Legalise marijuana

[Blarghagh]

I like to add to this discussion from Holland where it's legalized by saying that I know a fairly large group of regular pot smokers that are, without a doubt, a huge crapload dumber than everyone else I know -- with the exception of the drinkers, who are even worse!

 

Not sayin' it should be legalized because of that. Just sayin' that the pot users and drinkers I know are all complete dumbasses. I think that's good cause to getting rid of them both, honestly. I drink a few beers now and then, but I wouldn't miss it.

[Orogun01]

what is with you people? the dangers o' tobacco and alcohol has 0 moral or legal relevance when considering the implications o' legalized mj. is your argument honestly that it isn't fair that pot smokers should be denied the same opportunities to legally endanger themselves? your observations is only persuasive in explaining why tobacco and alcohol should not be legal.

 

"Well, Billy's mom lets him stay out past 6:00 PM."

 

parents everywhere is unmoved by the traditional argument concocted by foolish kids. is less funny when adults try the same shtick.

 

HA! Good Fun!

No, my argument is that long term study shouldn't hinder making a decision and alcohol and tobacco aren't psychedelic substances. The only reason that marijuana is illegal is because of Mexican aliens and hippies.

Plus you are ignoring all the economical benefits that it could bring, this is a market that if legalized it would explode and give a much needed injection of life to the economy.

[Gromnir]

what is with you people? the dangers o' tobacco and alcohol has 0 moral or legal relevance when considering the implications o' legalized mj. is your argument honestly that it isn't fair that pot smokers should be denied the same opportunities to legally endanger themselves? your observations is only persuasive in explaining why tobacco and alcohol should not be legal.

 

"Well, Billy's mom lets him stay out past 6:00 PM."

 

parents everywhere is unmoved by the traditional argument concocted by foolish kids. is less funny when adults try the same shtick.

 

HA! Good Fun!

No, my argument is that long term study shouldn't hinder making a decision and alcohol and tobacco aren't psychedelic substances. The only reason that marijuana is illegal is because of Mexican aliens and hippies.

Plus you are ignoring all the economical benefits that it could bring, this is a market that if legalized it would explode and give a much needed injection of life to the economy.

 

 

...

 

you ain't making much sense... regardless, where does you see Gromnir ignoring economic benefits? we already said we is not opposed to legalization. nevertheless, our pov does not preclude us from exposing the weakness o' other pro legalization arguments.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[heathen]

nvm

Edited July 10, 2010 by heathen

[Hurlshort]

Yet cigarettes were in circulation before anyone knew the long term effects, which IMO are being exaggerated.

 

Wait, are you saying cancer and emphysema are exaggerated? That is insane.

[Orogun01]

you ain't making much sense... regardless, where does you see Gromnir ignoring economic benefits? we already said we is not opposed to legalization. nevertheless, our pov does not preclude us from exposing the weakness o' other pro legalization arguments.

 

HA! Good Fun!

There is no mention of it anywhere, basically you just point at the pros platform and call on it's weakness. I'll grant you, you are right on your points they are just to constricted to properly address the issue. Which also encompasses the drug trade.

 

Yet cigarettes were in circulation before anyone knew the long term effects, which IMO are being exaggerated.

 

Wait, are you saying cancer and emphysema are exaggerated? That is insane.

The contribution of tobacco to the mass epidemic of cancer might be, there are lot of cases of nonsmokers that get cancer. Blaming cigars and secondhand smoke just sweeps the problem under the rug, it doesn't solve or addresses alternatives causes.

[LadyCrimson]

I guess I'm not a very logical person...sometimes the way 'strawman' gets tossed around on the internet confuses me. Seems like it's becoming too generic a catchphrase. Tho maybe in this case it's because I often have a hard time untangling Gromnir's text.

 

the dangers o' tobacco and alcohol has 0 moral or legal relevance when considering the implications o' legalized mj.

