Pot smokers in law school Forum

[cofc2008]

You'll likely smoke more than ever, actually. Just wait for late November or finals

I really hope not. At one point I was blazin' about an ounce a week, and I'm not talking schwag either.

You might have less from that amount, but you definitely will not be smoking almost nothing like a lot of people think happens. There is a reason lawl school and med school have the highest substance abuse rates.

Fair enough...as long as I know my limits and what I can handle while still being efficient and productive, I'll be fine with that.

[cofc2008]

If you really want to see marijuana legalized, we need arguments with more intellectual force. Just screaming, "but alcohol and cigarettes are worse!!!!," isn't going to cut it.

It should cut it. If we as a society wish to make a substance illegal, then it makes sense that that substance should be more harmful than ones we already allow, unless you want to try and argue that cigarettes and alcohol are only legal due to decades of detrimental reliance on their prior legality by the companies which purvey those products (which actually might effectively serve to explain the continued legality of tobacco tbh).

Jazz isn't making a normative point. I think he'd agree that it should cut it--he's simply pointing out that, nevertheless, it's not cutting it. Using the courts a la Thurgood Marshall and segregation is an interesting idea, but I still think that fundamentally, attitudes just need to change for pot to have a shot at legalization. I guess Jazz would say I'm putting the cart before the horse... I dunno though, California had a somewhat compelling marketing campaign for legalizing marijuana and I could see legalization via referendum if a similar sort of thing was better orchestrated.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view ... urceID=145

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view ... eID=000174

http://economics.about.com/od/incometax ... ijuana.htm

http://economics.about.com/od/incometax ... ze_pot.htm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 66,00.html

These links illustrate the arguments that should be made beyond "cigs and alcohol are worse." The first link is really the most compelling which gives evidence for an "everything else is worse" argument which could be very effective. At the minimum, medical marijuana should be legal and, after looking at just the first link, I don't see how it is debatable.

Note: while doctors reporting the cause of death is indeed very subjective, when 17 FDA-approved drugs eclipse the 10,000 mark in the "primary cause of death" category, that might be enough evidence to call them dangerous. I'm just sayin'...

[cofc2008]

... I still think that fundamentally, attitudes just need to change for pot to have a shot at legalization.

Times and attitudes, they are a changin'



http://www.gallup.com/poll/144086/New-H ... juana.aspx

[savagedm]

... I still think that fundamentally, attitudes just need to change for pot to have a shot at legalization.

Times and attitudes, they are a changin'



http://www.gallup.com/poll/144086/New-H ... juana.aspx

I always forget to bring up the argument that so many other drugs are 100x more dangerous, yet MJ is still illegal and they are not.

[dailygrind]

... I still think that fundamentally, attitudes just need to change for pot to have a shot at legalization.

Times and attitudes, they are a changin'



http://www.gallup.com/poll/144086/New-H ... juana.aspx

I always forget to bring up the argument that so many other drugs are 100x more dangerous, yet MJ is still illegal and they are not.

[Borhas]

You'll likely smoke more than ever, actually. Just wait for late November or finals

I really hope not. At one point I was blazin' about an ounce a week, and I'm not talking schwag either.

that's a lot of weed by anyone's standard

[bport hopeful]

You'll likely smoke more than ever, actually. Just wait for late November or finals

I really hope not. At one point I was blazin' about an ounce a week, and I'm not talking schwag either.

that's a lot of weed by anyone's standard

Word, if you had money to blow over 300 dollars a week in UG, why law school?

[savagedm]

... I still think that fundamentally, attitudes just need to change for pot to have a shot at legalization.

Times and attitudes, they are a changin'



http://www.gallup.com/poll/144086/New-H ... juana.aspx

I always forget to bring up the argument that so many other drugs are 100x more dangerous, yet MJ is still illegal and they are not.

totally saw that one coming as i hit the post button! hahaha

[cofc2008]

You'll likely smoke more than ever, actually. Just wait for late November or finals

I really hope not. At one point I was blazin' about an ounce a week, and I'm not talking schwag either.

that's a lot of weed by anyone's standard

Word, if you had money to blow over 300 dollars a week in UG, why law school?

It's complicated...I had the funds for a limited time. For the past two years, I haven't.

[bport hopeful]

I really hope not. At one point I was blazin' about an ounce a week, and I'm not talking schwag either.

that's a lot of weed by anyone's standard

Word, if you had money to blow over 300 dollars a week in UG, why law school?

