|
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.
And long before your time, it was "proven" that alcohol should be illegal. "Proven" to the point that a Constitutional amendment was put in place to reinforce the "proof" of the need for it to be illegal.
Fourteen years later it was "proven" that it should be legal. The proof was a realization that prohibition DID NOT WORK. Instead of eliminating alcohol consumption, alcohol consumption continued and organized crime got a major revenue stream in the process. Instead of reducing crime, crime increased. The government ended up spending an increasing amount trying to enforce the prohibition laws without a proportional level of success. Couple with this the lack of a checks and balances system to ensure the quality of the product the people were consuming and the futility of it as a means of 'protection' for the people was pretty well blown away (wood grain alcohol is a evil thing when consumed, as is grain alcohol which used lead piping in the distillation process).
All of these aspects carry a parallel with the war on drug that has been going on for more 25 years. And yet we still fail to realize that prohibition is not the answer.
But from what you are saying, should we assume that if a law exists that it isn't correct?
Now you're twisting stuff again. Why do you keep doing that? Please, please, actually read the posts.
...that it has very little to do with "health benefits" or similar arguments.
Yet pot does have medicinal benefits.
But I'm sure it could be banned just_because_of_that by the push of drug companies, who want to protect a market for their stuff through legislation....
Dude, I CAN'T TAKE AMERICAN PHARMA's PILLS because they are full of corn derived fillers and I am allergic to corn. (In fact in America they don't even have to tell me if there is corn in their products because legislation has excused them of this responsibility--LUCKILY I am safe in the Philipines and Canada.)
Yet while I am in America many of the herbal remedies that I am not allergic to have been banned under pressure by the big pharma lobby.
Not safe for me in America if I get sick....
|
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.
Is this me? I'm not really even making any arguments. I'm trying to get people to think a little more about their position. Apparently failing.
Now you're twisting stuff again. Why do you keep doing that?
No, I was trying to get Sebastian to clarify so that I understood what he was saying. He did that. It was more of a rhetorical question and not something that I actually feel or felt that he was saying. I'm sorry I didn't include the "rhetorical" button with that one.
Yet pot does have medicinal benefits.
Medicinal benefits and health benefits are not the same thing. Vicadin (sp?) has medicinal benefits -- I don't think that it's "healthy". But that's not really up for debate, is it? EDIT: I mean the medicinal benefits of pot are not up for debate.
|
|
Please, please, actually read the posts.
You added this. Ironically I was going to say pretty much the same thing. I am not trying to keep pot illegal. I'm not sure how many times I need to say it before people believe it. I also have said nothing saying that pot should be illegal. Yet people keep making this inference.
except angeldust, that $#!*s crazy!
...
and PCP, thats crazy too!
I just caught this, sorry.
Um, angel dust IS PCP.
well there ya go
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Please, please, actually read the posts.You added this. Ironically I was going to say pretty much the same thing. I am not trying to keep pot illegal. I'm not sure how many times I need to say it before people believe it. I also have said nothing saying that pot should be illegal. Yet people keep making this inference.
But, you seem to be saying there is no legitimate reason to make it legal and that the various reasons offered are smokescreens (no pun intended) for an illegitimate reason to make it legal - wanting it to be legal so the advocate can use it. It's fine if you don't accept the arguments, but that doesn't make them illegitimate, nor is the desire to use the drug an illegitimate reason for supporting legalization.
I'm trying to get people to think a little more about their position.
I've thought about my position. It boils down to this: far too many people are in prison -- their careers and futures destoyed -- for doing things that really, on any reasonable scale, should not be life-threatening. This applies equally to the football player who dated a 16-year-old when he was 18, to the guy whose kid downloaded a song from KAZAA and is now a "pirate," and to the otherwise high-performing kid who got caught with a couple ounces of weed on him. To my mind, before a prison sentence is levied, a person needs to have done something that merits a punishment of that severity. Consequently, attaching such a punishment to relatively harmless activities is outright immoral -- in cases it hasn't been done, it shouldn't, and in cases it has been (such as the one under discussion, and a number of others), it should be overturned.
