Why should marijuana be kept illegal?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
snippity

I see where you're coming from. On a purely practical level, no, outlawing it hasn't helped much, if at all.

I suppose I'm more for ideological law than practical law, though. I'd rather we at least make the effort to control illegal substances than just throw our hands up and say 'fuck it' because criminals are making a profit off of it.

Don't get me wrong, I do not in any way support 10 year prison sentences for possession. It's a very minor offence in the grand scheme of things and throwing people into prison at all for it is just a bad idea in general.

How exactly one would control it more effectively, I don't know. I just think there might be some middle ground that isn't being considered.

Heroinblade:
Enough to feel confident in my words.

One was an unrepentant addict. His usage was heavy enough that he might as well have been a bedridden vegetable for all of the interaction with the world he had.

As for the others, who had the habit relatively under control, we could always tell when they had been smoking, because they were utterly useless for any kind of detailed work or intelligent conversation.

One in particular is smarter than myself, he intended to become a nuclear engineer, and had the skills to pull it off. The stress in that curriculum is however incredibly high, and he eventually turned to weed to deal with it. Never caught, but he failed every single one of his courses that semester. Right now he's stuck trying to figure out how to pay back two years worth of wasted loans while flipping burgers. An incredible waste of potential.(Actually, come to think of it, I'm not even sure if he managed to land the fast food job he was applying for last we heard from him.

I see your anecdote and raise you Carl Sagan, Barrack Obama, George Carlin, and Jimi Hendrix.

Heroinblade:

Reginald:

Heroinblade:
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of chemically induced (ie: fake) happiness!

All happiness is derived from chemicals.

The specific medium the brain uses to trigger feeling is utterly beside the point, real feelings are derived from real activities and events. A healthy mind seeks happiness in life, not through a needle.

You don't do marijuana through a needle. The drug you're describing in all of your posts is heroin. And besides, what's the difference between real and fake happiness? If I take a painkiller to knock out a headache, am I only getting imaginary relief?

Heroinblade:
By the way, any particular reason for editing my moniker? Or did you just think it was amusing?

The second one.

Reginald:

Heroinblade:
snip

I see your anecdote and raise you Carl Sagan, Barrack Obama, George Carlin, and Jimi Hendrix.

The first three were well in control of their habit. In particular, the only one who's thinking I find admirable, Carlin, claimed that his pot use was less than once a month.

As for Hendrix, I'd actually claim he reinforces my position.

Reginald:

Heronblade:

The specific medium the brain uses to trigger feeling is utterly beside the point, real feelings are derived from real activities and events. A healthy mind seeks happiness in life, not through a needle.

You don't do marijuana through a needle. The drug you're describing in all of your posts is heroin. And besides, what's the difference between real and fake happiness? If I take a painkiller to knock out a headache, am I only getting imaginary relief?

The comment was concerning drugs in general, I'm well aware of how THC is normally delivered. And as implied, real happiness is tied to real events, there's nothing complicated about that concept.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Heronblade:
snip

I can't help but doubt those two sources - one is trying to sell me some sort of drug to help me kick my addiction, while the other is government run, and we all know how much the government looooves marijuana. (Have they stopped ranting on about the whole "It kills braincells" thing?)

Also, to tackle the bit about work accidents - could it be that some stoners simply go to work while UTI, which would obviously raise the likelyhood of accidents during that time? It's no secret that you shouldn't operate heavy machinery while stoned, I feel it's not a compelling argument against marijuana though. The responsibility for this is with the worker, not the drug.

Despite that I don't have a hard time believing good parts of that, especially the things that are specific to young users. There must be some legitimacy to half of what they are saying.

Either way, if you feel like it you can check out the upper part of my post, in which I specify why I'm for legalization no matter what.

I just snagged the first two sources, and the first one is for a detox clinic, no salesman pitch that I'm aware of. Then again I didn't check the whole website, so I may have been wrong on that count. Regardless, the information is available.

Concerning workplace habits, the mental slowing effect can take as much as a month to dissipate completely, particularly for habitual users. You don't have to be actively high for it to affect workplace performance.

And yeah, they've mostly dropped the "it kills brain cells!" angle. They can be stubborn, but its tough to deny that the negative mental effects of THC do disappear given time.

Regardless, I actually agree with you on your practical reasons for legalizing marijuana, and am leaning in that direction in spite of my reservations. I just wish I could think of an effective way to castrate the drug runners without resorting to that.

You know I am not necessarily educated on this subject but I believe I heard an argument saying that if it was legal, America could put a tax on it and it would bring in quite a bit of revenue. On the other side of that argument, many people say that legalizing the drug would only encourage more crime. I really don't stand in anywhere on this issue, but I will state what I have heard.

Smolderin:
You know I am not necessarily educated on this subject but I believe I heard an argument saying that if it was legal, America could put a tax on it and it would bring in quite a bit of revenue. On the other side of that argument, many people say that legalizing the drug would only encourage more crime. I really don't stand in anywhere on this issue, but I will state what I have heard.

I don't think legalizing it would encourage much in the way of crime, at least not more than it would solve.

On the other hand, it is very difficult to tax something the average brown thumb can grow in their back yard.

Heronblade:

Smolderin:
You know I am not necessarily educated on this subject but I believe I heard an argument saying that if it was legal, America could put a tax on it and it would bring in quite a bit of revenue. On the other side of that argument, many people say that legalizing the drug would only encourage more crime. I really don't stand in anywhere on this issue, but I will state what I have heard.

I don't think legalizing it would encourage much in the way of crime, at least not more than it would solve.

On the other hand, it is very difficult to tax something the average brown thumb can grow in their back yard.

As I said, it's just something I heard.

Saladfork:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
snippity

I see where you're coming from. On a purely practical level, no, outlawing it hasn't helped much, if at all.

I suppose I'm more for ideological law than practical law, though. I'd rather we at least make the effort to control illegal substances than just throw our hands up and say 'fuck it' because criminals are making a profit off of it.

