urbanSTL

JuiceInDogtown wrote:If the state law still applies, I say no. Why waste the time? If this was a vote "should Missouri" or "should America" legalize, I would answer yes. We spend hundreds of millions a year to arrest, lock up, feed, bathe, etc marijuana offenders. C'mon.

I heard that in Columbia that offenders caught with a small amount of marijuana are only fined and not arrested. Is that true?

Doug wrote:Do you know how much state and federal funding we would lose if we legalized pot?

In todays economy? Would they really do that?... doubt it.



Plus... hell we already got fed funds for our highway 40 paid for, w00t!

I would think we could use our "Gateway to the West" tag line somehow... hopefully in a more positive way that Gateway to more Drugs

My problem is that there is so much unknown (at least to me) about the long term effects of habitual dope use/abuse (bare with me now). I know humans have been puffing tree since the beginning of time, but even the good hippie lettuce of Willy's generation was barely passing 5% thc content. The Cannabis cup winning strands of the last decade are approaching 22% thc levels. And the KP/hydro/homegrown sh*t you buy from loser college buddy is likely somewhere in the 15%+ THC content. As far as I know, the new high potency strands just haven't been around long enough to fully understand the long term effects of the drug on long term habitual users. Please feel free to prove me wrong. smoke.gif

Moorlander wrote:My problem is that there is so much unknown (at least to me) about the long term effects of habitual dope use/abuse (bare with me now). I know humans have been puffing tree since the beginning of time, but even the good hippie lettuce of Willy's generation was barely passing 5% thc content. The Cannabis cup winning strands of the last decade are approaching 22% thc levels. And the KP/hydro/homegrown sh*t you buy from loser college buddy is likely somewhere in the 15%+ THC content. As far as I know, the new high potency strands just haven't been around long enough to fully understand the long term effects of the drug on long term habitual users. Please feel free to prove me wrong. smoke.gif

dunno where youre getting your info from...but the weed i smoke, is tried and true 30-35% potent. my info is from the book of all books about it. the cannabis cup winner was around 40ish percent. just saying.

citysoul wrote:Okay, then, maybe "Pot, the Gateway drug"....

That "gateway drug" stuff is nonsense anyway, the gateway is its illegality. Classifying it in the same way as you would classify cocaine or heroin makes unassuming teens who don't know better yet to put it in the same category in their own mind. Once they try it and realize its not all that serious then under that logic, heroin or xanax or whatever wouldn't be all that bad either.

Any drug has side effects and problems associated with it, but alcohol causes so many more problems yet that is totally legal, and I would be willing to bet that drinking is more likely to take your guard down to try other drugs than weed ever would. I really don't think people smoke a joint and then rush out to find some meth (although with all the meth labs around here, you could )

63104mom wrote:

JuiceInDogtown wrote:I just don't think we should continue fighting drugs like marijuana when we still have children starving. We are letting kids and families starve to death while feeding, bathing, and clothing marijuana offenders.

Seriously? In this fat ass country? People starving? No way.

Only in America are the poor people fat.

thechariot wrote:

Moorlander wrote:My problem is that there is so much unknown (at least to me) about the long term effects of habitual dope use/abuse (bare with me now). I know humans have been puffing tree since the beginning of time, but even the good hippie lettuce of Willy's generation was barely passing 5% thc content. The Cannabis cup winning strands of the last decade are approaching 22% thc levels. And the KP/hydro/homegrown sh*t you buy from loser college buddy is likely somewhere in the 15%+ THC content. As far as I know, the new high potency strands just haven't been around long enough to fully understand the long term effects of the drug on long term habitual users. Please feel free to prove me wrong. smoke.gif

dunno where youre getting your info from...but the weed i smoke, is tried and true 30-35% potent. my info is from the book of all books about it. the cannabis cup winner was around 40ish percent. just saying.

my typo, that should have said "approaching 32%, I haven't found any mention of 40%...

legalize it. did prohibition work for liquor? how many "stoned driving" accidents are there? this drug is harmless and should be legalized. I know many capable people that work all week and get completely blasted on the weekends with booze but are still productive members of society. Not everyone would turn into some type of burn-out on weed as most have not turned into complete 24/7 drunks.

