basement all his life, trying to find a
> job.

And Jews used to change their names to avoid persecution. While my example is clearly a more important issue than the 'Legalize It' initiative, it is an accurate correlation.

> E) not a parent and likely never will be. If he
> became a parent maybe he would learn how to see
> issues from outside himself - how they affect
> communities and society. Go down to Mexico and
> see how a lawless society that is easy on drugs
> and drug dealers is doing. 43 dead bodies on the
> side of the highway this weekend. Nice. Wow, you
> are right, drugs aren't so bad...

On this one I have got to say you show complete ignorance and a blindfolded approach to life. You are being led like a sheep. The drug violence in Mexico is directly related to our 'War on Drugs'. If marijuana were legalized in the US, Mexican drug violence would literally drop overnight. Dont piss in my cereal and call it milk. Your mindless drone helicopter parent friends might buy your drivel but Im not.

LOL at the picture above

The usual Pot Prophet and Grass Guru "arguments" for all to see. . . I'd just like to see when we enter the United States of Potopia--who's going to pay for all the car accidents our little wake and bakers will have. . .

What is the active ingredient in pot that makes its users think they have a moral high road and delusions of ethical superiority?

at least jbass had more rational arguments than Anon11. Problems with jbass conclusion or the legalization guy is that they seem to think if we end the war on drugs all the street dealers who profit immensely from the illicit trade will just drop their networks and go become car salesmen or metro bus drivers. HA- fat chance. you would see the filth peddlers move up to heroin, meth, or worse to make their living. They are scum of the earth, and would not join the legitimate work force. they would find further illegal trades to fuck over our youth.

roughbook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is the active ingredient in pot that makes
> its users think they have a moral high road and
> delusions of ethical superiority?
>
I hope you are not serious about this statement; soo stupid.

> at least jbass had more rational arguments than
> Anon11. Problems with jbass conclusion or the
> legalization guy is that they seem to think if we
> end the war on drugs all the street dealers who
> profit immensely from the illicit trade will just
> drop their networks and go become car salesmen or
> metro bus drivers. HA- fat chance. you would see
> the filth peddlers move up to heroin, meth, or
> worse to make their living. They are scum of the
> earth, and would not join the legitimate work
> force. they would find further illegal trades to
> fuck over our youth.

Way to change your mind after you got your ass handed to you by a pothead Jbass.
GTFO Roughboook

Did he happen to give you their phone number?

chronic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The usual Pot Prophet and Grass Guru "arguments"
> for all to see. . . I'd just like to see when we
> enter the United States of Potopia--who's going to
> pay for all the car accidents our little wake and
> bakers will have. . .


People smoke and fall asleep on the couch. People drink and wreck their cars.


You've got the wrong drug, asshole.

Most people that deal weed aren't dangerous as they probably weigh like 140 pounds average with stupid names like Jake or Kyle, most kids in high school have sold drugs to be honest, not even an exagerration, usually stuff like marijuanna with nothing else really. It is literily everywhere and not as huge of a problem as you think, it's not like it is in the movies. Theres nothing you can do, chances are your kid will smoke and drink in high school and you can't control that, don't be one of those parents where you think your precious boy would never do that. Difference is, who lets it control their life and who lets themselves get caught. If your son is not a complete idiot you probably won't have any problems ever.

Not advocating to let him do it, but parents tend to be extremely ignorant on what actually happens in high schools and usually let the media or sensationalist local news form their opinions.

"parents tend to be extremely ignorant on what actually happens in high schools and usually let the media or sensationalist local news form their opinions."

"most kids in high school have sold drugs to be honest"

They let the media or local news sensationalize this. No way they may read this forum and read someone claim that MOST kids sell drugs.

Performance Effects: The short term effects of marijuana use include problems with memory and learning, distorted perception, difficultly in thinking and problem-solving, and loss of coordination. Heavy users may have increased difficulty sustaining attention, shifting attention to meet the demands of changes in the environment, and in registering, processing and using information. In general, laboratory performance studies indicate that sensory functions are not highly impaired, but perceptual functions are significantly affected. The ability to concentrate and maintain attention are decreased during marijuana use, and impairment of hand-eye coordination is dose-related over a wide range of dosages.Impairment in retention time and tracking, subjective sleepiness, distortion of time and distance, vigilance, and loss of coordination in divided attention tasks have been reported. Note however, that subjects can often “pull themselves together” to concentrate on simple tasks for brief periods of time. Significant performance impairments are usually observed for at least 1-2 hours following marijuana use, and residual effects have been reported up to 24 hours.

Effects on Driving: The drug manufacturer suggests that patients receiving treatment with Marinol® should be specifically warned not to drive until it is established that they are able to tolerate the drug and perform such tasks safely. Epidemiology data from road traffic arrests and fatalities indicate that after alcohol, marijuana is the most frequently detected psychoactive substance among driving populations. Marijuana has been shown to impair performance on driving simulator tasks and on open and closed driving courses for up to approximately 3 hours. Decreased car handling performance, increased reaction times, impaired time and distance estimation, inability to maintain headway, lateral travel, subjective sleepiness, motor incoordination, and impaired sustained vigilance have all been reported. Some drivers may actually be able to improve performance for brief periods by overcompensating for self-perceived impairment. The greater the demands placed on the driver, however, the more critical the likely impairment. Marijuana may particularly impair monotonous and prolonged driving. Decision times to evaluate situations and determine appropriate responses increase. Mixing alcohol and marijuana may dramatically produce effects greater than either drug on its own.href>

Don't see how I changed my mind. At all.
Not even a little bit, you chicken shit.

Legalization of drugs will be the downfall of Western Civilization, if we let it happen. I would like to see corporal punishment for all drug dealers. Smack them in the face with a lead pipe, break their crack sniffin nose. Every damn one of them.

Or take the Anon11 and Jbass pussy method. Legal pot - why not meth? Why not coke? Let drug dealers sell their shit to kids with no reprecussions. Watch how fast our society crumbles.

roughbook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't see how I changed my mind. At all.
> Not even a little bit, you chicken shit.
>
> Legalization of drugs will be the downfall of
> Western Civilization, if we let it happen. I
> would like to see corporal punishment for all drug
> dealers. Smack them in the face with a lead pipe,
> break their crack sniffin nose. Every damn one of
> them.
>
> Or take the Anon11 and Jbass pussy method. Legal
> pot - why not meth? Why not coke? Let drug
> dealers sell their shit to kids with no
> reprecussions. Watch how fast our society
> crumbles.


Ignorant piece of shit. lol. Crack and coke and meth? Who was mentioning anything about hardcore life-threatening drugs? its marijuana. legalizing marijuana is a much different story than legalizing drugs that are known to be fatally addictive. when was the last time you heard about death by weed?

FUCKING retard.

".....break their crack sniffin nose."

Sniff crack? You don't even know what crack is do you?

roughbook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't see how I changed my mind. At all.
> Not even a little bit, you chicken shit.
>
> Legalization of drugs will be the downfall of
> Western Civilization, if we let it happen. I
> would like to see corporal punishment for all drug
> dealers. Smack them in the face with a lead pipe,
> break their crack sniffin nose. Every damn one of
> them.
>
> Or take the Anon11 and Jbass pussy method. Legal
> pot - why not meth? Why not coke? Let drug
> dealers sell their shit to kids with no
> reprecussions. Watch how fast our society
> crumbles.


You fucking square. The beauty of this is I bet this guy gets tanked all the time and thinks it's fine because it's "just alcohol" Tell me the difference please.

Alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, weed, coke, you name it. They are all mind altering substances.