Prison isn't a joke, to be handed out with impunity. Even if the sentence is short, and even in a minimum-security facility away from the gang lords, you're still looking at a permenent record that will prevent you from holding down most jobs forever after, and prevents you from holding most professional licences as well (in case you figured on being self-employed). Furthermore, an alarming number of citizens are now being registered as "sex offenders" for obviously non-sexual offenses (whereas a lot of Catholic priests go free for outright rape, but let's skip that for now).
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.
Is this me? I'm not really even making any arguments. I'm trying to get people to think a little more about their position. Apparently failing.
Yes, you really are making arguments, so to speak anyway. And apparently I'm not alone in seeing this.
By the way, who is it in here that looks like someone who has not thought about his or her position, besides Urizen, who is pot addled and should therefore be thrown in jail?
Sorry for the characterization. Give some and take some, or the other way round.
Now you're twisting stuff again. Why do you keep doing that?
No, I was trying to get Sebastian to clarify so that I understood what he was saying. He did that. It was more of a rhetorical question and not something that I actually feel or felt that he was saying. I'm sorry I didn't include the "rhetorical" button with that one.
Yes you are twisting. It's called reductio ad absurdum and it's the second time you've done it on this thread. What happened? Sebastian basically posted the same thing as I had much earlier. He was quite clear, as was I. We were not talking about all laws. When I said that pot laws were made without reasonable justification I referenced Derek's cogent and well researched comment about how pot legislation was passed--it was quite clear.
Yet pot does have medicinal benefits.
Medicinal benefits and health benefits are not the same thing. Vicadin (sp?) has medicinal benefits -- I don't think that it's "healthy". But that's not really up for debate, is it? EDIT: I mean the medicinal benefits of pot are not up for debate.
Medicinal benefit is clearly a species of health benefit and I was quite clear in my use of language. Besides, as you know full well, something does not require "health benefits" (as you see the term: like eating your veggies) to be legal. There is nothing for you to contend here, everyone move along.
Please, please, actually read the posts.You added this. Ironically I was going to say pretty much the same thing. I am not trying to keep pot illegal. I'm not sure how many times I need to say it before people believe it. I also have said nothing saying that pot should be illegal.
>>Then what was that stuff about lungs and heart rate and no health benefits and no reason to legalize?<<
Yet people keep making this inference.
I'm not necessarily against it. I just don't see a good reason to legalize it.
I think you made this quite clear. As I see it, being luke warm or cold on this issue does not coat you with teflon--you provided all kinds of reasons why it should not be legalized and we responded. I don't understand your alarm at the responses you have attracted.
[Edit: it seems to me that if you were really listening to what was said in this thread, and if you followed our comments up with your own investigation, you would see that we have given you many good and factual reasons to legalize it. Whether or not these would affect your warm/cool stance I do not know.]
By the way, who is it in here that looks like someone who has not thought about his or her position, besides Urizen, who is pot addled and should therefore be thrown in jail?
Hahahaha! Nice!
The biggest irony is that I've never once even tried the stuff. OTOH, it's my younger brother that's the huge stoner to this day.
I know you were kidding, but you do make a point; you can't always judge by one's first impression when profiling people standing side by side who's likely to be the stoner. I'm just a very laid back kind of guy. ;)
EDIT: Just re-read what you said again and maybe I misread ... were you actually talking about stereotyping appearances or that I haven't really put forth a position?
By the way, who is it in here that looks like someone who has not thought about his or her position, besides Urizen, who is pot addled and should therefore be thrown in jail?Hahahaha! Nice!
The biggest irony is that I've never once even tried the stuff. OTOH, it's my younger brother that's the huge stoner to this day.
I know you were kidding, but you do make a point; you can't always judge by one's first impression when profiling people standing side by side who's likely to be the stoner. I'm just a very laid back kind of guy. ;)
I dig that. And I never once would have been figured for a stoner when I was. In fact I used to carry everything into concerts, with a bunch of long hairs in front and behind, and I'd breeze through with reefers and "camel pack" bags of vodka in my coat while security frisked them all down to the lint ball.
|
It boils down to this: far too many people are in prison -- their careers and futures destoyed...
