Oregon legalizes Psilocybin - decrims all drugs

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Expunction (my preferred term) has never really been about guilty or not guilty (there are species of expunction relating to arrest records that are available when there's no guilty finding).

It's about cleansing someone's record of an offense that, for whatever of various reasons, maybe doesn't need to go down on their permanent record./Femmes

Part of the drug legalization justification is that it never should have been illegal in the first place, so, even if a person is technically or every other way guilty of a drug offense, expunction can be justified.

I understand the functionality.  Thank you for the explanation though.

I just fundamentally disagree with writing off convictions  that occurred when they were illegal.

Edited November 5, 2020 by slorch

[TwiceHorn 31280]

5 minutes ago, Hate said:

You and I agree on a lot, but I could not disagree more with this.  Anyone nationwide that is in jail currently simply for possession of narcotics should be released and have their record expunged. 

Just for the record, hardly anyone is in jail or has been jailed in the last 20-30 years for possession of marijuana and most other "narcotics," unless the quantity of that possession raised a presumption of intent to sell.

I am a bit less sanguine about drug dealing than possessory offenses, but the presumption, absent other evidence of "commercial intention," sucks.

[Hook1997 5289]

Im lost on this one how is Oregon that is decriminalizing  meth, coke, heroin and Oxy suppose to help their drug problem like some are saying.  If you aren’t afraid of getting arrested anymore addicts will just care less and be more open about it.

[softlynow 1783]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Just for the record, hardly anyone is in jail or has been jailed in the last 20-30 years for possession of marijuana and most other "narcotics," unless the quantity of that possession raised a presumption of intent to sell.

I am a bit less sanguine about drug dealing than possessory offenses, but the presumption, absent other evidence of "commercial intention," sucks.

Are you talking about federal prison / detention? If not, you’re way off. Of my cases in the last year about 35-45% are for drugs and most of those simple possession. A good portion of those folks received jail/prison only offers, and several could not post tiny bail amounts and waited for plea/dismissal in our jail. COVID brought plea offers down considerably, yet I still have guys/gals pleading to jail time if they don’t want to wait for trial, of which there have been zero since March.

Plenty of folks do 15-45 days for a dime. A shitload do 30-90 days for trace amounts of meth. They come hard for THC wax/oil/edibles (COVID really helped here), and the state often wantS state jail prison time.  Because a lot of my clients are dirt ass poor, not pleading means waiting 7+ months for trial. Some of them stupidly take probation without a shot in hell of completing it and end up doing double the jail time and revocation.

Prisons and jails aren’t bursting at the seams with accused persons stuck with simple possession convictions, but there are still plenty on those rosters. 

[WhatTheBuck 28712]

32 minutes ago, Hook1997 said:

Im lost on this one how is Oregon that is decriminalizing  meth, coke, heroin and Oxy suppose to help their drug problem like some are saying.  If you aren’t afraid of getting arrested anymore addicts will just care less and be more open about it.

So? Evidence from other countries that have decriminalized shows that usage doesn't go up and usage among young people actually goes down. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by being "more open about it." Does it really matter if some junkies are shooting up in the park instead of abandoned houses, especially if we provide needle exchanges to stop the spread of HIV?

I say decriminalize it all and turn the coca growers in South America and the poppy growers in Afghanistan into legitimate businesses. That's how you defeat the cartels. Force them to go corporate. 

[Hook1997 5289]

44 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

So? Evidence from other countries that have decriminalized shows that usage doesn't go up and usage among young people actually goes down. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by being "more open about it." Does it really matter if some junkies are shooting up in the park instead of abandoned houses, especially if we provide needle exchanges to stop the spread of HIV?

I say decriminalize it all and turn the coca growers in South America and the poppy growers in Afghanistan into legitimate businesses. That's how you defeat the cartels. Force them to go corporate. 

You haven’t met American users yet?  Lol. More open will mean they are less afraid so yea more in parks, ect.  We aren’t Portugal, our users are how do I say much more likely to use this to their advantage especially in OR.  Look at SF as an example, they are very lax and now businesses have to clean shit and needles from their sidewalk before opening.  Even as users Americans feel more entitled even high to do what they want especially with no or minimum repercussions. 