Also, marijuana is legal in the The Netherlands and I haven't seen them crumble yet. In fact, that country is 10 times more functional than the U.S. So please stop spouting your stupid bullshit.

roughbook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't see how I changed my mind. At all.
> Not even a little bit, you chicken shit.
>
> Legalization of drugs will be the downfall of
> Western Civilization, if we let it happen. I
> would like to see corporal punishment for all drug
> dealers. Smack them in the face with a lead pipe,
> break their crack sniffin nose. Every damn one of
> them.
>
> Or take the Anon11 and Jbass pussy method. Legal
> pot - why not meth? Why not coke? Let drug
> dealers sell their shit to kids with no
> reprecussions. Watch how fast our society
> crumbles.

You are clearly not very intelligent. You want drug dealers smacked with a lead pipe? All drug dealers? So like a pharmacist or a doctor? Should we publicly stone those that work for pfizer or astra-zenica? Oh, you meant we should hit people who deal illegal drugs with a lead pipe. Okay. Lets assume for one second that that what you meant(but didnt say); If pot were legal, they would now be dealing a legal substance and not be considered an offender. No need for the pipe.

Wait. What? You dont think there should be an exception for people who deal something that was once illegal but is now legal? I hope you have a strong arm because that means you gotta club every bartender and beer distributor as well.

You should seriously try smoking weed. I really mean that. It might, MIGHT just help you formulate one single thought for yourself. I dont think you want that though, do you? You like your spoon-fed bullshit. Baa baa blacksheep you mindless tax-donor.

You clearly don't have a clue.
Someone once gave you some drugs and got you high, now you feel a need to defend your lifestyle because you have that inner guilt from the first time you decided to try it. And you are consumed by the burden of doing something illegal so often that you want it legal to redeem yourself and your decisions. While you sat on your ass and got high I worked a 50 hour work week and took night school and earned an MBA.

And you have no family. You are like so many other druggies = all about yourself. Keep up the great non-work Jbass.

roughbook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You clearly don't have a clue.
> Someone once gave you some drugs and got you high,
> now you feel a need to defend your lifestyle
> because you have that inner guilt from the first
> time you decided to try it. And you are consumed
> by the burden of doing something illegal so often
> that you want it legal to redeem yourself and your
> decisions. While you sat on your ass and got high
> I worked a 50 hour work week and took night school
> and earned an MBA.

>
> And you have no family. You are like so many
> other druggies = all about yourself. Keep up the
> great non-work Jbass.

You really dont get it, You just dont. If you think I am ashamed of myself or my lifestyle, you havent read much of what I post, Im quite the opposite. I feel bad for you and your self-built box. I feel about as bad about my lifestyle as you may for going 2 MPH over the posted speed limit. Im discussing the socio-economic effects of the war on drugs versus legalization, and you are arguing for brutal, physical violence against an entire class of people you cant even define.

You should have held off on the MBA and learned a few basic reasoning skills, the ability to articulate your argument and how to answer direct, poignant questions.

Oh, and as far as your MBA goes, I heard, quite literally just this morning, that folks with MBAs are now applying for unemployment benefits faster that any other segment of our population. Kudos on your accomplishment. Ill keep my drugs, guns and money, you can keep your over-inflated feeling of self-worth.

roughbook is right--the Grass Guru's can't just have it be about personal liberty because then they'd have to take accountability for the effects.

Instead we move right from how law enforcement causes the drug war to Potopia--where pot makes you smarter, better adjusted and healthier.

Beer, wine and liquor can lay claim to thousands of years evidence that they have actually helped society--and they even have nutritional value (calories, beneficial compounds. . . ).

THC has given us Haight Ashbury and Phish.

chronic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> roughbook is right--the Grass Guru's can't just
> have it be about personal liberty because then
> they'd have to take accountability for the
> effects.
>
> Instead we move right from how law enforcement
> causes the drug war to Potopia--where pot makes
> you smarter, better adjusted and healthier.
>
> Beer, wine and liquor can lay claim to thousands
> of years evidence that they have actually helped
> society--and they even have nutritional value
> (calories, beneficial compounds. . . ).
>
> THC has given us Haight Ashbury and Phish.

I think you are high right now cause your statement is about as coherent as minutes 9-13 of In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida

jbass - look up hyperbole as a literary device. It's as real as the lead pipe.

I seriously propose a Drug Offenders Registration & List, similar to the Sex Offenders Registration List, so that good citizens like me will know where threatening drug users live in our community.

Or we could be like Baltimore = 3rd world quality of life dictacted by drug lord thugs.

Postscript: Funny but I would bet many of the same scumbags would end up on both lists...

chronic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Beer, wine and liquor can lay claim to thousands
> of years evidence that they have actually helped
> society--and they even have nutritional value
> (calories, beneficial compounds. . . ).
>
> THC has given us Haight Ashbury and Phish.


Not sure if trolling or just an idiot...


in the latter case, you're absolutely right. Now go drink you've into oblivion- the world would be better off without you.

roughbook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jbass - look up hyperbole as a literary device.
> It's as real as the lead pipe.

No. I really think you wish harm on them. Real, physical harm. The context of your statements, as a whole do not indicate that you were being facetious.

>
> I seriously propose a Drug Offenders Registration
> & List, similar to the Sex Offenders Registration
> List, so that good citizens like me will know
> where threatening drug users live in our
> community.

Seriously? Like, for reals? You think we need a registration list for potheads? There has GOTTA be something more important that we can setup an ineffective, government run program to shoddily track.
>
> Or we could be like Baltimore = 3rd world quality
> of life dictacted by drug lord thugs.

That you think Baltimores problems are related to Marijuana shows just how thick that bubble you live in really is.

>
> Postscript: Funny but I would bet many of the
> same scumbags would end up on both lists...

So now you think there is a correlation between marijuana use and committing sex crimes. Oh man. I realy hope you never have kids, they are gonna end up warped, for sure.

Afterthought: I smile thinking about the frustration you are feeling. It still shows even through your cloudy logic and sub-par reasoning skills. You continue to lose these exchanges by avoiding direct questions, making false comparisons and your laughable attempt in your last post to show your pseudo-writing style.

Jbass is confirming my premise that druggies think they are holier than thou, everyone is beneath them, and somehow their illicit lifestyle choice makes them a better spokesperson for humanity. I do not try to take his points one by one like he does mine because I was taught not to address ignorance.

meanwhile, here is a great article about how ethically superior and moral druggies are:
http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10132172

wow, so proud of you guys

roughbook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jbass is confirming my premise that druggies think
> they are holier than thou, everyone is beneath
> them, and somehow their illicit lifestyle choice
> makes them a better spokesperson for humanity. I
> do not try to take his points one by one like he
> does mine because I was taught not to address
> ignorance.
>
> meanwhile, here is a great article about how
> ethically superior and moral druggies are:
> http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.htm
> l?feed=119078&article=10132172
>
> wow, so proud of you guys

You don't take his points one by one, because you can't. Very typical of the anti-legalization camp to ignore points and resort to character attacks.

roughbook - 'Holier than thou' would imply that I think Im better than everybody else. I do not. I dont claim to be on any moral high-ground or superior platform. You chose to engage me about a topic I am well versed and passionate about. Im not ahead of the curve, buddy. You are just behind it. Really, who are you to tell me what I can and cant do with my body? Crime from legal pot? When its free to grow and harvest, its pretty difficult for drug gangs and real criminals to corner any piece of the market. Im not even all about the drugs. My stance, as I have made clear time and time again so that we need less governmental regulation controlling our lives. If government regulation equates to tyranny (which it does per more references than I care to name) and you want to regulate other peoples lives. You sir are a wanna-be tyrant.

You refuse to engage my points one on one because you know you will lose. You claim that you choose to ignore ignorance (implying Im ignorant) but have continued to debate me night after night for, what 4 or 5 days now?

Step off your soapbox and get your head out of your ass and the world might just smell a lil better.

