You are putting every word on a scale. I talk fast and think fast.
when I say the US I mean many states looking at this: thats good enough for me. When I give you 90% you still say, wtf? where is the other 10? How much is this? 50-60% of the states? good enough for me. And thats what they are talking about, and its good enough for the argument which everyone is making. Thats what everybody is looking at, nothing else. you focus too much on the negative imo. You should look at the valid side a bit more before you knock the house over..

And look more closely at this map. Nobody is talking about Iowa when they are talking about the States, they mean Californa, and the states around it, the blue states, not the red states. thats what they are looking at and talking about. The whole westcoast its legal, see that? Thats where everyone wants to be and thats what they mean when they talk about america. (incl me btw)

https://mjbizdaily.com/map-of-us-mar...tion-by-state/

The US is getting more and more progressive on marijuana, which is great. But this is nothing even close to "basically legal" - less than 40% of states have legalized it. The stigma is mostly gone, and far less people should be seeing any serious consequences for having marijuana now, but there's still a long way to go. And the point being discussed was an assertion that the US was leading the way, which is silly.

Agreed. But I'd argue that people who are still strongly in favour of a drug war in the 2020s aren't likely to be progressive on marijuana. And enough US leadership is still at that point, to prevent national legalization from getting across the finish line.

I agree with all this, I'm mostly pointing out how it's reasonable that someone could perceive marijuana to be legal and that Joe Biden is fighting a drug war. As an example someone can easily take a vacation to NYC and see that marijuana is legal, there are a lot of nice pot stores all over including in times square, walk around town doing pot with their friends and witness someone being beaten to the ground and arrested for possession of a small amount of drugs in the same day.

I think leadership is pretty close to crossing that finish line, but yes as you have stated , and I stated in the beginning of my post, as a point of fact, Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug that is highly illegal.

Ok then put it this way, you are at 40% progess, we are at 0%. Minus atm. See what I mean, now? America is leading the way. Nobody is looking at Malta, they are looking at hollywood.

Alcohol should at least be in the same catogory but it isnt yet. They are all pushing it there, bc everything else makes no sense. Now these idiots slowly realize this. This is no pro drugs, everyone needs to be careful. but we need to be reasonable and not double bladed here.

Good night everyone. Im out. I need to feed the wife and bang the cat now.

It's OK to just admit you're wrong, and move on. This thing you do where you make an assertion and then move the goalposts once you're shown to be wrong isn't productive. No, you did not give me 90%. 40% of states are legal now. When Canada made it legal in 2018, 20% of states were legal. Canada did not just "follow suit", and the US is not the leader on this that you made them out to be.

Let's back up to how this started. You said "and the pot? they [Canada] just follow suit. they all do now. USA first and then canada, then europe.", to which I responded with "I, um, wait, what?". That's it. You weren't at that time making some big point about European repressiveness on marijuana. Why would you be, in a thread about immigrants being sent to Martha's Vineyard? But when you get called out for your errors, rather than simply acknowledging them and moving on, you accuse me of nit-picking over 10%, and B_B of trolling because he pointed out you had Holland wrong as well, because apparently we're taking away from your important point that you hadn't even brought up in your initial post on this.

If this issue is so important to you, perhaps you should start a new thread about it. But I'd suggest some more careful research before doing so.

He pointed out I had holland wrong but that didnt make a difference to the argument. That was just a minor rather irrevelant point, and not even that, everyone thinks its legal there. wtf does it matter to the original argument?? I also said I didnt know who was first canada or the US, you might have missed it. I throw a lot of stuff against the wall and see what sticks, but in general you are right a bit I guess. I give you that. youre a hot head though and it made me crack up a bit. Good night all.

fair enough, touche. You are right, I got into this like an idiot.


Marthas Vinyard is the thread.


What happened to the people now? I hope they are well now. The stunt was rather tastless, you dont ship people around to make a point.

I think sometimes my posting comes through as a little more emotional than it actually is - I'm never sitting here fuming over posts on an Internet forum. But I'm glad you saw some humour in it.

I will admit to getting frustrated at times when you come into topics where you think you have a lot of knowledge, and it turns out you've got some basic facts wrong.

And to you as well.

Bryce is the greatest poster in this forum, someone needs to say it.

I agree Bryce posts are great, yours are not too shabby neither.

Bolded isn't really true. Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 both refer to drugs that the federal government categorizes as having a significant potential for abuse. The main difference between drugs on Schedule 2 and Schedule 1 is that drugs on Schedule 2 are deemed to have some medical value. (If you wanted to argue that ideas about which drugs have medicinal value are outdated, I wouldn't disagree.)

Trafficking and possession of Schedule 1 drugs are not necessarily punished more severely than trafficking and possession of Schedule 2 drugs. For example, trafficking of weed (a Schedule 1 drug) generally carries lower penalties than trafficking of cocaine (a Schedule 2 drug).

Meh, It is true. Of course, that leads to a very tedious semantics battle.
The purpose of all drug law is supposed to be for the good of the community. By declaring certain drugs have no benefit to the community and certain drugs have very limited benefit to the community, you have put the drugs with no benefit in a more important category of enforcement for the good of the community.

The length of sentencing in America is often not related to the severity of the crime, which is in my opinion a big problem.
ie an example a man was sentenced for 15 years for forgetting to remove his cell phone during check in. A murderer receives a sentence for 6 years. That does not change the fact that our laws place a much greater emphasis on preventing murder, and the laws against murder are much stronger than the laws regarding cell phone possession. In any meaningful sense murder is correctly both in the spirit and letter of our nations laws considered a more severe crime. There are organizations in law enforcement who prioritize arresting marijuana producers over cocaine producers for this exact reason.

Of course, federal guidelines are all over the place and I would guess most posters here know about the different sentencing for powdered and rock cocaine and understand why that descrepency exists. This wasn't always true.

None of the semantics that this argument would descend to are pleasant to debate. Language does matter though. The first step to gay marriage was eliminating the text that declared lgbt a mental disorder.
Marijuana *shouldnt * be a schedule 1 drug etc etc.

The ultimate point is this....
...
...
Irregardless of the nature Ron's political stunt there were only 50 of them. Someone should have been a hero and let them all crash at his or her place.

Everything I wrote was correct. I didn't present my comments as a defense of U.S. drug laws.

I know, I was just making conversation.

All good.

That's pretty much the gist of it.