Edited November 5, 2020 by Hook1997

[WhatTheBuck 28712]

1 minute ago, Hook1997 said:

You haven’t met American users yet?  Lol. More open will mean they are less afraid so yea more in parks, ect.  We aren’t Portugal, our users are how do I say much more likely to use this to their advantage especially on OR.  Look at SF as an example, they are very lax and now businesses have to clean shit and needles from their sidewalk before opening.

Really? Businesses in San Francisco have to clean shit and needles from their sidewalk before opening? Which businesses? Where? Do you have pics? I'm not aware that San Francisco has decriminalized IV drug use. 

None of my friends in San Francisco are reporting this. 

[TwiceHorn 31280]

1 hour ago, softlynow said:

Are you talking about federal prison / detention? If not, you’re way off. Of my cases in the last year about 35-45% are for drugs and most of those simple possession. A good portion of those folks received jail/prison only offers, and several could not post tiny bail amounts and waited for plea/dismissal in our jail. COVID brought plea offers down considerably, yet I still have guys/gals pleading to jail time if they don’t want to wait for trial, of which there have been zero since March.

Plenty of folks do 15-45 days for a dime. A shitload do 30-90 days for trace amounts of meth. They come hard for THC wax/oil/edibles (COVID really helped here), and the state often wantS state jail prison time.  Because a lot of my clients are dirt ass poor, not pleading means waiting 7+ months for trial. Some of them stupidly take probation without a shot in hell of completing it and end up doing double the jail time and revocation.

Prisons and jails aren’t bursting at the seams with accused persons stuck with simple possession convictions, but there are still plenty on those rosters. 

Yeah, I guess I am thinking really of prisons instead of county/state jails.  Looking at incarceration stats, in which those kind of get brushed off as "an additional X in county jails."

I should have been more precise in my terminology.  I didn't mean to say they don't get chunks of jail time, but they aren't a major contributor to incarceration nation.  

But it's one of those deals where collateral effects can really fuck up their lives.

Is their inability to complete probation mostly due to addiction issues or financial?

Edited November 5, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31280]

10 minutes ago, Hook1997 said:

You haven’t met American users yet?  Lol. More open will mean they are less afraid so yea more in parks, ect.  We aren’t Portugal, our users are how do I say much more likely to use this to their advantage especially in OR.  Look at SF as an example, they are very lax and now businesses have to clean shit and needles from their sidewalk before opening.  Even as users Americans feel more entitled even high to do what they want especially with no or minimum repercussions. 

Well, the fact that drug offenses are laxly enforced or non-existent in relatively small pockets of the US attracts users/homeless to those pockets so you have an undue concentration.

When an entire state legalizes, they can stay wherever they are and likely become less noticeable.  SF is probably a repository for junkies from all up and down the west coast and elsewhere.

[hookemATL 11611]

Is this the thread where we tell our shroom stories?

Edited November 5, 2020 by hookemATL
Asking for myself

[huge 3788]

Is this the thread where we tell our shroom stories?

I once saw the flaming lips in Amsterdam and the rest of my friends bugged out back to the hotel due to one guy falling out on the shrooms

It’s a miracle I survived.

[softlynow 1783]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, I guess I am thinking really of prisons instead of county/state jails.  Looking at incarceration stats, in which those kind of get brushed off as "an additional X in county jails."

I should have been more precise in my terminology.  I didn't mean to say they don't get chunks of jail time, but they aren't a major contributor to incarceration nation.  

But it's one of those deals where collateral effects can really fuck up their lives.

Is their inability to complete probation mostly due to addiction issues or financial?

Addiction, usually, between those two. Top reasons for revocation, IME, are 1. new offense while on prob, 2. Drug testing failure/fails to submit (usually get a rehab option the first time they’re brought back to court) 3. not reporting to prob offices. A lot present with a combo of those three. Financial problems/failure to pay fees, fines, etc. by itself isn’t really a permissible reason to revoke, but obviously show up in the other areas (new theft charges, failing to drug test for lack of phone/transportation, failing to report. 

[Hank_Hill 18491]

My buddy who grows them (a doctor btw) just gave me 8gs of gold caps for my birthday, so this hits close to home.

[ztejas 43266]

4 hours ago, slorch said:

we're just going to disagree, and that's cool.  When I speed, I know I am speeding.  If I'm walking around with illegal drugs, I know it.

What compels me to understand your take?   Not that you owe it to me, but I am interested in the case to be made, beyond, "It's a stupid law."

You might as well tell a black person that they've never faced any actual racism in their life and that they need to get over it. 