JBass,
Its you who's reasoning challenges. As I said above, the THC addled brain is not capable of distinguishing and argument from personal liberty, to a Bob Marleyesque crusade for Potopia.

you say here: "I dont claim to be on any moral high-ground or superior platform" and you are just arguing from personal liberty--that if you want to harm yourself then its your buisness

But above you say "You should seriously try smoking weed. I really mean that. It might, MIGHT just help you formulate one single thought for yourself"

Its clear that you view use of marijuana as a positive good, just like the others above who compare it positively to booze by way of attempting to justify it.

I think its compensation for guilt, but whatever the rationale, it shows defective reasoning abilities.

If the argument is personal liberty, whatever benign or good effects it has are irrelevant. In fact, they just disclose that really you don't just want to be left alone, but you want to be celebrated for your vice.

If i were a dealer and someone told the puplic this, and it got me arested and taken to court, it is in court that i would learn the identity of the skweeller and their family. I would get with my vast mexican drug cartel that is making millions on the children of schools and have them come eradicat the potential future problems of my company's active sales force by wiping out the children, parents, and grandparents, oh, and the illiget children of the child that did the original skweelling. this solves the company's issues, drugs flow again freely, and the week minded parents learn that if they speak where their children tried to keep them out of- they will invoke the rath of the mexican weed cartel. after we get our hit on the old cronic tonic consentration blaster. DAMN the weed already warped my brain into misspellings.

chronic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JBass,
> Its you who's reasoning challenges. As I said
> above, the THC addled brain is not capable of
> distinguishing and argument from personal liberty,
> to a Bob Marleyesque crusade for Potopia.

You see, personal liberty means that if my hippie friends want to live on a farm, sustain themselves, smoke pot and dance around to the Grateful Dead all day naked, they should so be able to if they can afford to do so. You seem to confuse your ideal society as the only valid one, casting off all others views and ideologies. This point shows that you are incapable of understanding that personal liberty means every individual gets the liberties they feel are important without stripping others of whats important to them. You shouldnt have the right to say 'I dont want to live next to a pot smoker' anymore than I should be able to say 'I dont like cats, therefore my neighbor shouldnt have them'

> you say here: "I dont claim to be on any moral
> high-ground or superior platform" and you are just
> arguing from personal liberty--that if you want to
> harm yourself then its your buisness
>
> But above you say "You should seriously try
> smoking weed. I really mean that. It might, MIGHT
> just help you formulate one single thought for
> yourself"
>
> Its clear that you view use of marijuana as a
> positive good, just like the others above who
> compare it positively to booze by way of
> attempting to justify it.
>

If facts also serve to justify something, all the better. The two are not mutually exclusive. I want my personal liberty so I may choose what I do or dont put in my body. If that liberty includes the freedom to use something that myself and many scholars, doctors, politicians,and economists and high-ranking law enforcement officials agree has positive economic and medical values, so much the better. I dont see how asking for personal liberty to use something I perceive has a positive effect is standing on a moral high ground or soapbox. If a differentiating opinion and some tangible realities are enough for you to perceive me as a 'threat' or 'holier than thor' then Ive got some bad news... This country is a changin'! We let women vote and pay blacks equal wages, too. I contend as a matter of opinion, you would have been the first one to the hose during an MLK walk

> I think its compensation for guilt, but whatever
> the rationale, it shows defective reasoning
> abilities.
>

Just because your reasoning and mine are not congruent, does not mean mine is 'defective'. Again, its not 'freedom for everybody to do anything they want so long as its done exactly as you would do it too' Its understanding that this country has real threats and real issues that need to be addressed. That we continue to move in a direction of tollerance and learning. As a kid in middle-school we used the word 'fag'. I was being oppressive, and you know what? I was wrong. I have expanded my world view and shaved the NOVA wool from my eyes. You view me as a threat and I view you as closed minded. Only one of us is trying to control the other.

> If the argument is personal liberty, whatever
> benign or good effects it has are irrelevant. In
> fact, they just disclose that really you don't
> just want to be left alone, but you want to be
> celebrated for your vice.

I want the RIGHT to be left alone. I want the RIGHT to speak my mind too, if I so choose. It so happens that on this subject matter, I choose to speak my mind now so that in the future I can choose to be left alone. Its working, 16 states and counting in the last 14 years. We are making progress.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2012 11:05AM by JBass.

" I dont see how asking for personal liberty to use something I perceive has a positive effect is standing on a moral high ground or soapbox."

You don't see it because you are stupid. Or perhaps your brain is addled by pot.

Anyway, there is a moral imperative to give someone a "license" to use something that has a positive effect. And by definition someone who is benefiting from a "positive" effect is "better" than others, especially if that effect is mental.

Moreover, if others are resisting the "license" to use something good, then of course you percieve yourself as morally superior, because you are attempting to end an injustice--the refusal to allow people access to something that would better them.

This is a completely different argument from the capital "L" liberal argument (see Locke, Mill. . . ) that I should just be allowed to do what doesn't hurt others since it's no one's business but my own.

But this is pretty obvious from your statements because Cat Lovers never feel compelled to tell others that they should try cat owning to fix their problems because cat owners are all mellow and well adjusted.

They just want to own their cat.

chonic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> " I dont see how asking for personal liberty to
> use something I perceive has a positive effect is
> standing on a moral high ground or soapbox."
>
> You don't see it because you are stupid. Or
> perhaps your brain is addled by pot.
>
> Anyway, there is a moral imperative to give
> someone a "license" to use something that has a
> positive effect. And by definition someone who is
> benefiting from a "positive" effect is "better"
> than others, especially if that effect is mental.
>
> Moreover, if others are resisting the "license" to
> use something good, then of course you percieve
> yourself as morally superior, because you are
> attempting to end an injustice--the refusal to
> allow people access to something that would better
> them.
>
> This is a completely different argument from the
> capital "L" liberal argument (see Locke, Mill. . .
> ) that I should just be allowed to do what doesn't
> hurt others since it's no one's business but my
> own.
>
> But this is pretty obvious from your statements
> because Cat Lovers never feel compelled to tell
> others that they should try cat owning to fix
> their problems because cat owners are all mellow
> and well adjusted.
>
> They just want to own their cat.

Another example of the anti-legalization camp ignoring arugments, putting words in others mouths, and character attacks. While JBass is running mental circles around you, you're sticking with that "drug addled brain therefore your arguments are null" tactic. I'm guessing you weren't exactly captain of the debate team in high school.

chonic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> " I dont see how asking for personal liberty to
> use something I perceive has a positive effect is
> standing on a moral high ground or soapbox."
>
> You don't see it because you are stupid. Or
> perhaps your brain is addled by pot.
>
> Anyway, there is a moral imperative to give
> someone a "license" to use something that has a
> positive effect. And by definition someone who is
> benefiting from a "positive" effect is "better"
> than others, especially if that effect is mental.
>
> Moreover, if others are resisting the "license" to
> use something good, then of course you percieve
> yourself as morally superior, because you are
> attempting to end an injustice--the refusal to
> allow people access to something that would better
> them.
>
> This is a completely different argument from the
> capital "L" liberal argument (see Locke, Mill. . .
> ) that I should just be allowed to do what doesn't
> hurt others since it's no one's business but my
> own.
>
> But this is pretty obvious from your statements
> because Cat Lovers never feel compelled to tell
> others that they should try cat owning to fix
> their problems because cat owners are all mellow
> and well adjusted.

I feel we have reached an impasse. If you think fighting to end injustices means someone is full of themselves or acting superior, I feel truly sad for the confines of your own reality. I continue to defend my stance and you character assassinate. It is clear you are too set in your ways to ever entertain the idea that your past ideologies may just in fact be flawed. I choose to learn and expand my accepting of those who are different than me. You choose to ridicule them.
>
> They just want to own their cat.

And if I caoud have my pot you would never hear from me, either. You are the one applauding the reality that makes me get vocal.

Man, you cant really be this dumb!

" If you think fighting to end injustices means someone is full of themselves or acting superior"

Of course it does!

If you are fighting to end actual injustices you are, actually, morally superior to those who aren't, or who are perpetrating the injustices.