It's complicated...I had the funds for a limited time. For the past two years, I haven't.

Dealers gunna Deal.

[cofc2008]

Word, if you had money to blow over 300 dollars a week in UG, why law school?

It was more like 235...anyways, it was still a lot of money.

[bport hopeful]

Word, if you had money to blow over 300 dollars a week in UG, why law school?

It was more like 235...anyways, it was still a lot of money.

To be blowin Headies, them dealer prices.

[cofc2008]

Word, if you had money to blow over 300 dollars a week in UG, why law school?

It was more like 235...anyways, it was still a lot of money.

To be blowin Headies, them dealer prices.

Blackjack and 3 card poker

[cofc2008]

Screw pot...this guy has the right idea : http://www.viddler.com/explore/thechive/videos/517/a

[robotclubmember]

i only have a couple connections in chicago and they're in the burbs, and i don't have a car lol. so i stocked up on four different types of dank before leaving my hometown. i should have got at least an ounce of ditch weed for cooking and blunts but, eh, i'm sure i'll find it.

this 1930's prohibition era attitude towards weed needs to go away. even if marijuana was somehow worse that alcohol, it still shouldn't be illegal. the thing that made this country great was that it was the first one that said that your rights were inherent and inalienable, not something given to you by the government. you know "natural rights." that's the nature of our "social contract." i should have unrestricted freedom to do anything i wish as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights or place me in a state of mind in which i could foreseeably cause harm to others. but nowadays, it seems people are going back to letting values determine their rights, which are given to them by the government.

in the war on drugs, drugs are winning because frankly, drugs offer a better deal. now my question is, how open can you be about smoking weed in law school?

[cofc2008]

i should have unrestricted freedom to do anything i wish as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights or place me in a state of mind in which i could foreseeably cause harm to others.

But haven't you seen reefer madness? It's a true story...

As for the openness thing, I wouldn't be open about until you have a good read on who you're dealing with. You want to avoid being stereotyped and lambasted by the "1930s prohibition-ish types."

In other words, play it by ear.

[MrPapagiorgio]

How open can you be about smoking weed in law school?

This brings to mind the origin of the fish symbol and Jesus. I remember hearing about how, in the early days of Christianity before Constantine, if people were talking, one person may casually draw the fish symbol in the dirt or sand. If the other people in the group recognized the symbol, they would all be able to freely discuss Jesus.

I am thinking you could do something along those lines.

[cofc2008]

How open can you be about smoking weed in law school?

This brings to mind the origin of the fish symbol and Jesus. I remember hearing about how, in the early days of Christianity before Constantine, if people were talking, one person may casually draw the fish symbol in the dirt or sand. If the other people in the group recognized the symbol, they would all be able to freely discuss Jesus.

I am thinking you could do something along those lines.

This gave me a hilarious mental image ...

[yngblkgifted]

How open can you be about smoking weed in law school?

This brings to mind the origin of the fish symbol and Jesus. I remember hearing about how, in the early days of Christianity before Constantine, if people were talking, one person may casually draw the fish symbol in the dirt or sand. If the other people in the group recognized the symbol, they would all be able to freely discuss Jesus.

I am thinking you could do something along those lines.

Kind of like how you initiate a conversation about TLS IRL?

[robotclubmember]

IMO the government should err on the side of increased freedom, so the burden of justification should be placed on those wanting to outlaw something, not those wanting to legalize it. Marijuana prohibition was not in effect for the majority of human history, and marijuana was a widely used drug historically (largely for painkiller/anti-anxiety purposes). It was also outlawed for pretty poor reasons. A justifiable reason to outlaw a drug is that access to the drug causes substantial harm to the individual and/or causes substantial negative externalities, either of which outweigh any benefit derived from allowing people access to the drug. It's a perfectly reasonable and "intellectually forceful" argument to compare the harm/externalities of a drug to other drugs that our government has chosen to allow. Since research has shown that marijuana is inherently less harmful and has fewer negative externalities than both tobacco and alcohol, the onus to provide a justification is on those who want to keep it illegal.