I do understand your point that tobacco/booze isn't weed (cats aren't dogs), & yeah, technically that's probably 'strawman', but since laws are based on subjective/collective group beliefs, it's fairly common for people to point to what they consider similar situations as precedent(s) - as a past example to justify/convince trying a new action. I don't see what's so 'wrong' when people do so. *shrug*

 

The only way to know what will happen if weed is legal, during any period/generation of action, is to have it be legal long enough to find out. Past precedents/similar current laws can help people make up their minds whether they want to take the risk and try.

Edited July 10, 2010 by LadyCrimson

[Hurlshort]

Wait, are you saying cancer and emphysema are exaggerated? That is insane.

The contribution of tobacco to the mass epidemic of cancer might be, there are lot of cases of nonsmokers that get cancer. Blaming cigars and secondhand smoke just sweeps the problem under the rug, it doesn't solve or addresses alternatives causes.

 

So every major health organization in the world is just exaggerating for kicks and giggles?

 

Here are some sources:

 

http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/cancer/en/index.html

 

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factshe...bacco/cessation

 

Next, maybe you can tell me how coal miners and black lung disease aren't really closely related.

[Gromnir]

I guess I'm not a very logical person...sometimes the way 'strawman' gets tossed around on the internet confuses me. Seems like it's becoming too generic a catchphrase. Tho maybe in this case it's because I often have a hard time untangling Gromnir's text.

 

the dangers o' tobacco and alcohol has 0 moral or legal relevance when considering the implications o' legalized mj.

I do understand your point that tobacco/booze isn't weed (cats aren't dogs), & yeah, technically that's probably 'strawman', but...

 

...

 

well shucks, don't sell yourself short. not only were you able to untangle, but you even admits strawman... though you inexplicably seem to rail against it. am guessing that that is ok because you admitted being illogical? lord only knows what "its fairly common" has to do with logic, reason, or strawman, so why you would continue to wanna draw parallels 'tween alcohol, tobacco and weed is perplexing. am suspecting that your unidentified reason for wishing to do so is all three substances may be able to be identified as recreational drugs. yes? that's it?

 

*shrug*

 

am honest curious: what Right does you believe is infringed 'pon by the prohibition of recreational weed usage? perhaps looking at the issue from a different perspective might help us understand. we is in favor o' legalization, but we is also dismissive of pothead rights... and potheads in general. our support o' legalization is lukewarm at best... so convince us to be ardent. don't bother explaining the practical benefits and drawbacks o' legalization as such things is known to us. as a student of law and a proponent o' justice, we wish to know what right you is being denied so that we might become justifiably irate in defense o' the cause.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 11, 2010 by Gromnir

[Orogun01]

So every major health organization in the world is just exaggerating for kicks and giggles?

 

Here are some sources:

 

http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/cancer/en/index.html

 

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factshe...bacco/cessation

 

Next, maybe you can tell me how coal miners and black lung disease aren't really closely related.

I'm pretty sure that tobacco does cause cancer, but the amount of non smokers with cancer is significant. Whatever is giving it to them puts the rest of us at significant risk and this cause isn't being addressed because cancer has become synonymous with anti-smoking. But this isn't really the topic.

[Gromnir]

So every major health organization in the world is just exaggerating for kicks and giggles?

 

Here are some sources:

 

http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/cancer/en/index.html

 

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factshe...bacco/cessation

 

Next, maybe you can tell me how coal miners and black lung disease aren't really closely related.

I'm pretty sure that tobacco does cause cancer, but the amount of non smokers with cancer is significant. Whatever is giving it to them puts the rest of us at significant risk and this cause isn't being addressed because cancer has become synonymous with anti-smoking. But this isn't really the topic.

 

 

*groan*

 

oddly enough, as wacky as ogrun's bassackwards reasoning would seem to be, it were a very effective defense for the tobacco industry when dealing with individual plaintiffs. now it should be understood that only the most obtuse yutz would, in 2010, argue Against the correlation 'tween cigarette smoking and various cancers. however, keep in mind that People have standing to sue in court... abstract causes do not.

 

...

