All things in moderation...there are plenty of people who lead normal, productive lives and smoke pot daily...just like there are people who lead normal, productive lives and drink alcohol on a daily basis. While I'm sure the situation with your brother is unfortunate, that is poor willpower on his part, not weed. That may sound harsh, but it's true...I'm reminded of "Half Baked" when Dave Chappelle's character goes to NA and says he's addicted to weed then Kevin Nealon says "I've sucked dick for crack! Have you ever sucked dick for weed?!" People may sit around and smoke weed all day, but it's not something that is physically addictive...mentally? Yes. Physically? No. Nicotine and alcohol are both physically addictive, nicotine moreso than heroin.I'm not sure what your point is. If you had a line up with myself and my two brothers and were asked to pick out the person who smokes pot, I'm fairly confident that you'd be able to do it. I would probably have less of an issue with it if it was just addictive.It's kind of like the dirty little secret that thousands of people use heroin, coke, and meth, and they excel at their day jobs. Most dealers i have known consider what most folks would consider good workers their best customers as opposed to the strung out addict. Even addicts can be high functioning. I wonder if people might see this issue differently if they knew what everyone they worked with did in their off time.
Regardless the question remains, "Do we own our selves, or don't we?"
Well now with the new laws passing, no, you don't own yourself anymore. Now that I have to pay for all your butts, no more cigs, no more pot, no more meth, no fatty burgers, no beers, no nothing enjoyable.
Hey Moff, I'm going to guess that you have already decided that weed should be illegal and that you are now going about furnishing arguments to support you views. Has it ever occurred to you that this is not a good way of coming to a decision about important social matters?
I'm stunned.
You allow I'm sure, the ongoing existence of McDonald's food in your country, despite clear evidence that abuse of their food is part of a health epidemic that is bending over your country's health care system and is CERTAINLY a far greater cause of heart attack than smoking a doob. While_at_the_same_time you support legislation that (as Derek has cogently pointed out) is trumped up and has created criminal organizations of global scale and resources.
Dude, they want to smoke flowers. Controlled substance, sure, but f*~~ing up people after a little mellow with criminal records and jail time...? What gives?
At the risk of speaking for Moff, I gather that he can see the intellectual arguments in favor of legalization, but he hesitates to accept them based on painful personal experience. He is not a radical like me, so the social impact argument has more merit with him.
If I'm speaking out of turn, by all means correct me as this is mere speculation on my part.
To take this further, do we want laws about alcohol intoxication made by people who diddly squat about boozing?And, I'm sorry but this is a bad allusion. Maybe we should have the people committing the crimes define what a crime is?
Can you not see the problem with your statement? Do you honestly think it's fair to take my remark completely out of its context (inoxication) and jab at it?
Criminalization of marijuana was done without ANY regard for the effects of the drug. That is my point. Had the people who made the laws done objective studies of it, had they actually smoked it, THEN I think they would be qualified to judge it.
Regulation of alcohol is done with a proper understanding of the effects of alcohol. It is not done in complete ignorance, as you are doing when you comment on being "high".
Well now with the new laws passing, no, you don't own yourself anymore. Now that I have to pay for all your butts, no more cigs, no more pot, no more meth, no fatty burgers, no beers, no nothing enjoyable.All things in moderation...there are plenty of people who lead normal, productive lives and smoke pot daily...just like there are people who lead normal, productive lives and drink alcohol on a daily basis. While I'm sure the situation with your brother is unfortunate, that is poor willpower on his part, not weed. That may sound harsh, but it's true...I'm reminded of "Half Baked" when Dave Chappelle's character goes to NA and says he's addicted to weed then Kevin Nealon says "I've sucked dick for crack! Have you ever sucked dick for weed?!" People may sit around and smoke weed all day, but it's not something that is physically addictive...mentally? Yes. Physically? No. Nicotine and alcohol are both physically addictive, nicotine moreso than heroin.I'm not sure what your point is. If you had a line up with myself and my two brothers and were asked to pick out the person who smokes pot, I'm fairly confident that you'd be able to do it. I would probably have less of an issue with it if it was just addictive.It's kind of like the dirty little secret that thousands of people use heroin, coke, and meth, and they excel at their day jobs. Most dealers i have known consider what most folks would consider good workers their best customers as opposed to the strung out addict. Even addicts can be high functioning. I wonder if people might see this issue differently if they knew what everyone they worked with did in their off time.
Regardless the question remains, "Do we own our selves, or don't we?"
LOL!
You make a good point, and this is the core of the argument against socialized medicine for me. If you have to pay for my health care then you have a vested interest in what I do with my body. I think this is extremely bad. If everyone owns health care then I don't seem to own myself anymore.
|
Moff, my only problem with this is you're quoting a source who's funding comes from a body that has a heavy interest in keeping drugs illegal. Prisons and enforcement are a multi-BILLION dollar industry (why do you you think the Home of the "Free" has the largest prison population, per capita, of pretty much anywhere?
Actually, I was surprised on how little I found even there against it. Hence the real reason I posted it -- I felt that it was then fairly balanced. I was looking for long term effects on the brain and there was rather little. I was looking for things about the addictive nature and found rather little or that the addictive nature is rather mild. My ONLY point was in direct response to other things being more harmful, which I'm not convinced of. (And I tried to find out if only one glass of wine a day damages the brain and I was unsuccessful.)
|
Well now with the new laws passing, no, you don't own yourself anymore. Now that I have to pay for all your butts, no more cigs, no more pot, no more meth, no fatty burgers, no beers, no nothing enjoyable.
And this is the slippery slope. Basically, nothing comes without strings. And I have to agree with pres man's sentiment here: you want me to pay for your health care, you have to allow me to dictate how you live.
You know, to cut costs.
Freedom is only freedom if it is only proscribed for someone violating the maxim about their fist and my nose. Or their hand and my wallet. Or vice versa.
You want to eat at McDonalds every day while smoking Camel straights laced with crack and having unprotected sex with meth shooting hookers? No health care for you.
