Pot brownies in TX- 5 to life?!?!

[The Captain]

May 21, 2014 20:18:54 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Y- you can only get so high.

Putting hash oil in a different category is bullshit- just like the crack/cocaine distinction was bullshit.

There is an amount that equals personal use and then multiple of which is intent to sell, etc.  I think he was selling these brownies to his friends- not a smart move.  Much better to take up a collection before baking

But ridiculous pot laws aside- it is TX and that area from what I read is tough on weed- he should have known there would be some trouble and he is going to have to pay for it- BUT 5 to life is so alarmingly stupid- and life should not even be an option.

I hope the proper people use the proper discretion on this and do not wreck his life- we have enough real criminals that need a place to stay.

Wasn't it also TX where Richie Rich mowed down all those people drunk and got himself put in a nice rehab spa and resort?  I guess this kid's parents are too poor to argue affluenza so off to jail he goes   

I agree with you on some distinctions, but I though the distinction in some criminal drug categories had to do with how potent or how much damage a particular drug was doing to a community?

Yes - you can only get so high on MJ, but if you read the article I linked to it is possible to OD on Hash oil and it is associated with a large increase in ER visits and psycotic breaks.  Again, not quite the harmless weed of the 60's.

As far as the crack vs cocaine distinction - I believe that crack was absolutely destroying poorer communities (whereas coke was more of a "rich mans" drug).  I also recall that crack was much more addictive than coke (but haven't tried either so I can't say).  The harsher sentences were supposed to act as a deterrent.  Not sure if the user should be charged as harshly as the dealer though.

So, just curious - what are your thoughts on meth? 

[Deleted]

Was listening to Pollen's Botony of Desire chapter on pot yesterday... very enlightening

[EVT1]

May 22, 2014 8:06:26 GMT -5 The Captain said:

May 21, 2014 20:18:54 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Y- you can only get so high.

Putting hash oil in a different category is bullshit- just like the crack/cocaine distinction was bullshit.

There is an amount that equals personal use and then multiple of which is intent to sell, etc.  I think he was selling these brownies to his friends- not a smart move.  Much better to take up a collection before baking

But ridiculous pot laws aside- it is TX and that area from what I read is tough on weed- he should have known there would be some trouble and he is going to have to pay for it- BUT 5 to life is so alarmingly stupid- and life should not even be an option.

I hope the proper people use the proper discretion on this and do not wreck his life- we have enough real criminals that need a place to stay.

Wasn't it also TX where Richie Rich mowed down all those people drunk and got himself put in a nice rehab spa and resort?  I guess this kid's parents are too poor to argue affluenza so off to jail he goes   

I agree with you on some distinctions, but I though the distinction in some criminal drug categories had to do with how potent or how much damage a particular drug was doing to a community?

Yes - you can only get so high on MJ, but if you read the article I linked to it is possible to OD on Hash oil and it is associated with a large increase in ER visits and psycotic breaks.  Again, not quite the harmless weed of the 60's.

As far as the crack vs cocaine distinction - I believe that crack was absolutely destroying poorer communities (whereas coke was more of a "rich mans" drug).  I also recall that crack was much more addictive than coke (but haven't tried either so I can't say).  The harsher sentences were supposed to act as a deterrent.  Not sure if the user should be charged as harshly as the dealer though.

So, just curious - what are your thoughts on meth? 

I think meth is probably the worst drug out there.

And if damage to the community mattered at all alcohol would not be legal- so I think these distinctions are ridiculous.

Harsher sentences don't matter either- they execute people over drugs in some countries- doesn't stop them. 

What do you think we should do?  Keep throwing drug users in jail and waste a ton of money or maybe legalize it and tax it.  You used to be able to buy cocaine at the general store.  What happened to freedom?  We need the nanny government telling us what we can put in our own bodies?  Does huffing paint really need to be illegal?  We need a criminal penalty on top of the price someone is going to pay for doing it?

[Virgil Showlion]

We need the nanny government telling us what we can put in our own bodies?

You do if you want socialized healthcare.

It's remarkable how much damage some people will do to themselves when you're the one paying to fix it.

1. Broad personal liberty.
2. Quality universal healthcare.
3. Low to moderate taxes.

Pick any two you like most and say goodbye to the remainder. Thems the breaks.

[EVT1]

May 22, 2014 13:43:09 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

We need the nanny government telling us what we can put in our own bodies?

You do if you want socialized healthcare.

It's remarkable how much damage some people will do to themselves when you're the one paying to fix it.

1. Broad personal liberty.
2. Quality universal healthcare.
3. Low to moderate taxes.

Pick any two you like most and say goodbye to the remainder. Thems the breaks.