[Jhawkmvp 1489]

Decriminalization is the way to go. Most of the cost of drugs comes from their illegality. A person working a low paying job could afford their drug habits, if you legalize it. It would greatly reduce the crime and violence that dug addicts engage in to get cash to pay for their habits or drug dealers do to hold and expand their territories. Plus, the government can tax it. 

10 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Junkies doing drugs in the streets and people doing drugs are two different issues. 

The issue is SF lets bums live on the streets. That is a different problem. They need to find solutions and programs to treat addiction and mental illness, and also stop letting bums live in the streets. 

Lived in SF for a year 20 years ago. I loved it, but the biggest problem there was the homeless, which seems to have gotten worse since I left. Some problems for curing homeless issues there (some may be addressed now or there may be new issues):

1)  Things are so expensive you can't afford housing with a lower paying job unless you get into rent control housing and the vacancy rate was so low that this is hard to do. So a lot of the working poor are homeless due to a lack of affordable housing in the area.

2) The weather there is awesome IMO and a lot of the homeless from the rest of the Bay area, like Oakland and San Jose, move to SF. I remember one day I was like something is wrong. Then I realized I was sweating from the heat. One day all summer. Makes it hard to keep enough homeless housing when more homeless people are constantly moving there from other parts of the Bay area due to the milder weather, especially in the summer.

3) SF also has some huge ass parks that they can sleep and stay in. I lived by the beach in the Richmond district. There are some huge parks to the north and south of where I lived, the Presidio, Lincoln, and the Golden Gate Parks. The homeless would sleep there at night and go downtown during the day to beg.

4) SF makes it pretty easy to be homeless. Porta-potties on the corners in areas with a lot of homeless. You want these because you learn pretty quickly never to walk in an area out of line of sight from the street as those places are just urinals/shitters for the homeless. Allowing them to sleep on the sidewalks all over.  Parks that they lived in without being hassled.  They had homeless housing, but it was never enough. SF tries to help, but the numbers are just overwhelming. So services for them are never enough.

5) Like all homeless they are a lot of addiction and mental health issues. It is hard to treat them all and I doubt the have the money to do it. Throw in many would refuse the help. I used to take the bus in from where I lived, since it was the first stop, and I was too cheap to pay $25 a day to park my car downtown.  I always shared it with the Golden Gate park homeless going downtown to beg during the day. I felt like I was in this Dave Chappelle skit sometimes:

 

[We’reTexas 1468]

11 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Junkies doing drugs in the streets and people doing drugs are two different issues. 

The issue is SF lets bums live on the streets. That is a different problem. They need to find solutions and programs to treat addiction and mental illness, and also stop letting bums live in the streets. 

Yes, this is is right, but it’s complicated. SF and LA are nice places to be homeless because the weather is great. People hear that treatment centers are plentiful, which also makes it a destination for people with addictions. And finally, a la South Park, they do get bussed in from other cities. The lack of criminal prosecution certainly has an impact of the open air drug use here; I feel like every time a reporter asks a junkie why they aren’t shooting up in Oakland or San Mateo county, they respond, “Because I’d get arrested!”. But it’s certainly not clear that criminal prosecution would help the situation. If you’re curious about the situation, Google “Chesa Boudin”. 
 

Oregon, on the other hand, is very different. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

You might as well tell a black person that they've never faced any actual racism in their life and that they need to get over it. 

Not even remotely similar.  Possession of drugs is a personal choice. 

Look, I'm firmly pro-legalization.  Not buying the expungement piece.  It wouldn't necessarily prevent me from voting yes on a bill.  IMHO, they are completely different issues.

[Hook1997 5289]

5 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Really? Businesses in San Francisco have to clean shit and needles from their sidewalk before opening? Which businesses? Where? Do you have pics? I'm not aware that San Francisco has decriminalized IV drug use. 

None of my friends in San Francisco are reporting this. 

SF spends 54 million a year just on street cleaning a year due to it and has a human poop patrol that just cleans up human shit.  For real.  Portland will soon follow.  The law decriminalizing theft hasn’t helped the city either.  Your friends are rich and don’t go downtown often evidently and aren’t going to brag about how the city they live in has become a cesspool.

 

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the fact that drug offenses are laxly enforced or non-existent in relatively small pockets of the US attracts users/homeless to those pockets so you have an undue concentration.

