(please try to use the "quote" thingy for each part and not just one big quote cause it turns out to be a pain in the ass to answer clearly with that bald text)
Similarity to drugs already legalized are not a reason to legalize another drug. There are varying qualities of crystal meth, and we certainly shouldn't legalize that.
The topic is about marijuana so I won't expend too much, but there are some valid points about legalizing every drugs. Would reduce the issues related to traffic, would control the quality of the products and avoid drugs being "cut" with even more nastier products, would help keeping track of addicted people and helping them getting of the product, medical care etc...
Legalizing something doesn't mean it's good and alright to use it as much as you want, it means it doesn't give the users juridical problems if they're caught using.
The war on drugs is a failure anyway, that's not big news.
However, you can pinpoint which chemicals cause physical addiction, so you can effectively restrict drugs that cause physical dependency. So again, just because something else can be addictive doesn't necessarily mean this is a reason to suddenly legalize more addictive things.
But marijuana
doesn't create physical addiction, I think you misread something. Or I don't see what point you're trying to arise.
This is probably your best possible argument. But the question arises that, if we legalized something worse than marijuana and restrict marijuana, wouldn't it make just as much sense to then ban the drugs that are worse as well? Why is legalizing marijuana a better choice than banning alcohol and cigarettes? (p.s. I know the counter-argument to this claim, I'm just stating that it's a legitimate concern that you need to argue against if you want marijuana legalization arguments to be taken seriously).
It indeed would make as much sense to forbid everything else. They already tried to forbid the consumption of alcohol in some states during the early 1900's, and that failed on epic proportions, more traffic, more issues, and not less consumers (or minimal drop). Once again, people wants to get fucked up, you can't take that away from them by force.
And if people are retarded, why would suddenly legalizing more drugs be a good idea? You're poking holes in your own argument if you're saying people are retarded with currently available drugs, so let's legalize more of them.
I didn't say "people are retarded with available drugs", I said people are retarded in general. Legalizing more drugs wouldn't make it worst, that would only relieves some juridical work and unload some overcrowded prisons and halls of justice. That's the good idea, repression is obviously not leading anywhere.
The majority of people in a democratic country I know of wanted to keep people segregated by color. Does that make it right? Majority opinion does not instantly make an opinion the right choice. You're using the democracy fallacy. Because what you're describing isn't democracy, but majoritarianism, which is entirely different political system.
Tuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut, Wrong. That would almost deserve a godwin point (there should be one for comparing stuff with racism). Using marijuana doesn't negatively affect a group of people that didn't ask for anything because of their ethnical origins, it's not an infringement to human's right, it only concerns the users themselves. Plus the number of marijuana users is wayyyy under 50%, we're far from being a majority.
The point of the "democratic point" is to adapt the laws of a country to the evolving customs of its citizens, not overloading the prisons because a hundred year old law (based on lies and propaganda) says it's wrong to smoke this or that plant.
It's funny because you just made an assumption that all of Vodka's arguments are based on assumptions. But anyways, it's the fact that eventually you don't get the same feeling from marijuana as you do from when you first smoke it. That feeling can cause people to experiment with harder drugs to reach the same high that they first experienced. It's a legitimate concern.
Tuuuuuuuuuuuuut, wrong (I should upload a buzz sound).
I've a friend around 30, he's smoking an impressive amount of joints everyday because he doesn't "get the same effects" as he did when he began etc... but he hates other drugs, it wouldn't even cross his mind to try.
On the other hand, me, now reasonnable pot smoker who have cut down a lot, have tried many other stuffs without feeling any addiction to them (there are limits to experimentation tho, no crack, no heroin, no meth). I still happen to use some "harder" stuffs 2 or 3 times in a year if the occasion presents itself and
IF I feel like it.
Plus, you'd never "reach the same high"... as already said, each drug has its own effect, trying to "reach the same high" than pot with ketamin, mushrooms or cocain is obviously not gonna work. The fact that some people could try "harder drugs" isn't directly related to the use of marijuana, but to the environment it puts them in, parties, friends knowing people that can haz x or y drug etc...
You see all those assumptions you're making, you make them because you don't have a clue about drugs, their effects and what leads people to get addicted, which would be avoidable if people were educated about it, if they were legalized instead of being an unsaid issue you just hear briefly about in school, something along the lines of "
Drugs are bad m'kay, if you smoke pot you'll end up taking heroin and sell your butthole to pay your dose mkayy" poorly articulated by some probably alcoholic fat cop trying to scare young people. (clichés, 2 ez to use)
Medical uses are totally appropriate uses for certain drugs. But it's also the question of whether there are no better alternatives. Morphine is used as a painkiller because it's a highly effective one, but doctors manage it heavily because a slight overdose can kill a patient, and prolonged use can develop dependence. If they have an alternative that's just as effective and safer, they use it. Morphine is a painkiller of last resort.
Yes, and there's no better alternative than marijuana for a lot of diseases, it's a natural light pain killer and a lot of people are thankful to have it as meds, and it causes no physical addiction, and you can't OD. Plus addiction issue "after the disease" is out of question considering most people using for medical reasons and pain relief do because of a life-time condition, they'd probably never stop using anyway, because they won't stop being sick.
Case studies do not prove causality, correlation, or anything of importance for a logical debate. All a case study shows is that something is possible
Yep, it doesn't. But it does prove some common preconceptions wrong. I'm not unique.
You just generalized heavily with that statement. Objects are not inherently bad or good, but usage will change it's value. Again, your strongest argument is that we have stronger drugs legalized, but you need to protect this claim from supporting the opposite of your intended argument.
??
Fallacious argument, you're either lying or you're an idiot. Don't attack the person making the argument, and instead attack the argument. You look like less of a prick, and you convince more people to your side.
Durr, Vodka is a friend of mine I'm not attacking him personnaly (and I don't know Arglax), nowhere I insulted him or whatever, you somehow feel offended in his name for no reason.
I'm poiting out where the "pot prohibition" movement comes from, because it does come from early 1900's conservative and religious state of mind, that's when it's been rendered illegal. And I don't care about looking like a prick, if readers get pissed off maybe they'll think harder on the matter.
"Famous people did it" is not a reason to support it.
It's not about "famous people did it", I'm not talking about hype people and hollywood actors to prove something right.
I'm talking about the roots of some people's thoughts, the origins of some universal creations and pieces of art and philosophy.
Drugs are inherent to the human condition, trying to keep everyone from harming themselves with drugs by prohibition is pointless.
Red herring argument. They have every right to be concerned about somebody else's decisions harming their own well-being. So don't avoid the argument and try to supplant a greater fear of violence and corrupt government.
What argument am I avoiding ? I raised the point alone to point out what inexistant impact it would have on their lives if people were allowed to smoke whatever the fuck they want.
Explain why a person's right to smoke what they want overrides another person's right to protect themselves from the economic burdens of state dependency.
no, I won't explain. Or we gonna end up in boring technical suppositions. You can't calculate the impact it
could have on taxes, it would probably have none. Or it might as well have a positive impact, considering it's less expensive to produce marijuana than some chemical meds, and health issues given to pot smoking are the same than tobacco, most pot users being cigaret users we couldn't even differenciate. Plus pot can be used in many ways, not only smoking (brewing, eating etc...), no smoke, no cancer.
Last edited by deprav; Sep 2, 2013 at 05:30 PM.