Prison isn't a joke, to be handed out with impunity. Even if the sentence is short, and even in a minimum-security facility away from the gang lords, you're still looking at a permanent record that will prevent you from holding down most jobs forever after, and prevents you from holding most professional licences...
Before I get into this, I want to make it perfectly clear I am not discussing my situation, I was working on a level maybe a step or two below "Colombian Drug Lord" and am perfectly comfortable with the punishment I received (though, to be honest, I'd love to know when my "debt to society" is paid in full, I'd like to get a real job someday...).
Anyway, look. I've seen first hand goofballs who should have probably just been sentenced to rehab with no criminal record have their lives ruined for piddling amounts of dope. And, if anyone here thinks prisons "rehabilitate" people, no. For the most part, they just screw people up even worse, as there are very few programs to actually help someone become a productive member of society, and there is no incentive to really stay away from crime when they get out.
All for what? So some dipwad who can't say "Welcopme to Walmart" without screwing it up can have a cherry job torturing inmates? (Yes, folks, it was zero surprise to any of us inmates that the ring leader at Abu Ghraib was a correctional officer in his civilian job).
Ok, I'm rambling a bit, but seriously, anyone who thinks screwing up people's lives because they want to smoke a freaking flower is a good idea really needs to rethink wtf they're about.
Really.
|
Alright now.....my thoughts.....
I occasionally smoke pot. I like pot. It is a clearer feeling than the effects I get from alcohol. I have several reasons for partaking in pot smoking and I will list them.
-I love the high. Clean, easy, no hangover type of effect.
-I have massive amounts of knee and back pain. A very small amount of pot all but eliminates the pain that takes me 3-4 tylenols or motrins or 4-5 beers to ease.
-I enjoy myself while smoking pot and find it de-stresses me quite wonderfully.
Now a couple of qualifiers: When I am of the mind to smoke and not looking for employment like I am now(gotta stay clean for the possible hiring-drug tests, just gotta drink instead), I only smoke maybe once or twice a week, after all the day is done, the kids are sleeping, and I have nothing else to do that could hinder me. Nice way to relax, shake off the week and ease the aches of a hard working soul. I don't drive around or perform other activities whilst partaking, same as if I had drank a few beers.
People worried about people abusing pot or it becoming a gateway to harder drugs are silly. Alcoholism is awful, addictive, and dones some fairly serious harm to the body. People who abuse alcohol give alcohol a bad rap. People who abuse driving privileges.....people who abuse......
Abuse is the problem, not what is being abused. Pot is significantly less addictive than soda, cigarettes, alcohol, or sex (F you Jesse James, man up and admit you are a scum, don't belittle real addictions by using this as an excuse!). It also is less harmful to the body than those others.
Legalize pot. There really is no reason that it is illegal now and at least this could help a struggling economy by starting a new line of careers and helping states out with another highly taxable item.
.....people who abuse......
Abuse is the problem, not what is being abused.
EXACTLY!
all things in moderation, a Big Mac once a month isnt going to flush your health down the drain, but have one every day for lunch and you'll feel it.
You can get addicted to anything: WoW, Sugar, Coffee, Cigarettes, Alcohol, Porn, Sex, D&D, Gambling, Drugs.
Any of the above isn’t going to ruin your life if its every now and then, but you start doing it all the time and you've got yourself a problem.
Ok, I'm rambling a bit, but seriously, anyone who thinks screwing up people's lives because they want to smoke a freaking flower is a good idea really needs to rethink wtf they're about.
Really.
I can accept that the laws probably should be changed with respect to this issue. But I'm sorry, I am not going to have a pitty party for people who knew they were breaking the law and got punished for it. For society to work, we don't get to pick and choose which laws we want to obey and which ones we don't. Even of some are dumb as all hell, we should try to get them change, not ignore them and do whatever we want. So someone's life is ruined because they made the conscious choice to give society the finger and do what they wanted, boo freaken hoo.
damn, so much for speeding at 58 mph in a 55 mph zone.
damn, so much for speeding at 58 mph in a 55 mph zone.