When an entire state legalizes, they can stay wherever they are and likely become less noticeable.  SF is probably a repository for junkies from all up and down the west coast and elsewhere.

Ok tell me how Portland is doing in a year... (hasn’t been doing great already)  Junkies aren’t going to be hanging out in the woods and small towns of Oregon for the most part they will be in the cities.

Edited November 5, 2020 by Hook1997

[SpiralOut 1809]

Just want to congratulate drugs on winning the drug war.  Great job, guys.  Knew you could do it.  Wish you had fought harder here in Texas, though.

[RPM 26228]

16 hours ago, ztejas said:

Mmmm. No. I'm talking about on the books prosecution. You have to have like a QP on you to get arrested in most Urban counties. DAs aren't wasting time on small time pot charges when there's a good chance they will all get tossed in a few years.

(That doesn't mean go fuck around in Wilco or Collin county)

Wise County says

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 hours ago, SpiralOut said:

Just want to congratulate drugs on winning the drug war.  Great job, guys.  Knew you could do it.  Wish you had fought harder here in Texas, though.

They probably teamed up with steroids to push them over the top...

[workswithseed 2036]

3 hours ago, SpiralOut said:

Just want to congratulate drugs on winning the drug war.  Great job, guys.  Knew you could do it.  Wish you had fought harder here in Texas, though.

Are you drugs?

[TwiceHorn 31280]

5 hours ago, slorch said:

Not even remotely similar.  Possession of drugs is a personal choice. 

Look, I'm firmly pro-legalization.  Not buying the expungement piece.  It wouldn't necessarily prevent me from voting yes on a bill.  IMHO, they are completely different issues.

Well, it is clear legally that you cannot make the status of drug addiction, or alcoholism, a crime.

And what is it that addicts do?  Drugs and alcohol.  And a necessary component of that is to possess drugs and alcohol.

So it's a bit of a catch-22.

You can kind of extend that reasoning to small-time drug dealing.  And, as a practical matter, we imprison a lot of people who are somewhere between mere possessors and actual dealers.  A whole lot of dumb addicts are serving lengthy sentences for "drug-dealing-adjacent" crimes.

 

I will agree that the fundamental problem is making bad choices.  Everyone does so at one level or another.  Many people "recover" from their bad choices.  But a lot of people that get entangled with the criminal justice system because of drugs, addiction, and the attendant bad choices have a very difficult time ever escaping because of collateral consequences (and other things).  The expunction thing I think is designed to give people an opportunity to escape the clutches of the drug world, addiction, and the criminal justice system.

[Neonmoon 38127]

17 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Are you drugs?

[Hate 20103]

Not even remotely similar.  Possession of drugs is a personal choice. 
Look, I'm firmly pro-legalization.  Not buying the expungement piece.  It wouldn't necessarily prevent me from voting yes on a bill.  IMHO, they are completely different issues.

The fact of the matter is that a speeding ticket wouldn’t show up on a background check when applying for a job, but an arrest for drug possession would. And I know for a fact that possession arrests are not applied equally among races. I’ve witnessed it first hand. I’ve been caught with weed several times by cops and I’ve never been arrested. One time I was with a black friend of mine when we got busted with weed and the cops still let us go. He was stunned that we walked and said the only reason he didn’t go to jail was because he was with me....and I firmly believe that. I am 100% behind expungement for minor drug possession charges as long as there are no other charges related to the arrest (assault, burglary, or any other violent offenses).

[BearSchlong 8077]

Not even remotely similar.  Possession of drugs is a personal choice. 
Look, I'm firmly pro-legalization.  Not buying the expungement piece.  It wouldn't necessarily prevent me from voting yes on a bill.  IMHO, they are completely different issues.

What Twice Horn said.

My sis is in the US Attorneys office in Portland and her job isn't changing at all, they are still prosecuting traffikers and manufacturers.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, BearSchlong said:

 

What Twice Horn said.

My sis is in the US Attorneys office in Portland and her job isn't changing at all, they are still prosecuting traffikers and manufacturers.

 

 

Maybe I wasn’t clear, but I was speaking to convictions that are already in place with regard to expungement. Obviously with legalization, that would not be a concern going forward.  Yes Other criminal activity would still be prosecuted.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

[ztejas 43266]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, it is clear legally that you cannot make the status of drug addiction, or alcoholism, a crime.

Being high isn't even a crime. 