Don't get me wrong, I do not in any way support 10 year prison sentences for possession. It's a very minor offence in the grand scheme of things and throwing people into prison at all for it is just a bad idea in general.

How exactly one would control it more effectively, I don't know. I just think there might be some middle ground that isn't being considered.

If there is a middle ground I can't see it. Maybe a Netherlands type thing would work in other countries, where weed isn't exactly illegal but not legal either. It's still sold in shops, so it's not really middle ground.

Also if I'm not enterily mistaken they crack down on people who grow weed in bulk hard, which kinda defeats the purpose of letting them sell the stuff in shops.

It's not ideal, but it's a step forward, and it might be the middle ground you're looking for.

Heronblade:
I just snagged the first two sources, and the first one is for a detox clinic, no salesman pitch that I'm aware of. Then again I didn't check the whole website, so I may have been wrong on that count. Regardless, the information is available.

Concerning workplace habits, the mental slowing effect can take as much as a month to dissipate completely, particularly for habitual users. You don't have to be actively high for it to affect workplace performance.

And yeah, they've mostly dropped the "it kills brain cells!" angle. They can be stubborn, but its tough to deny that the negative mental effects of THC do disappear given time.

Regardless, I actually agree with you on your practical reasons for legalizing marijuana, and am leaning in that direction in spite of my reservations. I just wish I could think of an effective way to castrate the drug runners without resorting to that.

Didn't consider the bit about the mental slowdown even though it was right fucking there in your post and your sources. No idea how I missed it. Anyway, I guess you're right about that. But again, I just don't see that many workers being saved from accidents by the illegal status of a certain drug.

And again, about the drug runners/middle ground thing - I just don't see anything that could work well. Not surprising, since I'm not a particularly intelligent guy, but many educated and intelligent people have tried to solve this problem and failed, which is why I don't see anyone coming up with an idea soon.

To those who say that pot is harmful: I'm sorry but when exactly did marijuana become a dangerous drug that destructs your body? This is clearly a false and uninformed point of view and if these are your only grounds to keep a plant illegal then I guess it's about time we made painkillers illegal too.

Shadowstar38:
And people who use know what they're getting themselves into.

Ow, my sides, they hurt so bad right now because I'm laughing so hard at that comment. I've spoken to... at this point I'm not sure, let's say quite a few pots smokers (50 maybe?). I like asking the same question to every one of them; "Do you know what THC is and what is does?" So far, I've had 1 person correctly answer the question. Some of them were even OMP members (OR medical use) and they didn't even know.

afroebob:
Right now the biggest freedom being infringed on is the right to use substances on your own body that will only cause potential harm to oneself, the most notorious case being marijuana.

I didn't realize that was our biggest issue. I would have thought Gay Marriage myself. But sure, someone's right to omarry someone they love is not nearly as important as your right to puff the magic dragon. Dam teh gov'n'ment!

afroebob:
So I was wondering, considering this is blatantly un-American how can any American want it to remain illegal? This is not meant to patronize or bash anyone who does want it to stall illegal, I am just trying to understand your reasoning for thinking the government should take away our freedoms.

Something about throwing a pot head in jail makes me smile; do I really need a better reason?

Am I going to vote against the legalization? Probably not. I do feel you have the right to be as stupid as you want (it's why I love America!).
Am I going to vote for the legalization? Probably not. I'm under no obligation to support anything I personally disagree with.

Now, you could go vote for it and help the government recognize your fundamental right to abuse your own body any way you choose. Or, I could hook you up with a bag of Doritos and you could just chill for a day; no big deal man, the world will keep on spinning.

konna:
To those who say that pot is harmful: I'm sorry but when exactly did marijuana become a dangerous drug that destructs your body? This is clearly a false and uninformed point of view and if these are your only grounds to keep a plant illegal then I guess it's about time we made painkillers illegal too.

Go do me a favor, go perform a simple search on the short and long term effects of marijuana smoke. Feel free to compare as many sources as you wish, so long as they have some viable research behind them.

Then come back and we can continue if you still wish.

Kopikatsu:
Marijuana was legal to use (and was considered an entirely acceptable drug) from the mid 1850's to the early 1900's in the colonies.

Actually, it was legal pretty much everywhere up until the early 20th century.

Kopikatsu:
The reason it became a concern and was regulated was because of the rampant abuse. As in, it was initially legal and then was made illegal because of how much damage it was doing, along with Opium.

I don't known if you've heard but Reefer Madness was lying!

Kopikatsu:
Why is it so hard to follow a law that's meant to protect citizens

From what?

Kopikatsu:

WouldYouKindly:

You ask if the few minutes of high is worth the jail time, I pose the same question. Is the jail time worth the few minutes of high? Is it honestly worth it to have to support those people for months to years at a time for a smoking a little pot?

Yes. The law says that is the punishment, and so that is what is just.

Sorry,, what?

In the Medieval Europe, there were laws that stated that any non-Christians were supposed to be killed.
Was that just as well? That was the law.

Or how about some American history?
Black people treated as slaves? That was the law, must have been just.
American citizens put to jail for not wanting to go to Vietnam and kill people? Totally just because the lawmakers said so.

Heronblade:

The specific medium the brain uses to trigger feeling is utterly beside the point, real feelings are derived from real activities and events. A healthy mind seeks happiness in life, not through a needle.

I wasn't going to do this, until you felt compelled to misuse the word in two separate posts in one thread, and no one else called you on it.

real  
re·al1 [ree-uh l, reel] Show IPA
adjective
1.
true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: the real reason for an act.
2.
existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious: a story taken from real life.
3.
being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary: The events you will see in the film are real and not just made up.
4.
being actually such; not merely so-called: a real victory.
5.
genuine; not counterfeit, artificial, or imitation; authentic: a real antique; a real diamond; real silk.

