laakskdjjfhbbbcuuipppw wrote:
It's a gateway drug. If more people are exposed to weed, they'll prob start doing crazy shit like crack or heroine. That's just no good
You can say the same thing about mother's milk, coke cola, coffee or tea.
laakskdjjfhbbbcuuipppw wrote:
It's a gateway drug. If more people are exposed to weed, they'll prob start doing crazy shit like crack or heroine. That's just no good
You can say the same thing about mother's milk, coke cola, coffee or tea.
Most of you are closeted runner kids who are talking out your azzes. I have a lot of friends/acquaintances who smoke a ton of weed. It basically ruins your life, you become addicted to it (yes, trust me). You get high and fall asleep on the couch, you suck at driving while you're high, you blow through your money to get high/while you're high. I guess some people with actual social disorders just need it to manage, but the thought of allowing anyone to just start getting high on weed scares the shiiiet out of me.
VerminMeat wrote:
jewbacca wrote:There is no GOOD reason for recreational use. The pendulum sometimes swings too far ---> the swing from schedule 1 to legal is exactly that.
You are a fool. You have a slave mentality. There is no GOOD reason for alcohol being legal or recreational use. You are thinking about liberty backwards.
You think everything should be illegal until the government deems that it is "good". I think everything should be legal until it is proven to be a dramatic societal bad.
No. When there are many GOOD reasons for restrictions and no GOOD reasons for no restrictions, the cause is no longer about liberty or freedom.
You are correct that there is no good reason for alcohol's legality, but that is beside the point of this thread. Society failed to control itself and has since and will continue to pay the price for its love of alcohol. Again, it is not a golden standard to judge a drug's legal merit.
Jgfwt wrote:
Most of you are closeted runner kids who are talking out your azzes. I have a lot of friends/acquaintances who smoke a ton of weed. It basically ruins your life, you become addicted to it (yes, trust me). You get high and fall asleep on the couch, you suck at driving while you're high, you blow through your money to get high/while you're high. I guess some people with actual social disorders just need it to manage, but the thought of allowing anyone to just start getting high on weed scares the shiiiet out of me.
Sure, it appears prohibition worked great for your friends.
What part of marijuana prohibition do you think is working and provides a sound rational and effective basis for public policy going forward?
Look, you completely missed my point kid.
Well, there is at least one major problem with this argument. Pot is not well studied by US researchers because it's difficult to obtain for research purposes. We don't even know if there is a real medical benefit. Sonjay Gupta koolaide is what you have for research.
Plus you have to over rule Supreme Court decisions. A lot will depend on the whims of Scalias replacement.
Go into Google scholar and search for studies about the safety of marijuana and the health benefits of marijuana. You will see that there is an enormous amount of research on marijuana. More than for just about every pharmaceutical. I'll freely admit that controlled double blink studies are difficult because of prohibition but ease stop saying that it hasn't been studied or there are only a few studies. That is just not accurate.
Not a kid but maybe you can explain your point in a logical way.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
What part of marijuana prohibition do you think is working and provides a sound rational and effective basis for public policy going forward?
"Prohibition" implies a stance that I'm not arguing for.
Do you disagree that lessening the penalties on marijuana and moving towards medical regulation satisfies the arguments of the pro-pot movement?
And who is funding those research studies Mr. Obvious? Let me guess, overseas pharmaceutical companies? Wallstreet? Pump and dump scam? You know how easy it is to get a link on google scholar? You, today, can create an account and publish your undergrad homework. Show me a study you could convince SCOTUS or POTUS to trust the health safety welfare of America on.
sparky polastry wrote:
jewbacca wrote:Like any medically relevant drug, I support medical use but not recreational use.
Reasons I oppose outright legalization:
1) It becomes easier for the underaged to obtain
2) It impairs judgment and should be treated like other drugs that do so
3) It's stupid
1st best pro-pot argument: It is far less harmful than alcohol. My counter: While this is true, I really don't believe a substance that claims 88,000 lives per year (CDC stat) should be our golden standard for what is and isn't legal. That's nearly 3x's the deaths by guns.
