[Fasterthanyou]

Originally Posted by Trans Am Chick

hes not looking to have it legalized. theres a difference in decriminalization. nd legalization. hes saying that we shudnt have our tax money pay room and board for ppl caught with marijuana. that instead they shud have fines community service etc... i kinda agree with him actually having them be similar to dui charges... hes still trying to say its rong to do it. hes looking to reevaluate the consequences... thats all. we shud make the ppl pay for wat theyve done. yes. but in other ways that may be more effective to rehabilitation and less on the average citizen who doesnt do sumthing like that...

i think im talking in circles... lemmie kno if u do or dont understand wat im trying to say..

I THINK you're trying to say we need to through users and abusers in the slammer... but I'm not sure. j/k
I know what you mean but without severe consiquences the law becomes "soft" resulting in more pot heads driving and causing bodily harm in public than before. I'm all for the decrease in juditial court hearings but there is the arguement that maybe we just need to crack down harder to keep them from getting to the court level.
I'd like to see abusers have to report to insurance agencies after being caught. This would mean having to go on their criminal record JUST like DUI. This is my only beef. Because I don't drive drunk and I don't smoke pot but I don't want normal "smart" people doing weed bringing my insurance rate up. See my drift? This is where I'm leaning towards the criminalization of it... keep it contained. I also understand that the $$$$$ in taxes spent on these cases are coming out of my pocket. That's where you need to do some SERIOUS number crunching and compare all the pros and cons in a weighted list.
Also, since you need to make a persuasive speech, you can uses the whole "weighted" thing to your advantage. This way if you're math concludes one thing you can say that it might conclude the opposite depending on your beliefs. Good luck with the speech. I had to do one about animal testing years ago, I was for it but gave both sides of the story to let somebody choose. This is where the media sucks, they think they're right and everybody else is wrong instead of understanding that they're both wrong, or both right!