So what is Canada doing to curb your citizens' desires to injure themselves?

What do you think would happen to drug use if all of it was legal?  Like Ron Paul asked- if heroin is legal tomorrow are you going to go out and buy some? 

[Virgil Showlion]

May 22, 2014 20:05:25 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

May 22, 2014 13:43:09 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You do if you want socialized healthcare.

It's remarkable how much damage some people will do to themselves when you're the one paying to fix it.

1. Broad personal liberty.
2. Quality universal healthcare.
3. Low to moderate taxes.

Pick any two you like most and say goodbye to the remainder. Thems the breaks.

So what is Canada doing to curb your citizens' desires to injure themselves?

Having to wait a fortnight for medical treatment helps.

Also, bans on trans fats, unpasteurized milks and cheeses, certain types of honey, kale, etc.  Liquor stores are owned by the government in several provinces; vice taxes are higher; liquor licenses are much harder to obtain.

Like Ron Paul asked- if heroin is legal tomorrow are you going to go out and buy some?

No. But I'm also among the stilted 5% that didn't experiment with drugs as a teenager. I'm not exactly representative of society at large.

When the economy collapses (and it will), $5-a-hit escapes are going to be mighty tempting for some.

[Deleted]

May 21, 2014 23:01:59 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

When I was 19 I was doing dumb shit and had no idea what the real consequences would be had I been caught- I never considered getting caught. So the risk/reward evaluation never happens.

I know.

I just don't understand how you can make it all the way to 19 and still "risk/reward evaluation never happens".

Granted, we grew up in different eras (or at least I assume so). When I was going to school in the 90's, they bombarded us with anti-drug messages using everything from Sesame Street to in-school meetings with ex- drug addicts. The term "bombarded" isn't an exaggeration. I wouldn't be surprised if we totaled more than 100 hours in anti-drug and anti-smoking education.

Don't drink and drive. Don't use drugs. Practice safe sex.

Again and again.

And yet something like 95% (something in this ballpark) of Canadians report having used drugs at or before age 17, and some frightening percentage report having driven while intoxicated, and another frightening percentage report having had unprotected sex by age 16.

What's even more astonishing is this same 95% that couldn't give a rat's fanny about 100 hours of anti-drug education (and just as many hours of STD/pregnancy education) are the people that line up for yearly flu shots and antibacterial hand soaps and triple-filtered milk as though their lives depended on it. Like they hit age thirty and something in their brains flips from "I am immortal" to "will... die... if... germs... touch... me..."

Anyway...

I went to school in the 1960's and 70's (yeah, I'm old) and the biggest deterrent to drug use at the time was the users. I was a science nerd before the term existed. Seeing first hand what drug use did to a presons ability to function was scarier than the subjects I was studying.

[Deleted]

May 22, 2014 13:09:50 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

May 22, 2014 8:06:26 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I agree with you on some distinctions, but I though the distinction in some criminal drug categories had to do with how potent or how much damage a particular drug was doing to a community?

Yes - you can only get so high on MJ, but if you read the article I linked to it is possible to OD on Hash oil and it is associated with a large increase in ER visits and psycotic breaks.  Again, not quite the harmless weed of the 60's.

As far as the crack vs cocaine distinction - I believe that crack was absolutely destroying poorer communities (whereas coke was more of a "rich mans" drug).  I also recall that crack was much more addictive than coke (but haven't tried either so I can't say).  The harsher sentences were supposed to act as a deterrent.  Not sure if the user should be charged as harshly as the dealer though.

So, just curious - what are your thoughts on meth? 

I think meth is probably the worst drug out there.

And if damage to the community mattered at all alcohol would not be legal- so I think these distinctions are ridiculous.

Harsher sentences don't matter either- they execute people over drugs in some countries- doesn't stop them. 

What do you think we should do?  Keep throwing drug users in jail and waste a ton of money or maybe legalize it and tax it.  You used to be able to buy cocaine at the general store.  What happened to freedom?  We need the nanny government telling us what we can put in our own bodies?  Does huffing paint really need to be illegal?  We need a criminal penalty on top of the price someone is going to pay for doing it?

Interesting how some people are "all in" when it comes to more government restrictions and control on firearms, but said government should reduce controls and restrictions on something they approve.

[EVT1]

Equally interesting is how some people are "all in" when it comes to the government regulating drugs, marriage, gambling, uteri, and whatever else they disapprove of but think it should reduce restrictions on firearms, control over public lands, religion mixing with politics, etc.

But that aside- drugs are not a weapon designed to kill, haven't seen any mass elementary school druggings with 250 round needle throwing devices, in fact drug use is a personal choice.  Can't even compare the two.