Yep. 3 years in prison (1 per mph) is probably about right for that -- that'll teach 'em! And what about jaywalkers? Give 'em the chair! And if a 17-year-old kid's girlfriend texts him a picture of herself, both sets of parents obviously DESERVE to serve hard time and be registered as sex offenders for being "child pornographers" -- they were throwing the finger at the system and just BEGGING to get caught when they bought their kid a cel-phone. Damn criminals.
|
|
I can accept that the laws probably should be changed with respect to this issue. But I'm sorry, I am not going to have a pitty party for people who knew they were breaking the law and got punished for it. For society to work, we don't get to pick and choose which laws we want to obey and which ones we don't. Even of some are dumb as all hell, we should try to get them change, not ignore them and do whatever we want. So someone's life is ruined because they made the conscious choice to give society the finger and do what they wanted, boo freaken hoo.Ok, I'm rambling a bit, but seriously, anyone who thinks screwing up people's lives because they want to smoke a freaking flower is a good idea really needs to rethink wtf they're about.
Really.
Oh, I don't mind going to prison for doing wrong. I mind people telling me they want me to be a productive member of society afterward then denying me the opportunity to do so and continually slamming the doors of any means of improving my lot in my face. Kinda makes me not give a s%*@ what society wants.
And people wonder why prison is a revolving door.
So, pres man, in your opinion, my screw up should cost me for the rest of my life.
Good to know.
And when one of those ex cons who couldn't get a job break into your house and steal all your stuff, or you car, or whatever, boo freakin hoo.
;)
I can accept that the laws probably should be changed with respect to this issue. But I'm sorry, I am not going to have a pitty party for people who knew they were breaking the law and got punished for it. For society to work, we don't get to pick and choose which laws we want to obey and which ones we don't. Even of some are dumb as all hell, we should try to get them change, not ignore them and do whatever we want.
And that is reasonable.
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?
And that (what pres man said) is the key point, Moff, that some of your laws, and mine in Canada (pot is one good one we have in common), have been weighed, measured, and found wanting. What is wrong with this?
Is there a chain reaction here where we say pot is legal, and the snowball effect down the line is that we are nursing our babies with PCP. No. Nothing nowhere demonstrates this effect.
<shrug>
|
Um...
A couple of people have tossed around the phrase "smoking a flower" around as if that in-and-of itself alone was a harmless act...
Poppy's are just flowers...
Mushrooms are a fungus...
Peyote is just a cactus...
Just because it grows naturally, doesn't make something harmless...
Not comparing pot to these drugs, just trying to inject a little perspective into this debate...
All I'm sayin'...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Um...
A couple of people have tossed around the phrase "smoking a flower" around as if that in-and-of itself alone was a harmless act...
Poppy's are just flowers...
Mushrooms are a fungus...
Peyote is just a cactus...
Just because it grows naturally, doesn't make something harmless...
Not comparing pot to these drugs, just trying to inject a little perspective into this debate...
All I'm sayin'...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Yeah, and I see nothing wrong with opium, shrooms, or mescaline.
Yeah, and I see nothing wrong with opium, shrooms, or mescaline.
The first two are lovely, from my experience(s). I've only taken mescaline once and didn't get a big enough dose. A caveat: I don't advocate the use of drugs (to other people).
Zo
Um...
A couple of people have tossed around the phrase "smoking a flower" around as if that in-and-of itself alone was a harmless act...
...
All I'm sayin'...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Agreed.
Using the term "smoke a flower" is pretty common in the debate over illegality of marijuana to the point that it's a cliche now. Which those of us who have used it all know.
So smoking reefers is not good for you, sure, but I have a pretty hard time saying that if a healthy person is just eating pot brownies in the privacy of their home... or blasting it in an electronic vaporizer without all the smoke particles. It's been pretty well impossible for anyone to show that those uses of pot are in any way harmful--ok unless the person doing it is performing surgery, landing a plane, or operating train switches. But when someone is doing those things we can also say that PSPs, gin and tonic, blowjobs, mp4 players, and engaging off topic conversations could also be harmful.