But, seriously, either we're free or we're not. Either I can do something that you find distasteful, but that really doesn't impact you (unless you have an emotional investment, like the case of Moff and his brother) or I am not free. Period. The problem is, as government gets more and more into areas that are none of their real concern, what people do to themselves really does impact others, in a very real sense. If you damage your body, taxpayers have to pay to fix it. And, I think if tax payers have to fit the bill, they should be able to outlaw McDonalds.
:)
Hey Moff... What gives?
At the risk of speaking for Moff, I gather that he can see the intellectual arguments in favor of legalization, but he hesitates to accept them based on painful personal experience. He is not a radical like me, so the social impact argument has more merit with him.
If I'm speaking out of turn, by all means correct me as this is mere speculation on my part.
Fair enough, then maybe Moff can explain to me why the drunk who killed my childhood girlfriend is still drinking away to his heart's content today. Because part of me really wants answers on this.
Moff says his brother smokes. So does mine. My brother is also a Doctor of veterinary medicine, did crucial research on diabetes while working for the NIH, now owns a business, often performs surgery on tiny animals that few others in the country can, publishes research papers, and clears a tidy sum of money.
We both think it's funny that I'm the creative professional but I don't smoke dope (well, VERY infrequently anyway).
|
|
Can you not see the problem with your statement? Do you honestly think it's fair to take my remark completely out of its context (inoxication) and jab at it?To take this further, do we want laws about alcohol intoxication made by people who diddly squat about boozing?And, I'm sorry but this is a bad allusion. Maybe we should have the people committing the crimes define what a crime is?
Ok, my apologies. It looked to me like you were saying that people who get drunk all the time know the effects of alcohol more than anyone else and should therefore make the laws about alcohol. And there seems to me to be some logic flaws with that thought.
|
|
Moff, my only problem with this is you're quoting a source who's funding comes from a body that has a heavy interest in keeping drugs illegal. Prisons and enforcement are a multi-BILLION dollar industry (why do you you think the Home of the "Free" has the largest prison population, per capita, of pretty much anywhere?Actually, I was surprised on how little I found even there against it. Hence the real reason I posted it -- I felt that it was then fairly balanced. I was looking for long term effects on the brain and there was rather little. I was looking for things about the addictive nature and found rather little or that the addictive nature is rather mild. My ONLY point was in direct response to other things being more harmful, which I'm not convinced of. (And I tried to find out if only one glass of wine a day damages the brain and I was unsuccessful.)
If you dig deeper into all of the research, though, there is no proven "cause and effect" between marijuana and, say, lung cancer. Smoking a joint, even if it IS "x times more filled with nasty than cigarettes (which I kinda doubt anyway, considering how doctored cigarettes are with garbage) isn't nearly as impactful, as most people aren't smoking 20+ joints a day, and most people who somke cigs are. Hell, walking past a running city bus exposes people to more carcinogens than one cigarette, but they haven't found a link between urban pedestrianism and lung cancer.
*shrug*
...Hell, walking past a running city bus exposes people to more carcinogens than one cigarette, but they haven't found a link between urban pedestrianism and lung cancer.
*shrug*
It may not be lung cancer, but I'm pretty sure the rates of respiratory disorders in Beijing would suffice. And then there are the asthma rates in cities vs country....
To take this further, do we want laws about alcohol intoxication made by people who diddly squat about boozing?And, I'm sorry but this is a bad allusion. Maybe we should have the people committing the crimes define what a crime is?
Respectfully, I think the people passing laws on other people should have the slightest idea of what they are talking about. I think a minimum of content expertise should be required. I think they should have to read the freaking bill.
I'm not trying to be flippant, but some legislators are deeply concerned and well educated about some issues. OTOH most legislators are so blindingly ignorant of the topics of their bills that it makes me want to projectile vomit. I have watched hundreds of hours of Cspan committee debates and house and senate debates, and the vast majority of these idiots are stuffed shirts trolling for sound bites for their campaigns. Their utter ignorance and lack of basic reasoning skills in spite of their tax payer funded research teams and staffs is a national embarrassment.
I don't mean to seem harsh, but a law maker bringing the full force of law down on other people should be able to make an informed decision at the bare minimum.
EDIT: I missed the reply above and did not mean to pile on or misrepresent.
|
|
It may not be lung cancer, but I'm pretty sure the rates of respiratory disorders in Beijing would suffice. And then there are the asthma rates in cities vs country.......Hell, walking past a running city bus exposes people to more carcinogens than one cigarette, but they haven't found a link between urban pedestrianism and lung cancer.
*shrug*
Well, I guess we should outlaw cities and Beijing then!
:)
Well now with the new laws passing, no, you don't own yourself anymore. Now that I have to pay for all your butts, no more cigs, no more pot, no more meth, no fatty burgers, no beers, no nothing enjoyable.And this is the slippery slope. Basically, nothing comes without strings. And I have to agree with pres man's sentiment here: you want me to pay for your health care, you have to allow me to dictate how you live.
You know, to cut costs.
Freedom is only freedom if it is only proscribed for someone violating the maxim about their fist and my nose. Or their hand and my wallet. Or vice versa.
You want to eat at McDonalds every day while smoking Camel straights laced with crack and having unprotected sex with meth shooting hookers? No health care for you.
But, seriously, either we're free or we're not. Either I can do something that you find distasteful, but that really doesn't impact you (unless you have an emotional investment, like the case of Moff and his brother) or I am not free. Period. The problem is, as government gets more and more into areas that are none of their real concern, what people do to themselves really does impact others, in a very real sense. If you damage your body, taxpayers have to pay to fix it. And, I think if tax payers have to fit the bill, they should be able to outlaw McDonalds.
:)
Honestly, I don't mind my social health care paying for the dumbasses who ruin themselves, although I think the sins do need to be taxed. The MacDonalds tax is the one I'm waiting for.
See, in Canada they may be able to get obese and get free treatment for their diabetes, but I have my health, and they don't.