2nd best pro-pot argument: It brings in lots of $$$. My counter: Is it worth the cost? How many driving deaths are you comfortable with per $million revenue? Medical mj also brings in taxes.
3rd best pro-pot argument: It's a schedule 1 drug and the punishment doesn't match the crime. My counter: I agree, so take it off the schedule 1 and let medical laws govern its use.
There is no GOOD reason for recreational use. The pendulum sometimes swings too far ---> the swing from schedule 1 to legal is exactly that.
4th best pro-pot argument: The cure is worse than the disease. The drug war is a complete disaster. We've already endured hundreds of billions of dollars (or more) wasted, the total destruction of the 4th amendment, selective enforcement against minorities and resulting mass incarceration, tens of thousands of violent, no knock SWAT raids every year to serve minor drug warrants, rampant asset forfeiture abuse, and of course the tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths through gang and cartel related violence. How many more deaths and ruined lives are you comfortable sacrificing to continue this hopelessly failed effort to prevent people from getting high?
Bingo
jewbacca wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:What part of marijuana prohibition do you think is working and provides a sound rational and effective basis for public policy going forward?
"Prohibition" implies a stance that I'm not arguing for.
Do you disagree that lessening the penalties on marijuana and moving towards medical regulation satisfies the arguments of the pro-pot movement?
I disagree completely. I have no interest in smoking marijuana and no medical need to do so. I do believe that I should have the right to buy it in a regulated market (just like alcohol) and smoke it in the privacy of my own home without being subject to arrest.
Make America Great Again wrote:
And who is funding those research studies Mr. Obvious? Let me guess, overseas pharmaceutical companies? Wallstreet? Pump and dump scam? You know how easy it is to get a link on google scholar? You, today, can create an account and publish your undergrad homework. Show me a study you could convince SCOTUS or POTUS to trust the health safety welfare of America on.
NIH, large research universities. Lots of studies out there. Look at them.
Like I said, there are some issues with many of these studies. Something are retrospective, not double blind. Small sample sizes. Etc. These problems are inherent in studying a prohibited substance. There are a very, very large number of studies that when taken together show that marijuana is safe and that it appears to be effective in quite a few medical applications. Epilepsy, cancer, PTSD. Could have better, double blind dose controlled studies without prohibition.
joalturn wrote:
Pro-MJ sf resident wrote:The biggest con I can think of is that it seems incredibly difficult to define/enforce standards of operating under the influence for marijuana, unless the standard continues to be that you can't operate a motor vehicle after consuming any quantity
To expand upon your point:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2016/0511/Pot-legalization-s-sobriety-testVermont, one of the most liberal states in America, voted DOWN the measure to legalize commercial sale of marijuana. Why?
"After Colorado legalized pot in 2012, the number of highway fatalities in which the driver tested positive for the active ingredient in marijuana shot up from 23 in 2013 to 37 in 2014, according to a report released in April by the state’s Department of Public Safety. One reason may be that pot use among young adults also increased, from 21 percent in 2006 to 31 percent in 2014. The report also noted a rapid rise in the number of police trained to identify driving impairment from drugs other than alcohol.
Photos of the Day Photos of the weekend
In Washington State, meanwhile, the number of fatal crashes caused by a driver who tested positive for marijuana has doubled since voters legalized pot in 2012, according to a study released Tuesday by AAA. “The significant increase in fatal crashes involving marijuana is alarming,†said Peter Kissinger, president and chief executive officer of the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety."
Correlation is not necessarily causation. This is kind of a silly argument anyway, since THC stays in the system for two to four weeks. How many people in highway fatalities do you think drank alcohol within four weeks of their death?
Mr. Obvious wrote:
I disagree completely. I have no interest in smoking marijuana and no medical need to do so. I do believe that I should have the right to buy it in a regulated market (just like alcohol) and smoke it in the privacy of my own home without being subject to arrest.
If it stayed in the privacy of the home, then there would be little to no problem.