... guns, knives, plutonium-239, hockey.
damn, so much for speeding at 58 mph in a 55 mph zone.Yep. 3 years in prison (1 per mph) is probably about right for that -- that'll teach 'em! And what about jaywalkers? Give 'em the chair! And if a 17-year-old kid's girlfriend texts him a picture of herself, both sets of parents obviously DESERVE to serve hard time and be registered as sex offenders for being "child pornographers" -- they were throwing the finger at the system and just BEGGING to get caught when they bought their kid a cel-phone. Damn criminals.
*Sigh*
As I said, I understand that the law may be too harsh. I understand that we should probably change it. Still, while it is in place, if a person is choosing to ignore it, well when you play the game, you have to be willing to take the consequences. If the law was that you get a year in prison for each mph over the speed limit you get caught doing, and someone chose to speed and got caught and sent to prison, I might feel the law was dumb, but I wouldn't pity the person who got caught. They chose to ignore the law, as dumb as it was, and so they suffer the known consequences.So, pres man, in your opinion, my screw up should cost me for the rest of my life.
What are you really asking me here? Do I think the laws are just? Do I think society's view on cons is just? Do I think that people suffering the consequences, even if those consequences are non-just, for their conscious choices is fair?
|
|
damn, so much for speeding at 58 mph in a 55 mph zone.Yep. 3 years in prison (1 per mph) is probably about right for that -- that'll teach 'em! And what about jaywalkers? Give 'em the chair! And if a 17-year-old kid's girlfriend texts him a picture of herself, both sets of parents obviously DESERVE to serve hard time and be registered as sex offenders for being "child pornographers" -- they were throwing the finger at the system and just BEGGING to get caught when they bought their kid a cel-phone. Damn criminals.*Sigh*
As I said, I understand that the law may be too harsh. I understand that we should probably change it. Still, while it is in place, if a person is choosing to ignore it, well when you play the game, you have to be willing to take the consequences. If the law was that you get a year in prison for each mph over the speed limit you get caught doing, and someone chose to speed and got caught and sent to prison, I might feel the law was dumb, but I wouldn't pity the person who got caught. They chose to ignore the law, as dumb as it was, and so they suffer the known consequences.So, pres man, in your opinion, my screw up should cost me for the rest of my life.What are you really asking me here? Do I think the laws are just? Do I think society's view on cons is just? Do I think that people suffering the consequences, even if those consequences are non-just, for their conscious choices is fair?
Like I said, I had no problem with going to prison. I have a HUGE problem with society's attitude that I should suffer for the rest of my life for doing so. I have doors slammed in my face EVERY DAY when looking for better job situations. I struggle EVERY DAY with not going back to what I used to do.
And society apparently has no problem with creating a million new mes every year. Take drug convictions out of the equation, and our prison population is negligible. TO put this in perspective: before mandatory minimum sentencing came on line in '87, Federal prisons had a total population @30k. Now they're over 250k. Since mandatory minimums came on line, drug use has gone UP in this country. Drug prices have gone DOWN. WTF is that all about?
UK drug death figures: deaths per annum
Alcohol[1]4,235
Tobacco[1]120,000
The Herb[1,2]1
LSD[1]0
Peanuts[3]7
Viagra[3]7
Ecstasy[1]4
[1] Hansard figures for 1995.
[2] Death caused by inhaling vomit [Lord's Hansard report on medicinal cannabis]
[3] BBC news
In other words, use of standards of judgment other than tradition does not in any way imply that we must abandon all standards of judgment whatsoever.And I didn't mean to imply that. A lot of the argument for it seems to end up saying "because I want it". They're just tacking on other "benefits" to try and get what they want. And if that's how we are to determine what should be legal and what shouldn't -- then I have a problem with that. Legalizing marijuana may solve a couple of problems, but I'm guessing that the people who REALLY want it legalized aren't really thinking about the possible problems legalization will create.