And to Moff, and anyone else here, sorry if my agitation resembles hostility.
I'm just feeling that "up to bat" charge one gets from the boards every now and then, you know?
Peace.
KA
.... It looked to me like you were saying that people who get drunk all the time know the effects of alcohol more than anyone else and should therefore make the laws about alcohol. And there seems to me to be some logic flaws with that thought.
We be cool. So would you hazard the guess, as I have, that most of the people who have authored our alcohol regulations have been really ripped at least once?
|
|
Your having established the import you put on judging people by appearance, I'm going to guess that you have already decided that weed should be illegal and that you are now going about furnishing arguments to support you views.
You don't get me at all. Wrong, bad, and illegal are three very different ideas and thoughts. As long as it isn't pushed on my underage child, I don't really care. I don't see cigarette smoking a benefit in the least. I'm not picketing trying to ban that.
I don't care. In the end (I hope) that whatever decision is reached, it won't affect me in the least. I'm not trying to ban it. Why does everyone here seem to think I'm trying to ban it? I'm just trying to get people who are for it to come up with good arguments. Which many are not doing.
Because people seem to be missing it, let me say it again. I don't care if it is legalized or not. (As long as it doesn't hurt me or my family.) All I'm saying is that if you feel that it should be legal, come up with a reason that doesn't sound like a 12-year-old wining.
|
California to vote on legalization of marijuanaNow the questions
1) are you for or against this passing
Go for it.
2) why
Same reasons that alcohol and smoking are legal.
3) if it passes would you like to see other states adopt this measure.
That's their business.
|
|
.... It looked to me like you were saying that people who get drunk all the time know the effects of alcohol more than anyone else and should therefore make the laws about alcohol. And there seems to me to be some logic flaws with that thought.We be cool. So would you hazard the guess, as I have, that most of the people who have authored our alcohol regulations have been really ripped at least once?
I have a feeling that, after taking a look at the health care proposal, that some (many?) were ... shall we say ... "under the influence" when they wrote it. How else could they make something that really should be fairly simple and make it so complicated that no one knows what it says? ;-)
When I was teaching middle school, a couple of the kids asked me if I ever smoked pot. No matter what, I couldn't convince them that I hadn't. I don't know what the stats are, but I'd be surprised if the majority of the population of the US didn't do it at least once.
Moff, my only problem with this is you're quoting a source who's funding comes from a body that has a heavy interest in keeping drugs illegal. Prisons and enforcement are a multi-BILLION dollar industry (why do you you think the Home of the "Free" has the largest prison population, per capita, of pretty much anywhere?Actually, I was surprised on how little I found even there against it. Hence the real reason I posted it -- I felt that it was then fairly balanced. I was looking for long term effects on the brain and there was rather little. I was looking for things about the addictive nature and found rather little or that the addictive nature is rather mild. My ONLY point was in direct response to other things being more harmful, which I'm not convinced of. (And I tried to find out if only one glass of wine a day damages the brain and I was unsuccessful.)
Toxicity is a function of dosage. In all likelihood there is some minute damage, but it's not likely to be quantifiable.
|
First, marijuana is less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol, both of which are legal substances.Just curious here -- How do you define "dangerous"?
First and foremost, the amount required to overdose. LD50 (median lethal dose) for alcohol is estimated around 7000mg/kg ... so a person weighing 100kg (220 lbs) would be looking at 700g of alcohol, or about 1400g of 100 proof liquor (we're looking at about 32 shots there). For nicotine, it is about 50mg/kg, or 5g for the same person. The typical cigarette has between 0.5mg and 1.5mg of nicotine depending on brand and type of cigarette ... this translates to about 1000 (for the low end) to about 385 (for the the high end) cigarettes to hit the LD50 mark.
For THC? The LD50 (which is controversial at best) is around 1000mg/kg on average (sources vary and values fluctuate between genders, etc). The average THC content for marijuana ranges from about 5% (as reported for average THC content for seized marijuana) to 9.5%. But perhaps the best measure for this comparison is to use the THC content of US (Government) grown marijuana in its pre-rolled form.
The highest potency listed (with highest range modifiers) puts the content at around 6.6mg per joint. This translates to about 15152 joints in order for the same individual to hit that LD50 mark.
Now, to be clear, the LD50 measurement is not “this is how much will kill someone”. It is the median, which means some folks will OD at lower levels, others at higher. It also is the amount consumed within a short period of time (an hour if I recall correctly). I can see 32 shots in that time frame ... I can see smoking a good portion of the lower end for the cigs in the time frame ... I cannot see coming anywhere CLOSE to 15000 joints in that time frame.
As for tobacco, this was taken off of the NIDA website.Effects on the Heart
And for cigarettes, the nicotine causes increased heart rate, short term increased blood pressure(followed by blood pressure drop) and constricts blood vessels. The heart rate increase from the JoP article has it in the 20-30% range albeit with a shorter duration. Sources:
AHAJournal of Pharmacology
Effects on the Lungs
Both tobacco and smoking marijuana will put all sorts of crap into your lungs, and that is not in debate. However, there are alternate means to use of marijuana that either negate this aspect (cooking with pot), or reduce the content (water filtration).
So I'm not sure how this is less dangerous -- unless we are talking about dangerous to others. In which case I guess that "neglect" is less dangerous than "abuse".
The fact it is comparably easier to OD on wither legal drug should be validation enough as to how it is indeed less dangerous to the user. Couple this with the fact there are several thousand alcohol poisoning deaths each year but no marijuana overdose deaths, and yeah, I would call it less dangerous.
...You don't get me at all. Wrong, bad, and illegal are three very different ideas and thoughts. As long as it isn't pushed on my underage child, I don't really care. I don't see cigarette smoking a benefit in the least. I'm not picketing trying to ban that.
I don't care. In the end (I hope) that whatever decision is reached, it won't affect me in the least. I'm not trying to ban it. Why does everyone here seem to think I'm trying to ban it? I'm just trying to get people who are for it to come up with good arguments. Which many are not doing.
