Original Post
Legalizing Marijuana (bis)
Since the first thread finished on mindless assumptions and have been closed for no apparent reason but Arglax's arbitrary judgement without any possibilty to answer, I'll allow myself to open a new one.
Assumptions, there are so many sort of weed and hash, different highs, different tastes, different quality etc... just like alcohol. Even tho I like to get high sometimes, I won't smoke shitty stuff just for the sake of being high (not anymore at least, personnal choice).
You make the other assumption than alcohol selling is righteous because people drink without the intenton of getting drunk but just for the sake of the taste of good alcohol. Then explain why the biggest part of alcohol sales are shitty disgusting "supermarket alcohol" and cocktails (ie. alcohol without alcohol taste most of the time).
Most people drink to get drunk, may it be slightly drunk or totally fucked up, making the assumption every alcohol consumer is a specialist is about as right as saying pot smokers don't like to get high (because yes, we do). When I want to drink something without being "incapacited" at all, I drink water or orange juice.
Well, when we talk about drugs we talk about physical addictions. Psychological addiction is something possible for pretty much anything, and it's not the product that is at fault but the person's life or environment.
Some people are addicted to masturbation, some are addicted to eating their nails, some are addicted to sugar, some are addicted to sport etc... That's not a reason to make running, porn and sugar illegal.
As said previously, I'm a pot smoker since about 10 years, I can stop smoking for days, weeks or months without any difficulty. If I don't have any I won't shake and cry like a bitch, it's just how it is.
If a drug without bad counter-part existed I think we'd all be using right now already.
He's not saying it's "the angel among drugs", he's poiting out that making it illegal based on its effect on health, compared to alcohol and cigarets statistics, is pretty fuckin hypocritical and moronic.
Driving under any drugs/meds is retarded, may it be legal medicines or illegal drugs, it's not about the substance itself but the general tendancy of people being iresponsible fucks. And it's not more difficult to detect marijuana, it's just exactly the same. Here in France, the police have little tests for cannabis, it's just a little stick they rub in your cheek (just like DNA tests), and if it takes x color, your positive to cannabis (or other narcotics) and immediatly sent to hospital for blood sample.
________
Vodka
We don't need to get high, we like to get high. Just like you like to taste your different kind of whisky.
I'm being reasonable and base my reason on having it legalized because of the large amount of people who like to use it, and as democratic countries, if a large part of the population wants to get high with something that is just as dangerous for their health (not less, not more) than tobacco and alcohol, they should be able to do so without fearing legal issues and mindless justice.
For the "drinking without being drunk" part, just look above.
Untrue, as already said there are A LOT of kind & forms of marijuana, some are more or less powerful, and people's body get used to it, just like alcohol . Someone who never smoke might get high with 2 or 3 puffs, while an inveterate smoker might feel the effect after 1 or 2 joints of the same stuff. Hell I've seen people smoking joints like cigarets without looking even slightly stoned.
I'm not saying it's right, that's pretty fucking bad. But you base all your arguments on assumptions and clichés.
What about morphin and opiates then ? should it be illegal for medical use as well ?
You're talking from your own little subjective knowledge of the matter, but go tell this to people with sclerosis with a straight face.
And as said already, Marijuana itself is not an addictive substance, people getting really addicted probably have other problems to solve with their life. And might I remind you most "heavy meds" and meds for psychological disorders are probably more addictive and dangerous than pot.
________________
Lel, ye sure experience doesn't matter. Only google matters.
ALL DRUGS ARE BAD, but people will always use them. Forbidding a drug of which side effects are proven just as bad as alcohol and tobacco (legal drugs) for the sake of health issues is hypocritical and unfair to the millions of soft consumers that risk life changing juridical issues for bullshit reasons.
Most of your arguments are based on old conservative clichés stained with false religious principles, it disgusts me. You're either lying to yourself about most people's intention concerning legal drugs or have no clue about how shitty societies push people to try to escape by any mean they have left.
What makes me laugh tho, is that probably half (if not more) of the artists/writters/philosophers/thinkers you cherish, from your all pure and clear educated minds, were most of the time stoned, fucked up with absynthe or opiates, or desperate drunks.