I'm not sure how true this is. I mean I suppose I suspect that most users want it legalized, but then we seem to have a bunch of people on this thread who are users but don't want it legalized because they don't want the government poking their noise into this business for various reasons.
I'm not in agreement with this group as I want the stuff legalized to save the tax payers money but I also want it taxed since there clearly are costs to society and that tax revenue would offset some of those costs. Hence I've no real use for decriminalization - sure it'd save some money in enforcement but I'd prefer to have the state actually get cash from this trade in order to try and get it to pay for its social costs.
Really saying its just the users that want it made legal strikes me as the easy way out of this debate when there are sound reasons beyond just the users to legalize the stuff.
My point is that people can and often do drink to socialize or simply drink because they like the taste. I think it's rather difficult to smoke a joint without getting high.Yeah, and that’s why no one passes around one beer at a party. People drink alcohol for its mind altering effects, therefore they are going to keep drinking at a party until they get to that mind altered state. Personally I think it’s a point for the side of legalization of weed that you can pass around a single joint around a party to have the same effect as everyone at the party taking in half their day’s recommended calories in fermented sugar.
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.
I' fairly sure this is not really true. Like pretty much every other drug, including alcohol there are levels of tolerance and people build up their levels and how well they function under the influence.
Just curious here -- How do you define "dangerous"?I'm not going to look it up right now, but I know that having a glass of wine at dinner time is actually healthy -- antioxidants and actually has a good effect on the liver. Overdose of anything can probably be "bad", so I'm not sure that using "drunkeness" as a way to define "more dangerous" is valid. That has more to do with self control and personal abuse -- which I'm sure that abuse wouldn't happen with pot.
As for tobacco, this was taken off of the NIDA website.
Effects on the Heart
Marijuana increases heart rate by 20–100 percent shortly after smoking; this effect can last up to 3 hours. In one study, it was estimated that marijuana users have a 4.8-fold increase in the risk of heart attack in the first hour after smoking the drug. This may be due to the increased heart rate as well as effects of marijuana on heart rhythms, causing palpitations and arrhythmias. This risk may be greater in aging populations or those with cardiac vulnerabilities.
Effects on the Lungs
Numerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50–70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increase the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer; however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers. Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time...
Its still not on the same level of lethality as cigarettes. My memory on this from a Drugs and Behavior course in University was that a joint was about 5 times as bad as a cigarette but your average smoker smokes about a pack a day while the average MJ user smokes a lot less.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Um...
A couple of people have tossed around the phrase "smoking a flower" around as if that in-and-of itself alone was a harmless act...
Poppy's are just flowers...
Mushrooms are a fungus...
Peyote is just a cactus...
Just because it grows naturally, doesn't make something harmless...
Not comparing pot to these drugs, just trying to inject a little perspective into this debate...
All I'm sayin'...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
And?
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.
But how does having it be illegal help people like your brother? Would some pen time fix whatever issues he has? I just don't really see what having the substance be illegal does that benefits anyone (well except the corps busy incarcerating people).
I'm not questioning the fact that there are people that use this substance that maybe shouldn't but pen time is usually not the answer to these kinds of troubles.
My understanding is that your brother is a user and that there seems to be some kind of bad feeling regarding that. I'll presume for the sake of argument that your right and that there really is some issue involved here but I contend that the MJ use is a symptom not the cause.
Now I doubt you'd have such issues if your brother was using this as a 'party' drug since such users don't otherwise generally have issues - it'd be a distasteful activity but hardly the source of all ones problems. As others have noted MJ is a psychotropic. Psychotropic's are not addictive - not physically anyway. Its not the drug thats the core of your brothers issues, he's using the drug to self medicate in order to deal with something else.
To a great extent this is one of the reasons I support legalization. As a big proponent in harm reduction strategies I'd love it if the state had some money for people like your brother so that he'd at least have the opportunity to go in and try and work out whatever the real issue is. That money could come from the savings in law enforcement and from taxes on the drug itself.
|
|
But how does having it be illegal help people like your brother?
You asked me a question and I feel the need to respond, but I really am done with this thread. So all I'm going to say here is that what you wrote really wasn't my point, and that my point has been lost. Trying to make my point hasn't worked at all, so carry on with the discussion without me.