Without going into it too deeply, since other people's qualia aren't accessible to us, it is not possible to define what a "real" subjective experience is, as opposed to those fake ones you've seen with your crystal ball. Also, wouldn't shooting up qualify as seeking happiness "in life", or are the needle freaks all zombies?

PS Rhetorical questions, never a good idea to argue semantics with people who think that the dictionary in their heads is the one that everybody uses.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Saladfork:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

With all due respect, I think theres more important benefits and drawbacks to legalization than you occasionally having to smell the stuff while walking down the street.

If you want me to, I could talk about these benefits and drawbacks, but I'm 99% sure you've heard it before. (No, my arguments don't boil down to "Alcohol is way worse", don't worry.)

Yes, there are a large number of other reasons for and against, but the OP asked for why anyone would would be against it, and since I'm never going to touch the stuff, that's the biggest thing that affects me personally.

Now I could talk about luncg cancer and demotivation and whatnot, but then the counterargumenet would be some variation on "What right do you have to tell me what I should do with my life", and I suppose I don't really have one.

I may be biased, I admit. My sister is basically the definitive example of every negative stereotype there is against pot smokers, and my anecdotal evidence is really niether here nor there, but I fail to see how pot can have anything but a negative influence on anyone's life.

Well, actually my reasons for standing behind legalization are more logical than ideological, at least I like to think they are.

Saying someone should be able to decide what they can and can't do with their body has a nice ring to it, but I find the other side of things to be much more interesting, the "practical" side, if you will. What it boils down to for me is this: criminalization has no benefits as far as I can see. Lets pretend for a second that I was convinced marijuana was the worst thing to ever happen to humanity - I think I'd still want the stuff legalized. It being illegal doesn't stop many people from smoking it, it just doesn't happen. Going up to a dealer or finding one is only marginally harder than walking into a store to buy something, and getting it on the illegal path adds a ton of drawbacks on top of the already existant health risks. Here in Germany we have people weighing down the stuff with a whole arsenal of harmful things, ranging from hairspray to deodrant to shards of glass. I've heard of it happening in Britain frequently too, it is not exclusive to this country. If you're concerned about potheads and their ruined lungs costing the state money, you should be concerned about this trend too.

So much for the whole lung cancer thing, but what about all the minors? Well, I'm willing to bet that it's harder for a youngster to acquire the stuff in a country where it is legally sold in stores than in Germany now. Of course you'll get older guys buying the stuff for underage friends, or shopkeepers who sell it to teenagers anyway. But is the assumption that shopkeepers will generally be more reluctant to sell to minors than some dealer who's already deep in criminal circles anyway really all that ridiculous?

And on top of all of that, you have the whole gang crime thing going on. This really isn't specific to marijuana though. To be honest I have no idea how much violence marijuana causes in terms of dealers fighting for ground or product, and I won't try to pull something out of my ass. But imagine for a moment that the US legalized, say, for example, cocaine. How do you think that would effect the situation in Mexico? I'm sure the violence would drop off by a considerable margin. This is the part of my argument I'm least sure and least educated on though, so again, if anyone rejects this theory, please let me know why.

Goes for my entire post really, but whatever.

Heronblade:
Only one pothead I know is a heavy enough user to meet that description, the rest just get knocked down a peg or two from normal. The thing is, mental function is critical for myself and my peers at the moment, and that peg or two is a killer.

As for proof, google can do wonders sometimes

http://www.theroadout.org/drug_information/marijuana/effects_of_heavy_marijuana_use_on_learning_and_social_behavior.html
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/marijuana-abuse/how-does-marijuana-use-affect-school-work-social-life

Couple salient points:
-"research has shown that marijuana's adverse impact on memory and learning can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the Drug wear off"
-"Students who smoke marijuana get lower grades and are less likely to graduate from high school, compared with their non-smoking peers"
-"marijuana users reported that use of the drug impaired several important measures of life achievement including cognitive abilities, career status, social life, and physical and mental health"
-"Several studies associate workers' marijuana smoking with increased absences, tardiness, accidents, workers' compensation claims, and job turnover"
-"a study among postal workers found that employees who tested positive for marijuana on a pre-employment urine drug test had 55 percent more industrial accidents, 85 percent more injuries, and a 75-percent increase in absenteeism compared with those who tested negative for marijuana use"

I can't help but doubt those two sources - one is trying to sell me some sort of drug to help me kick my addiction, while the other is government run, and we all know how much the government looooves marijuana. (Have they stopped ranting on about the whole "It kills braincells" thing?)

Also, to tackle the bit about work accidents - could it be that some stoners simply go to work while UTI, which would obviously raise the likelyhood of accidents during that time? It's no secret that you shouldn't operate heavy machinery while stoned, I feel it's not a compelling argument against marijuana though. The responsibility for this is with the worker, not the drug.

Despite that I don't have a hard time believing good parts of that, especially the things that are specific to young users. There must be some legitimacy to half of what they are saying.

Either way, if you feel like it you can check out the upper part of my post, in which I specify why I'm for legalization no matter what.

I can't help but agree with this guy and disagree with the other guy whose statements seem to imply a generalization that leads to a conclusion where smoking pot = shallow husk of former self.

Me and a friend of mine have actually been trying to find decent studies on how much marijuana can be held responsible for how people behave, since behavior is one of the provinces of psychology majors. The only thing we've agreed on so far is that there aren't enough good studies to draw a solid conclusion from.

Although I will agree that the substance is really addictive and can be abused. But then again, what about the people who can handle it like some of the people who posted on this page have said? As the guy who I'm quoting has said, I can't help but feel that it's the person's fault and not the drug, that being said taking away the drug wouldn't stop a lazy person from being lazy.

On a side note, students who smoke marijuana and are failing at school are failing because they go to school stoned. A similar study was done on this before, forgive me for not remembering where I read it. Its not that marijuana itself causes the students to fail or become stupid, its the inattention that causes them to fail. You could basically substitute being high with being drunk and come up with the same conclusion, but alcohol ain't illegal.