If you are fighting to end things which only you perceive as injustices, still, by definition you think of yourself as morally superior, because, dummy, otherwise you wouldn't do it!

chronic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Man, you cant really be this dumb!
>
> " If you think fighting to end injustices means
> someone is full of themselves or acting superior"
>
> Of course it does!
>
> If you are fighting to end actual injustices you
> are, actually, morally superior to those who
> aren't, or who are perpetrating the injustices.
>
> If you are fighting to end things which only you
> perceive as injustices, still, by definition you
> think of yourself as morally superior, because,
> dummy, otherwise you wouldn't do it!

No. You perceive someone doing this as acting morally superior. Its your bodys own dysfunctional coping mechanisim. All your last post has done is further illustrate that you are quite literally incapable of accepting other people. Im not gay but I dont think a gay man asking for equal rights means he is acting 'holier than thou'. Clearly, you do.


I change my stance. Based on the preponderance of evidence you have shown here; Im not morally superior than most, just more than you. Just because you are behind the front line of acceptance and tolerance that is sweeping the nation doesnt put those of us out in front on a soapbox, it puts you behind us in our dust. Your view and vision is cloudy and your coping mechanisms are only further inhibiting you from joining the newly civilized.

Your good ol boy network of 'freedom for all' (said snickering and winking at each other) means freedom only for those that are just like me is crumbling.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2012 11:59AM by JBass.

Hypothetically speaking, it's possible that there is a lot more marijuana in Fairfax County than meets the eye. I can imagine that a significant amount of weed is grown locally and never sees the light of day nor does it fall into the hands of a common corner dealer. Instead it is enjoyed by one discrete user or a very small discrete group of friends/users.

When you have few friends and no family, you spend a lot of time on FU trying to argue and make yourself feel good about yourself like jbass.

Here is my point, illustrated wonderfully by this article:
MORE THAN 60% OF MALES ARRESTED IN 2011 USED DRUGS
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/more-60-percent-males-arrested-2011-used-drugs-federal-survey-shows

You've either got good peaceful law abiding citizens trying to make the world a better place, or you've got druggies. And if you take that first step into drugs (usually pot), you convince yourself that other laws are Ok to break as well.
I pray that Fairfax will eradicate all drugheads.
Mexico or Baltimore, take your pick. Just gtfo.

roughbook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is my point, illustrated wonderfully by this
> article:
> MORE THAN 60% OF MALES ARRESTED IN 2011 USED
> DRUGS
> http://cnsnews.com/news/article/more-60-percent-ma
> les-arrested-2011-used-drugs-federal-survey-shows
>
> You've either got good peaceful law abiding
> citizens trying to make the world a better place,
> or you've got druggies. And if you take that
> first step into drugs (usually pot), you convince
> yourself that other laws are Ok to break as well.
>
> I pray that Fairfax will eradicate all drugheads.
>
> Mexico or Baltimore, take your pick. Just gtfo.

You just don't get it. I've been smoking marijuana for over 15 years. I've NEVER gotten arrested, and I would NEVER deprive someone else of the very same life, liberty, and hapiness that I enjoy. Your feeble attempt to compare the drug use of those career crimninals to the drug use of people myself is absolutely ridiculous. That, along with your constant character attacks, proves that you got nothing of substance to say. You're only able to respout the various misinformation you've been fed over the years instead of actually being able to have a logical and rational debate about the issue

roughbook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When you have few friends and no family, you spend
> a lot of time on FU trying to argue and make
> yourself feel good about yourself like jbass.

...said the guy posting on a Saturday night. Very hypocritical (typical of anti-legalization activists) of you to be saying that.

this asshole said he wanted corporal punishment for drug dealers.. and a registration act to protect him and other citizens from 'threatening drug users.' Marijuana smokers are threatening? Some kid selling grams out of an ounce should be put to death? What about the cock suckers who drink 9 beers and jump in a car, making it a weapon? People like you are so full of shit. It's a civil liberty, pot doesn't kill people. it's fine in moderation. Alcohol kills people, but it's okay in moderation. the whole 'legalize drugs' thing is outrageous. I've seen the effects of heroin an crack cocaine and meth. those are horrible, HORRIBLE drugs and shouldn't be legalized.

pot smokers are 'threatening drugs users'. hahaha asshole

There are countless professionals who smoke weed daily in NoVa and DC. I am one of them. We know each-other, but you don't know who we are . . .

This is the individual my son is speaking of. I will be taking this to the proper authorities now.

SALINAS ","CHRISTIAN ","W","019"," 9828","MEADOW VALLEY ","DR","VIENNA ","VA","01/29/2009","GR LARC-OTHER
"
"SALINAS ","CHRISTIAN ","W","019"," 9828","MEADOW VALLEY ","DR","VIENNA ","VA","04/17/2009","PASSING ON RIGHT
"
"SALINAS ","CHRISTIAN ","W","019"," 9828","MEADOW VALLEY ","DR","VIENNA ","VA","05/11/2009","TRESPASS-POSTED OR ADVISED TO LV "

"SALINAS ","CHRISTIAN ","W","019"," 9828","MEADOW VALLEY ","DR","VIENNA ","VA","09/27/2009","ASSAULT-SIMPLE "

Concerned Parents Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is the individual my son is speaking of. I
> will be taking this to the proper authorities
> now.
>
> SALINAS ","CHRISTIAN ","W","019","
> 9828","MEADOW VALLEY ","DR","VIENNA
> ","VA","01/29/2009","GR LARC-OTHER
> "
> "SALINAS ","CHRISTIAN ","W","019","
> 9828","MEADOW VALLEY ","DR","VIENNA
> ","VA","04/17/2009","PASSING ON RIGHT
> "
> "SALINAS ","CHRISTIAN ","W","019","
> 9828","MEADOW VALLEY ","DR","VIENNA
> ","VA","05/11/2009","TRESPASS-POSTED OR ADVISED TO
> LV "
>
> "SALINAS ","CHRISTIAN ","W","019","
> 9828","MEADOW VALLEY ","DR","VIENNA
> ","VA","09/27/2009","ASSAULT-SIMPLE
> "

Seems like an asshole, its unfortunate that career criminals like himself are associated with marijuana. Another reason to legalize, in order to keep this potentially lucrative business out of criminals' hands and into the government's control.

Why are you making false accusations on this one individual? what has he done to you physically? As you can see it says 2009. What year is it now? 2012. There isn't even a marijuana charge. If you're ignorant enough then you will never expect a person to change for the better. Maybe that's why you were always a dumb bitch who had nothing better to do but to stay home and snitch on everyone who wasn't white in your neighborhood. That means you will never expect your son to change but to be a pothead lil mommas boy snitch. Worry about you're own pussy son and have a life, then to search for people that concern nothing to you.

Hey concerned parent. How stupid can you be by not sticking to a straight story. Look at the name you accused of in the begining and now look at the name you are accusing now. Didn't you're racist father ever say think before you act.

professional in fairfax Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are countless professionals who smoke weed
> daily in NoVa and DC. I am one of them. We know
> each-other, but you don't know who we are . . .


Its like we have our own secret language.... Its a nonchalant passing comment, a joke or even just a look when a pertinent song or news story comes on.

wide stance in lavatory stalls.

roughbook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When you have few friends and no family, you spend
> a lot of time on FU trying to argue and make
> yourself feel good about yourself like jbass.
>
> Here is my point, illustrated wonderfully by this
> article:
> MORE THAN 60% OF MALES ARRESTED IN 2011 USED
> DRUGS
> http://cnsnews.com/news/article/more-60-percent-ma
> les-arrested-2011-used-drugs-federal-survey-shows
>
> You've either got good peaceful law abiding
> citizens trying to make the world a better place,
> or you've got druggies. And if you take that
> first step into drugs (usually pot), you convince
> yourself that other laws are Ok to break as well.
>
> I pray that Fairfax will eradicate all drugheads.
>
> Mexico or Baltimore, take your pick. Just gtfo.