Basically just wanted you to know that I'm ignoring you -- but because of the thread and not because of you.
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...
I don't see how this issue is any different from hanging out with people who smoke cigarettes. In fact I suspect its much less since people using this drug are likely just having a single joint which means they can go some where more ventilated or you can move to a different space while they partake of the drug. Smokers barely stop in social situations making the issue more significant.
|
|
And?
And the term "smokin' a flower" makes it out to sound like just because it's all natural, it's like totally innocent man...
That may or may not be true of Mary Jane (and frankly, I don't care one way or the other)...
But, there are other much harder drugs that also grow el-natural, that for good or ill, much of society perceives as being worse than "it's only pot dude!"...
It just, IMHO, muddies the water unrealistically...
I was only pointing that out...
YMMV...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
While this isn’t about Marijuana I think its relevant to the discussion at hand...
A Drug that may aid in curing addiction
"Ayahuasca, a jungle vine from Peru, is being studied as a source for a variety of medications, including possibly addiction treatment, the Voice of America reported March 23.
The word ayahuasca means "vine of the dead," and the plant has long been used in traditional medicines. Brewed with another plant, the chacruna, it has a powerful effect on the central nervous system and is used in native ceremonies to induce visions as well as in medications.
Researchers say the drink mix produces DMT, a natural brain chemical similar to serotonin that acts as an antidepressant. Charles Grob, a researcher at the UCLA School of Medicine, said that ayahuasca and chacruna could be used to treat addictions.
"Number one, it does not appear to be addictive and the individuals do not develop a tolerance, they do not go through withdrawals, and generally speaking, it is very unusual for people to take it on consecutive days over an extended period of time," he said.
However, DMT is listed as a controlled substance with no medical use in the U.S., making the ayahuasca brew illegal here."
And the term "smokin' a flower" makes it out to sound like just because it's all natural, it's like totally inocent man...
Oleander (and arsenic, for that matter) are all-natural; they're also highly toxic. What you're mentioning (equating "natural" with "healthy," while this is manifestly not true) is certainly a major pet peeve of mine...
But there's a disconnect in applying it to the current debate. Should we outlaw oleanders, cut down all the ones in people's yards, and start handing out prison sentences for having one on the property? As dangerous as they are for anyone dumb enough to smoke food on a spit made from their branches, I don't agree that simple ownership of a particular type of plant should automatically destroy someone's entire life.
|
|
Should we outlaw oleanders, cut down all the ones in people's yards, and start handing out prison sentences for having one on the property? As dangerous as they are for anyone dumb enough to smoke food on a spit made from their branches, I don't agree that simple ownership of a particular type of plant should automatically destroy someone's entire life.
Ah, but you see, people are not clamoring to start smoking my oleander bushes! So the need (be it perceived or not) is not there to go out and destroy innocent oleanders...
Ah, but you see, people are not clamoring to start smoking my oleander bushes! So the need (be it perceived or not) is not there to go out and destroy innocent oleanders...
But people are lining up to take their kids to Catholic churches, despite the manifest danger there. If the standard of legality is as follows:
Potentially highly dangerous + highly-desired = illegal;
Then by that standard, both private automobiles and the Catholic Church should be illegal (as well as liquor and cigarettes). But what a lot of people are doing is to use that standard solely in the case of marijuana, and use other standards for everything else. Which is fine, if people want to harbor a prejudice, they're welcome to, but those people should at least be honest about it: "I'm against legalization not for any coherently logical reason involving standards of legality, but simply because I, personally, don't like the stuff and don't believe that anyone else should be allowed to, either."
In the interest of disclosure, I'm saying all this as a non-smoker. But just because I personally don't use it doesn't mean that I'm unwilling to apply a consistent set of standards.
|
|
just because I personally don't use it doesn't mean that I'm unwilling to apply a consistent set of standards.
It is my opinion that a proverbial "line in the sand", needs to be drawn: this here is okay, and that there is not! And our government has drawn this line, telling us "alcohol is okay, but marijuana is not...