11 hours ago, slorch said:

Not even remotely similar.

Your attitude in both scenarios is exactly the same. "It doesn't affect me so why should it affect someone else?". If you're having trouble understanding why then it kind of reinforces my point. 

15 hours ago, Hook1997 said:

Im lost on this one how is Oregon that is decriminalizing  meth, coke, heroin and Oxy suppose to help their drug problem like some are saying.  If you aren’t afraid of getting arrested anymore addicts will just care less and be more open about it.

It's not supposed to "help" the problem - although as others have pointed out it may actually end up doing so. The point is that it is not just to ruin someone's life ONLY over their decision to use an illegal substance - (obviously if they are DUI or abusing spouses/children or toting guns and gang banging then it's different - but those are separate issues).

You seem to think that addicts care about whether their DoC is illegal or not - which couldn't be further from the truth. When you are high on cocaine, meth, heroin, xanax etc. you do not give a flying fuck about whether or not what you are doing is illegal - and especially not if you become physically, emotionally, mentally dependent on that drug to where you are unable to function without it. You might get paranoid about it but no addict is saying to their using buddy, "No way I'm doing that line, bro, that shit is illegal!". The people that say things like that would not use the drug in question regardless of it's legality. 

--

Point on the larger issue as a whole - the only one I am iffy on decrimming is heroin - because it is SO fucking easy to kill yourself or someone else with even a 10th or teenth of whatever decrim "limit" they set in the age of fentanyl. It is also very difficult to distinguish a personal possession amount from an intent to distribute amount. E.g. - an eighth of heroin could very well be either a personal amount or an intent to distribute amount depending on the user (and depending on the potency). An eighth of cocaine could be a personal amount or an amount to share with friends, but you aren't making any money selling an eighth or quarter ounce of cocaine. And no one is ODing on it outside of pretty freak occurrences. Same with meth. 

Edited November 5, 2020 by ztejas

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

Being high isn't even a crime. 

Your attitude in both scenarios is exactly the same. "It doesn't affect me so why should it affect someone else?". If you're having trouble understanding why then it kind of reinforces my point. 

My attitude towards egregious human rights violations, about which the slaves had zero input; and towards people who deliberately possessed drugs, while knowing it was illegal is the same?

Yep.  Sure.  Very reasonable POV...

 

You're looking for someone to endorse the drug culture.  That ain't gonna happen, Sporto.  I'm just of the position that it's a waste of resources chasing that shit when there are far bigger issues.  Legalizing it now shouldn't exempt the individual from their actions while the substance was illegal, not to mention the fact you know they didn't get a rap sheet for having a couple of joints that one time.  There's any number of folks on this board who can attest to it.

Edited November 5, 2020 by slorch

[ztejas 43266]

18 minutes ago, slorch said:

My attitude towards egregious human rights violations, about which the slaves had zero input; and towards people who deliberately possessed drugs, while knowing it was illegal is the same?

Yep.  Sure.  Very reasonable POV...

 

You're looking for someone to endorse the drug culture.  That ain't gonna happen, Sporto.  I'm just of the position that it's a waste of resources chasing that shit when there are far bigger issues.  Legalizing it now shouldn't exempt the individual from their actions while the substance was illegal, not to mention the fact you know they didn't get a rap sheet for having a couple of joints that one time.  There's any number of folks on this board who can attest to it.

You are so hilariously out of your element. Find another thread, sporto. 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20344]

10 hours ago, Hook1997 said:

SF spends 54 million a year just on street cleaning a year due to it and has a human poop patrol that just cleans up human shit.  For real.  Portland will soon follow.  The law decriminalizing theft hasn’t helped the city either.  Your friends are rich and don’t go downtown often evidently and aren’t going to brag about how the city they live in has become a cesspool.

 

It's amazing how economic policies that have long continued the long-term problem of fewer and fewer people having an ever-greater share of the pie is turning out to mean those made homeless by that trend still have a biological need to poop. 

[52-80 19096]

14 hours ago, Jhawkmvp said:

2) The weather there is awesome IMO and a lot of the homeless from the rest of the Bay area, like Oakland and San Jose, move to SF...Makes it hard to keep enough homeless housing when more homeless people are constantly moving there from other parts of the Bay area due to the milder weather, especially in the summer.

Wait, what?  This is like saying people are moving from Round Rock to Houston due to the climate.  Oakland is across the bridge and SJ is 45 minutes away

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 hours ago, ztejas said:

Being high isn't even a crime. 