Your pathetic faux-news source does not do a very good job hiding their agenda.

First off, the authorities dont even test arrested people for drugs. The premise of the article is not even a testable or verifiable hypothesis.

Second, even if it were a valid statistic, which its not, it would only hypothetically show two things:
1. The overall percentage of people in our population (who use drugs) is higher than you believe
2. Criminals are more likely to be drug users than the overall population. NOT that drug users are more likely to be criminals.

Moreover, we are discussing marijuana. Not all drugs. Really, I could run circles around you all day. How much time you got?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2012 02:18PM by JBass.

> 1. The overall percentage of people in our population is higher than you believe

wut.


> 2. Criminals are more likely to be drug users than the overall population. NOT that drug users are more likely to be criminals.

point 1: if you're smoking weed, you're by definition a criminal.

point 2: it is well-established that drug users are more likely to engage in criminal activity (above and beyond their use of drugs):

http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/07so.htm

> Moreover, we are discussing marijuana. Not all drugs. Really,

Even if you keep it to marijuana only, there is a causal association between
marijuana use and non-drug related crime, and a statistically significant
association between marijuana use and violent crime.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

http://marijuanau.com/books/marijuana_and_crime.pdf

Lolz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > 1. The overall percentage of people (using drugs) in our
> population is higher than you believe
>

Fixed it for ya. Thanks for the heads up.

> wut.
>
>
> > 2. Criminals are more likely to be drug users
> than the overall population. NOT that drug users
> are more likely to be criminals.
>
> point 1: if you're smoking weed, you're by
> definition a criminal.

Given the context of this debate, it is a given that we are discussing committing a crime that does not include the possession, use or distribution of marijuana. Please dont short change your own argument with such a silly red herring
.
>
> point 2: it is well-established that drug users
> are more likely to engage in criminal activity
> (above and beyond their use of drugs):
>
> http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/07so.ht
> m

Riiiight... The DEA is the foremost authority on impartially detailing the effects of marijuana in our society. I think the most audacious part of this propaganda is that they flat-out say if marijuana were legal that we would see an increase in the import of heroin and cocaine. There is no correlation between the two. Such a silly statement would require one of the following to be true; either weed smokers who can now legally use their substance are going to now start using or increase using hard core narcotics OR that simply because there is more of the hardcore narcotics on the streets that people who have never used drugs in the past are going to start using them.

Simply put, you can fight this as hard as you want but the only people profiting from the illegality of weed are drug cartels and DEA agents. The people are speaking, the state governments are listening.

Lolz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Moreover, we are discussing marijuana. Not all
> drugs. Really,
>
> Even if you keep it to marijuana only, there is a
> causal association between
> marijuana use and non-drug related crime, and a
> statistically significant
> association between marijuana use and violent
> crime.
>
> Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
>
> http://marijuanau.com/books/marijuana_and_crime.pd
> f

From the end of your sources own abstract, page 1.... "....we find a statistically significant association with arrests but not reported crime, suggesting that marijuana use may just influence the likelihood of getting caught committing these crimes.

Or in other words, their stance is that criminals use marijuana, not that marijuana create criminals (beyond the use of the substance itself). Additionally, your study fails to discount the documented fact that 15-17% of all arrests made nationwide are for drug offenses, so we can take the 60% of them that were marijuana related and throw them right out the window for the sake of our argument.

Also, it implies that marijuana possession may have been the catalyst for an arrest for more serious crimes. Meaning that if marijuana had not been smelled in a vehicle by an officer, they would not have had the probable cause to search the car and find stolen merchandise. (Again, its the thieves using weed, not weed making become thieves). This would be like saying a police officer pulled someone over for speeding then found an illegal weapon, that the speeding caused the guy to have an illegal weapon. They are not associative.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2012 02:44PM by JBass.

lol @ the ppl who think potheads are into violent crime
here's the extent of yr typical pot criminal, ok?
Attachments:

JBass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Riiiight... The DEA is the foremost authority on
> impartially detailing the effects of marijuana in
> our society.

If not the DEA, who is the foremost authority? Dr. Grinspoon?

You may not like the DEA, but they have the numbers to back up their claims.


> I think the most audacious part of
> this propaganda is that they flat-out say if
> marijuana were legal that we would see an increase
> in the import of heroin and cocaine.

They don't say this on the page I linked to.

They simply state: "If only marijuana were legalized, drug traffickers would continue to traffic in heroin and cocaine."

Nothing about an increase.

If I missed something, please show me.

If not, your basis for dismissing DEA claims as "propaganda" is simply wrong.


> There is no
> correlation between the two. Such a silly
> statement would require one of the following to be
> true; either weed smokers who can now legally use
> their substance are going to now start using or
> increase using hard core narcotics OR that simply
> because there is more of the hardcore narcotics on
> the streets that people who have never used drugs
> in the past are going to start using them.

Again, your little diatribe here is based on the above-noted misreading of DEA claims (resultant from THC-soaked JBass brain cells...?).


> Simply put, you can fight this as hard as you want
> but the only people profiting from the illegality
> of weed are drug cartels and DEA agents. The
> people are speaking, the state governments are
> listening.

I think there's an argument to made for legalization. I don't think it's a one-sided, slam-dunk argument, as you seem to believe.

Prohibition has problems. There would be new and different problems arising from legalization.

The question is, on balance, would our society be better or worse post-legalization? (Talking about MJ here...)

I'm not persuaded by the pro-legalization arguments, even though I think there are some good points to be made in favor of legalization.


JBass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From the end of your sources own abstract, page
> 1.... "....we find a statistically significant
> association with arrests but not reported crime,
> suggesting that marijuana use may just influence
> the likelihood of getting caught committing these
> crimes.

You're just addressing the lesser of the two claims made in the report, the statistically significant association with violent crime.

The report's primary claim - which contravenes the assertion in your 1:45pm post that mj users are not more likely to be criminals - is that there IS a causal association between marijuana use and non-drug related crime.

Specifically:

"In the case of property and income-producing crime... we see that marijuana users, regardless of how it is measured, are more likely to be arrested for property and income-producing crime. Interestingly, this is the opposite of what we find for those who report being under the influence of alcohol."


> Or in other words, their stance is that criminals
> use marijuana, not that marijuana create criminals
> (beyond the use of the substance itself).

Not quite. Their stance is that the evidence does not support a causal relation between mj and violent crime.

But the evidence does support a causal relation between mj and property-related and income-producing crime; and a statistically significant association between mj and violent crime.

In short, your selective editing of a portion of the abstract is as deliberately misleading as the notorious NBC edit: "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black."


> Additionally, your study fails to discount the
> documented fact that 15-17% of all arrests made
> nationwide are for drug offenses

But they do account for this, as noted on p. 19:

"When we remove those arrested on drug charges from the sample" the evidence does not support a strictly causal relation between mj and crimes of violence, but it DOES support a causal relation between mj and property and income-producing crime.


> so we can take
> the 60% of them that were marijuana related and
> throw them right out the window for the sake of
> our argument.

No you can't, because the report does "discount" for drug-offense related arrests.


> Also, it implies that marijuana possession may
> have been the catalyst for an arrest for more
> serious crimes. Meaning that if marijuana had not
> been smelled in a vehicle by an officer, they
> would not have had the probable cause to search
> the car and find stolen merchandise. (Again, its
> the thieves using weed, not weed making become
> thieves). This would be like saying a police
> officer pulled someone over for speeding then
> found an illegal weapon, that the speeding caused
> the guy to have an illegal weapon. They are not
> associative.

You misread the report here, as you did above.

The bottom-line is that the report authors *do* "discount" for drug-related arrests, and even after that discount they find a statistically significant association between mj and violent crime arrests; and a *causal* relation between mj and property-related and income-producing crimes.