 

does tobacco use cause cancer? pretty tough to deny that it does... but keep in mind that hundreds o' other things may cause cancer as well. also, there is much documented evidence that Bob, and Tom, and Phil (and tens o' thousands o' lab mice) smoked the equivalent of a pack a day for 20 years and did not get cancer, so how can we says with absolute certainty that the tobacco use causes cancer, yes? cancer caused by smoking not have some particular genetic marker that distinguishes it from cancer caused by the literally hundreds o' other plausible causes o' cancer, so how does plaintiff prove that his cancer were caused by smoking?

 

look at the numbers en masse and it is pretty much impossible to deny a correlation 'tween smoking tobacco and cancer, but look at a single individual case o' cancer and it is difficult to Prove that the cancer were caused by cigarettes.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps to clarify on the weed issue, if Gromnir were to take a moral stance on the issue, we would be in favor o' maintaining the prohibition on recreational pot use. it is also perfectly legal for the govt. to prohibit pot use... this is still a representative democracy, no? until the law changes... *shrug* is no fundamental rights being denied to pot heads, and the notion that weed users is somehow being treated unfair in light o' legalized alcohol or tobacco use is, as already discussed, a nonsense argument. am okie dokie with legalization (if only barely) 'cause we thinks the actual cost o' criminalizing is too high... and 'cause the social cost resulting from allowing recreational pot use does not particularly affect Gromnir. the musty smelling wasteoids who will cheer pot legalization is not really our concern. as we has already noted, the one group o' persons who is particular at risk from pot use is early-teens who is still undergoing substantial cognitive/brain development. if we saw any compelling evidence that suggested that this at risk group would increase in size after legalization o' pot use we would very quickly change sides to the opponents o' legalization.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Gromnir

[~Di]

look at the numbers en masse and it is pretty much impossible to deny a correlation 'tween smoking tobacco and cancer, but look at a single individual case o' cancer and it is difficult to Prove that the cancer were caused by cigarettes.

 

True. Statistics indicate that tobacco seems to significantly increase the risk of developing certain cancers... but that's not all it does. Cigarettes are proven to cause Emphysema and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, which kills you just as dead as cancer only it takes longer. Smoking is bad. Excessive drinking is bad. People rationalize abusing these substances because they can't actually relate to something that might destroy their lives in 20-30 years. Young people just can't look that far down the road, unfortunately, until it's too damned late. I know I couldn't.

 

 

ps to clarify on the weed issue, if Gromnir were to take a moral stance on the issue, we would be in favor o' maintaining the prohibition on recreational pot use. it is also perfectly legal for the govt. to prohibit pot use, and this is still a representative democracy, no? until the law changes... *shrug* is no fundamental rights being denied to pot heads, and the notion that weed users is somehow being treated unfair in light o' legalized alcohol or tobacco use is, as already discussed, a nonsense argument. am okie dokie with legalization (if only barely) 'cause we thinks the actual cost o' criminalizing is too high... and 'cause the social cost resulting from allowing recreational pot use does not particularly affect Gromnir. the musty smelling wasteoids who will cheer pot legalization is not really our concern. as we has already noted, the one group o' persons who is particular at risk from pot use is early-teens who is still undergoing substantial cognitive/brain development. if we saw any compelling evidence that suggested that this at risk group would increase in size after legalization o' pot use we would very quickly change sides to the opponents o' legalization.

 

It will still be illegal for anyone to sell or give marijuana to minors, and sentences for doing so will still be very tough. Thing is, kids can get it now in their schools. They can also get tobacco and alcohol, so all we as a society can do is to continue to punish those involved in giving illegal substances to minors. That's where we should redirect our weed enforcement dollars, to those who prey on the kids. If this passes we'll have more dollars to do just that, I'm thinking.

 

I agree with you about the adult imbibers. If they want to do stupid things to their body that may or will have longterm consequences to their body... well, prohibition doesn't work. It's never worked. All it does is open the criminal floodgates of black-market cartels to supply what the government takes away. So far the evidence shows that weed is physically non-addictive and relatively harmless, although it'ss a huge profit-maker for drug lords. Take that profit away by making it legal and a huge hunk of our crime problem goes away, just as it did when Prohibition was finally struck down.