DevilWithaHalo:

Am I going to vote against the legalization? Probably not. I do feel you have the right to be as stupid as you want (it's why I love America!).

Reading through posts and this caught me off guard, hilarious hahahaha

Heronblade:

Reginald:

Heroinblade:
snip

I see your anecdote and raise you Carl Sagan, Barrack Obama, George Carlin, and Jimi Hendrix.

The first three were well in control of their habit. In particular, the only one who's thinking I find admirable, Carlin, claimed that his pot use was less than once a month.

As for Hendrix, I'd actually claim he reinforces my position.

So you admit you can control your pot use, and it's not always harmful? Great! How is Hendrix a bad example, though?

Reginald:

Heronblade:

The specific medium the brain uses to trigger feeling is utterly beside the point, real feelings are derived from real activities and events. A healthy mind seeks happiness in life, not through a needle.

You don't do marijuana through a needle. The drug you're describing in all of your posts is heroin. And besides, what's the difference between real and fake happiness? If I take a painkiller to knock out a headache, am I only getting imaginary relief?

The comment was concerning drugs in general, I'm well aware of how THC is normally delivered. And as implied, real happiness is tied to real events, there's nothing complicated about that concept.[/quote]

Anything you feel is a real feeling. And inhaling smoke is a real event.

So the people who are against weed. Are you guys also against alcohol & tobacco use? Also, anyone who is against pot, have you tried it yourself? Let's be clear, "That one time in college I took a hit from my friends joint and got dizzy." does not fucking count as trying it.

konna:
So the people who are against weed. Are you guys also against alcohol & tobacco use?

I'm neither for or against pot, but I don't see why other stuff always has to be brought in. Also I'm all for aclohol use. Best hing to pour on my knee if I fall with my bicycle and get a dirty abrasion, truly.

Oh by the way, let's ban mountain climbing and the more extreme sports while we're at it, I don't know.

See what I'm saying here is, if you want to make a case for pot, then make a case in favor of pot, not a case that appeals to how worse things than it are legal. Make a case for why pot should be legal on its own merits.

Let's be clear, "That one time in college I took a hit from my friends joint and got dizzy." does not fucking count as trying it.

It does, actually. What you're asking is apparently "Have you tried smoking pot regularly?"

Vegosiux:

I'm neither for or against pot, but I don't see why other stuff always has to be brought in.

It's an easy way to demonstrate when someone doesn't actually care if a substance does the things they say pot should be banned over. If someone wants to keep pot illegal because it has health affects, but they don't want to outlaw alcohol or tobacco, then clearly "it causes harm" is not actually the metric they're using. So either the person would need to A) change their stance on alcohol/tobacco, B) change their stance on marijuana, or C) admit that their reason for accepting alcohol and not marijuana is not logically sound.

BrassButtons:

Vegosiux:

I'm neither for or against pot, but I don't see why other stuff always has to be brought in.

It's an easy way to demonstrate when someone doesn't actually care if a substance does the things they say pot should be banned over. If someone wants to keep pot illegal because it has health affects, but they don't want to outlaw alcohol or tobacco, then clearly "it causes harm" is not actually the metric they're using. So either the person would need to A) change their stance on alcohol/tobacco, B) change their stance on marijuana, or C) admit that their reason for accepting alcohol and not marijuana is not logically sound.

"It causes harm" is vague enough that anyone who would seriously base their argument on it would be a hypocrit to leave their own room. Or crawl from the hidey-hole under the bed in their room, for that matter.

But again, if people want to make a case for weed, that's what they should be making, not a case against the opponents of weed, not a case against alcohol or tobacco, and not a case for naming Vegosiux supreme overlord (which I wouldn't oppose, but it still wouldn't point out why weed should be legal).

You know guys, as far as research concerning the pros and cons of pot to your health or anything else goes, it's just a dead circle. Reminds me of the 2007 Tallinn riot's(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Night) where a Russian man was interviewed on why he was taking part of the protest & against moving a bronze soldier which for the Estonians was a symbol of soviet occupation. All he said was: "Estonians should pick up a history book!" An Estonian next to him who heard that, asked him: "Yours or ours because they got some pretty different interpretations on 'liberation.'"
What I basically see here is the same thing. There is loads on info on how positive and good marijuana is and at the same time how bad it is for the user and all the people around him. Also, I'm a firm believer in liberties, so unlike most Americans, I believe I should have a choice in what substances I use or don't. In the end, most things can be abused(i.e. chocolate) but also most things are okay or even good for you when used in moderated amounts. As far as addictions go then, this is a whole different story as one can get addicted to something when only using it once and it might not even be an illegal substance, again, like chocolate so banning this just because some people might get addicted is like not letting a man have stake because a baby can't chew it.
In the end it's all about the money, it's all about making profit and for the people who make the choices, pot is not profitable. If you believe it's anything else, then you are ignorant. Plain and simple. End of discussion.
God bless the USA!

konna:
So the people who are against weed. Are you guys also against alcohol & tobacco use? Also, anyone who is against pot, have you tried it yourself? Let's be clear, "That one time in college I took a hit from my friends joint and got dizzy." does not fucking count as trying it.

I am opposed to recreational intoxication, regardless of the specific source, especially when it causes physical harm. So that's a definite yes on tobacco, and a partial yes for alcohol.

And no, I have not tried smoking weed. No, I do not need to do so to formulate an opinion.

Reginald:

Heronblade:

The first three were well in control of their habit. In particular, the only one who's thinking I find admirable, Carlin, claimed that his pot use was less than once a month.

As for Hendrix, I'd actually claim he reinforces my position.

So you admit you can control your pot use, and it's not always harmful? Great! How is Hendrix a bad example, though?

Why yes, yes I do, I would however also contend that such cases are the exception rather than the rule, particularly since a massive number of pot smokers appear to be misinformed about the actual impact it has, both while high, and for a period of time afterwards.