Plus I don't see what you could possibly have to say about people's freedom to choose how they want to fuck their health up. If your concerns are about righteous tax paying people and health care, I suggest you save your strenght for weaponry and politic crooks.
| Arglax Moderated Message: |
| No, I closed that thread because it was a terrible thread full of mindless muttering. Moreover, I put a warning about being reasonable, yet someone went ahead and posted more unfounded nonsense that had been repeated from the beginning. If that same tendency is going to continue, this thread will be closed as well. You have been warned. |
You smoke marijuana because you want to enjoy the results, i.e. a high. You don't need to drink alcohol with the intention of getting drunk. You can consume alcohol without getting incapacitated at all.
Assumptions, there are so many sort of weed and hash, different highs, different tastes, different quality etc... just like alcohol. Even tho I like to get high sometimes, I won't smoke shitty stuff just for the sake of being high (not anymore at least, personnal choice).
You make the other assumption than alcohol selling is righteous because people drink without the intenton of getting drunk but just for the sake of the taste of good alcohol. Then explain why the biggest part of alcohol sales are shitty disgusting "supermarket alcohol" and cocktails (ie. alcohol without alcohol taste most of the time).
Most people drink to get drunk, may it be slightly drunk or totally fucked up, making the assumption every alcohol consumer is a specialist is about as right as saying pot smokers don't like to get high (because yes, we do). When I want to drink something without being "incapacited" at all, I drink water or orange juice.
Deprav argued that marijuana is not addictive, which it clearly is. Your body does not become physically dependent like it does with nicotine or hard drugs. That doesn't mean it's not addictive. Marijuana causes a direct release of dopamine in the brain, basically instant pleasure for no effort. Stating that marijuana is not addictive in the strict sense is blatant ignorance.
Well, when we talk about drugs we talk about physical addictions. Psychological addiction is something possible for pretty much anything, and it's not the product that is at fault but the person's life or environment.
Some people are addicted to masturbation, some are addicted to eating their nails, some are addicted to sugar, some are addicted to sport etc... That's not a reason to make running, porn and sugar illegal.
As said previously, I'm a pot smoker since about 10 years, I can stop smoking for days, weeks or months without any difficulty. If I don't have any I won't shake and cry like a bitch, it's just how it is.
Toribush is trying to convince us that marijuana is the angel among drugs. It allegedly has no consequences for your body. This as opposed to Alcohol, which is the real killer.
The truth is that marijuana is no less dangerous than being drunk. The high negatively affects motoric capacities (i.e. driving). As Pig pointed out, because there are no statistics of people dying in car crashes after a weed-induced high doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It's just more difficult to detect than alcohol blood level. Besides, what about the retardation in learning capabilities? Did that slip past your "Cannabis doesn't hurt"-barrier?
If a drug without bad counter-part existed I think we'd all be using right now already.
He's not saying it's "the angel among drugs", he's poiting out that making it illegal based on its effect on health, compared to alcohol and cigarets statistics, is pretty fuckin hypocritical and moronic.
Driving under any drugs/meds is retarded, may it be legal medicines or illegal drugs, it's not about the substance itself but the general tendancy of people being iresponsible fucks. And it's not more difficult to detect marijuana, it's just exactly the same. Here in France, the police have little tests for cannabis, it's just a little stick they rub in your cheek (just like DNA tests), and if it takes x color, your positive to cannabis (or other narcotics) and immediatly sent to hospital for blood sample.
________
Vodka
Right then, for all you silly people wanting to argue for your need to get high.
You're being unreasonable and base your reason on having it legalized only because you want to get high. Much alike Arglax said, you can drink while avoid being intoxicated on alcohol.
We don't need to get high, we like to get high. Just like you like to taste your different kind of whisky.
I'm being reasonable and base my reason on having it legalized because of the large amount of people who like to use it, and as democratic countries, if a large part of the population wants to get high with something that is just as dangerous for their health (not less, not more) than tobacco and alcohol, they should be able to do so without fearing legal issues and mindless justice.
For the "drinking without being drunk" part, just look above.
It's pretty close to impossible to not get that high you're looking for, while smoking that plant of yours.
Untrue, as already said there are A LOT of kind & forms of marijuana, some are more or less powerful, and people's body get used to it, just like alcohol . Someone who never smoke might get high with 2 or 3 puffs, while an inveterate smoker might feel the effect after 1 or 2 joints of the same stuff. Hell I've seen people smoking joints like cigarets without looking even slightly stoned.