 

We should spend the money we save on educating our youth about the dangers of drugs, tobacco and alcohol so that more of them will make better choices in their lives. As I've said, I really don't see a downside to this... other than the fact that the state will probably spend the next five years defending itself against the feds, who will not be happy campers to have one of their states reject part of their national drug statute.

Edited July 11, 2010 by ~Di

[Gromnir]

am thinking that Di is a bit overly optimistic concerning the lack o' a downside. first, just 'cause mj use would be illegal for minors does not mean that weed use amongst minors will stay at current rates. given increased availability and relaxed social contempt, we expect a rise in teen and pre-teen usage... am just not certain if the increase will be significant. also, do not believe for a moment that legalization will put drug lords out of business. weed use will be taxed, and taxed heavily. vices is invariably taxed heavily. the more heavily a good/service is taxed, the more attractive you makes illegal proliferation and distribution.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Orogun01]

The problem with drug legislation is that is bound to be partially inefficient, since it will always fail to address the real issue: The demand. There is a drug market because of the demand, legalizing marijuana won't kill the dealer it will only open up his consumer base.

Like Grommir says it will most likely be heavily taxed and it will just be history repeating itself

Edited July 11, 2010 by Orogun01

[Gorth]

the real issue: The demand.

Also one of the hardest problems to address. Find out why people want to willingly lobotomise themselves and convince them that getting all "recreational" is not the best answer. Entirely anecdotal, but I've never met a susbstance user (short of tea and coffee) face to face that struck me as particularly sympathetic.

[Humodour]

Yet cigarettes were in circulation before anyone knew the long term effects, which IMO are being exaggerated.

 

You think pot should be illegal and that smoking tobacco has little correlation with cancer. Hooray!

[LadyCrimson]

...though you inexplicably seem to rail against it. [...] lord only knows what "its fairly common" has to do with logic, reason, or strawman, so why you would continue to wanna draw parallels 'tween alcohol, tobacco and weed is perplexing.

 

Hmm....I don't believe I was "railing against" strawman. I was simply trying to say that 'strawman' accusations, to me, often feel more an excuse to simply argue for sake of argument. Er, I can't find the words for what I mean, exactly I guess. It depends on what the debate actually is about. Asking someone to justify whether a law should be or shouldn't be legal via only "proven facts" is a teensy bit like asking someone to justify their spiritual belief (imo). "Justification" is a moral merry go round...you can't "prove" a justification that is going to apply to everyone's sense of morality...but you can have interesting & lively discussions/back and forths on all the maybes and could-be's and possible ramifications of a law...based on similar laws from the past or laws currently in place or out of just plain sheer speculation.

 

but keep in mind that hundreds o' other things may cause cancer as well. also, there is much documented evidence that Bob, and Tom, and Phil (and tens o' thousands o' lab mice) smoked the equivalent of a pack a day for 20 years and did not get cancer, so how can we says with absolute certainty that the tobacco use causes cancer, yes? cancer caused by smoking not have some particular genetic marker that distinguishes it from cancer caused by the literally hundreds o' other plausible causes o' cancer, so how does plaintiff prove that his cancer were caused by smoking?

...I think I suddenly know more where you're coming from, now, which is helpful.

 

am honest curious: what Right does you believe is infringed 'pon by the prohibition of recreational weed usage?

In terms of my own beliefs, I do believe individuals have the right to choose what they wish to do with their bodies...assuming they are mentally capable of doing so & are aware of the possible consequences of their decision. Also assuming that when they do so, it doesn't present an unreasonable increase in danger to others. ie, smoking (anything, really) in my house by my lonesome is my right to risk myself, but puffing away directly into someone's else's face (especially in an enclosed area) would be invading their rights to choose not to take the risk for themselves. It's a fine line sometimes, but for me it's there.

 

However, since I don't think I'd enjoy a lawless, random "me-me-me" chaos society, I also believe in having laws...but that the government should not have the 'right' to blanket choose such "personal choice" laws for the people...the people should choose them, by voting. That's saying it simply, but...yeah.