Concerning Hendrix, he was in one of the very rare professions where analytical thought was definitely not in demand. He also was not in control of either his habit or himself. Might want to make sure your examples are not known for drug and alcohol fueled violent rampages. Less so than some more recent artists. Heck, less so than entire bands I could name, but nevertheless.

Reginald:

Anything you feel is a real feeling. And inhaling smoke is a real event.

There's a condition known as Schizophrenia that would like to have words with you. Go ahead, have a long chat.

vonmanstein:
Marijuana is a destructive vice. The solution isn't legalization, but the institution of capital punishment as the result of possession convictions.

.........I don't see how you expect to be taken seriously if you're going to go an propose something so CLEARLY insane.

Death penalty for possession? REALLY? Do you have any idea how many false convictions that will lead to, and how many innocent people will end up dead?

If you have a problem with people smoking marijuana you're either a hypocrite or not a fan of freedom.

Smeatza:
If you have a problem with people smoking marijuana you're either a hypocrite or not a fan of freedom.

If the sentiment that marijuana only has an effect on the user were true, I wouldn't care. However, that is blatantly false.

It is not a matter of personal freedom, it is, among other things, a question of whether or not a few minutes of tricking your brain into believing you are happy and carefree is worth the collateral damage, which is quite extensive in some cases.

Heronblade:

Smeatza:
If you have a problem with people smoking marijuana you're either a hypocrite or not a fan of freedom.

If the sentiment that marijuana only has an effect on the user were true, I wouldn't care. However, that is blatantly false.

It is not a matter of personal freedom, it is, among other things, a question of whether or not a few minutes of tricking your brain into believing you are happy and carefree is worth the collateral damage, which is quite extensive in some cases.

But is curbing that not only correct (can you really meaningfully ban EVERY method of tricking your brain into believing your happy and carefree?), but even worth it from a logistical standpoint? Have you seen the caseload our courts have, and the crowding already in prisons?

Heronblade:

Smeatza:
If you have a problem with people smoking marijuana you're either a hypocrite or not a fan of freedom.

If the sentiment that marijuana only has an effect on the user were true, I wouldn't care. However, that is blatantly false.

It is not a matter of personal freedom, it is, among other things, a question of whether or not a few minutes of tricking your brain into believing you are happy and carefree is worth the collateral damage, which is quite extensive in some cases.

It's up to me to decide whether the collateral is worth it or not, for myself. It is not your business and not the government's business.
After all, unhealthy foods do more collateral damage to health in the developed western world than anything else. Are you in favour for banning all unhealthy food?

And as long as you aren't inhaling second hand marijuana smoke, it is only affecting the user. So as long as (like tobacco) there are rules on where and when you can smoke it, there is no issue.

Oh, and the tricking your brain into being happy part. Sex provides a temporary feeling of happiness, are you going to ban recreational sex?

konna:
To those who say that pot is harmful: I'm sorry but when exactly did marijuana become a dangerous drug that destructs your body? This is clearly a false and uninformed point of view and if these are your only grounds to keep a plant illegal then I guess it's about time we made painkillers illegal too.

Might I quote from the Wiki? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana

Cannabis has psychoactive and physiological effects when consumed. The minimum amount of THC required to have a perceptible psychoactive effect is about 10 micrograms per kilogram of body weight.[10] Aside from a subjective change in perception and, most notably, mood, the most common short-term physical and neurological effects include increased heart rate, increased appetite and consumption of food,[11] lowered blood pressure, impairment of short-term and working memory,[12] psychomotor coordination, and concentration. Long-term effects are less clear.[13][14]

Deaths attributed directly to cannabis usage are infrequent but have been documented.[15][16][17][18] Recorded fatalities resulting from cannabis overdose in animals are generally only after intravenous injection of hashish oil.[19]

And some long term stuff...

Cannabis can be habit-forming and the development of cannabis dependence in some users has been well established; its effects on intelligence,[28] memory, respiratory functions and the possible relationship of cannabis use to mental disorders[29] such as schizophrenia,[30] psychosis,[31] depersonalization disorder[32] and depression[33] are still under discussion. A study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 2011, concluded that the prevalence of obesity is lower in cannabis users than in nonusers.[34]

A 35-year study published August 2012 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and funded partly by NIDA and other NIH institutes provides objective evidence that, at least for adolescents, marijuana is harmful to the brain.[28] It was found that the persistent, dependent use of marijuana before age 18 showed lasting harm to a person's intelligence, attention and memory. Quitting cannabis did not appear to reverse the loss. However, individuals who started cannabis use after the age of 18 did not show similar declines.[35]

A July 2012 report in Brain reveals neural-connectivity impairment in some brain regions following prolonged cannabis use initiated in adolescence or young adulthood.[36]

...now sure, the level of harm is on the low scale side of things comparative to other drugs. But saying; "It doesn't do any harm!" is quite the ignorant statement to make.

Speaking of further ignorance; we actually do regulate the distribution and use of pain killers; http://www.ehow.com/about_6457787_federal-regulations-pain-medications.html (just one example). Generally speaking, most painkillers are 'illegal' in the sense the public isn't trusted with the proper manufacturing and use of their own painkillers.

And further ignorance...

konna:
So the people who are against weed. Are you guys also against alcohol & tobacco use?

In regards to alcohol, that depends on the use now doesn't it? Alcohol has more applications that you probably realize; fuel for example. THC does not perform multiple functions (and for the love of god, please don't spout more ignorance about marijuana and hemp being the same thing), while alcohol does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol#Alcoholic_beverages

The point you are trying to raise is someone's personal right to effect themselves; which no one really argues (well, outside a certain class of people that like everyone living the same way they do). What they do argue is how a person affected by their use of any of the three in question affects others. Alcohol leads to impaired judgement, often resulting in disastrous consequences, such a drunk driving. Tobacco use can adversely affect those around them, creating issues for people breathing.