I'm not saying it's right, that's pretty fucking bad. But you base all your arguments on assumptions and clichés.
I'm all in for having all use of marijuana illegalized, even for medical use. Once the guy is off the cure, what do you think happens? He's already addicted and needs more.
What about morphin and opiates then ? should it be illegal for medical use as well ?
You're talking from your own little subjective knowledge of the matter, but go tell this to people with sclerosis with a straight face.
And as said already, Marijuana itself is not an addictive substance, people getting really addicted probably have other problems to solve with their life. And might I remind you most "heavy meds" and meds for psychological disorders are probably more addictive and dangerous than pot.
________________
Personal stories don't really account for anything.
Lel, ye sure experience doesn't matter. Only google matters.
ALL DRUGS ARE BAD, but people will always use them. Forbidding a drug of which side effects are proven just as bad as alcohol and tobacco (legal drugs) for the sake of health issues is hypocritical and unfair to the millions of soft consumers that risk life changing juridical issues for bullshit reasons.
Most of your arguments are based on old conservative clichés stained with false religious principles, it disgusts me. You're either lying to yourself about most people's intention concerning legal drugs or have no clue about how shitty societies push people to try to escape by any mean they have left.
What makes me laugh tho, is that probably half (if not more) of the artists/writters/philosophers/thinkers you cherish, from your all pure and clear educated minds, were most of the time stoned, fucked up with absynthe or opiates, or desperate drunks.
Plus I don't see what you could possibly have to say about people's freedom to choose how they want to fuck their health up. If your concerns are about righteous tax paying people and health care, I suggest you save your strenght for weaponry and politic crooks.
(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)
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.
But marijuana doesn't create physical addiction, I think you misread something. Or I don't see what point you're trying to arise.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
Yep, it doesn't. But it does prove some common preconceptions wrong. I'm not unique.
??
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just showing how retarded it is to think your anecdotal evidence somehow overrules scientific studies. You also seem to not understand what long term effects are...
1.Comparing weapons, tools made to injure or kill, and recreational drugs, natural or synthetic substances used to change people's perception, is pretty stupid. I'm used to better argumentation from you.
2.And the "scientific proofs", in the absolute, have nothing to do with something being legal or not. Might I remind you guns are legal in some countries - and many substances "scientifically" proven bad for us. (pesticides, car gaz, industrial gaz, plastic, all petrochimic industry, junk food, alcohol, cigarets, sugar, salt, fat blablablabla).
Science and Laws have pretty much nothing to say to each others. As we can already witness, forbidding a substance doesn't stop people from using it, thinking otherwise is pretty dumb and naive.
On the other hand, making it legal would prevent issues related to illegal traffic, and might help the prevention.
You just don't seem to understand that it's not about "some stuff are bad so we can legalize another bad stuff", it's about people being already aware that it's bad but not giving a fuck, illegal or not we use anyway. It's about accepting that some people will always use, and giving them fines and jail time won't change it. It just fuck their life up more than they do with drugs.
Regarding the "long term effects", you pretty much have none if you stop using. As opposed to alcohol which is neurodestructive, THC doesn't deteriorate neurones and synapses, it just "stays" on them for a long time but eventually disappears.
Plus, I prefer to be a slowpoke who have seen life under a different perspective, instead of a sober I-know-it-all having no clue about how absurd our lives can be.
"cigarettes and alcohol are worse and should be de-legalised" some people argue that anything they think is not as bad, should be legal!
Yep it's been discussed already. Alcohol prohibition in the early 1900's was a huge failure. People will never accept being sober during their entire lifetime.
War against drug is a huge failure, it just ostracizes users, create traffic, and never stopped people from using.
And people will always abuse stuffs, legal or not. It's about the product itself, it's a matter of education, prevention, or personnal experience.
tl;dr
Drugs legislation is more of a philosophical debat than a scientifical debat. Drugs are bad, that's a fact ; people will always be using, that's another fact.
Last edited by deprav; Sep 2, 2013 at 05:11 PM.