Because people seem to be missing it, let me say it again. I don't care if it is legalized or not. (As long as it doesn't hurt me or my family.) All I'm saying is that if you feel that it should be legal, come up with a reason that doesn't sound like a 12-year-old wining.
{Edit: i don't hear any 12 year olds whining in here. My bold above. Insulting? Come on, Moff.}
That's great, but it makes me wonder why you've posted what you've posted.
Me? I'm all for keeping kids off pot, too, but criminalizing it has_not had this effect. In fact it makes it more likely for kids to become the dealers themselves because of the drug being dispensed through an immoral and secretive black market, and the consequent existence of opportunity for youngsters to become dealers. Consider for a while how many teenagers drop out of school to deal cigarettes and vodka on the street-corner.
And regarding its legality/illegality, my understanding is that the onus is on legislators to demonstrate by reasonable argument that it should be a crime, as it is with everything else that is criminalized--not_the_other_way_around--and that has never been done. Otherwise, everything would start off illegal and people would have to argue that it shouldn't be.
Frankly, having given great time to soberly thinking about the matter, in fact I've written what seems to be endless articles on it... I personally find it easier to demonstrate that tobacco and alcohol should be criminalized.
As the real reasons for marijuana's legal status have already been posted, I'll just nod at that and sign off now.
Now, to be clear, the LD50 measurement is not “this is how much will kill someone”. It is the median, which means some folks will OD at lower levels, others at higher. It also is the amount consumed within a short period of time (an hour if I recall correctly). I can see 32 shots in that time frame ... I can see smoking a good portion of the lower end for the cigs in the time frame ... I cannot see coming anywhere CLOSE to 15000 joints in that time frame.
What if the marijuana truck hits me?
Here's a reason:
'nuff said.
Pres Man Wrote "From your first part, it appears as if you agree with my part (b) of my edit, that you don't believe any drug is a "gateway drug".
Though your edit is worded in such a way that it makes me think you do believe that a drug could be a "gateway drug", but mary jane is not one of them.
In order for something to be a "gateway drug" would it have to lead to another drug 100% of the time?"
From my understanding the term "gateway drug" was introduced by spin-doctors to aid the instillation of fear into the general populace who have had no first hand experiance with any illeagal drug. Fear of the unknown is the best tool the government has to control populations. I don't believe that there is anything like a gateway drug, the closest is tobacco.
To say that smoking pot will/may lead to that user taking stronger drugs is a myth. To say having a glass of wine a couple times a week will make you an alcoholic is rubbish. As is saying if you start gambling on slot machines by sticking a couple of quid in once a week down the pub you're going to develop a dangerous gambling habit. Addiction is more complicated than this.
Various governments have done a good job at demonizing cannabis users to the point that if you mention that you smoke a joint or have smoked you are tarred with the lazy, unproductive pot head tag. You do nothing but smoking weed, listening to the Grateful Dead and scoffing thanks to the munchies. This is simply not true and frankly insulting.
Remember the 80s backlash against D&D how we are all devil worshippers who cast spells and will kill your children? Any of it true? How did you feel when you said "I play D&D" and they recoiled in horror?
From what I have read it was made illeagal in the States to get back at Mexican farmers in the early 1910s. State wide during the mid 1920s during prohibition. I wonder if that is a coincidence or not? Rum runners paying off government to make cannabis illeagal to force people to get their high through illegal alcohol sales? Better deal with a white rum-runner than a Hispanic hash dealer? Just a thought...
From what I have read it was made illeagal in the States to get back at Mexican farmers in the early 1910s. State wide during the mid 1920s during prohibition. I wonder if that is a coincidence or not? Rum runners paying off government to make cannabis illeagal to force people to get their high through illegal alcohol sales? Better...
Another hippie conspiracy theory is that Du Pont backed the legislation because they stood to make massive profits from the sale of nylon rope (among other synthetic products) along with William Randolph Hearst. The racist anti-Mexicano thing was the public face of the political move.
Having been a pretty heavy stoner myself in my earlier days, my opinion is obviously biased. Most people seem to have the common sense to realize that herb doesn't do much (if any) harm overall, and that little harm is offset by its beneficial aspects. I know a couple people whose families were broken up when a breadwinner went to prison for big outdoor grows, but that speaks to the illegitimacy and arbitrarily persecutory nature of the justice system more than the effects of tetrahydrocannabinol.
Zo
Damn I'm hungry. After a hit of this joint, I need the munchies. Time to slip on the ski mask and hit the UDF for all their cheetos.
:P
|
Your having established the import you put on judging people by appearance, I'm going to guess that you have already decided that weed should be illegal and that you are now going about furnishing arguments to support you views.You don't get me at all. Wrong, bad, and illegal are three very different ideas and thoughts. As long as it isn't pushed on my underage child, I don't really care. I don't see cigarette smoking a benefit in the least. I'm not picketing trying to ban that.
I don't care. In the end (I hope) that whatever decision is reached, it won't affect me in the least. I'm not trying to ban it. Why does everyone here seem to think I'm trying to ban it? I'm just trying to get people who are for it to come up with good arguments. Which many are not doing.
Because people seem to be missing it, let me say it again. I don't care if it is legalized or not. (As long as it doesn't hurt me or my family.) All I'm saying is that if you feel that it should be legal, come up with a reason that doesn't sound like a 12-year-old wining.
I don't know... There's been an awful lot of posts on this thread from people who do not use pot and have no desire to. I don't see why we would have any reason to "whine" about it.
I just think in a country of failing schools, troubled healthcare, mounting debt, etc etc etc, enforcing a ban on marijuana is a hopeless waste of money that is badly needed elsewhere. I want our government to focus on getting us out of our current domestic and international messes, not throwing stoners in jail.
I should probably stay away from this thread...
One of the major differences between say pot and alcohol is potency. Next time you're out drinking with your buddies, pass around one beer between the lot of you and see how smashed everyone gets.