You're actually committing a fallacy; false equivalence. Alcohol and tobacco use come with their own host of problems. And like marijuana, can be helpful to certain people in controlled situations. But people aren't advocating for real control or serious regulation for marijuana are they? They just want free access to it.

konna:
Also, anyone who is against pot, have you tried it yourself? Let's be clear, "That one time in college I took a hit from my friends joint and got dizzy." does not fucking count as trying it.

Anyone who is against war, have you ever gone to war?
Anyone who is against coffee, have you ever tried coffee?
Anyone who is against homosexual sex, have you ever tried homosexual sex?
Anyone who is against marriage, have you ever tried marriage?
Anyone who is against setting yourself on fire, have you ever tried setting yourself on fire?

People can form an informed opinion based on the observations, positive or negative, about things they have not personally experienced, or experienced enough to the point of not supporting it. Unless of course... you're suggesting people need to set themselves on fire?

Smeatza:

It's up to me to decide whether the collateral is worth it or not, for myself. It is not your business and not the government's business.
After all, unhealthy foods do more collateral damage to health in the developed western world than anything else. Are you in favour for banning all unhealthy food?

And as long as you aren't inhaling second hand marijuana smoke, it is only affecting the user. So as long as (like tobacco) there are rules on where and when you can smoke it, there is no issue.

I do not speak merely of collateral damage to oneself.

Among other things, there's the impact on the user's family (admittedly this varies), the increased odds of poor academic performance (which wastes time and money for everyone involved), the increased odds of critical errors at the workplace due to lapsed judgement (many don't seem to be aware that one doesn't need to be actively high to be adversely affected), and the increased odds of the user simply not being able to hold a job at all (and thus draining already stretched welfare).

GunsmithKitten:

Heronblade:
If the sentiment that marijuana only has an effect on the user were true, I wouldn't care. However, that is blatantly false.

It is not a matter of personal freedom, it is, among other things, a question of whether or not a few minutes of tricking your brain into believing you are happy and carefree is worth the collateral damage, which is quite extensive in some cases.

But is curbing that not only correct (can you really meaningfully ban EVERY method of tricking your brain into believing your happy and carefree?), but even worth it from a logistical standpoint? Have you seen the caseload our courts have, and the crowding already in prisons?

I mentioned the "tricking" aspect of it in reference to how utterly worthless the positive aspect of smoking pot actually is compared to the negatives. I would not advocate banning something on that basis alone.

And, I know. I strongly dislike giving up on standards merely because they have become too inconvenient to enforce, but that just might happen in this case.

DevilWithaHalo:

konna:
To those who say that pot is harmful: I'm sorry but when exactly did marijuana become a dangerous drug that destructs your body? This is clearly a false and uninformed point of view and if these are your only grounds to keep a plant illegal then I guess it's about time we made painkillers illegal too.

Might I quote from the Wiki? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana

Cannabis has psychoactive and physiological effects when consumed. The minimum amount of THC required to have a perceptible psychoactive effect is about 10 micrograms per kilogram of body weight.[10] Aside from a subjective change in perception and, most notably, mood, the most common short-term physical and neurological effects include increased heart rate, increased appetite and consumption of food,[11] lowered blood pressure, impairment of short-term and working memory,[12] psychomotor coordination, and concentration. Long-term effects are less clear.[13][14]

Deaths attributed directly to cannabis usage are infrequent but have been documented.[15][16][17][18] Recorded fatalities resulting from cannabis overdose in animals are generally only after intravenous injection of hashish oil.[19]

And some long term stuff...

Cannabis can be habit-forming and the development of cannabis dependence in some users has been well established; its effects on intelligence,[28] memory, respiratory functions and the possible relationship of cannabis use to mental disorders[29] such as schizophrenia,[30] psychosis,[31] depersonalization disorder[32] and depression[33] are still under discussion. A study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 2011, concluded that the prevalence of obesity is lower in cannabis users than in nonusers.[34]

A 35-year study published August 2012 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and funded partly by NIDA and other NIH institutes provides objective evidence that, at least for adolescents, marijuana is harmful to the brain.[28] It was found that the persistent, dependent use of marijuana before age 18 showed lasting harm to a person's intelligence, attention and memory. Quitting cannabis did not appear to reverse the loss. However, individuals who started cannabis use after the age of 18 did not show similar declines.[35]

A July 2012 report in Brain reveals neural-connectivity impairment in some brain regions following prolonged cannabis use initiated in adolescence or young adulthood.[36]

...now sure, the level of harm is on the low scale side of things comparative to other drugs. But saying; "It doesn't do any harm!" is quite the ignorant statement to make.

Speaking of further ignorance; we actually do regulate the distribution and use of pain killers; http://www.ehow.com/about_6457787_federal-regulations-pain-medications.html (just one example). Generally speaking, most painkillers are 'illegal' in the sense the public isn't trusted with the proper manufacturing and use of their own painkillers.

And further ignorance...

konna:
So the people who are against weed. Are you guys also against alcohol & tobacco use?

In regards to alcohol, that depends on the use now doesn't it? Alcohol has more applications that you probably realize; fuel for example. THC does not perform multiple functions (and for the love of god, please don't spout more ignorance about marijuana and hemp being the same thing), while alcohol does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol#Alcoholic_beverages

The point you are trying to raise is someone's personal right to effect themselves; which no one really argues (well, outside a certain class of people that like everyone living the same way they do). What they do argue is how a person affected by their use of any of the three in question affects others. Alcohol leads to impaired judgement, often resulting in disastrous consequences, such a drunk driving. Tobacco use can adversely affect those around them, creating issues for people breathing.

You're actually committing a fallacy; false equivalence. Alcohol and tobacco use come with their own host of problems. And like marijuana, can be helpful to certain people in controlled situations. But people aren't advocating for real control or serious regulation for marijuana are they? They just want free access to it.

konna:
Also, anyone who is against pot, have you tried it yourself? Let's be clear, "That one time in college I took a hit from my friends joint and got dizzy." does not fucking count as trying it.

