Udonis Haslem Riding with Mary Jane

[dreamingincolors 0]

Would you also support a law prohibiting alcoholic beverages? Why or why not?

I don't drink alcohol, I don't care if there was a total ban on that stuff.

 

But because of people know a days if the government tried to ban alcohol, Prohibition part 2 would be a lot nastier.

[jec 427]

I don't drink alcohol, I don't care if there was a total ban on that stuff.

 

Oh, so if it doesn't affect you, ban it! Who cares?

 

But because of people know a days if the government tried to ban alcohol, Prohibition part 2 would be a lot nastier.

 

Yeah, it would be like gangs pushing illegal drugs! We don't want that, not in the good old USA!

[dreamingincolors 0]

@Jec, first off the nature of the question dealt with my opinions. Whatever reason I gave it would be based on my opinion and how it affected me and my loved ones I chose to give the short and sweet answer, which is "I don't care if it's banned" I didn't feel like writing an essay. Secondly, I never said I think it would be wrong to ban it only that the government tried before and historically it didn't work out too well. Whether alcoholic beverages is banned, I honestly don't care.

 

If you don't like my answer it's okay you don't have to and I didn't write it down to score major points with someone, I did it because I wanted too.

[~O~ 565]

We all have our own opinions.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Secondly, I never said I think it would be wrong to ban it only that the government tried before and historically it didn't work out too well.

 

And why is that? What was it about alcohol prohibition that didn't work out too well, and can any lessons from that situation be applied to the current prohibition of other drugs?

[ThisIsTheYear 241]

I can. He's in trouble for being in possession of a plant. Not for driving while under the influence of the plant, not for selling it or even consuming it. Just having it. That's ridiculous.

 

If it had been a case of beer or some liquor, there would be no problem. I fail to see the difference, beyond "one of these things is illegal because we say it is".

 

 

Huh?

 

So a person can be in trouble for driving with an unopened case of beer in their backseat based on the presumption that they'll drink it, but arresting someone carrying marijuana on the presumption that they'll smoke/sell it is ridiculous? That's silly.

 

Haslem is an idiot. Whether or not the plant should be illegal is an entirely different debate altogether. The fact of the matter is that it IS currently illegal, and speeding only made him an easier target.

[ThisIsTheYear 241]

And why is that? What was it about alcohol prohibition that didn't work out too well, and can any lessons from that situation be applied to the current prohibition of other drugs?

 

They were able to ban alcohol, but people were still able to round up for speakeasies, among other rebellious gatherings. It would cause public riots throughout the entire nation. Alcohol, that is, I'm not sure drugs would have as strong a reaction.

[Emory889 353]

Huh?

 

So a person can be in trouble for driving with an unopened case of beer in their backseat based on the presumption that they'll drink it, but arresting someone carrying marijuana on the presumption that they'll smoke/sell it is ridiculous? That's silly.

 

Haslem is an idiot. Whether or not the plant should be illegal is an entirely different debate altogether. The fact of the matter is that it IS currently illegal, and speeding only made him an easier target.

 

Both are equally retarded TITY. If I have an open bottle of liquor in my backseat, I take a breathalizer, and the test says I haven't been drinking, then I shouldn't get a DUI. And I understand what Jackie is saying. The governement is saying that a PLANT is illegal. We shouldn't be allowed to own/possess a PLANT. The only difference between prohibition and current marajuana laws is that alcohol was originally legal and then they attempted to ban it. Switch the two substances and a prohibition of marajuana would have the exact same reaction.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Huh?

 

So a person can be in trouble for driving with an unopened case of beer in their backseat based on the presumption that they'll drink it, but arresting someone carrying marijuana on the presumption that they'll smoke/sell it is ridiculous? That's silly.

 

Haslem is an idiot. Whether or not the plant should be illegal is an entirely different debate altogether. The fact of the matter is that it IS currently illegal, and speeding only made him an easier target.

 

No. Allow me to clarify.

 

If you buy a case of beer, then put it in your car and drive around with it, you won't get into any trouble. As long as you don't open it and start drinking it while you're driving, you won't have any problems. That's sensible, and that's the way it should be.

 

If you do the same with marijuana, you have problems. That's what is ridiculous.

 

People use both substances for largely the same reasons, and one of them causes harm to society at a mindbogglingly higher rate. The more harmful of the two is the one that's legal and socially acceptable. Ridiculous.

 

Haslem may or may not be an idiot, but being a casualty of the retarded prohibition of marijuana isn't what decides that.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Both are equally retarded TITY. If I have an open bottle of liquor in my backseat, I take a breathalizer, and the test says I haven't been drinking, then I shouldn't get a DUI. And I understand what Jackie is saying. The governement is saying that a PLANT is illegal. We shouldn't be allowed to own/possess a PLANT. The only difference between prohibition and current marajuana laws is that alcohol was originally legal and then they attempted to ban it. Switch the two substances and a prohibition of marajuana would have the exact same reaction.

 

Marijuana used to be completely legal too. The prohibition of it is a relatively recent development, sometime in the 1930s, I think.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

They were able to ban alcohol, but people were still able to round up for speakeasies, among other rebellious gatherings. It would cause public riots throughout the entire nation. Alcohol, that is, I'm not sure drugs would have as strong a reaction.

 

I'm sure anyone living in Mexico, particularly around the U.S. border, would quickly tell you that prohibition of other drugs (let's not forget that alcohol is a drug too) has caused at least as much damage as the prohibition of alcohol in the U.S. did. Probably far more, if only for the lengths of time involved.

 

I know that what happens in Mexico isn't as important as what happens here because Mexicans aren't full humans, but it's really quite disturbing and the United States' prohibition of recreational drugs plays a big part in what's going on down there. I'm not going to claim that it's the sole reason for Mexico's ills, and I'm not going to claim that legalizing all this stuff will make everything all better down there. But I do notice that these cartels don't have any influence over the alcohol market because it's legal and regulated. You don't have to buy beer from a gang. You can just go to a store.

 

No matter your stance on the moral issues of drug use, it has to be acknowledged that prohibiting these things creates black markets and, as a result of those black markets, lots and lots of good old fashioned violence. The fact that it's mostly happening in another country doesn't make it any less troubling.

[ThisIsTheYear 241]

 

People use both substances for largely the same reasons, and one of them causes harm to society at a mindbogglingly higher rate. The more harmful of the two is the one that's legal and socially acceptable. Ridiculous.

 

 

Well, alcohol is far more accessible to the public than marijuana, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that one causes harm at a greater frequency than the other. At any rate, it also wouldn't surprise me if alcohol IS more prevalent in crime-related issues given that it produces more aggressive behavior, so I'm not holding one to a higher standard than the other. I'm neither a drinker nor a smoker, ergo, I find no reason to debate over the prohibition of either substance. I'm not discussing the moral ramifications of alcohol vs. marijuana.

 

I'll say it again, whether or not marijuana should be legalized is irrelevant within the context of this discussion. It isn't as if it wasn't illegal, or that Haslem didn't know about it. Knowing what the law entails and willingly breaking it makes Haslem responsible for any crime he's accused of. It would be a similar to a scenario in which someone under 21 is caught with the possession of alcohol. They were aware of its status as an illegal substance (to their particular age group), but nevertheless chose to disregard it.

 

I just can't find sympathy for someone so brain-dead to anything common sense.