From what you've said, your biggest issue with restriction comes down to personal liberty, which as I've said is a poor argument when said liberty causes harm to the rest of society. Consider the following statements:
I want to own guns because of FREEDOM.
I want to kill people because of FREEDOM.
These statements are ridiculous by themselves. You can't claim freedom without context or else it is a valid argument for anything. Adding context to the previous 2 statements adds validity to the argument.
I want to own guns because of FREEDOM. I live in a dangerous neighborhood and want to protect myself and my family.
I want to kill people because of FREEDOM. It's the Vietnam War and the people I want to kill are trying to kill me too.
Pot smokers want to smoke pot because of freedom. Under what context?
1) I'm depressed. Answer: Medical marijuana.
2) I'm anxious. Answer: Medical marijuana.
3) I'm in pain. Answer: Medical marijuana.
4) I can't handle the stress in my life. Answer: Medical marijuana.
5) Smoking pot shouldn't make me a felon. Answer: Loosen the law.
Etc., etc., etc.
6) Because I want to. Answer: Invalid argument.
Arguing for personal freedom when said freedom causes harm to the rest of society is invalid. And any context that validates legalization is solved by medical marijuana and removing it from Schedule 1.
I hate to tell you, but your friends are smoking crack.
jewbacca wrote:
Captain Super Duper Obvious wrote:Reason #1 (and really the only reason needed): FREEDOM
ADULTS should be able to decide for themselves what recreational drugs to use. ADULTS really don't need their nanny to make this decision for them.
Again, this is the same ideology of the right-wing gun nuts. I did not address this argument originally because it is very weak. Yes, you have the freedom to put anything in your body, and so long as you do so in the privacy of your home and do not subsequently venture out into public where you may become a menace, there is no consequence. But the second you put yourself in a public place, there are and should be consequences.
Secondary (but still obvious and tremendous) reason: Making recreational drugs illegal creates massive incarceration rates and corresponding criminal problems here at home while simultaneously creating massive drug cartels and the near collapse of the effective government of our nearest neighbor. These costs (without even counting the direct policing/military costs of enforcement) outweigh any potential benefit by a factor of a thousand or more.
And again, treat mj like oxycontin and the vast majority of this argument goes away.
WRONG (Again). And this time content-free as well.
Congrats on the double whammy!
jewbacca wrote:
VerminMeat wrote:You are a fool. You have a slave mentality. There is no GOOD reason for alcohol being legal or recreational use. You are thinking about liberty backwards.
You think everything should be illegal until the government deems that it is "good". I think everything should be legal until it is proven to be a dramatic societal bad.
No. When there are many GOOD reasons for restrictions and no GOOD reasons for no restrictions, the cause is no longer about liberty or freedom.
You are correct that there is no good reason for alcohol's legality, but that is beside the point of this thread. Society failed to control itself and has since and will continue to pay the price for its love of alcohol. Again, it is not a golden standard to judge a drug's legal merit.
Ummm.. How did prohibition work out for you?
Let's see, soaring crime and violence, drug cartels with no inhibitions on violence,... Sound familiar?
As has correctly been pointed out, you (you individually, not the royal 'you'), are a slave. You fully expect to be a slave to the government and accept that condition for yourself. Sorry, but you are in the wrong country.
Ummm... wrote:
jewbacca wrote:No. When there are many GOOD reasons for restrictions and no GOOD reasons for no restrictions, the cause is no longer about liberty or freedom.
You are correct that there is no good reason for alcohol's legality, but that is beside the point of this thread. Society failed to control itself and has since and will continue to pay the price for its love of alcohol. Again, it is not a golden standard to judge a drug's legal merit.
Ummm.. How did prohibition work out for you?
Let's see, soaring crime and violence, drug cartels with no inhibitions on violence,... Sound familiar?
As has correctly been pointed out, you (you individually, not the royal 'you'), are a slave. You fully expect to be a slave to the government and accept that condition for yourself. Sorry, but you are in the wrong country.
Read the thread before commenting, k pumpkin?