Anyone who is against war, have you ever gone to war?
Anyone who is against coffee, have you ever tried coffee?
Anyone who is against homosexual sex, have you ever tried homosexual sex?
Anyone who is against marriage, have you ever tried marriage?
Anyone who is against setting yourself on fire, have you ever tried setting yourself on fire?

People can form an informed opinion based on the observations, positive or negative, about things they have not personally experienced, or experienced enough to the point of not supporting it. Unless of course... you're suggesting people need to set themselves on fire?

Okay buddy that's cool referencing wikipedia and all but there are literally thousands of sites which both agree and disagree on harmful effects. All the different tests and statistics that have been compiled usually end up the way the guys who payed for it want it to end up. But of course in the end, every substance is harmful in some way or another. And prolonged abuse is never good, no matter the drug.
As far as alcohol goes then oh boy. I can clearly say from my own experience that I'd rather have everyone getting high on weed rather than have them get drunk, which most people do on weekends around the world. And marijuana can be used as medicine, we all know that. Also alcohol the drink and alcohol the industrial substance are too different things. But you can still use the latter to get drunk.
On the topic of painkillers, which are essentially narcotics themselves, even the most lightest. Take 10-20 pill of the most over the counter pain bills & bye-bye world. Smoke 20 ounces of weed & guess what, you'll still be alive.
Lastly, let me clarify what I meant by not trying yourself. So most likely the guys who say yay or ney to legalization of weed are politicians and in the end it usually comes down to a small circle. And just like you would not wan't your countries military decisions be done by a guy who hasn't even seen combat, why would you wan't certain drugs be banned by people who haven't even tried them or haven't had any contact with'em? I'm not saying congress should start doing PCP but this isn't murder that we can decide it's not okay to kill others even though all the ones deciding haven't experienced death themselves.

aegix drakan:

vonmanstein:
Marijuana is a destructive vice. The solution isn't legalization, but the institution of capital punishment as the result of possession convictions.

.........I don't see how you expect to be taken seriously if you're going to go an propose something so CLEARLY insane.

Death penalty for possession? REALLY? Do you have any idea how many false convictions that will lead to, and how many innocent people will end up dead?

please read my followup post.

Heronblade:

Heronblade:
The first three were well in control of their habit. In particular, the only one who's thinking I find admirable, Carlin, claimed that his pot use was less than once a month.

As for Hendrix, I'd actually claim he reinforces my position.

So you admit you can control your pot use, and it's not always harmful? Great!

Why yes, yes I do, I would however also contend that such cases are the exception rather than the rule, particularly since a massive number of pot smokers appear to be misinformed about the actual impact it has, both while high, and for a period of time afterwards.[/quote]

I could say the vast majority of those who don't smoke appear to be misinformed about the actual impact marijuana has, and it'd be as valid as your statement.

Heronblade:
Concerning Hendrix, he was in one of the very rare professions where analytical thought was definitely not in demand. He also was not in control of either his habit or himself. Might want to make sure your examples are not known for drug and alcohol fueled violent rampages.

Might want to make sure you know who Hendrix was before you say he can't handle marijuana. Hendrix was in complete control of his pot use. I put it to you to prove that grass negatively impacted him, or his career. Prove it. Prove Hendrix was ruined by marijuana. Go.

Hendrix was worse on alcohol then grass, alcohol did not play nice with Hendrix. Guess what? Not relevant to his marijuana use. Marijuana doesn't turn you into an angry drunk. I knew you'd bring that up. You've been confusing correlation with causation, you've been treating anecdotal evidence as reliable and accurate, and now you're using logic not altogether dissimilar to this:

A guy drinks a glass of water. He then drinks some bleach. The bleach makes him quite ill. Since he drank bleach, the water must be bad for him.

Heronblade:

Reginald:

Anything you feel is a real feeling. And inhaling smoke is a real event.

There's a condition known as Schizophrenia that would like to have words with you. Go ahead, have a long chat.

The paranoia resulting from schizophrenia is real paranoia. The paranoia actually exists, the subject, however, may not. The hallucinations are actual hallucinations. The hallucinations don't exist in the physical world, as they are, in fact hallucinations. The delusions are bizarre, and incorrect, but they're real delusions. Someone suffering delusions is suffering from delusions.

If someone smokes, and they feel at peace for a while, then that's how they feel. That's a real feeling. That's as real as the love someone feels for someone else. When I'm having a good time, I don't pretend or imagine I'm happy. That's actual happiness. When someone is hight, they're actually high.

vonmanstein:

aegix drakan:

vonmanstein:
Marijuana is a destructive vice. The solution isn't legalization, but the institution of capital punishment as the result of possession convictions.

.........I don't see how you expect to be taken seriously if you're going to go an propose something so CLEARLY insane.

Death penalty for possession? REALLY? Do you have any idea how many false convictions that will lead to, and how many innocent people will end up dead?

please read my followup post.

Oh.

*facepalm* Yeah, sorry I didn't realize it was sarcasm.

konna:
Okay buddy that's cool referencing wikipedia and all but there are literally thousands of sites which both agree and disagree on harmful effects.

True, so if the debate rages on, why make the statement that people are ignorant in thinking that marijuana isn't harmful?

konna:
All the different tests and statistics that have been compiled usually end up the way the guys who payed for it want it to end up.

Er... yes and no. The only way that argument makes sense is if the investigators have a vested interest in it. The CDC for example, while government funded, has no vested interested in marijuana either way; they merely report their findings to both the government and the public. I do agree that many politicians will ferret out supportive tests to confirm their bias.

konna:
But of course in the end, every substance is harmful in some way or another. And prolonged abuse is never good, no matter the drug.

Agreed.

konna:
As far as alcohol goes then oh boy. I can clearly say from my own experience that I'd rather have everyone getting high on weed rather than have them get drunk, which most people do on weekends around the world.