There are health benefits to drinking some alcohol. The benefits of smoking weed are dubious at best.
I know people who smoke cigarettes. I know people who smoke pot. There is a difference.
The article talks about "recreational use". Regardless of people's opinions on it, it is a mind-altering substance. Hydrocodone (sp?) is still a prescription drug. Even by making this (pot) "over the counter", what kind of "can of worms" does this then open up? I mean "recreational use" makes it sound like it should be governed as much as cigarettes. Why then should any prescription medicine not be considered "recreational"? (I don't really mean that other than some of the more powerful pain medications. I understand that most prescription medication is used to treat a very specific issue.)
The biggest problem that I have with the whole thing isn't the drug in question, but more where this will lead to next. We seem to keep redrawing the line as to what is ok, right, or acceptable. After this gets passed, what will the next thing be where we start saying "well, pot is legal. Why can't XXXXXX be?" At what point will the next thing be wrong?
Thanks for this Moff, it brings up another topic I forgot to mention(not sure if others have). In my experience, pot is an incredibly hard thing to get away from. I can hang out with a bunch of friends drinking beer and decide not to imbibe(read: be a square) and remain in my cognitive faculties for the remainder of the evening. I can't do that with pot, as only in the most well-ventilated areas will I not get a contact high- and even then I might still get a bit of a buzz if someone decides to be a jerk and blow enough of some truly powerful product in my face(I'd need someone to back me up on this last one scientifically though...any volunteers? ;-) ). Then you've got people who have a low tolerance for it, much like those with a low tolerance for alcohol- for these people, just being around someone who smells like the stuff either gets them just as high as if they took a small hit, or makes them kinda flash back to being high(need some more evidence for that last one, stuff from my own experience does back it up, though). I'm still in favor of it for medicinal purposes, though.
|
|
{Edit: i don't hear any 12 year olds whining in here. My bold above. Insulting? Come on, Moff.}
Yeah, I was probably out of line there.
Here are a few thoughts, and then I'm done.
The number one thing that is being brought up for legalization is comparing it to alcohol and/or cigarettes and saying that it isn't "as bad" or "as dangerous" and so should therefore be legal. Are cigarettes to now be used as the "litmus" for what should or shouldn't be legal? Cars are more dangerous both because of emissions as well as accidents so should we make cars illegal? Or should cars now be the new "litmus" in that if something isn't as dangerous as cars (or as dangerous as carbon monoxide), then it should be legal? My point really has nothing to do with the rhetorical questions presented -- my point is that giving the reason that X isn't as bad as Y isn't ever a good reason to support something. It really reminds me of when I was teaching -- kids would do massive amounts of calculations to find out the absolute bare minimum that they had to do to just pass the class with a D-. Why are we wanting to put things in our bodies that are known to be bad for us? Ok so it's "less bad" -- it's still not "good". Why is our goal marijuana? It's (to me) like making your goal a D-.
And if you use the "I should be allowed to be crappy to my own body" argument, what about other laws? Seat belts? Helmet laws? We are so incredibly inconsistent about some of this stuff. The government is concerned about America being overweight and unhealthy and yet thanks to the government, high-fructose corn syrup is in just about anything and everything. And I certainly don't remember having an option about voting for or against that.
I totally agree with what you said about kids. How many adults do you know who smoke cigarettes were introduced to it at 21 or later? Any? Same thing for marijuana. Making something legal or illegal apparently doesn't really have any effect on that, but it is where I really see the problem coming from. If you're 25 and have never been high and want to see what the big deal is all about, great. But I really have a problem when pressure is put on kids that will affect them the rest of their lives. And legislation doesn't seem to have an effect on that at all.
You brought up Jesus. I was actually mildly offended by that. To me, that would be the equivalent of suggesting that you smoke pot because you're an atheist. The Bible doesn't say anything about mind-altering substances like pot. It is fairly clear about drunkeness, and yet the Bible doesn't say that Jesus changed water to sparkling grape juice. Personally, I don't like any substance that might affect how I interact with reality. I'm a bit of a control freak -- I do my best not to even take aspirin -- and the thought of me losing control scares me to death. It has nothing to do with religion. Further, when talking about things like laws and legislation, I try and look to what does the greatest good or will help the most people -- which pretty much has very little to do with religion. I believe that universal health care (done right) will go a long way toward the "greater good". I'm not sure how legalizing marijuana helps the "greater good". I'm not saying it won't, I just don't see how it will.
When I was teaching, we had a student (middle school) who came to school every day high. He was getting high from second-hand smoke from his father who drove him to school every day. Now the teachers and administration are in a difficult postition and the situation presents many other issues of "right" and "wrong".
What you said about "that the onus is on the legislators to demonstrate ... that it should be a crime..." -- normally I would agree with you. If there isn't a law in effect and people want to create one, then it falls on them to demonstrate that it should be illegal/legal/whatever. The problem that I have, with this instance, is that it currently is a law and people want to change it. Therefore, it seems to me that it becomes their job to demonstrate why it should be changed. Regardless of whether or not it should have been a law, it is a law. If you want me to vote to legalize it, I want to be convinced that it is a good idea -- which implies that it's your job to demonstrate that it's a good idea. If it wasn't a law and people wanted to make it illegal I would then expect them to convince me that it should be illegal or a crime.
Personally I'd be surprised if this actually passes. California is supposed to be the crazy state. Didn't they have in front of them a bill to legalize same-sex marriages that failed? Weren't they one of the first ones to outlaw smoking in bars? Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm often surprised at what California puts in their laws.
And with that I'm done. Myself, I'm in the camp of "if you really want to hurt yourself, then go for it." I don't know that "hurting yourself" is truly only yourself (see my school example above), but without more data I'm willing to assume for now that it does only affect yourself. Right now, this doesn't really affect me. And what's "right" or "wrong" for me isn't necessarily the same for everyone. I just hope that if it does pass that there are very strict and clear definitions as to what all it entails.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I think the ridiculous ideological wars we've waged since 1900, and the polarizing politics of extremism, both left and right(the "anti-age of reason" afaic), have damaged Western civilization more than anyone doing blow off a hooker's ass.