Also, wrt violent crime, you fail to note the report's observation that "There is far more convincing evidence of a link between frequent cannabis use and violent crime and nonviolent delinquency among juveniles."

Lolz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also, wrt violent crime, you fail to note the
> report's observation that "There is far more
> convincing evidence of a link between frequent
> cannabis use and violent crime and nonviolent
> delinquency among juveniles."

Interesting, however I think this blurb speaks volumes about the connection between cannabis usage and criminality: 'Marijuana use and criminal behavior may also be associated because both behaviors are driven by a common cause, such as personal characteristics or individuals that motivate them to become involved in both behaviors." From this one can infer that that they're actions are not necessarily precipitated by marijuana usage, but rather by their environment. This is why I strongly believe that, put very simply, it's not drugs that make criminals, it's criminals that make drugs. Those who are already inclined toward criminal behavior would naturally be atrracted to the premise of drug use (whether it be illict, alcohol, tobacco, or prescription).

Upon further reading of the article, your final statement is not supported, because both studies drew different results. I'm particulary interested in this part: "Evidence from the ADAM sample of arrestees suggests that the positive association identified between marijuana use and violent crime is not causal in nature." What's makes this more damning is that ADAM is the program who's primary purpose is determining correlation in matters like these. I think you should ease up on the accusation that marijuana users are more violent than the average person.

Lolz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JBass Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Riiiight... The DEA is the foremost authority
> on
> > impartially detailing the effects of marijuana
> in
> > our society.
>
> If not the DEA, who is the foremost authority?
> Dr. Grinspoon?
>
> You may not like the DEA, but they have the
> numbers to back up their claims.
>

Numbers can always be skewed. The DEAs stance is that Drugs are bad, illegal and should be eradicated. Their numbers will always show this. They are not an educational body, non-profit association nor a scientific collaborative. They are no more a valid source on impartial information about this subject than Fox News is "Fair and Balanced". Just because they are the government doesnt mean they dont have an agenda.


>
> > I think the most audacious part of
> > this propaganda is that they flat-out say if
> > marijuana were legal that we would see an
> increase
> > in the import of heroin and cocaine.
>
> They don't say this on the page I linked to.
>
> They simply state: "If only marijuana were
> legalized, drug traffickers would continue to
> traffic in heroin and cocaine."
>
> Nothing about an increase.
>
> If I missed something, please show me.

Nope. You are correct, I misquoted the statement. I guess it just seemed logical that they would be worried about an increase. what I mean is that it seems overly obvious and silly for them to point out that if marijuana were illegal that cocaine dealers would still sell cocaine. What does that have to do with the argument for legal weed? This is a not so clever attempt to associate marijuana with hard-core narcotics. Its like saying if you legalized insider trading people would still rob banks. No shit. why? Because people who are going to benefit from insider trading and those that could benefit from robbing a bank are no more similar that a heroin addict to a pothead.

>
> If not, your basis for dismissing DEA claims as
> "propaganda" is simply wrong.
>

If weed were legal and regulated, the DEA would have A LOT of available resources to go after the hardcore narcotic dealers.

>
> > There is no
> > correlation between the two. Such a silly
> > statement would require one of the following to
> be
> > true; either weed smokers who can now legally
> use
> > their substance are going to now start using or
> > increase using hard core narcotics OR that
> simply
> > because there is more of the hardcore narcotics
> on
> > the streets that people who have never used
> drugs
> > in the past are going to start using them.
>
> Again, your little diatribe here is based on the
> above-noted misreading of DEA claims (resultant
> from THC-soaked JBass brain cells...?).

Point already conceded..... But with my concession, I reserve the right to mention that 'because coke-heads are going to keep doing coke, we should keep marijuana illegal' is a pretty silly argument. What does a coke-head have to do with a pothead? I dont see any correlation, I just dont.

>
>
> > Simply put, you can fight this as hard as you
> want
> > but the only people profiting from the
> illegality
> > of weed are drug cartels and DEA agents. The
> > people are speaking, the state governments are
> > listening.
>
> I think there's an argument to made for
> legalization. I don't think it's a one-sided,
> slam-dunk argument, as you seem to believe.

Nothing in life is black and white. Of course there are pros and cons to any decision of this magnitude, very few pro-legal folks would argue otherwise. With that said, you have come a lot further towards understanding my argument, even though you disagree with it overall, than many of your anti-legalization brethren. Most of the keep it illegal crowd refuse to listen to anything that can be construed as a positive for legalization. For this I applaud you.

>
> Prohibition has problems. There would be new and
> different problems arising from legalization.

Agreed. Different problems. Likely less violence related problems, but still different.

>
> The question is, on balance, would our society be
> better or worse post-legalization? (Talking about
> MJ here...)
>
> I'm not persuaded by the pro-legalization
> arguments, even though I think there are some good
> points to be made in favor of legalization.
>
>
> JBass Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > From the end of your sources own abstract, page
> > 1.... "....we find a statistically significant
> > association with arrests but not reported
> crime,
> > suggesting that marijuana use may just
> influence
> > the likelihood of getting caught committing
> these
> > crimes.
>
> You're just addressing the lesser of the two
> claims made in the report, the statistically
> significant association with violent crime.
>
> The report's primary claim - which contravenes the
> assertion in your 1:45pm post that mj users are
> not more likely to be criminals - is that there IS
> a causal association between marijuana use and
> non-drug related crime.
>
> Specifically:
>
> "In the case of property and income-producing
> crime... we see that marijuana users, regardless
> of how it is measured, are more likely to be
> arrested for property and income-producing crime.
> Interestingly, this is the opposite of what we
> find for those who report being under the
> influence of alcohol."
>

Regardless of how its measured, people who commit non-violent crimes are more likely to smoke MJ. I bet you cant find a single scientific, medical or governmental study that will assert that they can show evidence that MJ CAUSES people to commit these crimes. People who commit crimes are more likely to wear a hoodie. No one is arguing otherwise. you just cant prove to me that once donned, hoodies make people more likely to commit such crimes.

>
> > Or in other words, their stance is that
> criminals
> > use marijuana, not that marijuana create
> criminals
> > (beyond the use of the substance itself).
>
> Not quite. Their stance is that the evidence does
> not support a causal relation between mj and
> violent crime.

I dont need a study to tell me that.

>
> But the evidence does support a causal relation
> between mj and property-related and
> income-producing crime; and a statistically
> significant association between mj and violent
> crime.
>
> In short, your selective editing of a portion of
> the abstract is as deliberately misleading as the
> notorious NBC edit: "This guy looks like he's up
> to no good. He looks black."

Okay, I think saying that 'there is a "casual relationship" between a segment of our population who commits non-violent crimes and MJ use' is misleading too. If I said there is a casual relationship between Pakistanis and terrorists, It would be clear from the context that I am making an attempt to associate all Pakistanis with terrorists. For shame. Hey Im a local pothead making "misleading" statements. Your source, the DEA, is SUPPOSED to be (in your mind) the foremost leading authority on the socio-economic impact legalization would have on the USA. Id say if it were so iron clad, if they did not have a political agenda, if their evidence was proof-positive, that they would not use ambiguous terms like "Casually Related" to discuss the relation between criminals and MJ use.

>
>
> > Additionally, your study fails to discount the
> > documented fact that 15-17% of all arrests made
> > nationwide are for drug offenses
>
> But they do account for this, as noted on p. 19:
>
> "When we remove those arrested on drug charges
> from the sample" the evidence does not support a
> strictly causal relation between mj and crimes of
> violence, but it DOES support a causal relation
> between mj and property and income-producing
> crime.

I didnt get that far to be honest. I think that a voluntary survey based on an arestees voluntary answers to a (to them) meaningless question is not very credible and not worth the 19 pages of reading. Without doing an entire research paper on the possible flaws, holes and prejudices that could have been knowingly or inadvertently incorporated into this study, I can say these numbers are ballpark at best.