Except it does. Do a little research and you will see that overwhelming, the myth is not that marijuana isn't addictive, but that it is addictive just like every other perception altering drug. Daily users have a 25-50% chance of becoming dependent to the drug, people who start young have around a 17% chance to get dependent, and the average person has about a 9% chance to get dependent with repeated use.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publication...acts/marijuana
Some people being addicted still doesn't make it physically addictive, and nowhere in that page you linked me is said it causes physical addiction (but psychological, addiction by habits)
Alcohol blabla
Hemp/Marijuana is part of the culture of a lot of people as well. We've known that plant and used it for thousands of years, even before we knew how to make alcohol.
Plus that "alcohol was the safest way to have a drink" is less than likely considering alcohol dehydrate the body, it's not an "alternative to water", at all.
Again, why not rehabilitate the users and punish the providers etc...
"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."
Legalizing would render "providers" useless, assuring a minimal quality, avoiding traffic issues etc... no need to punish providers if there are none. (and court, jails etc... costs money, since you seem to pay attention to taxes).
Plus, if you want drugs, you get drugs ; "raising availability" is out of the question, they're always available.
I'm not comparing it to racism, I'm showing your argument of "the majority wants it, therefore it's good" is a batshit retarded argument. Majority opinion does not make an opinion right, or good, or the best option. Majority opinion just means the majority supports it. Even a large group supporting it doesn't make it right. Hmong culture is not against "marriage by rape" and there's a large population of Hmong people. Does that make marriage by rape right?
"Using marijuana doesn't negatively affect a group of people that didn't ask for anything because of their
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."
I've never said "the majority wants it, therefore it's good", I've said a lot of people use it, therefore we need to ask ourselves the question of lifting its interdiction. Don't make me say stuff I never said.
And, to paraphrase your last statement, you just said that people don't try harder drugs because of marijuana usage, but because marijuana usage puts them in situations where they are more likely to use a harder drug.
I expressed myself badly. Some people might be in the same "environmental situation", access to "harder drugs" without even smoking marijuana. People who go to party with friends and just use alcohol are as much "exposed" to other drugs than pot smokers. There's no real correlation.
I personally believe all recreational drugs, legal or illegal, should be banned
I don't.
You can OD on it
"Can someone overdose on marijuana?
If you mean can they overdose and die from marijuana--the answer is no, its not very likely. But they can experience extreme anxiety (panic attacks) or psychotic reactions (where they lose touch with reality and may become paranoid). And people can and do injure themselves because of marijuana's effects on judgment, perception, and coordination. For example, marijuana affect the skills you need to drive (e.g., concentration, reaction time) so people can injure themselves and others if they drive while under the influence. For more information on marijuana, see: http://www.drugabuse.gov/ResearchRep...a/default.html."
And marijuana criminalization came about because of lobbying from lumber and paper industries just as much as a religious fervor etc...
And petrol lobbies.
But they did use the "religious fervor" to forbid it, it was the "war horse" of the criminalization campaign and that's what they used to shape people's minds and opinions about hemp.
For the rest, not my fault if some beliefs are stupid. I've the right to express my opinion strongly if I think something deserves it.
People are capable of thinking abstractly without drugs. And drugs are, by definition, foreign chemicals that alter the human body in abnormal ways, so they are not "inherent to the human condition".
Yep we are. Well some are more than others, we don't all have the same brain.
But I'm saying it's inherent to the human condition because as far as we can observe our history, human beings have always been using drugs, plants etc... may it be for rituals, spiritual quests, or fun.
Why should I be forced to put up with the risk of driving on the same road of a pot smoker? Why should I be forced to put up with the THC-laced smoke that will be in the air? Why is it my rights to safety and prosperity are trumped by somebody else's rights to get high?
Well don't drive, you have as much chance to drive on the same road than someone who's drunk. Making marijuana legal doesn't mean it would be legal to drive under its influence.
I don't see people being allowed to smoke pot wherever they want outside but somehow forbidden to smoke tobacco... ?
Please prove me that your neighbour smoking a joint in his house, or growing a plant in his backyard puts you in danger.
Irrelevant points.
About the financial aspect for society :
good :
+ the states/countries can taxe it just like cigaret to get money out of it
+ prosecuting people costs money, it would save the government some money to not prosecute people for drug usage.
