TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.[name automatically deleted].com/hd/News/L ... farm-found

Marijuana farm found in Grayson County

BY MARY JANE FARMER

[name automatically deleted]

doejohn wrote:
BY MARY JANE FARMER

"MARY JANE FARMER"

I dont get it...

I am for the legalization of marijuana. Our laws keep marijuana out of our kids hands the same way gun control laws kept guns out of the hands of criminals. Every anti marijuana argument has a parallel to anti-gun arguments.

Gun/drugs...

Kill people

Hurt our children

Have no use in society.

Is not protected by the constitution

Keeping it illegal empowers only the criminal element that chooses to sell it anyway

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:I dont get it...

"Mary Jane" is a synonym for Marijuana, so "Mary Jane" Farmer.

Thanks WildBill but I believe my sarcasm was lost in the type. I tried to portray it with the lil guy leaving. I understand I was just being a wise guy.

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:Thanks WildBill but I believe my sarcasm was lost in the type. I tried to portray it with the lil guy leaving. I understand I was just being a wise guy.

Sorry, I missed it...

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:I dont get it...

It took me a minute. "Mary Jane" was a 1960's code-word for pot.

psijac wrote:I am for the legalization of marijuana. Our laws keep marijuana out of our kids hands the same way gun control laws kept guns out of the hands of criminals. Every anti marijuana argument has a parallel to anti-gun arguments.

Gun/drugs...

Kill people

Hurt our children

Have no use in society.

Is not protected by the constitution

Keeping it illegal empowers only the criminal element that chooses to sell it anyway

I am 68 years of age and chose to have never smoked marijuana or ingested or injected any other illegal drug. I have been known to take a drink of hard liquor because I have chosen alcohol to be my drug of choice. BTW, I've had no traffic tickets in the past quarter of a century and have never had any kind of DUI/DWI issues because I was lucky when I was younger and chose to obey the laws as I matured. I am holier than no one, that's for sure. All people do have choices.

My point is that prohibition never worked with alcohol and it is not working now with drugs. Prohibition is making the criminal element rich while also making the criminal element larger and arguably more dangerous than the drugs themselves. Legalizing the sale of alcoholic beverages in dry precincts does not cause more spouse abuse, teenage wrecks, trash on the streets, drunks, etc., etc. Likewise, legalizing controlled substances would not create more dopeheads. Legalization of drugs would take away the huge profit margins which would decrease the criminal elements.

Stupidity can not be outlawed. There will always be some who are too stupid and/or weak willed to avoid "the forbidden fruit". We don't need murderous criminals profiting from the weaknesses of a few. Ask yourselves why we are having the so-called border wars with our southern neighbor. Poor folk looking for a better live is one thing, drug "mules" feeding America's bad habits is a "horse with no name".

How about them apples, Hoi?

psijac wrote:I am for the legalization of marijuana. Our laws keep marijuana out of our kids hands the same way gun control laws kept guns out of the hands of criminals.

And there's our problem right there. We think that we can control behavior with laws.

In reality, laws are very limited in their ability to control, and cannot eradicate any undesirable behavior. Consider murder, burglary, theft, robbery, rape, etc. In spite of laws against murder, it is a very real and present threat in our society. But rather than recognize the limitation of law, we try harder to legislate murder out of existence with more laws - including, for example, laws aimed (no pun intended) at guns. But that will never work, because it is asking laws to do something they can't do.

What they can do - in fact, their primary function - is to show us where we transgress an established standard, and then establish an appropriate penalty for such transgression. In some cases, such a penalty, can, to a limited degree, deter some from engaging in said transgression, but it cannot deal with the root problem, which is a character issue. And this is where the death penalty fits in - some crimes are a reflection of such a depraved nature that the only solution is the eradication of that individual.

The problem lies in identifying the standard on which such laws are based. Because of the different assumptions that each of us bring to this issue, based on our various world views, we are going to disagree on the specifics that make up that standard. In fact, I expect that there will probably be much disagreement on the degree to which we can legislate behavior.

And so, the debate will continue until a single global standard can be established and enforced infallibly. I only add this last statement because my comments seem incomplete without it. But to carry the thought any further would take us very quickly into a religious discussion of religion, and since I respect the owners of this forum, I will not go there.

We're not going to have a "let's legalize drugs" thread.

Chas.

I agree strongly with Charles. This is a subject that has been beaten to death for way too many years.

If I were dictator for a year (unlikely to the extreme) I would completely rid the USA of illegal drugs.

I hope my post didn't come across as advocating legalization of drugs. I did not mean that at all. Actually, I lean strongly the other way. I was responding to the argument that "laws have not been effective at stopping drugs, therefore, they should be legalized" and attempting to say that such an argument is based on what I perceive as a common misunderstanding of the function of laws.

skub wrote:I hope my post didn't come across as advocating legalization of drugs. I did not mean that at all. Actually, I lean strongly the other way. I was responding to the argument that "laws have not been effective at stopping drugs, therefore, they should be legalized" and attempting to say that such an argument is based on what I perceive as a common misunderstanding of the function of laws.

It didn't.

Chas.