>
>
> > so we can take
> > the 60% of them that were marijuana related and
> > throw them right out the window for the sake of
> > our argument.
>
> No you can't, because the report does "discount"
> for drug-offense related arrests.
>
>
> > Also, it implies that marijuana possession may
> > have been the catalyst for an arrest for more
> > serious crimes. Meaning that if marijuana had
> not
> > been smelled in a vehicle by an officer, they
> > would not have had the probable cause to search
> > the car and find stolen merchandise. (Again,
> its
> > the thieves using weed, not weed making become
> > thieves). This would be like saying a police
> > officer pulled someone over for speeding then
> > found an illegal weapon, that the speeding
> caused
> > the guy to have an illegal weapon. They are
> not
> > associative.
>
> You misread the report here, as you did above.
>
> The bottom-line is that the report authors *do*
> "discount" for drug-related arrests, and even
> after that discount they find a statistically
> significant association between mj and violent
> crime arrests; and a *causal* relation between mj
> and property-related and income-producing crimes.
>
> Also, wrt violent crime, you fail to note the
> report's observation that "There is far more
> convincing evidence of a link between frequent
> cannabis use and violent crime and nonviolent
> delinquency among juveniles."

Well, it would still be illegal for juvililes so I fail to see how this is relevant to our discussion either.

Harvey Danger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lolz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Also, wrt violent crime, you fail to note the
> > report's observation that "There is far more
> > convincing evidence of a link between frequent
> > cannabis use and violent crime and nonviolent
> > delinquency among juveniles."
>
> Interesting, however I think this blurb speaks
> volumes about the connection between cannabis
> usage and criminality: 'Marijuana use and criminal
> behavior may also be associated because both
> behaviors are driven by a common cause, such as
> personal characteristics or individuals that
> motivate them to become involved in both
> behaviors." From this one can infer that that
> they're actions are not necessarily precipitated
> by marijuana usage, but rather by their
> environment. This is why I strongly believe that,
> put very simply, it's not drugs that make
> criminals, it's criminals that make drugs. Those
> who are already inclined toward criminal behavior
> would naturally be atrracted to the premise of
> drug use (whether it be illict, alcohol, tobacco,
> or prescription).
>

Even more, I would like to see the proof in this reports pudding. I assure you that this study was not performed 100% at random. Now I dont know where, when or who they poled but reason stands to say if you only questioned kids arrested on a college campus you would get a much higher rate of drug use than if you interviewed congressmen. Of course if we could actually trust the results of such a line of questioning, I bet there wouldnt be than much of a difference after all.

Okey doke.

We each made our points, and I'm content to leave it at that.

Cheers.

Anonymous123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why are you making false accusations on this one
> individual? what has he done to you physically? As
> you can see it says 2009. What year is it now?
> 2012. There isn't even a marijuana charge. If
> you're ignorant enough then you will never expect
> a person to change for the better. Maybe that's
> why you were always a dumb bitch who had nothing
> better to do but to stay home and snitch on
> everyone who wasn't white in your neighborhood.
> That means you will never expect your son to
> change but to be a pothead lil mommas boy snitch.
> Worry about you're own pussy son and have a life,
> then to search for people that concern nothing to
> you.

This person is innocent till proven gulity, but after some facebook seraching i have found that this is the individual most matching the descirption, my son pointed him out.

Hope these stupid ass "concerned parents" have fun getting sued for slander if Mr.Salinas or Mr. Rivero ever catch wind of this post. "Concerned Parents" should learn not to make accusations against someone else solely based on their bitch-ass son "spilling the beans"

anonymous420 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hope these stupid ass "concerned parents" have fun
> getting sued for slander if Mr.Salinas or Mr.
> Rivero ever catch wind of this post. "Concerned
> Parents" should learn not to make accusations
> against someone else solely based on their
> bitch-ass son "spilling the beans"

mabey we should hire a private detective to find out.

Wow. You searched FaceBook and found the person who most matched the description provided by your son (possibly while high), and publically posted his name as a pot dealer? You should be looking for an attorney.

Just Say No Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow. You searched FaceBook and found the person
> who most matched the description provided by your
> son (possibly while high), and publically posted
> his name as a pot dealer? You should be looking
> for an attorney.


+1.

Just Say No Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow. You searched FaceBook and found the person
> who most matched the description provided by your
> son (possibly while high), and publically posted
> his name as a pot dealer? You should be looking
> for an attorney.

I believe he stated that all peoples are innocent untill proven guilty. He is just making it known that this person could possibly be a danger to the fairfax community and should be commended.

anonymous420 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hope these stupid ass "concerned parents" have fun
> getting sued for slander if Mr.Salinas or Mr.
> Rivero ever catch wind of this post. "Concerned
> Parents" should learn not to make accusations
> against someone else solely based on their
> bitch-ass son "spilling the beans"

How do you know its soley based upon my sons accusations, What if i said i have photographic documents from facebook that i have saved of such person with illegal substances. If they are stupid enough to post pictures of themselves with illegal narcatuics online then they should be caught.

Anonymous123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why are you making false accusations on this one
> individual? what has he done to you physically? As
> you can see it says 2009. What year is it now?
> 2012. There isn't even a marijuana charge. If
> you're ignorant enough then you will never expect
> a person to change for the better. Maybe that's
> why you were always a dumb bitch who had nothing
> better to do but to stay home and snitch on
> everyone who wasn't white in your neighborhood.
> That means you will never expect your son to
> change but to be a pothead lil mommas boy snitch.
> Worry about you're own pussy son and have a life,
> then to search for people that concern nothing to
> you.

As one of the posters in the thread advised me to seek the individual that my son was talking about and search his arrests and tickets charges, because they are PUBLIC information. This person obviously is innocent untill proven guility, but he does have a record at which is what i am pointing out.

AntiPot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe he stated that all peoples are innocent
> untill proven guilty. He is just making it known
> that this person could possibly be a danger to the
> fairfax community and should be commended.

So because he has an unfounded suspicion, he's automatically allowed to slander a person's name in public?

Concerned Parents Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How do you know its soley based upon my sons
> accusations, What if i said i have photographic
> documents from facebook that i have saved of such
> person with illegal substances. If they are stupid
> enough to post pictures of themselves with illegal
> narcatuics online then they should be caught.

If you are stupid enough to not be able to spell N-A-R-C-O-T-I-C-S, then you don't deserve to complain. Just because he's uses the substances you've mentioned does NOT make him a drug dealer. Did you stop and think for a second that maybe, just maybe, that your son was lying and he just named another pot head kid he doesn't like?

Oh wait, I'm sorry your son is clearly perfect and would never EVER lie just to cover his tracks or protect a friend.

Um... Pictures of someone being near an unknown, untestable substance that might look like something illegal is not going to get anybody arrested. Period. If you believe this is actually the cast then you should really reconsider your crusade here. You clearly have an over-inflated sense of security. The police will be there to take a report on your sons beating but they aint gonna be there to stop it when it happens.

Your sons abitch. He got caught with the weed he bought from his dealer and yeah it is illegal to distribute to a minor but then your son snitches and brings unnecessary involvement of other people ....your son had the audacity to get money call his boy and pick up a gram of bud .....as a Orwell that goes to Madison.. ..I'm pretty sure I'll find out sooner of later who this kid is. .just saying.