+ it's less expensive to produce than chems
+ some jobs related to the matter (producing/selling/marketing)
+ "the war on drugs" costs A LOT of money
+ ... ?
bad :
- eventual health-care taxe raising for treating people who have diseases related to it.
(Even tho that's a straw argument :
.you can't dissociate "tobacco cancers" from "pot cancers"
.legal or not, people already smoke, if pot made taxes higher, it already has.
.pot doesn't necessarily causes cancer, you can eat it, brew it etc...)
- no more fines to pay to the government if caught.
-... ?
___________________________________
However if it was legal how would that help with prevention? Someone could just get it illegally... Don't tell me you don't think people can illegally acquire pot?!
I don't think I got your point there.
It would help with prevention the same way it does with cigarets and alcohol : preventive warning on packs, preventive campaigns on tv and such.
Why would someone buy illegaly and risk some issues for something he coulc buy legally ? (if it was rendered legal) He couldn't know where it comes from, if it's good quality etc...
Do some people buy their boose on the black market just for fun ? I don't think so.
Unfortunately these inconsiderate people are drains on society, and are wasting tax dollars and resources.
Look above.
Refer to my previous reply to you, since you seem to have simplified pot to just THC.
THC is the substance that gives pot its psychotrop effects, appart from cancer related to smoke (and not necessarily pot, as already said you can eat it or brew it etc...), the only "long term effects" observable are about THC.
This is not a valid argument.
This is not a valid answer. (and this one neither)
Citation showing war on drugs creates traffic and doesn't stop people using please.
Lol, you and your "citations pls". No need for google to use our brains.
If war on drugs stopped people from using, no one would presently be using. no ?
Ostracizing drug users is probably a good thing. If you don't want to participate in society, then why should you be encouraged to?
Citation proving people using drugs don't want to participate in society pls.
Let's just make everything legal and educate people!
Yes.
"There will always be people dumb enough to use abuse drugs"
I don't think this is a valid argument for legalisation.
That's not an argument, that's a fact. There would be no point legalizing something if no one uses/gives a fuck about it.
The questions of legalisation is asked because it concerns a large part of the population, that's the entire point. Society is supposed to be shaped by people, not the opposite.
Murder is more of a philosophical debat than a scientifical debat. Murder is bad, that's a fact ; people will always be murdering, that's another fact.
I see what you did there, that's fonny. But irrelevant. (Even tho, that's true, rightfully killing people is a phylosophical matter : death sentence is legal is some country, but that's not the subject)
_________________________________________
Just wanted to point out that using the legality of Alcohol as an arguement for legalizing Marijuana doesn't make much sense. If Alcohol was a new substance, it would stand no chance of being legalized. The only reason why Alcohol is legal nowadays is the long history of it and the thereby associated social acceptance. And not because of harmless health risk.
Ahem, are you implying hemp/marijuana is a "new substance" ?
If so, that's totally wrong. Marijuana has been around us since the dawn of civilizations, it's only been forbidden for a hundred years. We probably knew how to consume hemp before we knew how to make alcohol.
No one said it's innocuous tho.
Last edited by deprav; Sep 3, 2013 at 07:24 AM.
I'm not saying at all that hemp is a new substance. I'm just saying that the two drugs have different histories and that's why one is legal and the other is not.
Okay I hear you. Their respective history explain why one is legal and the other isn't, but that doesn't justify it nor is a viable reason not to change it.
Saying "Alcohol is legal? Well... let's legalize marijuana too then." is a wrong assumption.
It's not totally "wrong" but not judicious and a bit oversimplifying.
See it this way : if alcohol didn't exist and the number of marijuana users was the same, the question would still needs to be asked. Does it really have to stay forbidden and criminalized if a large portion of the population feels like it's okay to use it ? considering the cost of prosecution, the cost of the "war on drugs", the fact that the actual way to deal with users doesn't help them at all nor stop them from using, the illegal traffic etc...
Truth is, from todays health standards, Alcohol should rather be forbidden than Marijuana legalized.
I'm not sure what you mean by health standards. But people have the right to consume their brain, body and health as they wish, we're not in a "perfect health dictatorship" from what I know. Plus assuming that every users eventually use to the point of getting sick is pretty inacurate.
Abusing something is certainly bad. But because some people abuse something, it doesn't mean the reasonnable ones should be forbidden to use that same "something".