Unfortunately, that's not how our legal system works. The onus is always on the proponents of changing the law. And since marijuana is illegal according to federal law and a majority of states' laws, we have a major burden to overcome. Those who favor prohibition of marijuana have no burden whatsoever since the status quo means they win. The arguments presented here have achieved only limited success in decriminalizing marijuana, which is why I think we need more intellectually forceful arguments. We not only have to convince the legislatures that we're right, but we also have to convince them that this issue is important enough to take action. A simple comparison of the harms of marijuana and other legal drugs will not suffice. We have to go the extra step of showing that the current policy violates civil rights. Thus, I propose targeted law suits on behalf of sympathetic plaintiffs attacking the constitutionality of the current ban on marijuana. A comparison of marijuana's dangers might be a part of that argument, but the comparison alone cannot achieve the goal we desire.

Where do you find sympathetic plaintiffs? Lol. That's the problem. This worked with overturning laws that supported segregation because the plaintiffs were sympathetic. It's a shame that a judge should need to see someone who evokes "sympathy" before they just come out and acknowledge they're trampling our rights. Their never should have needed to be a "sympathetic plaintiff" to overturn laws supporting segregation and it represents a systemic flaw that we would need appeals to emotion to pursue a legal framework which is objectively more just. It needs to go on state ballots and enough states need to pass it so that the executive branch won't use the DEA to strong-arm the states' out of their rights. The federal government really doesn't give a shit about state's rights though and would do anything to try and usurp a little more power from them, so it may take a decent handful of states.

The only explanation as to why my natural rights are being taken away is because our rationality, science, evidence, logical argument and debate have lost the battle to our superstition, faith, opinion and orthodox, and the routine cowardice of our elected leaders and appointed judges actively work against our natural rights when it is politically expedient to do so, even if it means taking a leap backwards intellectually from advanced modes of thinking into old modes of belief in which values supersede rights.

I wish that there were sympathetic plaintiffs but there never will be to this establishment. This establishment is bent on marginalizing the very same libertarian views we were founded on in favor of expanded government. Our own constitutional law scholar president has signed multiple constitutionally dubious laws, some which are tantamount to tea-bagging the constitution after a slick boom head shot, some which are tantamount to wiping his ass with it after filling the shitter with a bad case of mud butt. The states and the people need to take their rights back. If the DEA goes after people, their needs to just be enough people doing it so that you can't arrest them all. And there pretty much already are.

[SwampRat88]

How open can you be about smoking weed in law school?

This brings to mind the origin of the fish symbol and Jesus. I remember hearing about how, in the early days of Christianity before Constantine, if people were talking, one person may casually draw the fish symbol in the dirt or sand. If the other people in the group recognized the symbol, they would all be able to freely discuss Jesus.

I am thinking you could do something along those lines.

..

[bport hopeful]

How open can you be about smoking weed in law school?

This brings to mind the origin of the fish symbol and Jesus. I remember hearing about how, in the early days of Christianity before Constantine, if people were talking, one person may casually draw the fish symbol in the dirt or sand. If the other people in the group recognized the symbol, they would all be able to freely discuss Jesus.

I am thinking you could do something along those lines.

1) Do you smoke? If they respond hesitantly, this might indicate their confusion as to what you are referring to and be a positive sign

2) What did you think of Prop 19 in California?

I'm sure there are some more...

Light blunt, read face.

[thecilent]

How open can you be about smoking weed in law school?

This brings to mind the origin of the fish symbol and Jesus. I remember hearing about how, in the early days of Christianity before Constantine, if people were talking, one person may casually draw the fish symbol in the dirt or sand. If the other people in the group recognized the symbol, they would all be able to freely discuss Jesus.

I am thinking you could do something along those lines.

1) Do you smoke? If they respond hesitantly, this might indicate their confusion as to what you are referring to and be a positive sign

2) What did you think of Prop 19 in California?

I'm sure there are some more...

Light blunt, read face.

lol

[SwampRat88]

How open can you be about smoking weed in law school?

This brings to mind the origin of the fish symbol and Jesus. I remember hearing about how, in the early days of Christianity before Constantine, if people were talking, one person may casually draw the fish symbol in the dirt or sand. If the other people in the group recognized the symbol, they would all be able to freely discuss Jesus.

I am thinking you could do something along those lines.

1) Do you smoke? If they respond hesitantly, this might indicate their confusion as to what you are referring to and be a positive sign

2) What did you think of Prop 19 in California?

I'm sure there are some more...

Light blunt, read face.

..

[SwampRat88]

..