That's funny and true!
Um, angel dust IS PCP.
And is always my immediate counterexample when people say things like, "Things were SOOOO much better back in the '70's, before we had all this meth!"
except angeldust, that $#!*s crazy!
...
and PCP, thats crazy too!
I just caught this, sorry.
Um, angel dust IS PCP.
Angel Dust is a Faith no More album.
|
|
{Edit: i don't hear any 12 year olds whining in here. My bold above. Insulting? Come on, Moff.}Yeah, I was probably out of line there.
Here are a few thoughts, and then I'm done.
The number one thing that is being brought up for legalization is comparing it to alcohol and/or cigarettes and saying that it isn't "as bad" or "as dangerous" and so should therefore be legal. Are cigarettes to now be used as the "litmus" for what should or shouldn't be legal? Cars are more dangerous both because of emissions as well as accidents so should we make cars illegal? Or should cars now be the new "litmus" in that if something isn't as dangerous as cars (or as dangerous as carbon monoxide), then it should be legal? My point really has nothing to do with the rhetorical questions presented -- my point is that giving the reason that X isn't as bad as Y isn't ever a good reason to support something. It really reminds me of when I was teaching -- kids would do massive amounts of calculations to find out the absolute bare minimum that they had to do to just pass the class with a D-. Why are we wanting to put things in our bodies that are known to be bad for us? Ok so it's "less bad" -- it's still not "good". Why is our goal marijuana? It's (to me) like making your goal a D-.
And if you use the "I should be allowed to be crappy to my own body" argument, what about other laws? Seat belts? Helmet laws? We are so incredibly inconsistent about some of this stuff. The government is concerned about America being overweight and unhealthy and yet thanks to the government, high-fructose corn syrup is in just about anything and everything. And I certainly don't remember having an option about voting for or against that.
I totally agree with what you said about kids. How many adults do you know who smoke cigarettes were introduced to it at 21 or later? Any? Same thing for marijuana. Making something legal or illegal apparently doesn't really have any effect on...
My only question (I know you said you're done, but I am curious) but what about the arguments of the fact that we've spent more than a billion dollars on keeping marijuana illegal, and yet it's use is still quite prolific (I could get some this afternoon if I chose and I don't personally know a dealer) and the fact that we have a major deficit problem in the US that the money saved on decriminalizing it, let alone the money to be made on taxing it if it were legalized, could help. As well as the fact that it would in fact hurt foreign drug cartels who are in fact a plague on our society.
|
|
My only question (I know you said you're done, but I am curious) but what about the arguments of the fact that we've spent more than a billion dollars on keeping marijuana illegal, and yet it's use is still quite prolific (I could get some this afternoon if I chose and I don't personally know a dealer) and the fact that we have a major deficit problem in the US that the money saved on decriminalizing it, let alone the money to be made on taxing it if it were legalized, could help. As well as the fact that it would in fact hurt foreign drug cartels who are in fact a plague on our society.
Honestly, I really don't know enough about that. But let's look at the flip side -- how many millions (billions?) of dollars are we collecting in tax on cigarettes? And where is that money going?
I'm not convinced that replacing one beauracratic cock-up with another is the answer. I'm fully convinced that our government will find some other creative means to spend even more money than they have.
Also, is there evidence that would suggest that the drug cartels would then go away? Or would they just find something else to smuggle in?
I guess that I'm saying that I don't know beyond a doubt that legalizing marijuana will in fact save the US billions of dollars. I also don't know beyond a doubt that legalizing marijuana will in fact shut down foreign drug cartels. So I guess I'd want proof. While we might feel that it would be noble, does anyone really believe that by doing this we would actually dump billions of dollars into our school systems?
|
|
My only question (I know you said you're done, but I am curious) but what about the arguments of the fact that we've spent more than a billion dollars on keeping marijuana illegal, and yet it's use is still quite prolific (I could get some this afternoon if I chose and I don't personally know a dealer) and the fact that we have a major deficit problem in the US that the money saved on decriminalizing it, let alone the money to be made on taxing it if it were legalized, could help. As well as the fact that it would in fact hurt foreign drug cartels who are in fact a plague on our society.Honestly, I really don't know enough about that. But let's look at the flip side -- how many millions (billions?) of dollars are we collecting in tax on cigarettes? And where is that money going?
I'm not convinced that replacing one beauracratic c%%@-up with another is the answer. I'm fully convinced that our government will find some other creative means to spend even more money than they have.
Also, is there evidence that would suggest that the drug cartels would then go away? Or would they just find something else to smuggle in?
I guess that I'm saying that I don't know beyond a doubt that legalizing marijuana will in fact save the US billions of dollars. I also don't know beyond a doubt that legalizing marijuana will in fact shut down foreign drug cartels. So I guess I'd want proof. While we might feel that it would be noble, does anyone really believe that by doing this we would actually dump billions of dollars into our school systems?
Oh don't get me wrong, I do know that they won't go away, however, they would loose a significant possibly their largest source of income(I don't do their books but from reports I've seen weed is there primary funding by a large gap to their next best seller which I believe was heroin but I'm going off of memory of things I have passing interest in).
|
|
Oh don't get me wrong, I do know that they won't go away, however, they would loose a significant possibly their largest source of income(I don't do their books but from reports I've seen weed is there primary funding by a large gap to their next best seller which I believe was heroin but I'm going off of memory of things I have passing interest in).
My problem with this is that people who use this kind of argument typically don't have some altruistic motive behind it. They are just trying to create some way to justify what they want. If they really wanted to stop the drug traffic, then stop smoking it.
I'm against slavery. The VAST majority of chocolate coming into this country is made from cocoa produced by slaves. We (my family) have elected to do our best to only purchase fair-trade chocolate. But my little family isn't going to make a big enough dent all by ourselves.