Your attitude in both scenarios is exactly the same. "It doesn't affect me so why should it affect someone else?". If you're having trouble understanding why then it kind of reinforces my point. 

It's not supposed to "help" the problem - although as others have pointed out it may actually end up doing so. The point is that it is not just to ruin someone's life ONLY over their decision to use an illegal substance - (obviously if they are DUI or abusing spouses/children or toting guns and gang banging then it's different - but those are separate issues).

You seem to think that addicts care about whether their DoC is illegal or not - which couldn't be further from the truth. When you are high on cocaine, meth, heroin, xanax etc. you do not give a flying fuck about whether or not what you are doing is illegal - and especially not if you become physically, emotionally, mentally dependent on that drug to where you are unable to function without it. You might get paranoid about it but no addict is saying to their using buddy, "No way I'm doing that line, bro, that shit is illegal!". The people that say things like that would not use the drug in question regardless of it's legality. 

--

Point on the larger issue as a whole - the only one I am iffy on decrimming is heroin - because it is SO fucking easy to kill yourself or someone else with even a 10th or teenth of whatever decrim "limit" they set in the age of fentanyl. It is also very difficult to distinguish a personal possession amount from an intent to distribute amount. E.g. - an eighth of heroin could very well be either a personal amount or an intent to distribute amount depending on the user (and depending on the potency). An eighth of cocaine could be a personal amount or an amount to share with friends, but you aren't making any money selling an eighth or quarter ounce of cocaine. And no one is ODing on it outside of pretty freak occurrences. Same with meth. 

There's more to it than personal decisions here I believe. Addictions are not crimes of course, but decisions to use and drive are.

[ztejas 43266]

5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

There's more to it than personal decisions here I believe. Addictions are not crimes of course, but decisions to use and drive are.

Which is why I said "obviously if they are DUI then it's different"

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, ztejas said:

Which is why I said "obviously if they are DUI then it's different"

Gotcha.. too many words to read sitting on the deck, smoking a cigar, watching the surf, and sipping a cocktail while the dead play in the back round.. damn what I wouldn't give for some shrooms right now. I promise I won't drive anywhere !!

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

21 hours ago, slorch said:

why expungement?  It was wrong when it happened, right?

Never have been willing to give folks a pass, as if having pot on you was just inevitable.  Nah, dawg.  It's deliberate.

When the law changes, then roll with it.

To me if we're legalizing something that used to be illegal, it means we're admitting that we made a mistake making it illegal to begin with.  How would you like to be serving time for something that wasn't illegal?  Or how would you like not being able to get the job you want because of your record because you did something 20 years ago that we're now admitting shouldn't have been a crime in the first place?  But of course, we have to agree on the premise that it was a mistake it was ever illegal before the rest of that follows.  If you don't agree with that part then agree to disagree is the way to go.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

you're arguing with a toddler

[Hate 20103]

Gotcha.. too many words to read sitting on the deck, smoking a cigar, watching the surf, and sipping a cocktail while the dead play in the back round.. damn what I wouldn't give for some shrooms right now. I promise I won't drive anywhere !!

You should visit the Grateful Dead thread more often. I’ll be there tonight!

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, Hate said:

You should visit the Grateful Dead thread more often. I’ll be there tonight!

Yeah, I don't hit it nearly as much as I want to.  Been listening to the Dead for most of the last week as background music to the background sounds of the surf breaking on the beach.

[Hate 20103]

The thread has some great recommendations for shows whether you are tripping or not

[CHIEF 5072]

I'm all for legalization, but for tightening PI laws. Smoke out, snort it, shoot it, whatever you want. But if you start tripping out, in public, bring the hammer. Do it in the confines of your own home, or at a small party (like me), but don't be doing that shit out in public, kids don't need to see some heroin addict laying in a park with his pants around his ankles.

I've always been pro-drug testing for welfare checks (not unemployment benefits). If you can't or won't find something to do, you don't need to be spending money on drugs, or you have such a bad addiction that you need help. What little money you have coming in, needs to be to provide for your family. Get yourself cleaned up and find something to do, even if it is volunteer work 20 hours a week. Having some meaning in your life, some self esteem goes a long way to keep from falling back into the same trap. Drugs are meant to be recreational when you have the cash for it not to be a financial burden.

CHIEF