Many people are not happy with this line in the sand, but is that not typical of those who find themselves on the "unpopular" side of any line in the sand? Does not almost every individual in a similar situation shake their fist and say how unfair it is (even if just inwardly)? It's human nature (I know I've done it)...
It's also our nature to question these things (which is the first step in getting things changed if indeed they truly are unfair)...
So while I find this debate curious, I have no real opinion in the matter of should it be changed or not...
My view is: the law still stands...
And until it is changed, we as law abiding citizens need to act accordingly...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
It is my opinion that a proverbial "line in the sand", needs to be drawn: this here is okay, and that there is not! And our government has drawn this line, telling us "alcohol is okay, but marijuana is not...
Our government has redrawn those lines frequently enough (Alcohol is illegal! Wait, just kidding, no it's not!) that no sane person can assume they have any absolute merit outside of what currently managed to get passed by some committee. For that same reason, the stance that "our government has told us what to do, and we must respect all existing laws without questioning them" is ignored by everyone fighting overturn Roe v. Wade, for example -- and everyone arguing against the new health care bill, for that matter.
That doesn't make them bad citizens; it makes them involved citizens of a representative republic (not a monarchy). Far from being verboten, questioning the logic of laws is the DUTY of any real patriot.
I'm not advocating any illegal actions, by the way, but what I AM saying is that to lie back and accept that unreasonable laws be retained -- simply because they've been passed, and for no other reason than that -- is a coward's way to lie down under an overlord and not take responsibility for one's own government. Unreasonable laws should be spoken against by concerned citizens. We have the right to vote for a reason. Let's use it wisely, to retain good laws and reject bad ones.
1 legalice it
2 criminals cant make money from selling Legal stuff, people should be able to do what they want as long as they dont hurt others, it is by far less dangerous than alcohol. is it really smart to wast money on law enforcement to combat smuglers and dealers when instead you can put a tax on a legal drug and make money from it
but the best argument by far should be that the real libaral way is that the individual can chose what to do with his or her own life, frankly im puzzeled by the fact that guns are legal(since they really have the abbility to hurt others) and drugs like mariuana is not and that can only hurt the user.
But, you seem to be saying there is no legitimate reason to make it legal and that the various reasons offered are smokescreens (no pun intended) for an illegitimate reason to make it legal - wanting it to be legal so the advocate can use it. It's fine if you don't accept the arguments, but that doesn't make them illegitimate, nor is the desire to use the drug an illegitimate reason for supporting legalization.Please, please, actually read the posts.You added this. Ironically I was going to say pretty much the same thing. I am not trying to keep pot illegal. I'm not sure how many times I need to say it before people believe it. I also have said nothing saying that pot should be illegal. Yet people keep making this inference.
Doesn't this work the other way as well? That stopping others from using something that people find distasteful is also just as legitimate?
|
|
That doesn't make them bad citizens; it makes them involved citizens of a representative republic (not a monarchy). Far from being verboten, questioning the logic of laws is the DUTY of any real patriot.
I went on to say (in that same post):
It's also our nature to question these things (which is the first step in getting things changed if indeed they truly are unfair)...
Since there are so many topics for concern in this state (hell, the whole country for that matter), I must pick and choose my battles (can't fight them all you know). The legal status of pot is not a battle I personally need to get into...
That's all I was saying...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Doesn't this work the other way as well? That stopping others from using something that people find distasteful is also just as legitimate?But, you seem to be saying there is no legitimate reason to make it legal and that the various reasons offered are smokescreens (no pun intended) for an illegitimate reason to make it legal - wanting it to be legal so the advocate can use it. It's fine if you don't accept the arguments, but that doesn't make them illegitimate, nor is the desire to use the drug an illegitimate reason for supporting legalization.Please, please, actually read the posts.You added this. Ironically I was going to say pretty much the same thing. I am not trying to keep pot illegal. I'm not sure how many times I need to say it before people believe it. I also have said nothing saying that pot should be illegal. Yet people keep making this inference.
Sure - didn't mean to imply otherwise.