Edited July 11, 2010 by LadyCrimson

[Gromnir]

"Asking someone to justify whether a law should be or shouldn't be legal via only "proven facts" is a teensy bit like asking someone to justify their spiritual belief (imo). "

 

never did so. am suspecting you can work out the flaw in reasoning if you think it through a bit more. the list o' activities that is criminalized but arguably less dangerous than alcohol use is vast... but so what? legitimize mj legalization 'cause some other dangerous activity is not criminalized? how does the existence o' a more dangerous and non criminalized activity somehow bolster rationale for removing the prohibitions regarding weed? if you feels better, we s'pose the fallacy is probable more accurate described as ignoratio elenchi. really, the legalization o' tobacco or alcohol does not in anyway impact the pros and cons o' mj legalization.

 

personal choice laws? is a quaint bit o' phraseology. so, given that we is talking 'bout a mind-altering drug, no doubt the State should leave up to individuals to be responsible and not let their recreational drug habits affect their work responsibilities and those persons around them, eh? am guessing that we could dispense with the fda if lc got her way... could be a good thing. and no doubt folks such as jose canseco and barry bonds would be overjoyed. personally we got no issue wit lc's preference, 'cause as we said before, we is having little issue watching folks destroy themselves... but how do you guarantee folks will only hurt themselves? lc is ok with private persons using weed in their homes... or anything else for that matter, right? coke, crack, meth, etc?

 

*shakes head sadly*

 

here is a little fly for lc's ointment: what if your recreational drug user has children?

 

again, Gromnir is willing to go along with the legalization pov, but trying to convince us that the potheads got some kinda moral high ground is difficult to accept.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 11, 2010 by Gromnir

[Gorgon]

the real issue: The demand.

Also one of the hardest problems to address. Find out why people want to willingly lobotomise themselves and convince them that getting all "recreational" is not the best answer. Entirely anecdotal, but I've never met a susbstance user (short of tea and coffee) face to face that struck me as particularly sympathetic.

Yes you have, I guarantee it.

 

There really is a shocking amount of prejudice and assumption going on in this thread. I should feel ashamed on behalf of recreational drug users everywhere. I'm going to just settle for thinking less of you instead.

[Humodour]

the real issue: The demand.

Also one of the hardest problems to address. Find out why people want to willingly lobotomise themselves and convince them that getting all "recreational" is not the best answer. Entirely anecdotal, but I've never met a susbstance user (short of tea and coffee) face to face that struck me as particularly sympathetic.

Yes you have, I guarantee it.

 

There really is a shocking amount of prejudice and assumption going on in this thread. I should feel ashamed on behalf of recreational drug users everywhere. I'm going to just settle for thinking less of you instead.

 

While Gorth's statement is laughably naive, in his defence he did include (by omission in his list of exclusions) alcohol in the list of substances he finds distasteful.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Krezack

[LadyCrimson]

personal choice laws? is a quaint bit o' phraseology. so, given that we is talking 'bout a mind-altering drug, no doubt the State should leave up to individuals to be responsible and not let their recreational drug habits affect their work responsibilities and those persons around them, eh? am guessing that we could dispense with the fda if lc got her way... could be a good thing. and no doubt folks such as jose canseco and barry bonds would be overjoyed. personally we got no issue wit lc's preference, 'cause as we said before, we is having little issue watching folks destroy themselves... but how do you guarantee folks will only hurt themselves? lc is ok with private persons using weed in their homes... or anything else for that matter, right? coke, crack, meth, etc?

 

*shakes head sadly*

 

here is a little fly for lc's ointment: what if your recreational drug user has children?

 

again, Gromnir is willing to go along with the legalization pov, but trying to convince us that the potheads got some kinda moral high ground is difficult to accept.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Guarantee folks will only hurt themselves? Who said anything about a guarantee?

 

Strawman, strawman! ... I'm joking, don't take that seriously. But I do feel you're making some pretty broad assumptions about what "LC" would choose. I did say I was saying it "simply"...for one thing, I really don't feel like writing 100 pages about what I think/would do about every single scenario/circumstance ever possible.