Hey orwell, you're next! find somebody to snitch to before we get you

Yeah and you put your son in danger for being a snitch lady. No one especially dealers like a snitch hence the saying snitches get stitches. You should have never released names and like most of these posts, I agree. I'd much rather have a kid who's smoking weed than scientist made drugs and alcohol. It's natural and not as harmful as drinking. I can say as a young adult the worst mistakes I have ever made out of character was under the influence of alcohol. The only thing I did when I smoked was raid my fridge, have a stick fight, play video games, and sleep. I can go about my day high but I sure as hell can't drunk.
Stop looking for things to get angry with your son and digging for things that aren't there. its not easy being a teenager feeling like you must succeed in everything to please your parents. Talk to the boy and he'll let you into his life. And don't accuse and act like you're right about everything just cuz your a parent.
And don't feed us that whole oh you don't have a kid you're just a pot head cuz its a damn privilege itself to be able to have a kid. I understand you want your kids to have more than what you had and to have their feet planted and safe, but smoking weed is not the end of the world. Most people grow out of it anyways

Both sides to any "legitamate" argument think they are the holy one... You have the "holier than thou" attitude as well. I dont smoke pot. I drink occasionally. That's only because I have too much to lose to engage in illegal activities. Back to the original topic, I went to Madison High School years ago. I experimented with drugs like pot, mushrooms, and alcohol. I only knew one dangerous dealer out of many. The rest were just trying to get high for free or be cool I realize that times do change though. From my personal experience, pot was the lesser of the three evils, if you can call them evils. Both sides of the spectrum piss me off on this thread, because you are unable to listen to one another's opininions. It's like trying to convert a catholic to a sheite over night. Or convincing Rush Limbaug to vote for Obama. Try listening to eachother with open minds and hearts.

Instead of ranting on the internet about some information your son gave you under pressure (probably lying), you should focus on raising the bitch.

Do not think for a second your son stopped smoking weed either, he probably gave you these names to deter you from the real problem, which is that he got caught. He is probably lighting up a joint right now, while you bitch on the internet.

This thread will accomplish nothing though. All you have as proof is your son's word (no one cares what your son says, he is just a pussy ass bitch), this kids criminal background (that has always been available, and clearly the cops dont think he should be in jail, so they are not going to take him in because you brought up his past again), and some pictures off facebook (you can shove those up your ass because all the cops know that might as well be grass).

You and your son are the scummiest of all scum because nothing is worse than hypocrisy.

There were teenage and 20-something yr old dealers when I went there 92-96.....and imagine this, again when some friends of friends were there in 2003- oh, and my cousins, almost forget them, just about 4/5yrs ago......90% of everyone I know graduated, even the potheads, can you believe it????

Why is you bitch, sorry, your kid being allowed to associate with 20+yr old thug-drugdealers who are that dangerous?

Have you considered that you failed somewhere in his upbringing? Why is your teenager smoking pot? I think the real problem is in your home, again 90% of the people I know who smoke/smoked were very unhappy kids whose parents didnt have time to parent them....sound familiar?

I was 15 when some homeless guy offered to smoke w/me....he lived on the streets of Vienna, Va....just a couple miles from Madison.....medical pot is about to be legalized in DC, know how much easier it'll be to get then?

You need to get offline and figure out where you've failed in your parenting instead of accusing people you've never met online based on your kid trying to get out of trouble...have you considered he lied about their names so he could keep getting his pot? Not your lil angel, a kid who'd buy and hide pot and then gie up his dealers names under duress from Mama sure seems like a trustworty kid.

I'm surprised the "heroes" who want to fight the "anti-legalization" crowd aren't apologizing for the paranoid, anti-social threats posted here. Or rather, i'm not. Hey, fuck ups--the problem isn't the narcs, its that you are addicted to Pot.

Hey you stupid son of a bitch. your son is a bitch and so are you. go suck a marijuana plants COCK, you FAG!

Snitches get STITCHES, you fucken PUSSY!

All it's gonna make your son want to do is go to Taco Derp and order some widdly scuds:
Attachments:

Pot should be legal. I'd rather deal with a pothead than someone drunk anyday, a pothead just wants to know where the ice cream and pretzels are mmmkay? Legalize it, tax it. Imagine the profits at the Frito Lay company alone.

Concerned Parents your a fucking dumb ass. freaking out on some bud let me guess you are eather a dunk a pill head a smoker or maybe all of the above lets also add in that you probobly beat your wife too. any way i hope you know you are just going to have your kid try out some other shit now, maybe that bath salt that makes kids eat people or maybe he will be hooked on some pills, think before you bug out on your kids about a minor thing it can explode into something much much bigger than pot.

ps posting those peoples names not cool your not a cop or the dea you have no right doing that.

whatever

@Roughbook is a fucking idiot. How can you generalize all pot users saying they must have no family and no job since they use pot? That statement is ridiculous. I know plenty of (god forbid) pot users who have well paying jobs and actual salaries with which they can support their families. I personally have smoked pot for years now and graduated highschool with a 3.9 and am almost done earning my BS degree in business so congratulations on your Master's degree you idiot - good to see that it's contributed nothing towards your understanding of society and things like marijuana. You're probably some butthurt fuck who never smoked a joint in highschool because you were sheltered, or maybe even worse one of those pricks who never tried it because they thought it made them better than everyone else on a moral level. I feel bad for your kid, in fact, I pray that you're infertile for as long as you live so that you may never raise a child in the darkness of your own stupidity.

OBAMA 2012~

Vote vote vote!

Mitt Rommey is trying to overturn the part of Obamacare that says weed and ecstacy can now be legal for personal use!

dont let them do this, its our RIGHT!

Concerned Teen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Roughbook is a fucking idiot. How can you
> generalize all pot users saying they must have no
> family and no job since they use pot? That
> statement is ridiculous. I know plenty of (god
> forbid) pot users who have well paying jobs and
> actual salaries with which they can support their
> families. I personally have smoked pot for years
> now and graduated highschool with a 3.9 and am
> almost done earning my BS degree in business so
> congratulations on your Master's degree you idiot
> - good to see that it's contributed nothing
> towards your understanding of society and things
> like marijuana. You're probably some butthurt fuck
> who never smoked a joint in highschool because you
> were sheltered, or maybe even worse one of those
> pricks who never tried it because they thought it
> made them better than everyone else on a moral
> level. I feel bad for your kid, in fact, I pray
> that you're infertile for as long as you live so
> that you may never raise a child in the darkness
> of your own stupidity.


+1

What sucks for me is I have plenty, but no one to smoke it with.

I'm in my late 20's and one of those "professional potheads" with a 9-5... but have a hard time finding "blunt buddies". I'm seriously about to go back to college just to meet up with some new friends.

Too many scared people around me, afraid to admit they smoke...I know this is the DC metro area where people have security clearences... I guess people are too scared to admit they smoke. Everyone and their mama drinks, but I'm not about that bar/club life. I prefer to chill on the couch and play xbox with friends and pass something around.


Any tips on where to meet people my age (late 20's/early 30's is cool) who smoke (without being caught up in some entrapment BS)? I USED to be able to connect with people on craigslist back in the day and met plenty of cool people (who later moved away/got their jobs transffered outta here) but the feds are all over CL now. This board too, it wouldn't suprise me.

Oh well...guess I will enjoy this myself! *takes bongrip of Lemon Kush, solo and throws up middle finger at the police*

what sucks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What sucks for me is I have plenty, but no one to
> smoke it with.
>
> I'm in my late 20's and one of those "professional
> potheads" with a 9-5... but have a hard time
> finding "blunt buddies". I'm seriously about to go
> back to college just to meet up with some new
> friends.
>
> Too many scared people around me, afraid to admit
> they smoke...I know this is the DC metro area
> where people have security clearences... I guess
> people are too scared to admit they smoke.
> Everyone and their mama drinks, but I'm not about
> that bar/club life. I prefer to chill on the couch
> and play xbox with friends and pass something
> around.
>
>
> Any tips on where to meet people my age (late
> 20's/early 30's is cool) who smoke (without being
> caught up in some entrapment BS)? I USED to be
> able to connect with people on craigslist back in
> the day and met plenty of cool people (who later
> moved away/got their jobs transffered outta here)
> but the feds are all over CL now. This board too,
> it wouldn't suprise me.
>
> Oh well...guess I will enjoy this myself! *takes
> bongrip of Lemon Kush, solo and throws up middle
> finger at the police*


hit me up nigga! u like drum n bass and playing Borderlands 2?