If people were really using that as a reason -- "we must stop supporting the evil drug cartels" -- then stop supporting the evil drug cartels.
I'm sure I'm going to piss off someone with what I've said here. So have fun picking apart or pointing out how I'm wrong with this. And I'll politely bow out again.
Moff, with respect, your arguments are starting to sound like "because I personally don't do it, there is no possible argument that will convince me that anyone else should be allowed to, either."
Most (not all, as you correctly notice, but most) of the argument on the pro-legalization side is grounded in the logic of personal liberty and coherent limitations on the authority of the federal government to pass laws "just for the hell of having more laws."
If I wanted to ban the Catholic Church as an imminent danger to children, I'd have a pretty solid case -- but most people would agree that that would be an abuse of federal authority, and they'd be right to do so.
In short, the starting assumption that everything should be illegal unless proven harmless (the standard you're applying to marijuana) is not a workable stance when it comes to almost any other example. To apply it only to the current example, and not to anything else, smacks of a double standard.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
They are just trying to create some way to justify what they want.
Okay, so what if I just come out and say "I want pot to be legal because I want to smoke it." Why is that an insufficient reason to advocate for making it legal? The other arguments may be side shows to convince people that making it legal isn't going to hurt them, but again, the fact that I want it legal because I want to smoke it doesn't make my desire to change the law illigitimate. I don't have a burden to show that a change in the law would be better for everyone or better for society. There are a million laws that are passed that harm one person and benefit another. In all liklihood, the benefited person wanted the change because it benefited them, and then made up enough arguments (or paid enough money) to get the legislature to go along.
You're effectively declaring that the desire to smoke marijuana is inherently wrong, is not a legitimate choice, and should not be available as a legitimate choice because it's inherently wrong. It's a very circular argument and assumes inherent wrongness.
People want to do all sorts of stupid stuff that I don't approve of and, until I finally become dictator for life, they don't have to obtain my approval or justify to me what they want to do. Why should someone be allowed to climb a mountain just because they want to do it? Climbing a mountain is dangerous, climbers could hurt themselves, and the benefits accrue only to the climber and are relatively minimal. Society would be better off if no one climbed mountains because we wouldn't have to send rescue choppers to save them when they get stuck or put them in the hospital when they fall. Therefore, we should outlaw mountain climbing.
This analysis can be applied to any unhealthy legal choices (eating too much, eating the wrong foods, having unprotected sex, etc). The fact that the status quo currently prohibits the activity doesn't render it inherently wrong and tainted for all time, any more than the above activities are inherently wrong. If you want to eat Big Macs till you have a heart attack, go for it. It's not (and shouldn't be) the government's responsibility to only offer you safe choices and protect you from your own stupidity (again, to the extent that your stupidity doesn't place a large burden on the rest of us).
|
|
In short, the starting assumption that everything should be illegal unless proven harmless (the standard you're applying to marijuana) is not a workable stance when it comes to almost any other example.
But that's not what I'm saying. Why do my arguments sound that way? I'm actually saying very little against it.
And what I said about "proven harmless" has nothing to do with that. If people are trying to create a law that directly opposes another law, then I feel that they need to prove that it should be done. Apparently, long before my time, it was "proven" that it should be illegal. Now people need to "prove" that it should be legal. This has nothing to do with "harmless" and I'm REALLY NOT saying that everything should be assumed to be illegal. Shooting within city limits is illegal. If people wanted to overturn this law, they would need to prove that it should be legal.
Why do people think I'm starting with an assumption that I'm not starting with?
|
|
What if the marijuana truck hits me?
Now, to be clear, the LD50 measurement is not “this is how much will kill someone”. It is the median, which means some folks will OD at lower levels, others at higher. It also is the amount consumed within a short period of time (an hour if I recall correctly). I can see 32 shots in that time frame ... I can see smoking a good portion of the lower end for the cigs in the time frame ... I cannot see coming anywhere CLOSE to 15000 joints in that time frame.
I think mph 50 is much higher (pun intended) than the LD50 for getting hit by a pot hauling truck. ;)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
And what I said about "proven harmless" has nothing to do with that. If people are trying to create a law that directly opposes another law, then I feel that they need to prove that it should be done. Apparently, long before my time, it was "proven" that it should be illegal. Now people need to "prove" that it should be legal. This has nothing to do with "harmless" and I'm REALLY NOT saying that everything should be assumed to be illegal. Shooting within city limits is illegal. If people wanted to overturn this law, they would need to prove that it should be legal.Why do people think I'm starting with an assumption that I'm not starting with?
Except you're assuming (a) that it was "proven" and (b) that the proof was related to it being per se bad. Maybe the law was passed because of the vast anti-hemp conspiracy. Maybe it was a reaction to some scare mongering by the media, and the decision was based on incorrect information and prejudices. There's nothing inherently correct about old laws that should make them harder to change.
There isn't a concept anywhere in the law that you have to prove that something that is illegal should be legal. You are making an assumption that because a law exists, that law is correct and should be maintained as the status quo barring a need to change it.
Edit: I'd hate to see this logic applied to suffrage. Someone determined that women shouldn't vote a long time ago, so we can't let women vote unless someone proves there's a good reason to do it other than because it would make the advocates of suffrage happy. We need to show that society will be better because of suffrage. If we can't, no suffrage.
|
|
You're effectively declaring that the desire to smoke marijuana is inherently wrong, is not a legitimate choice, and should not be available as a legitimate choice because it's inherently wrong. It's a very circular argument and assumes inherent wrongness.
I'm only responding to this because it's you.
I'm really only trying to get people to either accept that "it's because it's what I want" or at least understand that it has very little to do with "health benefits" or similar arguments. But so many people try and disillusion themselves into believing that it's "better" for society, or "better" for health, or whatever.
Basically, cut the crap and say what it is. Don't hide behind "it's not as bad as cigarettes" or "it will hurt the drug cartels" or other lame arguments. Assuming it passes, people won't be dancing in the streets saying "YEAH! We put the hurt on Columbia!".
Hehe.
Anyway. The legalization argument is is now seeing key points repeated. And for Moff, actually I think the pot laws need to be repealed.
Back to square one. You contend that it has been proven that it should be illegal, but anyone who has researched the subject carefully can tell you that this is not so, regardless of which side of the debate they come from.
Hey, what's this plastic pipe doing in my kitchen drawer?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You're effectively declaring that the desire to smoke marijuana is inherently wrong, is not a legitimate choice, and should not be available as a legitimate choice because it's inherently wrong. It's a very circular argument and assumes inherent wrongness.I'm only responding to this because it's you.
I'm really only trying to get people to either accept that "it's because it's what I want" or at least understand that it has very little to do with "health benefits" or similar arguments. But so many people try and disillusion themselves into believing that it's "better" for society, or "better" for health, or whatever.
Basically, cut the crap and say what it is. Don't hide behind "it's not as bad as cigarettes" or "it will hurt the drug cartels" or other lame arguments. Assuming it passes, people won't be dancing in the streets saying "YEAH! We put the hurt on Columbia!".
That's because it plays out like this:
Stoner: "I like to smoke weed, it should be legal."
Response: "If we make it legal, bad things will happen."
Stoner: "Okay, but some good things will happen too. And the bad things won't be so bad."
That's the progression of the argument and that's why the third step gets argued. Whatever your reason for wanting the change, it's a good idea to explain to others how it won't make their lives worse. If you can convince them that it won't harm them, they're more likely to go along with you and let you start toking. It's not that the arguments about the harm are masking a desire to change the law, it's that they are necessary components to explaining what will happen if the law is changed.
With all that said, there are a number of people who argue for legalization because of reasons other than wanting to get high, and I don't think it's b*~#!+#~. Some people think it will increase tax revenue, some think it will reduce drug related crime, some just think individual liberty is important and shouldn't be infringed. Those are all valid reasons to support legalization which do not depend on the advocate wanting to personally get high.
|
|
There isn't a concept anywhere in the law that you have to prove that something that is illegal should be legal. You are making an assumption that because a law exists, that law is correct and should be maintained as the status quo barring a need to change it.
Maybe I'm confused. Regardless of the "reason", I guess that for any "legal" or "civilized" society we should follow the laws until they are changed. If there is a need to change them, then demonstrate the need and change them. Even if the "need" is as simple as "it really was a silly law then and it's a silly law now", show that and move on. But from what you are saying, should we assume that if a law exists that it isn't correct?
I'm really only trying to get people to either accept that "it's because it's what I want" or at least understand that it has very little to do with "health benefits" or similar arguments.
Same with tobacco.
Incidentally I don't want pot.
I want justice and I want laws to stop turning youngsters into criminals/drug dealers for smoking flowers on the sly.
I want legislation to control the flow of pot as it does with alcohol and tobacco in MY country, Canada. I want pot houses fined a million dollars whenj they break the rules. I want my cops to be able to shut down the shop when the kids on the corner get caught with doobies.
I want fewer people in prison. I was less cash in the coffers of the crime lords created by America's war on drugs.
I want the debate to be taken over by reasonable people making factual arguments, not screaming lunatics afeared of "reefer madness" who know nothing about the drug and its use throwing out ridiculous quotes and statistics that they culled off a Google sweep without actually thinking about what they mean.
|
|
Oh don't get me wrong, I do know that they won't go away, however, they would loose a significant possibly their largest source of income(I don't do their books but from reports I've seen weed is there primary funding by a large gap to their next best seller which I believe was heroin but I'm going off of memory of things I have passing interest in).My problem with this is that people who use this kind of argument typically don't have some altruistic motive behind it. They are just trying to create some way to justify what they want. If they really wanted to stop the drug traffic, then stop smoking it.
I'm against slavery. The VAST majority of chocolate coming into this country is made from cocoa produced by slaves. We (my family) have elected to do our best to only purchase fair-trade chocolate. But my little family isn't going to make a big enough dent all by ourselves.
If people were really using that as a reason -- "we must stop supporting the evil drug cartels" -- then stop supporting the evil drug cartels.
I'm sure I'm going to piss off someone with what I've said here. So have fun picking apart or pointing out how I'm wrong with this. And I'll politely bow out again.
Well, you do know it is a plant right, and it does grow in america quite easily as well :P. It is entirely possible to smoke your entire life without supporting a drug cartel. And also you're making the assumption that it's the smokers making the argument. For example, I had chocolate yesterday, I didn't have a clue what you were talking about with slave labor producing chocolate, and have never been involved in a debate about the value of fair trade chocolate, The same can be said for a lot of smokers. They probably aren't questioning where their product comes from and the closest they've ever come to debating the benefits of legalization are "yeah it shouldn't be illegal". In all fairness I'm the one making the argument against the cartels and it's because I'm betting on the ignorance of the consumer. There does seem to be a large disconnect that those who are against assume those arguing for are all users. While I make no illusions that a large majority of those arguing for in fact are, your argument is basically dismissing those like fake healer and I who aren't.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Maybe I'm confused. Regardless of the "reason", I guess that for any "legal" or "civilized" society we should follow the laws until they are changed. If there is a need to change them, then demonstrate the need and change them. Even if the "need" is as simple as "it really was a silly law then and it's a silly law now", show that and move on. But from what you are saying, should we assume that if a law exists that it isn't correct?
I don't think the existence of a law implies anything about it's correctness. I also don't think there's some objective way to measure the benefits/costs of passing/repealing a law. There are arguments and predictions, some supported by data, some supported by beliefs about the optimal state of the world, but at the end of the day, it's not as if each law is weighed, someone calculates objectively whether it is good or bad, and then it is passed. Instead, people interested in the law rally legislators or the electorate one way or the other to support their view, the people weigh the arguments (or are influenced by the passion/money), and the law is passed.