 

With that out of the way...we have punishment laws. If you run someone over with your car, you're (hopefully) held responsible for it. Yes, punishment after the fact is not a perfect/awesome solution since then it's "too late" & there can be "miscarriages of justice". Anyone who deals with domestic violence (and other such) cases can speak to that enormous frustration. But I don't believe that because a (possibly) small percentage of weed users may be irresponsible parents/irresponsible in general, we should say no one at all can smoke weed. Not to mention, such tactics don't seem very effective in preventing people who want to use, from using, anyway.

 

There is no perfect solution or arrangement & never will be, imo. There is only choosing what type and how much risk is acceptable to you (and to the majority voters, in terms of making law).

 

As to Jose Canseco et al...personally, I couldn't care less if he wanted to pump himself with enhancement drugs until his head exploded, in terms of whether they're legal overall. But the issue is some feel that competitive sports, the playing field should be level. If you say "If you join the MLB, you can use them if ya want", then those who don't want may be at a disadvantage from those who choose to use. It's more fair, at least imo, to say "if you join MLB, no one can" and then screen for/punish "cheaters."

 

...at this point I feel that you are arguing mostly for the sake of argument...to argue opposing/contrary points of view for whatever reasons. That's fine and all...and sometimes it's a very useful thing actually, gets people to think outside their self-made boxes...but I think I've had enough for now...it's interesting, but also tires my brain out...unfortunately I don't find it as entertaining as some, that's all.

 

Edit: oops you wrote more while I was straining my slow witted brain trying to reply cohesively. Um...yeah...I'm tired. Going to bed now.

Edited July 11, 2010 by LadyCrimson

[Gromnir]

"With that out of the way...we have punishment laws."

 

oddly enough, you already pointed out the silliness o' depending on such. am curious why you would bring up given how easily such an argument is dismissed. spend a few moments considering all o' the deadly eventualities that laws seemingly is written to prevent... traffic, weapon, environmental, etc.

 

"But the issue is some feel that competitive sports, the playing field should be level."

 

no. sorry, but you either ain't been paying attention or is simply ignorant. sports fans is concerned 'bout the level playing field stuff and the sanctity o' various records, but when these issues come before congressional hearings, more often than not the issue o' health issues and undue influence on impressionable children is the topics debated ad nauseum.

 

"But I don't believe that because a (possibly) small percentage of weed users may be irresponsible parents/irresponsible in general, we should say no one at all can smoke weed."

 

why not? 'cause you thinks you has Right to get high? assuming you is correct and the number o' children injured is small, if a legislator has to choose between the rights of a handful of innocents compared to a multitude o' stoners, which way do you think he is gonna choose... particularly if we is talking moral high ground stuff, eh?

 

really, if anybody is arguing just to argue...

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 11, 2010 by Gromnir

[Humodour]

...at this point I feel that you are arguing mostly for the sake of argument...to argue opposing/contrary points of view for whatever reasons.

 

I'm amused you engaged him in the first place. Surely you've known him long enough to know what he is like?

[Humodour]

"But I don't believe that because a (possibly) small percentage of weed users may be irresponsible parents/irresponsible in general, we should say no one at all can smoke weed."

 

why not? 'cause you thinks you has Right to get high? assuming you is correct and the number o' children injured is small, if a legislator has to choose between the rights of a handful of innocents compared to a multitude o' stoners, which way do you think he is gonna choose... particularly if we is talking moral high ground stuff, eh?

 

really, if anybody is arguing just to argue...

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Well, there goes alcohol too! You don't want to be a hypocrite, do you gromnir? Wait, of course you do.

[Thorton_AP]

I'm pretty sure that tobacco does cause cancer, but the amount of non smokers with cancer is significant. Whatever is giving it to them puts the rest of us at significant risk and this cause isn't being addressed because cancer has become synonymous with anti-smoking. But this isn't really the topic.

 

I'm not sure what part of the world you live in. Where I come from people see smoking as something that can cause a type of cancer. It's in now way synonymous with anti-smoking.