Also, think about the crime factor marijuana sales has brought to our cities? black market? hmm, just like Al Capone.. I don't hear of too many St. Valentines Day massacres today over liquor, but i do hear of "drug violence" hmmmm. maybe the two correlate..

legalize it.

WHOA!

Just saw this interview with Republican House Leader John Boehner on CNN for digg.com



Republican House Leader John Boehner



Fast forward to 3:30.



He says that it should be up to the State to decide, not the Fed.



Ok, someone forward this to Nixon and Slay.

BOOM, just solved our crime issue for STL.

zink wrote:WHOA!

Just saw this interview with Republican House Leader John Boehner on CNN for digg.com



Republican House Leader John Boehner



Fast forward to 3:30.



He says that it should be up to the State to decide, not the Fed.



Ok, someone forward this to Nixon and Slay.

BOOM, just solved our crime issue for STL.

FYI, the little surveys they say to voting homeowners in the mail in the city (granted those are very unofficial) have OVERWHELMINGLY pro-Marijuana policies. From what I remember, over 70% for...Would not be hard to pass a city-wide ordinance decriminalizing pot.

drunkrusski wrote:FYI, the little surveys they say to voting homeowners in the mail in the city (granted those are very unofficial) have OVERWHELMINGLY pro-Marijuana policies. From what I remember, over 70% for...Would not be hard to pass a city-wide ordinance decriminalizing pot.

It wouldn't be hard, I agree, but I don't like the stink our reputation would take if we did. Especially amongst people like business leaders, there is typically a very strong anti-pot bias.



I, for one, don't give a damn if people smoke or not. It's not for me.

brickandmortar wrote:

63104mom wrote:

JuiceInDogtown wrote:I just don't think we should continue fighting drugs like marijuana when we still have children starving. We are letting kids and families starve to death while feeding, bathing, and clothing marijuana offenders.

Seriously? In this fat ass country? People starving? No way.

Only in America are the poor people fat.

Try South Africa.

JMStokes wrote:


It wouldn't be hard, I agree, but I don't like the stink our reputation would take if we did. Especially amongst people like business leaders, there is typically a very strong anti-pot bias.



I, for one, don't give a damn if people smoke or not. It's not for me.

I think it depends how it is presented. Not to mention that it would only be a city-wide thing, not a metrowide or statewide law. If we could even just decriminalize it that would be a start.

And you can't argue anyone would pay attention, as over 13 states and many cities (i.e. Denver) have decriminalized. That would save thousands on law enforcement fines, with little to no harmful side-effects.



Of course, I still would push for having a stoner row somewhere either on Cherokee or some of the nicer streets in north saint louis. Tax it high, and just have a street or two dedicated to stoner shops, stoner music, and pot shops.



I think it's a much better option as far as sin-attraction goes than opening up strip clubs down town (has been a survey question on the mayorslay website).



And if someone argues the city does not need radical help, just look at the roads. None of them, even the major ones, are salted. The city is just constantly declining. All it is doing is trying to slowly raise taxes to keep up the revenue stream, but that just drives the successful people out.

I know I am about to be blasted for saying this, but radical change is needed, and if someone decides to run for mayor or even alderman with this as their basis, I will not only vote for them, but will help fund them.

if u legalized weed..would it be much trouble to legalize salvia divinorum (sally d)? I mean..they're both recreational natural plants.

JMStokes wrote:

drunkrusski wrote:FYI, the little surveys they say to voting homeowners in the mail in the city (granted those are very unofficial) have OVERWHELMINGLY pro-Marijuana policies. From what I remember, over 70% for...Would not be hard to pass a city-wide ordinance decriminalizing pot.

It wouldn't be hard, I agree, but I don't like the stink our reputation would take if we did. Especially amongst people like business leaders, there is typically a very strong anti-pot bias.



I, for one, don't give a damn if people smoke or not. It's not for me.

So wait a minute...until recently, our town's leading corporate citizen was the biggest brewer in the world. There are half a dozen casinos open or in the works in the area. And we still have a ludicrously high murder rate and are the U.S. capital for STDs.



And you're worried about what legalized weed would do for our reputation?



Seems to me that places like Amsterdam and Vancouver have no trouble with their reputations...