[djAdvocate]

if you want to see how stupid, self contradictory, absent of reason, and anti-libertarian a debate can get, check out US drug policy.

[Deleted]

May 23, 2014 20:05:43 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Equally interesting is how some people are "all in" when it comes to the government regulating drugs, marriage, gambling, uteri, and whatever else they disapprove of but think it should reduce restrictions on firearms, control over public lands, religion mixing with politics, etc.

But that aside- drugs are not a weapon designed to kill, haven't seen any mass elementary school druggings with 250 round needle throwing devices, in fact drug use is a personal choice.  Can't even compare the two.

Sure, school kids are mentally well equipped to make that personal drug use choice. I wonder how many OD's that result in death, compare to the number school mass gun killings.

[EVT1]

Seriously?  Why don't you go and find out how many elementary school kids have OD'd on weed.

* Should be noted we don't allow children to buy alcohol, cigarettes, enter into contracts, join the military, carry concealed weapons, get married, etc. either- would you like to take those choices away from adults as well?

[Deleted]

Jun 2, 2014 21:20:42 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Seriously?  Why don't you go and find out how many elementary school kids have OD'd on weed.

* Should be noted we don't allow children to buy alcohol, cigarettes, enter into contracts, join the military, carry concealed weapons, get married, etc. either- would you like to take those choices away from adults as well?

Weed? You were the one who said drugs ("But that aside- drugs are not a weapon designed to kill").  If you don't even pay attention to what you write I guess there's not much chance you'll pay attention to what I write. 
I still bet there's more drug OD deaths in the US, than mass school killings in those  "gun safety zones" in the US.

[973beachbum]

IME most people doing drugs aren't doing it because they think it is cool unless they are 14.  Kids do stupid things and there will never be a way to stop that until their brains are fully cooked.  Only time will do that and for everyone whose brain does have the time to fully cook there will always be more to take their place.  Our job as adults is to see that they minimize the damage until they get there not try and inflict as much damage as possible ourselves.

The other group that consistantly uses drugs is the mentally ill.  The term I always heard was "self medicating".  For some reason our society seems to have no want to spend money to treat the mentally ill. We have no problem spending as much as "needed" to incarcerate them.

Instead  of orange is the new black we should be saying jails are the new mental institutions.

[Opti]

The other group that consistantly uses drugs is the mentally ill. The term I always heard was "self medicating". For some reason our society seems to have no want to spend money to treat the mentally ill. We have no problem spending as much as "needed" to incarcerate them.

Perhaps I'm out of touch, but I think most adults who over-use drugs are addictive personalities. When the term

mentally ill is used it can be such a huge category that its about as useful as saying the physically ill sometimes

self medicate with OTC drugs, illegal drugs, and alcohol.

While they are often treated in similar facilities, those who abuse drugs, tend to have issues related to addictive

personalities versus bipolar and schizophrenia which self medicate far more often with alcohol and coffee if they choose

anything. When people read mentally ill they go to bipolar and schizophrenia. They don't automatically think about OCD

and the people who e are afraid to leave their homes. Addictive personalities are a mere subset and I'm not sure about

the state of the diagnosis in DSM as alcoholics would be the same just with a different drug of choice like sex addicts,

shopping addicts, etc.

JMO

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I get the guy broke the law and has to face the consequences, but we're going to put a stupid pot head behind bars for life. .. meanwhile actual dangerous criminals are being let out early for good behavior due to "over population".

WTF? There was a guy released in Iowa, convicted of murdering a minor female. He got let out because the prison was over-crowded and he displayed "good behavior". Three months later he kidnapped two 14 year old girls and killed one of them. The other managed to escape.

I'd rather have hash brownie guy out on the street than the child murderer.

[justme]

Bringing up cooking brains is probably not the best term to use in a drug conversation.   But it did make me laugh out loud remember those "and this is your brain on drugs <cue egg in frying pan>" commercials. 

[Tennesseer]

Jun 12, 2014 10:41:28 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

IME most people doing drugs aren't doing it because they think it is cool unless they are 14.  Kids do stupid things and there will never be a way to stop that until their brains are fully cooked.  Only time will do that and for everyone whose brain does have the time to fully cook there will always be more to take their place.  Our job as adults is to see that they minimize the damage until they get there not try and inflict as much damage as possible ourselves.

The other group that consistantly uses drugs is the mentally ill.  The term I always heard was "self medicating".  For some reason our society seems to have no want to spend money to treat the mentally ill. We have no problem spending as much as "needed" to incarcerate them.

Instead  of orange is the new black we should be saying jails are the new mental institutions.

They have been for quite some time now which is very unfortunate.