I don't think many people would disagree with you. I researched a study that suggested the effects of various suppressants and depressants are actually influenced by the culture they reside in. Perhaps people are fucking idiots when drunk because they are merely taking advantage of the stereotype we associate between people being idiots and being drunk.

konna:
And marijuana can be used as medicine, we all know that.

True, but how does that translate to free use to anyone else? We even regulate the sale of cough medicine because of its effects. The vast majority of people that use it don't need it (I could probably find statistics to support that, but would anyone really disagree with the notion?).

konna:
Also alcohol the drink and alcohol the industrial substance are too different things. But you can still use the latter to get drunk.

Yes and no. It depends entirely on the chemical composition. Most alcoholic beverages have reductions in the amounts of straight ethanol they use (why your bottles claim "contains X amount of alcohol"). If you removed everything but the ethanol in your beverage, and filled your bottle with nothing but the alcoholic compound, depending on the beverage, you would probably kill yourself if you drank it. It's the utility in the compound that makes it difficult to ban outright. We would serious impact a lot of industry.

konna:
On the topic of painkillers, which are essentially narcotics themselves, even the most lightest. Take 10-20 pill of the most over the counter pain bills & bye-bye world. Smoke 20 ounces of weed & guess what, you'll still be alive.

Um... not quite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painkillers Painkillers are not merely narcotics. Your OD statement depends entirely on the drug and the person. And you're drawing an unequal parallel given the amounts of your comparison to weed...

20ounches of weed is equivalent to 566grams, or 566990milligrams of weed. So one ounce is 28.3 grams, or 28300 milligrams.
It's my understanding (and I could be wrong), that a regular full strength tablet of Aspirin is about 325milligrams, or 0.325 grams, which is about 0.01 (rounded down) ounces of oxycodone.
This means that a full ounce of oxycodone would be about 32.5 pills, and the equivalent amount of marijuana would be 919.75 ounces.
I'm not a doctor, and my math could be wrong, but I'd wager a safe bet that that much marijuana at once would probably kill you.

Now if you're argument was merely to point out the effectiveness of the compounds, you might be on to something. But then again, if we're talking about efficiency, why not simply take aspirin? Which is clearly more effective at lower dosages than marijuana when it comes to painkillers. And considering the costs involved, talking price per ounce, Aspirin is against the clear winner. How much does a bottle of aspirin cost in your area? And how much would the equivalent of weed cost?

konna:
Lastly, let me clarify what I meant by not trying yourself. So most likely the guys who say yay or ney to legalization of weed are politicians and in the end it usually comes down to a small circle.

The voting results clearly indicate that it's not a small circle of people.

konna:
And just like you would not wan't your countries military decisions be done by a guy who hasn't even seen combat, why would you wan't certain drugs be banned by people who haven't even tried them or haven't had any contact with'em?

Are you suggesting I let of a bunch of alcoholics run the ATF? Of course not, but we live in a democratic (mostly) society, and people are free to vote whoever they choose. It's less about the "government" banning it than it is your fellow citizens.

Direct experience, once again, is not necessary in the regulation of a substance. Again, I don't think the head of the ATF needs to have personal experience with any substance he/she is required to moniter.

konna:
I'm not saying congress should start doing PCP but this isn't murder that we can decide it's not okay to kill others even though all the ones deciding haven't experienced death themselves.

That's so grammatically incomprehensible and equivalently absurd that I'm not even going to bother attempting to dissect it. Try rewording it.

Reginald:

Heronblade:
Concerning Hendrix, he was in one of the very rare professions where analytical thought was definitely not in demand. He also was not in control of either his habit or himself. Might want to make sure your examples are not known for drug and alcohol fueled violent rampages.

Might want to make sure you know who Hendrix was before you say he can't handle marijuana. Hendrix was in complete control of his pot use. I put it to you to prove that grass negatively impacted him, or his career. Prove it. Prove Hendrix was ruined by marijuana. Go.

Hendrix was worse on alcohol then grass, alcohol did not play nice with Hendrix. Guess what? Not relevant to his marijuana use. Marijuana doesn't turn you into an angry drunk. I knew you'd bring that up. You've been confusing correlation with causation, you've been treating anecdotal evidence as reliable and accurate, and now you're using logic not altogether dissimilar to this:

The point was that the man's use of intoxicating substances pretty much destroyed him. Marijuana played a part, how much of one is impossible to prove, we could sit here debating that point for years and get nowhere. Please recall that I didn't bring him up in the first place, he fails to represent a clear case for either argument.

Reginald:

Heronblade:

Reginald:

Anything you feel is a real feeling. And inhaling smoke is a real event.

There's a condition known as Schizophrenia that would like to have words with you. Go ahead, have a long chat.

The paranoia resulting from schizophrenia is real paranoia. The paranoia actually exists, the subject, however, may not. The hallucinations are actual hallucinations. The hallucinations don't exist in the physical world, as they are, in fact hallucinations. The delusions are bizarre, and incorrect, but they're real delusions. Someone suffering delusions is suffering from delusions.

If someone smokes, and they feel at peace for a while, then that's how they feel. That's a real feeling. That's as real as the love someone feels for someone else. When I'm having a good time, I don't pretend or imagine I'm happy. That's actual happiness. When someone is hight, they're actually high.

Again, not the point. The defining hallmark of schizophrenia isn't the paranoia, or even necessarily the hallucinations (although those play a major part), it is an inability to distinguish experiences that actually occur from those that do not. The effects of recreational drugs are only real in the same sense that the voice gibbering in patient X's ear is real. By insisting that experiences within the brain are all that is required to be reality, you are effectively arguing that you are INSANE. That is not quite what I actually think is the case, but I am willing to pursue the angle.

Heronblade:
There's a condition known as Schizophrenia that would like to have words with you. Go ahead, have a long chat.

You should probably stop using the word "real", because you clearly have no idea what it means, even though I was helpful enough to post the definition for you.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked