PDA

View Full Version : Drugs are bad, mkay?



Pages : [1] 2

PWhit
02-03-2011, 09:23 PM
Good you made it this far.

In case you are wondering, the title of my thread is just a quote from South Park. People have yet to convince me marijuana is bad/good for you. Personally I do not smoke it, but I see more economic benefits from legalization.


Now how many people support the legalization of Marijuana (United States)? Very simple question. I will let everyone post away.

ClockHand
02-03-2011, 09:24 PM
I support it, even so I'm not a USA citizen.

PWhit
02-03-2011, 09:26 PM
Wow that was quick on your part of responding. O.o

Bacon_Barbarian
02-03-2011, 09:26 PM
Sure. The legal market would be a cash cow. Just throw on a bunch of taxes, and crack down on the illegal dealers. I wouldn't smoke it, but I don't think it would hurt anybody more then alcohol does.

EDIT: I voted 'Hell Yeah' but really, I'm not ethusiatic about it.

PWhit
02-03-2011, 09:30 PM
Interesting point, but I wouldn't want too much taxes on it, TBH. Marijuania is pretty lethal stuff according to the health book, but I can't really say much as I don't smoke it myself.

Evil_Cake
02-03-2011, 09:31 PM
yes but peeps have to smoke it outside public places like tobacco

PWhit
02-03-2011, 09:34 PM
The question is: What places will allow it inside their building anyway?

ClockHand
02-03-2011, 09:45 PM
Interesting point, but I wouldn't want too much taxes on it, TBH. Marijuania is pretty lethal stuff according to the health book, but I can't really say much as I don't smoke it myself.

I haven't read any medical book thats cleam that marijuana is lethal. Most of the books says that can provoke neuronal damage, but there is a lot of people who have smoke for more than 30 years and have no damage.

Different of cigarres and alcohol, that can really make damage to the body in 30 years or less.

Bacon_Barbarian
02-03-2011, 09:48 PM
The question is: What places will allow it inside their building anyway?
None.


I haven't read any medical book thats cleam that marijuana is lethal.
This. I know some people... Who are interested in the subject, and uhm, yeah. It isn't. It's ;ike eating enough apples kill you. It can be done, but it's near impossible.

violin
02-03-2011, 10:04 PM
I haven't read any medical book thats cleam that marijuana is lethal. Most of the books says that can provoke neuronal damage, but there is a lot of people who have smoke for more than 30 years and have no damage.
Yeah and there is alot of people that smoke cigarres and are 100 years old. But statistics shows that smoking is bad for you and smokers get cancer more often. Are you willing to take the bet if you'll be of the lucky ones that reach 100 - it's yours choice.
Plus I know that boy from my High School. He wasn't dumb or stupid but he was smoking marijuana everyday. He still does. I just met him last year. 4 years since I last met him. He is now super super dumb and stupid. I could not believe it, he is not the same anymore. There is no way to describe it. You have to see the person now and 4 years ago. He either switched to drugs or what books says about marijuana is true.

I think it should be forbidden - but it's peoples choice. I don't want to convice anyone if it is bad. In my opinion if there is a chance that it will harm you - why do it?

Kodos
02-03-2011, 10:13 PM
Marijuana should be legal. It's non-addictive and non-harmful and, either way, it is not the governments job to protect us from ourselves.


Plus I know that boy from my High School. He wasn't dumb or stupid but he was smoking marijuana everyday. He still does. I just met him last year. 4 years since I last met him. He is now super super dumb and stupid. I could not believe it, he is not the same anymore. There is no way to describe it. You have to see the person now and 4 years ago. He either switched to drugs or what books says about marijuana is true.
It's not true. Marijuana has no long-term neurological effects.


I think it should be forbidden - but it's peoples choice. I don't want to convice anyone if it is bad. In my opinion if there is a chance that it will harm you - why do it?
Have you ever ridden inside of a car? Why? The odds of you getting in a car accident and becoming seriously injured or being killed are significant.

ClockHand
02-03-2011, 10:13 PM
Yeah, if one individual has suffer it everyone else is in danger (false statement).

The same I could say for most people I know. All my teacher in the University smoke weed before I did born, all my classmate do, etc. And most of them doesn't show an intelect less than the average.

The deal is also that you are not telling all the details (violin). Because of course someone is going to become extra dumb if he doesn't read, doesn't study, etc. And all this is appart of smoking weed. So we shouldn't blame weed because he was a stupid kid who didn't took the chance of a good education.

Until know I haven't see any case of a person made dumb by weed (I have seen dumb people taking bad desitions, but not because weed did it).

Bacon_Barbarian
02-03-2011, 10:18 PM
There's a difference between being addicted to something and doing it recreationally. Everything's fine in moderation. Including Marry Jane.

ClockHand
02-03-2011, 10:23 PM
The addictiong of weed is psychologic, not biologic. Cigarres provoke a biologic dependence; this mean that the body ask you for more. Weed doesn't do this, the only way to get addicted to marihuana is to have a psychologic problem that trigger the dependence in a psychologic level.

pajamajam
02-03-2011, 10:24 PM
I think marijuana should be legalized, and that they should tax the shit out of it.

Marijuana isn't quite as bad as your school books say it is. Yes, it makes you really stupid, and can make you paranoid and fuck with your short-term memory. Can you think of another substance that can do that that's legal? Think really hard.

Some people who smoke pot a lot are dumb and lazy, but I'm willing to bet that they were pretty dumb and lazy to begin with. I know quite a few upper-middle-class professionals who smoke fairly often and do their jobs just fine. Hell my ex boyfriend's parents were a lobbyist and a guy studying for his doctorate, and we smoked with them and a successful lawyer couple on a few different occasions.

I'm not saying that marijuana is harmless, or claiming that it's a miracle cure like some people will, but I really don't see why it should remain illegal.

PWhit
02-03-2011, 11:18 PM
Well here is my two-cents of the issue. Personally, I would legalize marijuana with minimal taxation for the economic benefits it might bring.

jubeh
02-03-2011, 11:20 PM
Plus I know that boy from my High School. He wasn't dumb or stupid but he was smoking marijuana everyday. He still does. I just met him last year. 4 years since I last met him. He is now super super dumb and stupid. I could not believe it, he is not the same anymore. There is no way to describe it. You have to see the person now and 4 years ago. He either switched to drugs or what books says about marijuana is true.

That's a neat anecdote but I know guys that are much smarter than me that smoke marijuana daily. There is no dichotomy there. It's not smoke weed/be dumb or don't smoke weed/be a better person.

ClockHand
02-04-2011, 12:36 AM
Also with this you are gaving a better job to mexicans.

De la droga que sembramos, ustedes son consumidores.

(JK)

violin
02-04-2011, 12:44 AM
By dumb and stupid I don't say not educated. It looked as if you were speaking with 10 years old kid but he was 22. And he was way better when he was 18 (wasn't like a 10 years old then). Is it the weed - I don't know. I've seen others too but they haven't changed that dramatically. But I never seen someone who is healthy and don't smoke and don't drink to get stupid for such a short period of time. ( this is what I've seen - I don't say there are no other cases )

And hey - don't jump on me. I don't care if it is good or not because I don't smoke.

Kudos, I need the car to go to work - and it's dagnerous - I had acidents. But I don't think I need to smoke or that smoking will help me in any way.

jubeh
02-04-2011, 12:49 AM
Nobody is jumping on you, merely correcting what you are saying. There is no reason to take anything personally.

ClockHand
02-04-2011, 12:51 AM
Jubeh@
hey man is nothing personal, but how much cost a chocolate bar where you live.

Funny fact:
I went close to a Mcdonald with a friend and someone went to the cash to ask "excuse me, is nothing personal, but how much cost a big mac?"

violin
02-04-2011, 12:55 AM
I don't take it personal. Sorry if it looked like that :)

Kodos
02-04-2011, 03:25 AM
Kudos, I need the car to go to work - and it's dagnerous - I had acidents. But I don't think I need to smoke or that smoking will help me in any way.
No you don't. You can ride a bike, or walk. This is your life we are talking about.

I live in New York. I am able to benefit from a very present public transit system. I don't even have a learner's permit. I can get anywhere and everywhere I want to go by bus or train, or by walking. So just as smoking won't help you in any way, driving a car won't help me in any way. Would you consider it reasonable if I then said "I think private ownership of cars should be forbidden, but it is a personal choice."

Or, hell, a more accurate and clear analogy. I do not enjoy most sports. I find basketball uninteresting to watch and have neither the desire nor the physical means to play it well. Would anyone consider it reasonable if I said "I think basketball should be forbidden but it is a personal choice."

The government has no right to legislate what people do for recreation. It is not the government's job to tell people who are doing something harmless that they must stop.

butternut
02-04-2011, 04:12 AM
Drugs are not bad. It's the person taking it who makes it 'bad' or not. Just like with the car. And continually taking it is definitely bad. just like excess of anything is bad. Marijuana can be legalized but with some restrictions on age, quantity etc. Probably just like alcohol.

violin
02-04-2011, 09:40 AM
No you don't. You can ride a bike, or walk. This is your life we are talking about...
I knew you were going to say this. Well you drive with a bike in 10 inch snow when it is -5 outside. I'm in Buffalo and the Public transport here is bad. Yes I could take a bus to work and using half my day in travel so I take the risk of 10 min car drive. And I'll probably move to a bigger city for that reason. I'd prefer to use the public transport if it is confartable enought. Maybe I'll drive a bike in spring and summer. It's not far away but people here drive like crazy and I'm not really sure if it is going to be safer to bike. I car crossed the way of a friend a few months ago and hit his bike. Fortunaltly only the bike had damages.

But I find no reason to smoke and I think is unhealty (my opinion) so I will not smoke.
And yes smoking sholuld be forbidden. In school 60-70% of the kids were smoking just because they think it was cool or something. One girl told me that she smokes because when she is out in a party everybody smokes and she feels like an outsider if she doesn't. And then she starts talking about people who reached 90 years and stills smoke. As if she knows that it's bad but serches for a reason to think that this is fine.

Kudos, you should go to a country where you can smoke anywhere. You go to the bus stop and pople surrond you and start to smoke. If you don't smoke you'll find this very unplesant. You go to a restaurant to eat and people sit on the next table and starts smoking. Well I can not enjoy food if someone smokes next to me. So now in BG they want to forbid and forced them to smoke in special areas. But no, that's not going to happen. Most people smoke. They don't care about those that don't do that. And if you politely ask them not to smoke while you eat they jumb on you like you are some evil monster that doesn't smoke and starts talking about freedom and shits. I don't care. What about my freedom?!

pajamajam
02-04-2011, 10:33 AM
Violin, you need to calm down. Kodos wasn't saying that you should smoke cigarettes or pot or anything else. Maybe read his post again and try and figure that out. Don't jump down people's throats when you're complaining about them supposedly doing the same to you.

Blue_Dragon
02-04-2011, 10:37 AM
I think it should be legalized. I don't understand why it's legal to drink alcohol, but not legal to smoke pot. More people die from drunk driving (or being hit by a someone under the influence) than they do of marijuana smokers. Alcohol also has more serious consequences when abused. I have seen burn-outs, but that from people who seriously smoked ALL the time. I'm all for moderation, too. You shouldn't do anything in excess, but on the same token, something like pot shouldn't be illegal because some people abuse it. If that's the case, we better make eating illegal, cause there's a whole lot of obese peoples here, and it's affecting their health.

Plus, legalizing it would, I feel, be good for the economy (I think someone was mentioning this earlier.) It could be taxed, it would provide jobs (people planting, harvesting, packaging, etc...) and it would also allow us to have hemp farming, which would be AWESOME. Right now it's illegal to even grow hemp here (so stupid....)

Rio
02-04-2011, 12:45 PM
@ violin
Don't they have sections for smokers and non-smokers? I find that kind of odd.

Yara
02-04-2011, 01:12 PM
I voted for "no".
Something that just popped into my mind: Cigars and cigarettes are well-known for being harmful but they are not forbidden, why? I need to research about that.

EDIT: The answer is already in some of the previous posts >_<"

ClockHand
02-04-2011, 01:40 PM
I knew that Yara would chose "no".

Go to smoke cigarres and get drunk you nerd.


Reasons why there are less weed car accidents: Because people who smoke get stoned. TSTD = To stone to drive.

PWhit
02-04-2011, 01:46 PM
I respect Yara's decision not to smoke weed, as I don't smoke it myself. I would only legalize it for economic reasons.


Don't they have sections for smokers and non-smokers? I find that kind of odd.

They do, and it's not very odd in Europe either as many cafes offer this too! This is why sometimes where you smoke the weed may be an issue since even the secondhand smoke can get you high (if you are not resilient to the drug already).

butternut
02-04-2011, 01:50 PM
This is why sometimes where you smoke the weed may be an issue since even the secondhand smoke can get you high (if you are not resilient to the drug already).

I don't think so. I've been around people who smoke pot a lot of times, and the smoke never made me or anyone else who didn't smoke high.

jubeh
02-04-2011, 01:54 PM
I think for the sake of discussion you guys should stop dropping anecdotes since there is already so much research on the subject.

Bacon_Barbarian
02-04-2011, 03:40 PM
The addictiong of weed is psychologic, not biologic. Cigarres provoke a biologic dependence; this mean that the body ask you for more. Weed doesn't do this, the only way to get addicted to marihuana is to have a psychologic problem that trigger the dependence in a psychologic level.

I realize. I was making a late response. (Didn't see the new page.)

Saith
02-04-2011, 05:28 PM
Eh, I think weed should be legalised.
Not even really for the economic reasons, I just believe in minimal laws.
Governments do no have the right to control what we do in private.
Other people have no right to control what I do in private.

Evil_Cake
02-04-2011, 05:32 PM
ya we do

violin
02-04-2011, 06:50 PM
@ violin
Don't they have sections for smokers and non-smokers? I find that kind of odd.

They had until this government removed this. So now I'm waiting utill 2014 when a ban will be enforced by the European Parlament.

LVUER
02-04-2011, 07:36 PM
Ban the gun and legalize marijuana, that way people will be to busy smoking it instead of speeding, gunning down someone, or other crazy things...

That is the not so serious answer. Personally, I think we should ban not only marijuana, but also alcohol, cigarette/cigars, and things similar to that... but it's impossible, isn't it?

Kodos
02-04-2011, 09:21 PM
I knew you were going to say this. Well you drive with a bike in 10 inch snow when it is -5 outside. I'm in Buffalo and the Public transport here is bad. Yes I could take a bus to work and using half my day in travel so I take the risk of 10 min car drive. And I'll probably move to a bigger city for that reason. I'd prefer to use the public transport if it is confartable enought. Maybe I'll drive a bike in spring and summer. It's not far away but people here drive like crazy and I'm not really sure if it is going to be safer to bike. I car crossed the way of a friend a few months ago and hit his bike. Fortunaltly only the bike had damages.


But I find no reason to smoke and I think is unhealty (my opinion) so I will not smoke.
Except your opinion is objectively wrong and not an opinion at all but an erroneous belief. "Red is the prettiest color." Is an opinion. "I think Alien is the best horror film ever made." Is an opinion. "The sum of 1 and 1 is 5" is a statement regarding a fact, and it is an incorrect one.

Your 'opinion' regarding the harmful nature of marijuana is objectively false and thus worthless.


And yes smoking sholuld be forbidden. In school 60-70% of the kids were smoking just because they think it was cool or something.
Boxing is an extremely dangerous hobby that can and often does lead to lasting physical and neurological issues. People take up boxing for the same reason as they take up smoking or any other hobby - they find it fun and/or cool. Should we ban boxing? How about mountain climbing? American Football? Tell me how we determine which hobbies are acceptably safe. I once got a nasty papercut while reading.


One girl told me that she smokes because when she is out in a party everybody smokes and she feels like an outsider if she doesn't.
"One girl is a weak willed sheep so we should legislate on her behalf! Besides, we all saw how well prohibition in America worked out!"


And then she starts talking about people who reached 90 years and stills smoke. As if she knows that it's bad but serches for a reason to think that this is fine.
Stupid people do stupid things. This is not news.


Kudos,
Kodos.


you should go to a country where you can smoke anywhere. You go to the bus stop and pople surrond you and start to smoke.
You can smoke at bus stops in America.


If you don't smoke you'll find this very unplesant. You go to a restaurant to eat and people sit on the next table and starts smoking. Well I can not enjoy food if someone smokes next to me.
The simple solution is to criminalize smoking in public places. This is fine because smoking in a public place produces second hand smoke and is then a public health risk. There is no need or reason to criminalize smoking at all times and everywhere because some smokers are inconsiderate jerks.


So now in BG they want to forbid and forced them to smoke in special areas. But no, that's not going to happen. Most people smoke. They don't care about those that don't do that. And if you politely ask them not to smoke while you eat they jumb on you like you are some evil monster that doesn't smoke and starts talking about freedom and shits.
"Some people who do X are jerks so everyone who does X should be punished!"


I don't care. What about my freedom?!
Their freedom to smoke ends where your freedom to not be exposed to second hand smoke begins.

violin
02-04-2011, 09:36 PM
It should be forbidden and it is in most countries (probably for a reason) - and that makes me happy ;)
Ignore any explanations why I think soo.
It just my opition :o

Bacon_Barbarian
02-04-2011, 09:39 PM
I actually like LVUERs joke. Let's ban guns. And let's ban normal cigarettes. Oh, and let's bring back 3.2 beer.

violin
02-04-2011, 09:42 PM
Joke or not it may be a good idea to ban everything he listed. Including alcohol. Well - I'll miss the alcohol but I can live with that :)

Fenn
02-04-2011, 09:51 PM
If it doesn't hurt anyone else and your decision to do it is conscious (aka not impaired by mental disability), then you can do it. Make it legal and put the same restrictions on it as every other dangerous substance.

jubeh
02-04-2011, 09:53 PM
Joke or not it may be a good idea to ban everything he listed. Including alcohol.

We tried this once in america.

Didn't really go as planned.

Bacon_Barbarian
02-04-2011, 10:03 PM
No. It didn't. My mothers family a generation or two back are the ones who tried to impose it. My fathers side... Have no problem drinking. Drinking in moderation and as a social interaction is acceptable. The DAY you NEED a drink is the day you need re-hab.

PWhit
02-05-2011, 12:45 AM
Prohibition has only failed because the government took so much regulations against a recreational activity (drinking) away from people that have used alcohol. Humanity has used alcohol to relieve stress since wine and beer was invented in Greece. People are so accustomed to relieving stress through recreational drinking.

I actually just recently caught this:


Plus, legalizing it would, I feel, be good for the economy (I think someone was mentioning this earlier.) It could be taxed, it would provide jobs (people planting, harvesting, packaging, etc...) and it would also allow us to have hemp farming, which would be AWESOME. Right now it's illegal to even grow hemp here (so stupid....)

See there's a method to my madness here.

EDIT: Okay final edit this time. Rehab is definitely an issue that comes with marijuana, beer, coke, hemp and all that stuff.

ClockHand
02-05-2011, 12:53 AM
Prohibition has only failed because the government took so much regulations against a recreational activity (drinking) away from people that have used alcohol since wine and beer was invented in Greece. People are so accustomed to relieving stress through recreational drinking.


And what is more ancient than alcoholic drinks? drugs!

People always use drugs in recreational activities or rituals. But there was a moment when people start saying "hey everyone, drugs are bad", even so they didn't have any medical or logical argument for that statement everyone buy it and now drugs are illegal.

Now we have proved that drugs are not bad and we want them back to be legal.

Also, is different to say "drugs should be legal" to say "you should smoke pot in anyplace you want". As the same as you shouldn't smoke cigarres in a restaurant fulled with kids, you shouldn't smoke pot. Not because you are making a damage to the kids, but more because you are in a place where you need to be respectful with other peoples. We can't create a barrier that make the smoke of the pot don't cross the nose of your neighbor, but you can stop smoking for a while.

Kodos
02-05-2011, 03:50 AM
It should be forbidden and it is in most countries (probably for a reason) - and that makes me happy ;)
Ignore any explanations why I think soo.
It just my opition :o
Homosexual marriage and even homosexual sex is also forbidden in most countries. Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy for a reason. You are saying that something should be forbidden but have failed to offer a single compelling reason for why it should be forbidden while others have offered many demonstrable benefits that would come from making it legal.

Also the whole "I don't want to deal with smokers!" thing is ridiculous. As has been pointed out by myself and others, there are such things as people who smoke and have manners. Also the same argument can be applied to just about anything. "Some people play music loudly late at night ergo we should criminalize the ownership of radios." "Some people wear too much perfume or cologne and are obnoxious to be around and thus we should criminalize perfume and cologne."

Bacon_Barbarian
02-05-2011, 10:36 AM
Also the whole "I don't want to deal with smokers!" thing is ridiculous. As has been pointed out by myself and others, there are such things as people who smoke and have manners. Also the same argument can be applied to just about anything. "Some people play music loudly late at night ergo we should criminalize the ownership of radios." "Some people wear too much perfume or cologne and are obnoxious to be around and thus we should criminalize perfume and cologne."

Someone who wears heavily cologne doesn't kill people with said cologne. Let people smoke, but only in Private places and in the comfort of their own homes.

PWhit
02-05-2011, 12:08 PM
Let people smoke, but only in Private places and in the comfort of their own homes.

It couldn't hurt to open up a pot-bar or weed chamber (or whatever you call places that allow weed to be smoked inside their building) like they did in Amsterdam. Public, legal and contained.

violin
02-05-2011, 01:05 PM
@Kodos,
Smoking weed should be forbidden. I don't have to give any reasons. It's my opinion.
Smoking cigarretes should be permited only in designated areas.

And sorry if you find this offending(you are probably a smoker) but here is what else I think:
-Most(not all of them) smokers are addicted and are not strong enought to quit. I think that's why they are always in a search to find that smoking is healthy and not as bad as people describe it.
-Smokers have told me that it's bad. My family doctor was smoking like 2 packets a day and she was always telling me - it's bad. She got lungs cancer and stopped working as a doctor. Was it because she was smokeing - I don't know. She was the one that studied hard to become a doctor and told me it's bad.
-Everyone in my family smokes except me. My father died a few years ago from cancer. - Is it because he was smoking. Less likely but doctors says that smokers have a bigger procentage of getting cancer.
-My grandfather used to be a smoker. He's now 70. He stopped smoking 20 years ago and he says that sometimes he still cough that black thing from the cigarretes (I don't know how it's called in English)
-I believe that smoking makes your skin age faster. - Is it proven - I don't know. Can I prove it - no.

These are more than enought for me to think that it is bad to smoke and to consider it should be forbidden. Of course you can not just forbid it now when so many people are already addicted to it.

Delphinus
02-05-2011, 01:10 PM
^ So you think smoking should be banned because it can hurt people? Eating too much chocolate can hurt people by giving them heart disease and making them obese, should chocolate be banned.

Re. weed: you cannot hold an opinion without having reasons to hold that opinion. That's just stupid.

PWhit
02-05-2011, 01:24 PM
@violin

It's nice that backed it up with life experience, but you are talking about cigarettes. Weed is a horse of a different color.

violin
02-05-2011, 01:30 PM
Yes, I don't know much about weed. I still think that it is forbidden for a reason. And it can't just be made legal so easy.

PWhit
02-05-2011, 01:45 PM
And it can't just be made legal so easy.

Yes it can actually, through extensive persuasion. When it is legalized, the businesses that make ventures for Marijuana farming will probably follow a few regulations by government. After that, the corporations, private sectors, state government, town governments and the small communities decide how weed will be handled where they live. It really isn't that hard.

pajamajam
02-05-2011, 02:09 PM
Violin, maybe you should do some research about marijuana before making that sort of judgment. Right now you're coming across as a huge prick. If you're not going to do research to back up your opinions about marijuana (which is what the topic of this thread is, not cigarettes), then just stop posting in this thread. You don't like weed. We got the point the first time you said it. Since you are showing that you're unwilling to listen to others' side of the problem, and you don't want to back up your claims, you need to just drop the subject.

jubeh
02-05-2011, 02:26 PM
@Kodos,
Smoking weed should be forbidden. I don't have to give any reasons. It's my opinion.

If this is your attitude please do not post in the general discussion. We are here to discuss. You can't simply say THIS IS MY OPINION HERE IS NO EVIDENCE YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO ME because it is incredibly frustrating for anyone trying to take the topic seriously.

Please, try to look at how silly you sound right now. You think that something you know absolutely nothing about should be forbidden just because it was forbidden in the past.

ClockHand
02-05-2011, 02:50 PM
The MT Award 2011 to worst debater is for poprorororpom... VIOLIN!

Ok, you start bad and you end worst. First, using a inductive argument about the experiense in your life is a bad argument. You say you knew someone who get stupier thanks to weed. And you got to the induction that weed make you stupid.

This is as wrong as I say: I met a mexican, he was lazy = all mexicans are lazy.

So you start bad, but amazingly for everyone, you end worst.

With a statement that says "is my opinion and is a worthful argument", you show everyone how bad someone can be arguing.


Read something or even so, watch a documental, It doesn't matter, everything works in your case.

jubeh
02-05-2011, 03:02 PM
No reason to jump on the dude. I am assuming he is young and/or doesn't debate often.

PWhit
02-05-2011, 03:09 PM
Clock, please don't flame others on my thread. I know it's hard, but just relax.

Bacon_Barbarian
02-05-2011, 03:22 PM
Considering that those don't exist, I can't really have that on my list. If they did exist sure. But they don't. Not here.

ClockHand
02-05-2011, 03:31 PM
Don't flame me for flaming him, flame you for flaming me.

Bacon_Barbarian
02-05-2011, 03:55 PM
o.O

I wasn't flaming. Or not trying to. I was just saying the don't exist, so you can't allow them. If America had Weed Dens it'd be kind of dumb not to allow people not smoke weed in them.

Yara
02-05-2011, 05:12 PM
http://www.pic4ever.com/images/42kmoig.gif
^ Not good

http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mocantina.gif
^ Good

Back to the topic ^_^

ClockHand
02-05-2011, 05:19 PM
Around 5.4 million deaths a year are caused by tobacco.

Over 443,000 Americans (over 18 percent of all deaths) die because of smoking each year. Secondhand smoke kills about 50,000 of them.

Between 2.500 and 3.000 people die due to guns each year in USA.

In 2006, a total of 22,073 persons died of alcohol-induced causes in the United States.

In Australia 0,2&#37; of the illness provoked by drugs (alcohol, tabaco, weed) is provoked by marijuana.

758,593 people (45.6%) were arrested for marijuana possession alone.


How many people were arrested for alcohol possession, tabacco possession or selling any of these?

PWhit
02-05-2011, 05:30 PM
Yara, thank you. (Off Topic: Where did you get those?)

ClockHand, I wasn't flaming you. I was requesting you stop flaming. I thank you for doing so and continuing the debate.

Everyone else, continue the debate.

PheonixChild
02-05-2011, 06:09 PM
I think it should be forbidden - but it's peoples choice. I don't want to convice anyone if it is bad. In my opinion if there is a chance that it will harm you - why do it?

That's my feelings on it as well. Most people want to smoke it because of the high or 'buzz', but people who are 'high' usually are out of it. I think that if they want to use it for medical uses, they should but in small amounts, and never constantly. But- and I do mean BUT- because of the risks and the addiction to it, it's much safer and smarter to use something more natural and non-toxic like, say, willow bark ground into powder for pain relief- the indians used it and it works better than the modern asprin, which used to be made from willow bark but is now completly 'modernised' and has no real 'kick' like it used to. And what do they say about modern Asprin? take more than 10 at a time and you die. That's what you get when you let government scientists mess with the meds...esp since they want to kill us all out anyway (infowars.com). (also sorry= mad at the government)

But anyway, back to subject: if you want to smoke something that will ultimately kill you, smoke poison oak- it works much faster and you still get to experience the fascinating death of internal bleeding and convulsions plus loss of the mind and control of the body that so many people seem to be attracted to.....but hey, it's your funeral, not mine

ClockHand
02-05-2011, 06:24 PM
PhoenixChild, pleace read the previews posts.

Saith
02-05-2011, 06:27 PM
Since when has weed not been natural?
Also, it doesn't harm people.
Bloody hell.
Seriously, there are like, no deaths caused by Mary Jane, unless you count injuries caused by being a bit slowed down, in which case you might as well outlaw coffee. It makes you jittery, after all.
I mean, too much fat can kill you. Too much alcohol can kill you. Nicotine can kill you. Too much water can kill you.
Marijuana? No. It won't.
You don't even get addicted, at least not physically.

And even if it did. Even if it could kill me, why would that give other people the right to decide for me? I've only smoked it a couple times (and ended up coughing my throat out), so I'm not an expert on weed, but even so. It's my life, and it's perverse for someone to think they can decide how I live it.

PWhit
02-05-2011, 07:04 PM
Even though you coughing up the weed smoke didn't help your defense on a health issue, I agree that government should not intervene with personal choices.

Saith
02-05-2011, 07:09 PM
Coughing after inhaling smoke is as harmful as stubbing your toe.

Kodos
02-05-2011, 07:13 PM
Someone who wears heavily cologne doesn't kill people with said cologne. Let people smoke, but only in Private places and in the comfort of their own homes.
I agree. Smoking should be private. But my point was the argument that "Because some people abuse X, X must be made illegal!" is absurd and can be applied to many things.

PWhit
02-05-2011, 11:41 PM
Edit: Ignore this post, as I have broken the bonds of my vow to kill off this thread.

Blue_Dragon
02-06-2011, 11:52 AM
Since when has weed not been natural?

Not playing devil's advocate, but a lot of modern Marijuana has been genetically altered for a stronger high. Used to be you could choose from "Alcopoco Gold," "Michoacan," or, like my parents used to, "Illinois Green" (sucky!) But now, man, they do all kinds of crazy crap that's just not natural. They do the same to the food we eat (corn and all that.) Don't know how I feel about it...I'm more for the most natural way possible.

Also, I love this dude, this guy is one of the funniest comedians I've seen--and I love his hair and coat!

Warning, so people might be offended by the language...so if don't watch if you're gonna be offended by foul language and such.


http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http://www.youtube.com/watch&#37;3Fv&#37;3D93jQI_6G5Cw&#37;26feature%3Drelated


edit: I'm sorry, I wrote this before seeing your "last post"....sorry! Can I leave it here, since the video's funny?

ClockHand
02-06-2011, 12:25 PM
The genetic alteration of plants and animals is not new. Marijuana has been geneticaly alterated before the europeans had come to America (the continent). So saying that the Marijuana in these days is not natural is a lie, it keep being natural and the alteration process that humans does over the plants keep working.

Tomatoes are natural, but they have been alterated and they are still in a process of alteration.

Blue_Dragon
02-06-2011, 01:22 PM
I'm not talking about people taking the "two best plants" and breeding them for a better product. I meant altered in labs and changed. Have you seen that movie Corn King? If you haven't, it's pretty good. It talks about corn companies who alter their corn so that you can't take the kernel you grew and plant it the next year--you have to keep buying new seeds from the company, cause it has a self-destruct gene. That kind of alteration could never be done "in nature" and is therefore unnatural. I understand what you're saying, and that's fine. I've nothing against selective breeding, but altering a plant in some ways is not good, no matter how you slice it (ho ho ho, bad pun.)

I didn't mean to say all marijuana isn't natural, at least, that's not how I meant it to come across. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

edit: I had to fix a grammar error.

PWhit
02-06-2011, 01:36 PM
(Well fine, I can bring it back since the whole drugs are bad issue is over with.)

I don't know what to say to the whole natural issue. It may be a nice feature for marketing in an organic section of the market, but other than that, why not alter it if it is what people want? If they want stronger highs, let em have it. If they are health conscious, let them have the herb directly. We should be able to accommodate both.

toast
02-06-2011, 01:50 PM
There is absolutely nothing wrong with weed in moderation. If you seriously think weed should not be smoked for recreational uses, you need to at least read some experiences with it:
http://boards.cannabis.com/canada/86623-how-does-cannabis-help-you.html

The fact that weed became illegal has little to nothing to do with "health risks". It was just the fact that hemp/marijuana competed with a lot of different industries, like timber, pharmaceuticals, whatever, and they made up a bunch of stuff to make it seem like a horrible thing, so they'd have less competition. Here's more info: http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/
If you don't agree, explain to me why Salvia is legal in 44 states, and it's a strong hallucinogen. Yay knowledge and common sense!

but anyway, why do you think Amsterdam is so happy?

Saith
02-06-2011, 03:00 PM
Prostitutes, probably. ;3

Delphinus
02-06-2011, 03:02 PM
You know, prostitutes are legal in the UK as long as they don't say they're prostitutes.

pajamajam
02-06-2011, 03:04 PM
If you tape it, you can just say you're paying her to shoot porn with you.

Saith
02-06-2011, 03:14 PM
Well, I mean, it's legal to sell sex, but not to pay for it.

PWhit
02-06-2011, 03:41 PM
Amsterdam is only happy because it legalizes anything, and is also a center of the black markets (seeing as you can just about buy anything there). I would have reason to believe they are happy since products are sold without constraints and anyone can profit from even the smallest business.

butternut
02-06-2011, 04:09 PM
I was googling up to find out the history - why cannabis was made illegal in the first place and stuff. I found lots of links and articles (mainly what happened in the US) and this is the conclusion: Just because cannabis was associated with mexicans, hispanics, with the 'Jazz and Swing' culture, with 'losers who'd get arrested and waste away their lives' and with people who the society in general disapproved, and because at that time the people didn't really know much about the drug and the plant - the medicinal and other uses of the actual plant, the selfish ambitious racist people in power passed a law so that they could turn the economy and policies to their advantage.

Now, I want to know the other side of the story. Like the government's view. If what is said above (or more descriptive this (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_marijuana_illegal) or this (http://truthaboutcannabis.org/why-is-cannabis-illegal)) is the actual truth, then the people in power now are total douchebags. Well, if they do not want to legalize it again, there must be some reason right? Any sources where I can find the government's reason to make it illegal?

Oops!sorry for the extremely long sentence!

Saith
02-06-2011, 04:24 PM
Amsterdam is only happy because it legalizes anything, and is also a center of the black markets (seeing as you can just about buy anything there). I would have reason to believe they are happy since products are sold without constraints and anyone can profit from even the smallest business.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't legalise anything.
I know that it's illegal to carry more than a certain amount of weed, and you need a license to sell it.
Same with the prostitutes: You need a license to sell sex, and you need to get checked, like, every two weeks. Condoms are mandatory, and so are bodyguards, pretty much.

I know some other drugs are illegal (for some reason), there.

butternut
02-06-2011, 04:34 PM
I know some other drugs are illegal (for some reason), there.

The 'other' drugs which are illegal are the hard drugs (like heroin, opium, LSD, coke) or narcotics - they are actually harmful, hence illegal. Cannabis, (or weed, marijuana...) is soft and hence legal (but only in small quantities).

Yara
02-06-2011, 04:49 PM
@PWhit: http://www.pic4ever.com/index.htm
I've put it here so other MTs can use it =)

sorry for interrupting, continue ^^"

PWhit
02-06-2011, 04:49 PM
No problems here.

Saith
02-06-2011, 04:59 PM
The 'other' drugs which are illegal are the hard drugs (like heroin, opium, LSD, coke) or narcotics - they are actually harmful, hence illegal. Cannabis, (or weed, marijuana...) is soft and hence legal (but only in small quantities).

Yeah, but what gives other people the right to choose what I do to myself? It's harmful, sure, but it only harms me. So why can I not do it?

butternut
02-06-2011, 06:11 PM
@Saith
So would you not mind people committing suicide? Would you not care if someone's running to the middle of heavy traffic? It's his choice....Would you not care if someone is cutting themselves all over for some odd reason only he knows? That is also him doing something to himself.

It''s fine as long as you do know what you are doing, and do it in such a way that wouldn't harm you. If you know both the good and ill effects of doing drugs or anything at all, yet you go into danger zone, are warned by people around you, yet choose not to care, it's plain stupidity. Unless of course, you are planning to get where ever you are going.

Delphinus
02-06-2011, 07:12 PM
Last time I checked, not caring about your health wasn't worthy of being made a crime. Otherwise let's lock up all the obese McAddicts.

Evil_Cake
02-06-2011, 07:21 PM
no lets lock up every1 who doesnt eat vegetables every day

PWhit
02-06-2011, 07:23 PM
^
I'd be a world class criminal by now.

butternut
02-06-2011, 07:26 PM
Last time I checked, not caring about your health wasn't worthy of being made a crime. Otherwise let's lock up all the obese McAddicts.

There's a difference. The examples I mentioned were extreme. And read the second paragraph of my post.

Delphinus
02-07-2011, 02:45 PM
There's a difference. The examples I mentioned were extreme. And read the second paragraph of my post.
Drugs etc. carry health risks in the same way eating junk food - generally long-term and frequent use is more harmful than occasional use, and it's possible to develop a psychological dependence on them. Comfort eating is just psychological addiction to food. Explain why your argument should apply to drugs and yet not to junk food.


...are warned by people around you, yet choose not to care, it's plain stupidity. Unless of course, you are planning to get where ever you are going.
So yeah. I wouldn't say not caring about your health is stupid.

pajamajam
02-07-2011, 03:04 PM
Which drugs are you talking about, Del? Cause I can give a few examples of drugs - both legal and illegal - that are addictive and do have serious long and short term side effects.

Delphinus
02-07-2011, 03:20 PM
I was leaving out drugs that are physically addictive because it didn't work for the sake of the argument. Let's say everything on the bottom-left half of this scale can be broadly marked as 'not physically addictive'.

http://scienceblogs.com/isisthescientist/upload/2009/09/a_comparison_of_addiction_and/380px-Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_&#37;2528me an_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%2529_svg.png

CypressDahlia
02-07-2011, 03:22 PM
Marijuana should be legal. It's non-addictive and non-harmful and, either way, it is not the governments job to protect us from ourselves.

You do realize that is a VERY rare mentality among Americans, right? A large number of Americans believe that the government is responsible for every minor fuck up that they make and are prepared to file lawsuits in that vein. Lack of personal responsibility is the main issue here. Marijuana is probably the least harmful of drugs available, but the question lies not in whether or not Marijuana is good but whether or not we can //trust// people to use it responsibly. Despite already having legal (albeit harmful) drugs with reasonable limitations (be 18/21, respectively), we still can't depend on people to use them responsibly. The argument that "anything that's good for you is also potentially harmful" is double-edged in this case. It can be used against weed just as well. I'm sure a hamburger in moderation is hardly harmful, either. But do people moderate themselves? 60&#37; of adult Americans say "no".

And then the FDA and fast food corporations take the shit.

And Clockhand, how many people get arrested for possession of weed is an irrelevant figure, considering--in the current state--weed is illegal and anyone stupid enough to be caught holding is going to be arrested. It's just hard law, not really a matter of opinion.

butternut
02-07-2011, 03:32 PM
Explain why your argument should apply to drugs and yet not to junk food.


Let's say everything on the bottom-left half of this scale can be broadly marked as 'not physically addictive'.

I was talking about hard drugs while arguing with Saith. If you consider soft ones on the bottom left of the scale, I guess we're on the same boat, as these do not cause as much harm as the ones marked in red(on the scale). The problem with these is just like with alcohol, or junk food like you said.

Did I make any sense? I'm half-asleep right now.

CypressDahlia
02-07-2011, 03:57 PM
A 1.5 on a scale of 3 is a pretty big deal, lol.

ClockHand
02-07-2011, 04:02 PM
Delp@ Where did you got that scale? Because as far I know Cannabis doesn't gener dependence. Also Anabolics steroids are at the same garmful level than alcohol.

Delphinus
02-07-2011, 04:05 PM
Not when alcohol is marked as a 2.0 on the 'dependence' scale it isn't. How many drinkers are alcoholics? Not very many.

@Clockhand: The image is from Wikipedia, the study is here (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T1B-4N9XF65-19&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4554dfbad14966a9ba2467ba8e68504a). And cannabis still causes dependence, just so little as to be (mostly) negligible.

Saith
02-07-2011, 04:05 PM
Well you get psychological dependance.
You won't get the shakes, but you'll cry a lot.

CypressDahlia
02-07-2011, 04:41 PM
There are varying degrees of drinking, Delphinus. I drink once in maybe 6 months. I'm not sure if that qualifies me as a drinker. But, in that case, then you could say well over 80&#37; of Americans are drinkers. Whereas Alcoholism is based on extremely specific criteria. So the percentage of drinkers who are alcoholics is extremely diluted (hawhawhaw) by "casual" or "social" drinkers like myself.

But, statistically speaking, Americans drink 8 litres of alcohol yearly per capita (over age 15). Considering 15 isn't even legal, you can imagine the bulk of that 8 litres //per capita// falls in the 21 and above age group, who have legal access to alcohol. Beyond that, this is averaged out among the entirety of the 15+ age group, which constitutes roughly 80% of the American population (245,605,240 people) according to census, which further dilutes the number. So, despite not meeting the criteria for being an ALCOHOLIC, per se, we can safely say that Americans drink an //unhealthy// or even harmful amount of alcohol.

Besides, the harmful effects of alcohol extend far beyond alcoholism. Even a non-alcoholic can pay with their life due to one night of reckless drinking. Again, addressing personal responsibility.

Delphinus
02-07-2011, 05:29 PM
I understand the whole point you're making vis a vis personal responsibility, and I agree. But it's not really relevant when discussing dependency on a drug, psychological or physical. Do most Americans require alcohol? I mean could they go tee-total instantly without any real loss?

CypressDahlia
02-07-2011, 06:35 PM
Responsibility has everything to do with dependency. What do you mean it's not relevant? Maybe you mean responsibility doesn't affect the chemical breakdown of a drug. That's true. But psychological dependency is just a make-believe diagnosis for normal, self-indulgent behavior. It's not really a dependency at all. Just a term we coined to describe an otherwise completely average lack of self control. And physical dependency can be avoided if you are //responsible// enough to take whatever drug in moderation. For those who are too-far-gone, it takes self motivation and an equally large if not greater amount of responsibility to climb out of the hole.

And Americans don't //require// alcohol. Likewise, Americans don't //require// (recreational) marijuana. I don't think that's really an argument. Recreational marijuana is just another one of those "why not" issues. "Why legalize marijuana?" is just a good a question as "Why NOT legalize marijuana?" The best argument you've got for marijuana is 1.) keeping kids out of jail (where they shouldn't be anyway, if they were //law-abiding// citizens) and 2.) medical purposes. I actually support the latter, which is now legal in 16 states and growing. But, in the end, people just wanna get high. That's all. They have no other reason for supporting weed legalization than just being self-indulgent potheads. If anything, this should be a "Legalize MEDICAL Marijuana" thread. Now, if it was a bunch of breast cancer patients undergoing chemo at the vanguard of the "legalize weed" movement, I would be all for it. They're the ones who //need// it. But it's just a bunch of college shitheads who think it's some kinda necessity to get high.

And, addressing a previous point: I'm down for abolishing alcohol and cigarettes. Shit is bad for you.

Besides, imagine if Marijuana was legalized and went commercial. We'd have another corporation to deal with (because "big bad tobacco companies" aren't enough to bitch about), kids would still go to jail, considering weed would probably still have to be FDA approved (as it is classified as a Schedule I Drug), therefore personal growing/selling would probably //still// be illegal. Beyond that, it's gonna make parenting a HELLUVA lot harder, what with another drug sitting on the shelves. And, even if it was legalized, we still have a lot of procedures regarding things like job licensing and, you know, public safety, that require people to test negative for THC. Do we really want to legalize something that would interfere with peoples' ability to do their jobs? As if alcohol didn't produce enough DUIs alone, we're going to let people get //more// stuff that they could be arrested for in a separate context.

And, in the end, it all comes back to one question: "Can we trust people not to fuck themselves over with Marijuana?" Hell, we can barely trust people with Freedom of Speech. Look at the internet.

Delphinus
02-07-2011, 07:32 PM
And, in the end, it all comes back to one question: "Can we trust people not to fuck themselves over with Marijuana?" Hell, we can barely trust people with Freedom of Speech. Look at the internet.
Since the crux of your argument essentially rests on this, I'd like to attack it head-on.

What gives the state the right to dictate to people what they can or cannot do to themselves? Why should we give the state, which is after all a mere organ of the people who comprise it, power to overrule individual citizens and their decisions when those decisions do not, in and of themselves, harm anyone whatsoever? If you argue that the state has the right to remove individual rights to ensure the medical health of the citizen they are protecting - then damn, why do we allow the roads to remain open, when road accidents alone cause more deaths than any other single non-natural cause of death? Every time you get in your car you take a gamble with your life - should the state ban cars?

NOTE: ^ the above only apply when arguing about a citizen being allowed to take actions that may harm himself, not applying to his actions harming others, that's a different matter entirely.

You place emphasis on personal responsibility and self-control - why will you not allow people to determine their own lives through their exercise or lack thereof of that self-control? Why do you demand that the state prohibits a particular substance when you believe that people deserve or rather should be blamed for their exercise of free will? In short, your views are contradictory, hypocritical, rife with cognitive dissonance, and expound the worst sort of authoritarianism.

Fenn
02-07-2011, 08:08 PM
Since the crux of your argument essentially rests on this, I'd like to attack it head-on.

What gives the state the right to dictate to people what they can or cannot do to themselves? Why should we give the state, which is after all a mere organ of the people who comprise it, power to overrule individual citizens and their decisions when those decisions do not, in and of themselves, harm anyone whatsoever? If you argue that the state has the right to remove individual rights to ensure the medical health of the citizen they are protecting - then damn, why do we allow the roads to remain open, when road accidents alone cause more deaths than any other single non-natural cause of death? Every time you get in your car you take a gamble with your life - should the state ban cars?

NOTE: ^ the above only apply when arguing about a citizen being allowed to take actions that may harm himself, not applying to his actions harming others, that's a different matter entirely.

You place emphasis on personal responsibility and self-control - why will you not allow people to determine their own lives through their exercise or lack thereof of that self-control? Why do you demand that the state prohibits a particular substance when you believe that people deserve or rather should be blamed for their exercise of free will? In short, your views are contradictory, hypocritical, rife with cognitive dissonance, and expound the worst sort of authoritarianism.

I second this. If it doesn't hurt anyone else, it's their choice. If not, let's ban extreme sports.

PWhit
02-07-2011, 09:17 PM
We shouldn't be banning anything, we should be allowing more everything in moderation.

CypressDahlia
02-07-2011, 11:01 PM
What gives the state the right to dictate to people what they can or cannot do to themselves?

To protect the people. People are really selfish, if it isn't highly apparent. When the government looks out for their good, they bitch about "limiting rights". When the government doesn't babysit them enough, they complain that nobody is protecting them. It wouldn't be a huge deal if people would make up their goddamn minds already. But they just ride the wave of whatever suits them; anarchy one day and policing the next.


If you argue that the state has the right to remove individual rights to ensure the medical health of the citizen they are protecting - then damn, why do we allow the roads to remain open, when road accidents alone cause more deaths than any other single non-natural cause of death? Every time you get in your car you take a gamble with your life - should the state ban cars?

Not a good question. Cars are are main mode of transportation, and are essential in today's fast-paced world, not to mention essential to our economy. The government understands that, but also goes far, //far// out of their way to ensure the safety of the people, while not limiting their convenience to an extreme. Road signs, street renovations, state-funded driving schools, licensing procedures, the AAA; they all exist, you know. You can blame anything bad that comes out of it on the stupidity of the people themselves. See, we can't even trust an extremely well-regulated road system to "the people". My point. Besides, even when given an inch, people want the whole ruler. Cigarettes and alcohol are actually also very well-regulated (without being invasive), yet how many dumbasses kill themselves and others due to their abuse?


You place emphasis on personal responsibility and self-control - why will you not allow people to determine their own lives through their exercise or lack thereof of that self-control?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because the purpose of a government is to ensure the safety of its citizens. Are you saying we should continue to let the fuckups kill themselves on booze and nicotine? Or, better yet, other people? People don't magically come back to life, Delphinus. This is one of those problems that has to be nipped in the bud. A drug addict isn't going to Overdose, die, realize he's lacked self control and come back to life a better man. That's like saying we should let forest fires burn until they ember out, then reflect on why shit died. It's not the meaning of responsibility nor self-control by any stretch. Now, if it were the case that we DIDN'T have as many drug related deaths or injuries, DUIs or drug-related crimes, then okay, you make a valid point. But we do, and I'm glad the government isn't just sitting back saying, "Naw, it's fine, they'll learn eventually." It's quite apparent that people HAVEN'T learned, despite all of the government funded anti-drug propaganda, programs, all of the ad campaigns, tight regulations and taxes they push on vendors. People have already expressed a lack of responsibility and self-control, over the span of many decades, and the figures are just getting progressively worse. Isn't that more than enough reason to tighten regulation? Or should the government just sit back and wait for a better reason? Or, maybe, by some miracle, everyone will suddenly become "responsible". You know how ridiculous that is.


Why do you demand that the state prohibits a particular substance when you believe that people deserve or rather should be blamed for their exercise of free will?

I didn't realize that "lack of self responsibility" = "need for more regulation" was contradictory. I'm not sure if you have your head on straight. If you can't be responsible for yourself, you need someone to be responsible for you. Understand that the government has already given people an inch, and they fucked up--BAD (http://www.come-over.to/FAS/alcdeath.htm). So why let them continue?

Responsibility is not about fucking up, then falling over and dying because of it. It's about fucking up, and realizing you fucked up and doing what's in your power to fix it. I just don't see that kind of promise in our people.

Delphinus
02-08-2011, 05:23 AM
You are saying that the majority of people (if I had statistics on 'responsibility', I'd challenge this assertation) who don't have the personal responsibility to regulate their own consumption are an adequate reason for the government to ban drugs?
What happened to giving people free will and letting them take the consequences of their own actions?


Are you saying we should continue to let the fuckups kill themselves on booze and nicotine?~
Yes.


Responsibility is not about fucking up, then falling over and dying because of it.
No, but accepting the consequences of your own actions would mean you have the choice whether or not to do things that have a chance of hurting you. Your argument goes:

Premise 1: Most people are irresponsible with their intake of harmful substances.
Premise 2: People should be protected from the consequences of their actions.
Premise 3: It is the state's responsibility to perform this role in protecting people.
Conclusion: The state should ban harmful substances.

Premise 1: I simply don't have the evidence to argue against it; I'll just say that sweeping generalisations regarding such things probably aren't a good idea.
Premise 2: Why should people be protected from the consequences of their own actions?
Premise 3: Why is this the responsibility of the state?

It is not the responsibility of the state to stop people from killing themselves directly or indirectly. If you say it is, you're saying people should not be allowed to make decisions regarding their own life or death and that the state is the only one justified in doing so. You're literally saying that the state should tell people they are not allowed to die because it would be inconvenient to the state. Which sounds awfully Stalinist.

Blue_Dragon
02-08-2011, 01:22 PM
I want to preface my response, by saying I'm not trying to be or sound rude. If I come off as such, I apologize. I'm just trying to get my point across the best way I can. I also am not trying to sound condescending, so if I do, again, sorry! This is just how I write when debating...it's nothing personal (also, it would be hard for me to really condescend anyway, cause I don't feel superior to anyone here. Just debating my point of view.)



Not a good question. Cars are are main mode of transportation, and are essential in today's fast-paced world, not to mention essential to our economy. The government understands that, but also goes far, //far// out of their way to ensure the safety of the people, while not limiting their convenience to an extreme. Road signs, street renovations, state-funded driving schools, licensing procedures, the AAA; they all exist, you know. You can blame anything bad that comes out of it on the stupidity of the people themselves.

I would disagree with some of what you're saying here. Yeah, the government does implement a lot of laws in an attempt to help sway improper driving, but this doesn't mean they actually enforce it. Do you see how many cops break the laws they are supposed to enforce? Or how many tickets are actually given out for tailgating (I've seen people get away with many offenses, right if front of police: who do nothing cause, they're lazy or don't want to deal with it. They might be going somewhere, but really, every cop too busy to ticket that?)

Also, no. You can't blame anything bad that comes on the stupidity of people. Most cases, probably, but there are circumstances that are out of people's hands. Something unforeseen, or faulty with the car. A patch of black ice on an otherwise clear road. A stop light multifunction at inopportune time. Not everything can be blamed on the driver.


Oh, I don't know. Maybe because the purpose of a government is to ensure the safety of its citizens.

That's why congress wants to propose limiting the definition of forced rape. Yep, they care about their citizens. That's also why many states won't give two consenting adults the right to marry, even if it's harming NO ONE. That's why many in the government want to de-regulate and take funds away from the EPA (which is already not getting enough money.) If a person really cares about the people's health they'd stop wasting time debating the legality of marijuana (which is not even in the same league as something like heroine, meth, X, LSD, or cocaine), and start really regulating and lowering the amount of emissions from our cars, pollutants from factories, and chemicals sprayed on the food we eat (which, by the way, many of these chemicals are used to produce meth--tells you how smart it is to put it on our crops.)



Are you saying we should continue to let the fuckups kill themselves on booze and nicotine? Or, better yet, other people? People don't magically come back to life, Delphinus. This is one of those problems that has to be nipped in the bud. A drug addict isn't going to Overdose, die, realize he's lacked self control and come back to life a better man.

Are you still talking about pot? Cause...doesn't happen very often, if at all. And the reason isn't because "the government regulates it, so people can't smoke enough pot to kill themselves." Cause people do illegal crap all the time, even when it's regulated. They can do illegal crap their whole life, and get away with it. Hell, I don't have batteries in my carbon-monoxide detector, but I haven't been fined yet (and you better not rat me out! :P ) EDIT: Yes with alcohol and nicotine, there are harmful side effects, but hey: I don't drink and drive, why should it be taken away from me? I'm responsible. If I drink to excess at a bar, I set up a DD ahead of time, so I don't harm anyone with my drinking. Yes, certain uses of alcohol should be illegal, but not the substance itself, completely and utterly. And although I don't agree with smoking cigarettes (I think it's really quite stupid this day-in-age,) I don't feel it's my place to tell someone else what to do. If they told me to eat a big plate of meat because it has protein in it, I'd tell them where they could put it (in their own stomachs--what were you thinking!?)Edit



That's like saying we should let forest fires burn until they ember out, then reflect on why shit died.

You should go with a better argument, cause this is actually something that happens in nature that's good for the forest: in fact, some seeds can't germinate until they've been burned. Sorry to be nit-picky here, but just giving you a head's up. Shit would die, but it enables new shit to grow in varying successions.

Long quote, so I'm putting it in a spoiler:

It's not the meaning of responsibility nor self-control by any stretch. Now, if it were the case that we DIDN'T have as many drug related deaths or injuries, DUIs or drug-related crimes, then okay, you make a valid point. But we do, and I'm glad the government isn't just sitting back saying, "Naw, it's fine, they'll learn eventually." It's quite apparent that people HAVEN'T learned, despite all of the government funded anti-drug propaganda, programs, all of the ad campaigns, tight regulations and taxes they push on vendors. People have already expressed a lack of responsibility and self-control, over the span of many decades, and the figures are just getting progressively worse. Isn't that more than enough reason to tighten regulation? Or should the government just sit back and wait for a better reason? Or, maybe, by some miracle, everyone will suddenly become "responsible". You know how ridiculous that is.

I respect your argument that people need to take responsibility, and I agree that we do need the government to enforce laws and regulate things: otherwise, we'd be back where we were when Upton Sinclair was writing The Jungle. However, what the government regulates and how is important.

What you are arguing is two different views on the same drug. In a different post that I'm not quoting, you were saying this is an argument between "why not legalize marijuana," and "why legalize it." And you admit that for medicinal purposes, it should be legal. But use for it amongst anyone else should be illegal. I see your reasoning, but I disagree. I mean, you're basically saying "people who want it legal, who aren't sick, are just a bunch of pot heads (something like that.) So why legalize it if you don't need it?" I mean, that's what I gleaned from your statements. You logic is basically: if you don't need it, it shouldn't be legal. Going off of this, you could easily take the argument further: "we don't need candy, it doesn't do anything for our health, and it's in fact bad for you, so it shouldn't be legal." You're treading a fine line. How far do you let the government control things? I don't need my literature because it really doesn't do anything for me physically, and I don't get exercise when I read, so I'll be less healthy if I'm sitting around reading all day. Let's make reading books illegal! I know that's an extreme example, but you yourself said people are stupid and don't know where to draw the line. Just because you think something has no value other than certain instances (here, marijuana has no value but for ill persons) doesn't mean it has no value, and shouldn't be legalized. I think country music has no value and says the same crap over and over, but I don't think it shouldn't exist (well...maybe I do;P .) Since marijuana over all has very few (if any) negative side affects, I'd say yeah--why not legalize it? Why make something illegal if doesn't have to be? And also, not everyone who smokes pot, smokes it into the ground. Most people I know only do it recreation-ally. Yes, there are people who abuse substances, but if it wasn't one thing, it would be another: this type of person often has dependency issues anyway--has nothing to do with marijuana, which is not addictive.



I didn't realize that "lack of self responsibility" = "need for more regulation" was contradictory. I'm not sure if you have your head on straight. If you can't be responsible for yourself, you need someone to be responsible for you. Understand that the government has already given people an inch, and they fucked up--BAD. So why let them continue?


One of the big problems I have with many of your arguments, is the constant dependency on the government. Which, don't get me wrong, I'm liberal, and do feel the government should play a role in many issues, but there are things I also feel are just archaic laws left over from a time when people didn't understand much about cannabis.

Okay, so back to your argument. On one hand, you're saying, people aren't responsible, so someone needs to be responsible for them. But you're leaving an important thing out: the government is constructed of people. More often than not selfish people. Powerful selfish people. It's like, the way you're stating it (maybe not meaning it) is the government is infallible and needs to tell everyone what to do because they don't know what to do or how to do it. But if you're talking about the US, you're talking about a government who once protected the rights of slave holders. Who once said it was okay to implement laws which would limit who could vote, and at what age (Jim Crow laws and the time when you were old enough to die for America, but not vote for its leaders.) A government that once considered a married woman and any children to be property of her husband--and to be used however he willed it (child labor was okay and accepted--it was your right!) My point is, just because the government regulates something and makes a law of it, doesn't mean it's right and just. In this case, as well, I feel the law is unjust. You shouldn't go to jail just because you've smoked some marijuana. If you're a hard worker, and good at your job, you shouldn't be fired because you smoked at a party one weekend. Please tell me you don't want to give away all your freedom so someone else can tell you what to do in the case of something that isn't even harmful to you. Please tell me you're a little more into personal freedom than that.


Responsibility is not about fucking up, then falling over and dying because of it. It's about fucking up, and realizing you fucked up and doing what's in your power to fix it. I just don't see that kind of promise in our people.

Again, heavy drugs isn't the issue. You don't die from smoking marijuana.

CypressDahlia
02-08-2011, 04:21 PM
You are saying that the majority of people (if I had statistics on 'responsibility', I'd challenge this assertation) who don't have the personal responsibility to regulate their own consumption are an adequate reason for the government to ban drugs?

Uhm, yes, considering they are the ones responsible for the hundreds of thousands of alcohol related deaths a year. o_o


Yes.

I think you misunderstand the idea of a representative democracy. We elect people into office to decide what's best for us; that's how our government works. We see the candidates stand at their podiums and deliver their speeches, and say "hey, that guy knows what we want, let's put him in office." And I'm sure //what's best for us// is not dying.


No, but accepting the consequences of your own actions would mean you have the choice whether or not to do things that have a chance of hurting you.

I'm sorry, but people have had (albeit limited) choices to do drugs for decades and, as I cited, the figures are getting WORSE. You don't think the last 6 or so decades of worsening cigarette and alcohol abuse are enough reason to tighten up a bit on drugs? I know you're trying to be logical about this, but you are arguing against logic here. Like I said, if a person doesn't show promise of becoming responsible, then someone else has to be responsible FOR them. That's also how parent-child relationships work, ya know?


It is not the responsibility of the state to stop people from killing themselves directly or indirectly.

I'm sorry, what? You're saying people wouldn't throw a bitchfit if all road signs, traffic signals, the AAA, state-funded driving schools, the DMV all just up and disappeared? The Govnerment HAS been stopping people from killing themselves. Are you not living in America or something, dude?


If you say it is, you're saying people should not be allowed to make decisions regarding their own life or death and that the state is the only one justified in doing so. You're literally saying that the state should tell people they are not allowed to die because it would be inconvenient to the state. Which sounds awfully Stalinist.

Huge conclusion jump here, dude. Like I said: in representative democracy, we choose people to represent what we want. What //most// of us want, I guess, is not to die (actually, most candidates' platforms put huge emphasis on public safety). The candidate goes out of their way to make sure we don't die. Is that Stalinist?

pajamajam
02-08-2011, 04:44 PM
Cyp, what I'm getting out of your argument is that people are retarded and the government is there to stop people from being quite as retarded as they want to be. Part of the government's responsibility is to keep people from putting things into their bodies that can potentially kill them. I agree, for the most part. But you can't regulate everything that could potentially harm or kill someone. My grandmother (the crazy one) is diabetic. She's lost one leg because of it, and last I spoke to her she was on the verge of losing the other. But she shovels sweets and starches down her throat daily. If you say anything about it, she gets defensive and shouts and cries, and then goes and eats more ice cream. She is very, very likely to die from this; you could almost call her behavior suicidal. Should the government, which is there to protect the people and steer them away from irresponsible behavior, step in and force her and others like her to regulate their diets? Or would you say that what she puts in her body is her own choice?

Delphinus
02-08-2011, 05:27 PM
Uhm, yes, considering they are the ones responsible for the hundreds of thousands of alcohol related deaths a year. o_o
That is not proof of the majority being irresponsible.


I think you misunderstand the idea of a representative democracy.
I understand it perfectly, thanks. Decisions are deferred to experts to ensure the well-being of 'the people'. I also think democracy and most other political systems are bullshit.
Regarding your actual argument: what's best for some individuals is not what's best for all individuals. In this case, I'd argue that banning alcohol etc. is an unnecessary and patronising step to take to protect those who can't exercise self-control and that ultimately it harms people who don't have those problems with moderation.


I'm sorry, what? You're saying people wouldn't throw a bitchfit if all road signs, traffic signals, the AAA, state-funded driving schools, the DMV all just up and disappeared?
That's not the same - road laws are primarily in place to stop people being killed through the actions of others. Not to protect people from themselves, to protect them from others. What you're suggesting is more like prohibiting people from driving go-karts on a stretch of land they own without having the go-kart first inspected and safety certified by a national authority on go-karts.


Is that Stalinist?
No, but the removal of basic liberties to protect a person from themselves when the person is aware of the potential consequences of their actions? That is.

Most importantly: PROVE THAT MOST (OVER 50&#37; OF) PEOPLE ARE AS STUPID AND IRRESPONSIBLE AS YOUR ARGUMENT FOR THE PROHIBITION OF NUMEROUS SUBSTANCES REQUIRES THEM TO BE.

Fenn
02-08-2011, 05:52 PM
Like I said, if a person doesn't show promise of becoming responsible, then someone else has to be responsible FOR them. That's also how parent-child relationships work, ya know?


Okay. Good luck inventing a "responsibility-meter" to scientificaly calculate whether a person can make conscious decisions on their own. Or lets hire a panel to judge every single individual's capability to make right decisions. That quote of yours terrifies me, absolutely terrifies me. You are essentially making the claim that you know what's best for the majority of the nation better than they do, without any proof, and using that as reasoning to take away their right to choose for themselves.

I'll say it one more time: if it isn't affecting anyone else, it is their choice. A better solution to this "problem" is to spend time and effort educating the public on alternate methods of leisure and providing alternate forms of recreation. The majority of people who OD or die while DUI have social and personal problems (sorry, no citation just my experience); the minority just were unlucky. Easily available and anonymous counciling and rehab, as well as parent lessons on prevention can help reduce the number of addicts.

But for you to tell those who smoke/drink and don't hurt anyone else that you know what's best for them is extremely arrogant and, frankly, oppresive.

CypressDahlia
02-08-2011, 07:03 PM
That is not proof of the majority being irresponsible.

I'm sorry, but at the point where hundreds of thousands of people are dying a year, I'm willing to draw the line short of a majority consensus. Are you saying that's not a good enough reason yet?


I also think democracy and most other political systems are bullshit.

That's your problem, bud.


Regarding your actual argument: what's best for some individuals is not what's best for all individuals. In this case, I'd argue that banning alcohol etc. is an unnecessary and patronising step to take to protect those who can't exercise self-control and that ultimately it harms people who don't have those problems with moderation.

So you're saying you'd protect the right to drink over the lives of 140,000 people?


That's not the same - road laws are primarily in place to stop people being killed through the actions of others. Not to protect people from themselves...

WHAT? lol. Are you saying drivers who get into accidents don't face the potential to die themselves?


No, but the removal of basic liberties to protect a person from themselves when the person is aware of the potential consequences of their actions?

Oh, I'm so sorry. I'd TOTALLY forgotten about the First Amendment right to get twisted.


Most importantly: PROVE THAT MOST (OVER 50&#37; OF) PEOPLE ARE AS STUPID AND IRRESPONSIBLE AS YOUR ARGUMENT FOR THE PROHIBITION OF NUMEROUS SUBSTANCES REQUIRES THEM TO BE.

Oh, do I really even have to? All you have to do is Google. It's all right there for you. Unless, of course, the figures aren't staggering enough. Are you waiting until the casualties hit the million mark before you're convinced? At your proposed 50&#37;, that would be over 150,000,000 people. So you're saying I have to wait until 150,000,000 people die a year from drug-related causes before I can say it's reasonable to prohibit them?


Okay. Good luck inventing a "responsibility-meter" to scientificaly calculate whether a person can make conscious decisions on their own.

Lol, that was a joke, right. Because the fact that hundreds of thousands of people die a year due to the abuse of drugs is NOT already a great measure of how ir/responsible Americans are with drugs? Funny.


That quote of yours terrifies me, absolutely terrifies me. You are essentially making the claim that you know what's best for the majority of the nation better than they do, without any proof, and using that as reasoning to take away their right to choose for themselves.

I said that? I said I would give up my privilege to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol if it would save 140,000 Americans a year. And I didn't realize saving peoples' lives was less important than my GOD GIVEN RIGHT to get smashed. Sorry for my lack of priorities and values. /lol


But for you to tell those who smoke/drink and don't hurt anyone else that you know what's best for them is extremely arrogant and, frankly, oppresive.

So if I gave you an option to give up your right to drink and smoke, knowing that it would save thousands of people a year, you wouldn't do it? Your hyper-inflated sense of self-entitlement terrifies me. Brrrrr~ Besides, I'm sure smokers and drinkers also know what's best for them, which is to //not smoke// and //not drink//. That's not even an ethical issue; it's hard chemistry. There's really no point in debating that. Unless you have a grudge against your liver and brain or something.

PWhit
02-08-2011, 07:19 PM
So if I gave you an option to give up your right to drink and smoke, knowing that it would save thousands of people a year, you wouldn't do it?

If one person gave up smoking, they would only be saving one person. That person is only himself or herself. Where do the 999 other people come from, public preaching? Last time I checked, PSA's made people more annoyed than informed.

CypressDahlia
02-08-2011, 07:22 PM
That's not the point, PWhit. I meant if smoking were made illegal, lol. If you don't understand the argument, don't get involved. I'm already fending off 3 people who think the right to "get high, dude" is greater than the negative societal and structural impact that legalizing recreational marijuana has on America.

PWhit
02-08-2011, 07:28 PM
I just had a question about that one point you made, don't get too defensive. I practically have this argument every day, don't tell me I know nothing about it.

CypressDahlia
02-08-2011, 07:28 PM
I want to preface my response, by saying I'm not trying to be or sound rude. If I come off as such, I apologize.

It's cool, man. =P I don't mind. Sometimes a bit of colorful language can spice up a debate.


Yeah, the government does implement a lot of laws in an attempt to help sway improper driving, but this doesn't mean they actually enforce it...

I hope you know that it's impossible to enforce every law, all the time. I mean, the government can try, but part of being a government lies in understanding the difference between being cautious and being invasive. I'm sure the government, had they wanted to, could send riot troops into every home and set up roadblocks on every road, checkpoints and speed readers and cameras on every interstate. But that would be a little overbearing, wouldn't it? Not only that, but imagine the resources that would cost. That's why America maintains a comfortable level of law enforcement. Maybe not enough, but it gets the job done. Hell, our jails are overflowing as it is.

Anyway, when law enforcement gets too tight, people like to bitch about how "the man is putting them down". How many stoners whine about stoners going to jail, despite the fact that it's expressly illegal? Every time laws get enforced, the government is apparently on a "powertrip", amirite.


Do you see how many cops break the laws they are supposed to enforce?

Yes, and it's disappointing. But, like I said, we can't always account for that. It's impossible to always have an eye on every cop.


Or how many tickets are actually given out for tailgating.

TBH, given how bad people are at driving these days, I wouldn't be able to tell between a tailgater and your average driver. /shrug Sorry.


Also, no. You can't blame anything bad that comes on the stupidity of people. Most cases, probably, but there are circumstances that are out of people's hands.

I admit that this was an exaggeration on my part. But still, //MOST//. Either way, bad luck is bad luck. Nothing can control that.


That's why congress wants to propose limiting the definition of forced rape.

Please cite this.


That's also why many states won't give two consenting adults the right to marry, even if it's harming NO ONE.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. At this point, it almost sounds like you're insinuating that the government is a standalone organization. Don't forget that America is a representative democracy. The reason gay marriage isn't legalized in many states is not because the homophobic hivemind that is the government doesn't want it. It's because there are an equally large number of average citizens, like you and me, who don't approve of gays getting married. They are the ones tipping the scales, turning ballots, signing anti-gay petitions and downplaying the issue. Don't say it as if the government is just 4 or 5 guys sitting around a table cursing gays. What we're challenging with the whole gay marriage issue is not the government: it's Americans and their conservative values. Personally, I love the idea of gay marriage. /shrug


That's why many in the government want to de-regulate and take funds away from the EPA (which is already not getting enough money.)

Yes, to push funds towards other things like, I don't know, resuscitating our dying economy. I hope you understand that the act of "cleaning up the environment" would take up huge amounts of resources, commitment and time. Hell, letting the Earth cleanse itself is projected, scientifically, to take hundreds of years. But, in the state that America's economy is going, we won't make it another //four// years before we're all on welfare.


If a person really cares about the people's health they'd stop wasting time debating the legality of marijuana (which is not even in the same league as something like heroine, meth, X, LSD, or cocaine)...

Which is why those have already been deemed illegal.../nod


...and start really regulating and lowering the amount of emissions from our cars, pollutants from factories, and chemicals sprayed on the food we eat...

Compared to the number of drug-related crimes and consequent deaths a year, I don't think the number of deaths caused by angry trees and bad air stack up. Sarcasm aside, the government needs to prioritize. It can only have so much money in circulation at once (printing any more would inflate the dollar further) and it has to decide what to do with that money. Besides, I grew up in this generation of bad air and bad food and I maintain beyond average health, simply because I have the responsibility to take care of my personal being. But TBH, I believe the government should have no say over what we eat--harmful or not. That would be extremely invasive. Besides, it takes a lifetime of eating harmful food to kill you (over which time, if you hadn't learned your lesson, then you had it coming). It only takes one instance of holding Marijuana to end up in jail, and 10oz of alcohol to get you into a DUI-induced accident, or one cigarette to hook you for life. /shrug The difference in circumstance is evident. And it's not like the government doesn't try to help us eat healthy, what with FDA testing, required-by-law Nutritional Content labels and lists of active ingredients, mandatory disclaimers, etc, etc.

But I hope you realize that reducing emissions is easier said than done--by far. Reinventing the catalytic converter, turning people (and companies) over to green energy and getting people to buy hybrids is an extremely lofty and //expensive// ideal. Americans nor their government have that kind of money or resources right now. Esp. in this economic recession, nobody is going to shell out 10k for a new hybrid. It's not even like they make those things affordable.

And government has been trying to limit pollutants for ages now, ever since the first FDR administration. They've been taxing the hell out of corporations, putting them through intense inspection regiments and consequently fining them for every time they exceed their waste quota. They can only do so much. Besides, American economy works on a supply-and-demand basis. Factories will produce products (and the resulting waste) for as long as Americans want them. Whatchugonnado.

On the topic of food: chemicals and fertilizers are added to our foods in order to make them cheaper to produce and, consequently, cheaper to buy. I appreciate that, personally. And, like I said, you can still maintain a healthy lifestyle regardless. Have you ever tried to buy organic food? The reason there is hardly a market for it is because it's simply //not affordable//. I'm not paying 3 dollars for a potato just because it has real dirt on it. I'm sure if said chemicals had noticeable long-term effects, the FDA would put a disclaimer on them. But I don't walk down the aisle in a supermarket and see signs stating "These eggs are dangerous - love, the FDA".

If anything, what you really have to worry about is how said food is //prepared//.



----

ALSO, Pajamajam: I'm gonna quote you something I just wrote to B_D in response to your anecdote. I hope it answers your question.

"...TBH, I believe the government should have no say over what we eat--harmful or not. That would be extremely invasive. Besides, it takes a lifetime of eating harmful food to kill you (over which time, if you hadn't learned your lesson, then you had it coming). It only takes one instance of holding Marijuana to end up in jail, and 10oz of alcohol to get you into a DUI-induced accident, or one cigarette to hook you for life. /shrug The difference in circumstance is evident. And it's not like the government doesn't try to help us eat healthy, what with FDA testing, required-by-law Nutritional Content labels and lists of active ingredients, mandatory disclaimers, etc, etc..."

CypressDahlia
02-08-2011, 07:31 PM
Part 2...lawl.


Are you still talking about pot? Cause...doesn't happen very often, if at all.

No, I wasn't talking about pot, just drugs in general. There haven't actually been any known cases of people ODing on pot.


Yes with alcohol and nicotine, there are harmful side effects, but hey: I don't drink and drive, why should it be taken away from me? I'm responsible.

"Cause people do illegal crap all the time, even when it's regulated. They can do illegal crap their whole life, and get away with it." That's why.


You should go with a better argument, cause this is actually something that happens in nature that's good for the forest...

I think you missed the point. Unless you can find me an example of an instance where firefighters let a wildfire burn out without any attempt to intervene...


Your logic is basically: if you don't need it, it shouldn't be legal.

Whoa, I said that? When did I say that? We're talking about legalizing something that 1.) is deemed a psychoactive drug, 2.) is already deemed illegal, 3.) is a major source of crime, 4.) negatively impacts society, and 5.) has already been known to impair peoples' ability to function. And we're all willing to ignore all this just so a couple college kids can get high at their own leisure? The only //redeeming// thing about weed are its medicinal purposes. So is "candy" really an appropriate comparison? C'mon, man. Despite having no redeeming properties, there sure as hell aren't any gang wars over candy.


You're treading a fine line...

No offense, dude, but that whole paragraph was entirely nonsense. Marijuana is a very specific example of the "why not" issue. I'm simply not willing to ignore all of the societal impacts of Marijuana just because people think they're entitled to get high. Just because you think you deserve to do it isn't reason enough to legalize it, especially at the potential expense of everyone else. I think I'm responsible enough to carry around lethal weapons without a license, but would I legalize that? Hell--fucking--no.


But you're leaving an important thing out: the government is constructed of people. More often than not selfish people. Powerful selfish people.

Powerful, selfish people that we elected. Whatchugonnado.


It's like, the way you're stating it (maybe not meaning it) is the government is infallible and needs to tell everyone what to do because they don't know what to do or how to do it.

Not quite. The government is far from infallible, but they exist to orchestrate the system--to make sure it works. That involves some degree of regulation. "Telling people what to do" is an integral part of the government.


My point is, just because the government regulates something and makes a law of it, doesn't mean it's right and just.

All the examples you gave were unfounded, bigoted and archaic artifacts of puritan America. They had no backing to them, therefore I agree that they were unjust. But the Marijuana debate actually has some data backing it, so it's not really a fair comparison.


Please tell me you're a little more into personal freedom than that.

Lol, what the hell. I don't want to give my personal freedom away. I just don't have such an over-inflated sense of self-entitlement that I think I //deserve// to get high, at the potential risk of sending the rest of the country down a spiraling path of self-destructive substance abuse. Because. (http://www.adha.org/media/facts/tobacco.htm) We're. (http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/antismoking/a/statistics.htm) Clearly. (http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/antismoking/a/statistics.htm) On. (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30) One. (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1907408,00.html) Already. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm)

Surely, marijuana itself doesn't harm anyone on a //chemical// level. But will it harm our society and infrastructure? Yes.

ClockHand
02-08-2011, 07:47 PM
In a capitalist country, the state have no control or power to gave safety to the population (look USA).
In a not-capitalist country, the state have to gave safety to the population.

I agree with cyp in the matter that the state have to be the responsable of the safety of the people, but never to forbid people do something they want that can't and don't harm others.

With this said, for my in the debate of legalization of weed. It should be legal, but the state has to have the control over it and the consumers, to prevent the harm of others and to know "what's going on".

pajamajam
02-08-2011, 08:29 PM
You can't be serious, Cyp. Yes, an adult with diabetes, whether they contracted it through poor nutritional choices or not, knows the consequences of poor nutrition. Just like someone who smokes marijuana or skateboards or drinks or smokes or drives a car knows the potential consequences of their actions. So someone who is doing considerable harm to their body is fine so long as it's not with an illegal substance, but legalizing a substance that would do little to no harm to a person physically would be wrong?

Harvester_Of_Sorrow
02-08-2011, 08:32 PM
Wow, thats a whole lotta text there, Cyp. You will have to forgive me for not addressing every point, but I'll just quote a few things you said regarding marijuana.


We're talking about legalizing something that 1.) is deemed a psychoactive drug, 2.) is already deemed illegal, 3.) is a major source of crime, 4.) negatively impacts society, and 5.) has already been known to impair peoples' ability to function.

1) The reaserch into the long term effects of marijuana use are dubious at best. The only thing that can be agreed on is that it effects your short term memory and may cause you paranoia
2) That is the whole point in question. If something is undeservedly illegal, the fact that it is currently illegal is no argument against it. Also, the reason why marijuana is illegal in the US and UK (as well as other places I'm sure) has nothing at all to do with public safety.
3) Due to it being illegal, see point 2.
4) Due to it being illegal, see point 3.
5) Repeat point 1.


"Telling people what to do" is an integral part of the government.

That is so wrong, but I'll address that when I talk about smokes and drink. Remind me I said that, incase I forget.


I just don't have such an over-inflated sense of self-entitlement that I think I //deserve// to get high,

No one is saying you deserve to get high, they say you should have the choice to get high if you feel so. At no point have you addressed why this is a negative thing.


Surely, marijuana itself doesn't harm anyone on a //chemical// level. But will it harm our society and infrastructure? Yes.

Oh, yes. Slippery slope fallacies give me the horn! You have no basis whatsoever to make this statement other than 'The whole country will be full of dopeheads!' The only evidence we can look too to establish weather legalising marijuana in any society would harm it or its infastructure, would be to examine a current society that has legalised marijuana. Otherwise we're just assuming without evidence, right? So, c'mon kids, world geography quiz time: What is the only country on Earth that has legalised marijuana? Whats its infastructure like? Whats it's soceity like? How many 'fuck-ups' are wrecking the joint?

If something has been shown to be harmless on every level, other than a few dubious reports of causing paranoia, then it should not be up to you, the government or even Santa Clause to say they can or can't do it.

But I see your main gripe is with booze and cigarettes, but I'll address those points later.

CypressDahlia
02-08-2011, 09:32 PM
You can't be serious, Cyp. Yes, an adult with diabetes, whether they contracted it through poor nutritional choices or not, knows the consequences of poor nutrition. Just like someone who smokes marijuana or skateboards or drinks or smokes or drives a car knows the potential consequences of their actions.

Yes, we've established that. The question is whether or not a higher power should allow the consequences to carry out. I'm sorry, but I'm just not down for letting people die, unless they deserve it (criminals, thieves, rapists). The government already goes as far as they can in terms of educating people about eating healthy, without being invasive.


So someone who is doing considerable harm to their body is fine so long as it's not with an illegal substance, but legalizing a substance that would do little to no harm to a person physically would be wrong?

Actually, I was talking about cigarettes and alcohol, which are already legal under moderation. I already acknowledged that marijuana doesn't harm the body, for the most part, so that's not my reason for it to remain illegal. My reason is the harm it can do to society abroad. And, as I said, food is something you ingest for a lifetime before it has a considerable negative effect on your body--ya know, enough time to LEARN to eat better, either through guidance or counseling. Marijuana, cigarettes and alcohol are three things that can fuck you over in the blink of an eye. Aside from that, food is not inherently bad, nor does it have a negative societal effect (unlike Marijuana, which is the basis for a lot of crime). It's just the individual's fault for not managing their diet properly, or counterbalancing overeating with extra exercise or whatever. And honestly, unless you want to claim that food has the same effects as either nicotine or alcohol, then let's just drop this argument.

But seriously, you're comparing //food// to //marijuana//? Last I remember, food is an essential part of living, marijuana isn't. Last I remembered, food has no principle dependency other than the need for sustenance, marijuana does (according to Delphinus). Last I remember, no societal problems (unless you consider "fat mentality" a social issue) arose from food, unlike marijuana. Oh, when's the last time someone got arrested for possession of food? Or got a DUI for driving under the influence of food?

This comparison is a huge stretch.

Fenn
02-08-2011, 10:07 PM
Lol, that was a joke, right. Because the fact that hundreds of thousands of people die a year due to the abuse of drugs is NOT already a great measure of how ir/responsible Americans are with drugs? Funny.

Thanks for the blanket generalization. You just grouped those hundreds of thousands together with millions and millions who have either chosen not to smoke/drink or have done so responsibly without killing themselves or hurting others. What makes that hundred thousand a better indicator of American responsibility?

And that stat had better be suicides only. Like I said, I am perfectly fine with laws protecting people from the decisions of others.

Not to mention, if those people don't have the capacity to prevent their own death by drugs, what makes you think they have self-control at all? You think that by taking away their weed and beer they will all suddenly have an overwhelming sense of guilt and become saints? They could just as easily submit to more dangerous activities such as theft which affect not only themselves but others. They've already proved themselves incapable of controlling their urges; taking away one temptation will not prevent them from pursuing others.


I said that? I said I would give up my privilege to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol if it would save 140,000 Americans a year. And I didn't realize saving peoples' lives was less important than my GOD GIVEN RIGHT to get smashed. Sorry for my lack of priorities and values. /lol

See above. Those 140,000 Americans have not gained any sense of self-control by loss of access to tobacco and alcoholic substances.


So if I gave you an option to give up your right to drink and smoke, knowing that it would save thousands of people a year, you wouldn't do it? Your hyper-inflated sense of self-entitlement terrifies me. Brrrrr~ Besides, I'm sure smokers and drinkers also know what's best for them, which is to //not smoke// and //not drink//. That's not even an ethical issue; it's hard chemistry. There's really no point in debating that. Unless you have a grudge against your liver and brain or something.

First, if I thought illegalizing those things would guarantee all those lives were saved, I would. But as I explained twice about, it is those people's choice, and their free will, to take their own life. I doubt this law of yours would save even a fraction of that. I do fully support efficient and effective measures such as ad campaigns which discourage abuse of alcohol as well as groups designed to help those already addicted that want to break free.

I think alchohol is useless and stupid. But no one has the right to control my decisions about what I put in my body, that is affecting me and only me, nor do they have the right to control anyone elses.

I'm going to create an extreme hypothetical. what if the majority of Americans truly are foolish, incapable idiots who would kill themselves with alcohol or drugs rather than abstain? Who, then, are you "saving" by banning these substances. You are saving a bunch of beings with no control over their primitive urges. If you offer them every chance to quit, bring them to clinics and everything, and still they choose drugs, what is the point of forcing them against their will?

That is a "what if." I am confident that Americans as a whole are responsible enough not to let drugs and alcohol take over--and then take out--their lives. Legalize these drugs, let people make their own choices, and if everyone ignores the warnings and ruins themselves, we will know we were only delaying the inevitable. I am very confident that this will not happen, and I will continue to avoid all drugs and alcohol while allowing others the freedom to choose for themselves, hoping people realize there are far safer and more fulfilling ways to enjoy life.

ClockHand
02-08-2011, 10:15 PM
Marijuana only provoke psychological addiction, the same kind that food does.

I think there are minimal chances that a stoned guy might drive (because he is stoned and can't), and is hard for him to harm others (different than alcohol and tabacco that are legal), also with the legalization laws are going to come.

There are minimal damage provoked by weed (even less than jonk food).

Fenn@ You have one life, nothing more, and you are not going to live all the experiense of that life? specially if that experiense doesn't harm you or others?

CypressDahlia
02-08-2011, 10:21 PM
1) The reaserch into the long term effects of marijuana use are dubious at best. The only thing that can be agreed on is that it effects your short term memory and may cause you paranoia

This is true. I never said anything about the long-term effects of weed. I just stated how it works in the body. Also to make the point that psychoactives are some of the most highly prioritized in terms of legislative prohibition.


2) That is the whole point in question. If something is undeservedly illegal, the fact that it is currently illegal is no argument against it. Also, the reason why marijuana is illegal in the US and UK (as well as other places I'm sure) has nothing at all to do with public safety.


5) Repeat point 1.

I think you missed the point of this list. I was comparing marijuana to candy, in response to B_D's post. Lol. And actually, marijuana has a lot to do with public safety. A lot of jobs screen for THC frequently, to make sure you're in a fine condition to perform at work. Likewise, THC also constitutes a DUI if you're driving. I honestly don't think they'd do that unless it impaired your ability to function. Why waste the resources?


3) Due to it being illegal, see point 2.

You do realize that drug cartels are illegal--period, right? Even if weed was legalized, it would have to be licensed and FDA approved (considering it is a drug, by definition), therefore private sellers/growers would still get tossed in the slammer. Not to mention kids are smoking weed as early as middle school, so chances are underage smokers will still be tossed in juvie. Beyond that, what's going to stop the gangs? A lot of people sell weed for the easy money, not because they want to smoke it themselves. What's gonna stop them? You seem to think it's as simple as "making weed legal". It's not an on-and-off switch.


4) Due to it being illegal, see point 3.

No, due to the corruption of values. Breaking the law to grow, sell and buy weed, distributing it to young kids. Not to mention that weed is the staple of drug cartels, fueling gang violence on the West Coast. I'm sorry, but you can't blame that on weed being illegal. You blame it on our lack of values as a society.


No one is saying you deserve to get high, they say you should have the choice to get high if you feel so. At no point have you addressed why this is a negative thing.

They are saying they deserve the right to get high, if they want. And it's a bad thing because there is large amounts of evidence suggesting that America is irresponsible with drugs. Yet, we want to legalize another one just because we feel like we should be able to get high, despite "feeling good" being a less-than-substantial reason for legalizing anything. Unless, of course, you want to give me a //real// reason why weed should be legalized, aside from its medicinal purposes (which I've already acknowledged). The best argument I've heard is "why not? It don't hurt no one" for the most part.


Oh, yes. Slippery slope fallacies give me the horn!

It's not really a fallacy considering America has a great history of abusing drugs. =) We even had to make COUGH MEDICATION prescription-only in D.C. because kids used it to get high.


You have no basis whatsoever to make this statement other than 'The whole country will be full of dopeheads!'

Oh, yeah, let's just ignore the past 60 or so years of increasingly bad drug abuse among Americans.


So, c'mon kids, world geography quiz time: What is the only country on Earth that has legalised marijuana?

The Netherlands has an extremely tight grip on weed distribution. You can only get it at licensed coffee shops, at age 18. No advertisements are allowed. The best you're gonna get is 5 grams, and smoking it in public is still deemed illegal. The coffee shops themselves can't even purchase, only grow and sell. Weed there is BARELY legal, dude. But America is already in a worst state than the Netherlands ever was, in terms of crime rates and drug abuse. Hell, even in the Netherlands, only 5.4&#37; of the population smokes their //legal// weed on a regular basis. Over here, double that percentage of people (10.3%) smoke //ILLEGALLY//.

ClockHand
02-08-2011, 10:24 PM
There would be less crime if the distribution and consume of marijuana were controled by the state (as netherland does) and not some dealers.

The amount of people who smoke weed is not equal to the amount of crime. But the a mayor no-control of drugs does equal more crimes.

pajamajam
02-08-2011, 10:31 PM
So marijuana is illegal and people go to jail because it's illegal and anyone who uses it lacks self control, and that it shouldn't be legal because people get in trouble for using it illegally. Also, the government is supposed to stop these people with no self-control from hurting themselves, but people with no self-control with things that are legal should accept the consequences responsibly. Got it.

CypressDahlia
02-08-2011, 10:48 PM
Thanks for the blanket generalization. You just grouped those hundreds of thousands together with millions and millions who have either chosen not to smoke/drink or have done so responsibly without killing themselves or hurting others. What makes that hundred thousand a better indicator of American responsibility?

I'm still surprised that 140 thousand people (no only suicides, BTW), is not enough to convince you to give up your right to partake in something as stupid, pointless, self-injuring and socially harmful as drinking and smoking. That seems pretty selfish.


Not to mention, if those people don't have the capacity to prevent their own death by drugs, what makes you think they have self-control at all...taking away one temptation will not prevent them from pursuing others.

You have a point. But then those people just become criminals, and shall be punished as criminals do. /shrug Besides, you don't think that's somewhat of a stretch? Picking up a beer and drinking is not mentally taxing, nor is it heavy on the conscience. Robbing someone or some place? Extremely so, I would believe. That is a whole new level of commitment, and I doubt people would take it that far.


First, if I thought illegalizing those things would guarantee all those lives were saved, I would. But as I explained twice about, it is those people's choice, and their free will, to take their own life. I doubt this law of yours would save even a fraction of that.

Whoa, what? People don't smoke or drink //intending// to die, dude. It's not a suicidal thing. You don't think people are a little upset when they find out their liver as liquefied over years and years of alcoholism? The idea is to stop them //before// they sentence themselves to an undesired fate. They don't choose to kill themselves, d00d. They usually just realize they're doing so too late in life. Like I said: it's a problem better nipped in the bud.


I do fully support efficient and effective measures such as ad campaigns which discourage abuse of alcohol as well as groups designed to help those already addicted that want to break free.

We keep pouring more and more tax-payer money into these things, but the figures just get worse, man.


I think alchohol is useless and stupid. But no one has the right to control my decisions about what I put in my body, that is affecting me and only me, nor do they have the right to control anyone elses.

I can respect that. But you aren't dead. I'm sure one of the 140k casualties would've loved someone to have stopped them from doing what they were doing, before it killed them. I'm pretty confident that nobody suffers a drug-related death thinking, "Wow, I'm glad I got to practice my right to do this." I'm willing to give up my right to use drugs, to make sure others don't fuck themselves over by abusing the same right.


You are saving a bunch of beings with no control over their primitive urges.

I would define a lot of people that way. But I don't believe they deserve to die. Personal responsibility doesn't count if you're dead. You didn't //fix// anything.


So marijuana is illegal and people go to jail because it's illegal and anyone who uses it lacks self control, and that it shouldn't be legal because people get in trouble for using it illegally. Also, the government is supposed to stop these people with no self-control from hurting themselves, but people with no self-control with things that are legal should accept the consequences responsibly. Got it.

You're really good at missing points.

pajamajam
02-08-2011, 11:05 PM
Am I? That really seems to be the argument you make every single time you post in this thread. Also, why are you double-posting so much?

CypressDahlia
02-09-2011, 12:41 AM
Because the posts have a word-limit, it seems. Which is why I had to split the response post to B_D in half. I don't know what the word limit is.

And I'm sorry, but I'm having a fruitful debate with maybe 3-4 other people at the same time, you're the only one that I've responded to with nothing but "you missed the point". Maybe you should try reading the post again, I gave you a lot more reasons than "just because it's illegal". Kthx.

Saith
02-09-2011, 03:04 AM
140,000?
That's a tiny tiny number.
I don't know the population of America, and can't be bothered to work shit out, but that's gotta be, what, less than 0.0000001&#37; of the population? That doesn't constitute as a majority. Not even close. In fact, I'd be more inclined to say only 140,000 people are dying. Doesn't that mean that the vast majority are responsible?
Besides, more than 140,000 people a year are born due to alcohol related instances.

But anyway, no I wouldn't give up my drinks and my smokes (if I did either) for them, because they made the choice. And that's the whole point. People are not children. They're not supposed to be protected from themselves. Protect other people from them, sure, but not themselves. No one dies immediately after drinking/smoking once. Your argument that you can only be responsible if you can learn your lesson doesn't apply here because people can learn their lesson. Most of the deaths you quote are with 60 year olds finally succumbing to liver disease or lung cancer, after a lifetime of smoking/drinking heavily. If, say, 40 years isn't a long enough time to 'learn the error of you ways', then I don't know what is. You should also realise that drinkers/smokers know the risks. It's hard not to. They still do it anyway, which means they obviously put the drink/nocitine above their own life which means, to them at least, you would be doing worse than murder by banning those substances.
It's like, a couple years ago some guys decided to joyride down the wrong lane of the M4, and ended up killing four or five people. Cars shouldn't be illegal.
And before you go on about how cars are useful and alcohol/smoke/drugs are not, I'd like to say that you're saying that the benefits outweight the consequences, and so you evidently don't care about the people as much as you say. It also means that your view of what's good or not is skewed, in my opinion. Or at least, it's different to mine.
I mean, I'm a weird hippy type person who walks about 4 miles to school everyday, just to save the environment, and I believe that cars are killing the Earth. Obviously that's not the point of this debate, I'm just showing that if I went out and got all these statistics about how driving doesn't just harm yourself, it also harms others, you'd still stick with 'but driving is good' and so that shows, to me at least, that you're biased in your opinion.

Also: Why's getting high a bad thing?
Just because it doesn't really serve a purpose for anyone else doesn't make it bad. That would be the same as getting pissy when a friend of yours shags someone you don't even know. It's dumb, caring about what goes on in the privacy of people's homes.

About the gang thing: Drug wars are gonna be going on for ever, I guess. If legalising drugs, and thereby reducing the demand for drugs from the gangs, could improves things even a little bit, wouldn't that make it worth it?

Also Democracy. It's a fallacy to say that because they're in power, we voted for them. I know that you don't even need 50% of the votes, you just need more than the other parties. This applies to Britain only, but only about 40% of voters in the country actually voted, and only about about 35% of them voted conservative. This means that about 7% of the population voted for the tories, and they still got in.
Democracy doesn't work when used like this, so saying that just because a party got in means that we agree with them is, well, dumb. Not to mention the fact that there are, at most, 3 votable parties in Britain, and two in America. That means your options are severely limited when it comes to what you want in the government.
And finally, just because a party said they'd do something doesn't mean they will. See: Liberal Democrats (Britain).

tl;dr You're wrong.

M3S1H
02-09-2011, 07:07 AM
I don't really think it should be legalized, mainly because of the crime rates. Let's say it's legalized, and MANY people get high. Let's say these people own cars. Getting High + Cars = Realistic Grand Theft Auto. That's just one example. I never studied Marijuana's effects on the human body, but I assume that, like most tobacco, it will increase your chances of mouth and/or lung cancer. It can also screw up your brain if you get too high, and play a psychological role in your life. Now this is all someone's own choice, but why it shouldn't be legalized is because of the backlash it causes to others. So if you're going to get high, strap yourself down to something, and make sure nobody is around...

Saith
02-09-2011, 11:09 AM
I don't really think it should be legalized, mainly because of the crime rates. Let's say it's legalized, and MANY people get high. Let's say these people own cars. Getting High + Cars = Realistic Grand Theft Auto.
Oh you mean because evereybody drink drives? Seriously, you guys should actually get high at least once before arguing about what it's like. Seriously, you don't freak out and run around the room beating people to death and laughing. You just sink back in your chair, and giggle because you just realised that long things are like willies.


That's just one example. I never studied Marijuana's effects on the human body, but I assume that,
Don't assume.

like most tobacco, it will increase your chances of mouth and/or lung cancer. It can also screw up your brain if you get too high, and play a psychological role in your life.
Nope.

Now this is all someone's own choice, but why it shouldn't be legalized is because of the backlash it causes to others. So if you're going to get high, strap yourself down to something, and make sure nobody is around...
Um what backlash? Also see my first point.

Harvester_Of_Sorrow
02-09-2011, 11:10 AM
I think you missed the point of this list. I was comparing marijuana to candy, in response to B_D's post. Lol. And actually, marijuana has a lot to do with public safety. A lot of jobs screen for THC frequently, to make sure you're in a fine condition to perform at work. Likewise, THC also constitutes a DUI if you're driving. I honestly don't think they'd do that unless it impaired your ability to function. Why waste the resources?

Marijuana to candy? How strange. Anyway, that wasn't the point I was making. The reason marijuana is banned,in the US anyway, is becuase new technologies were developed that made hemp a potential competitor with the newly-founded synthetic fiber and plastics industries aswell as hemp's potential for producing paper also posed a threat to the timber industry. The backers of these companies put a massive amount of pressure on the government to outlaw hemp, which, for the right price, the did in 1937.

Also, the liquior industry, that had just come out of prohibition, funded the infamously stupid propaganda movie 'Reefer Madness.' Depicting a load of people smoking joints and all killing eachother. You would like to believe that the US public at that time were a little wiser than to believe smoking a few joints will turn you into a murderer, but you'd be wrong.

Anyway, this is not to say that legalising marijuana will make all bad things go away, ofcourse not, the point is that if you think that the US government banned marijuana for reasons of public safety, then you are either misinformed or deluded. The government did it for the money, not because they cared about your well being.


You do realize that drug cartels are illegal--period, right? Even if weed was legalized, it would have to be licensed and FDA approved (considering it is a drug, by definition), therefore private sellers/growers would still get tossed in the slammer. Not to mention kids are smoking weed as early as middle school, so chances are underage smokers will still be tossed in juvie. Beyond that, what's going to stop the gangs? A lot of people sell weed for the easy money, not because they want to smoke it themselves. What's gonna stop them? You seem to think it's as simple as "making weed legal". It's not an on-and-off switch.

Ok, I really I don't understand why you think that if marijuana was legalised in the same way it has been legalised in the Netherlands, why you still think marijuana would still be a problem regarding drug cartels. Now, I freely admit you surely have a better knowledge of US politics than I do (given the fact I'm not from there) but why would private sellers/growers be thrown in jail? Is it illegal to grow your own tobacco plants in the US? Or brew your own home brew (booze)? Now, I agree it is not an on/off switch, but surely you can't argue that it would greatly effect drug cartels? How many times have you encountered a shady dealer in a dark alley trying to sell you whiskey, when theres a liqiuor up the street that sells it for just as much? Drug dealers aren't stupid. If people aren't buying what their selling, they won't sell it, and start to sell something else.


No, due to the corruption of values. Breaking the law to grow, sell and buy weed, distributing it to young kids. Not to mention that weed is the staple of drug cartels, fueling gang violence on the West Coast. I'm sorry, but you can't blame that on weed being illegal. You blame it on our lack of values as a society.

My god, you sound a moaning old man at a conservative club. The lack of values that US society has is no different to anyone elses. Theres just more of you guys.


They are saying they deserve the right to get high, if they want. And it's a bad thing because there is large amounts of evidence suggesting that America is irresponsible with drugs. Yet, we want to legalize another one just because we feel like we should be able to get high, despite "feeling good" being a less-than-substantial reason for legalizing anything. Unless, of course, you want to give me a //real// reason why weed should be legalized, aside from its medicinal purposes (which I've already acknowledged). The best argument I've heard is "why not? It don't hurt no one" for the most part.

I can't really argue this point because I am not aware of the evidence suggesting that America is irresponsible with drugs. Please suplly this evidence, and if you have already supplyed it, please refer me. And isn't the medicinal purposes argument enough? Surely if something has very little evidence for its negative effects, but alot of evidence for its medicinal effects and the fact that it 'don't hurt no one' then whats the problem? I'll be honest dude, I'm struggling to see your logic.


It's not really a fallacy considering America has a great history of abusing drugs. =) We even had to make COUGH MEDICATION prescription-only in D.C. because kids used it to get high.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with drug companies in the US squeezing every last penny out of the public that they can. Since no other nation in the western world has every made cough medication a perscription drug, that would lead me to believe that you very nice health care system are fucking you in the ass any chance they get. That has nothing to do with a marijuana debate, and more to do with a health care debate, IMO.


Oh, yeah, let's just ignore the past 60 or so years of increasingly bad drug abuse among Americans.

Again, I'm gonna need something to go by. When talking to a non-American about how abusive of drugs the nation is, you will need to supply something for me to read, s'il vous plait.


You can only get it at licensed coffee shops, at age 18.

That is true, and a good thing. I don't think any government wants there people walking the streets getting high.


No advertisements are allowed.

Wrong, flyers, posters, cannabis menus written in 4 languages outside said coffee shops to draw the punters in. The Netherlands are much more liberal than you think :)


The best you're gonna get is 5 grams

True, but slightly misleading. The guy behind the bar will only sell 5 grams per transaction. This is to stop from going in there with your pay check, buying the whole supply of weed from the shop, then sell it to your college buddies for double the price. Its a method to stop people becoming dealers themselves, and should only consume a small amount of the premise. However, if you want another 5 grams to smoke after your first joint, all you need to do is pay for it.


and smoking it in public is still deemed illegal.

Ofcourse, just like smoking cigarettes inside is deemed illegal. Rather like you can't drink beer in the streets, the dutch wanna keep there drunks in the pub and their stoners in the coffee shops. Sounds good to me.


The coffee shops themselves can't even purchase, only grow and sell.

Ofcourse, you say this like its a bad thing. Who would they buy it from if they didn't grow it themselves? You don't wanna open up that can of worms, that way your drug cartel argument lies.


Weed there is BARELY legal, dude.

We clearly have very different definations of the word 'barely'. But even if you are right, so what?


But America is already in a worst state than the Netherlands ever was, in terms of crime rates and drug abuse.

How so? Oh, and the fact that there is more of you doesn't count as an argument.


Hell, even in the Netherlands, only 5.4&#37; of the population smokes their //legal// weed on a regular basis. Over here, double that percentage of people (10.3%) smoke //ILLEGALLY//.

That is true, only a small percentage of Dutch people smoke weed regularly. Infact, they have the lowest amount of 'weed smokers' for want of a better term, than anywhere else in Europe. But hang on, they've legalised the stuff. Anyone over the age of 18 can go and get high. How does that make sense? I'll leave it for you to decide :)

butternut
02-09-2011, 11:57 AM
I think you missed the point of this list. I was comparing marijuana to candy, in response to B_D's post. Lol. And actually, marijuana has a lot to do with public safety. A lot of jobs screen for THC frequently, to make sure you're in a fine condition to perform at work. Likewise, THC also constitutes a DUI if you're driving. I honestly don't think they'd do that unless it impaired your ability to function. Why waste the resources?


But America is already in a worst state than the Netherlands ever was, in terms of crime rates and drug abuse.
Hell, even in the Netherlands, only 5.4&#37; of the population smokes their //legal// weed on a regular basis. Over here, double that percentage of people (10.3%) smoke //ILLEGALLY//.

I wanted to say something about the above two statements, but realized that HoS already said exactly what I wanted to say.

1. Cannabis was made illegal in the first place because of certain selfish and ambitious businessmen and politicians who saw that it threatened their companies.

2.Once it's legalized, sure, there might be a huge amount of people smoking up all of a sudden and all, but the excitement WILL die down. Human psychology. If something's forbidden, it'll seem more attractive. But if you are allowed to do it, it won't have as much charm.

Blue_Dragon
02-09-2011, 12:31 PM
I'm about to go to bed, so I can't take too long with this response by parsing through quotes and such. So....Cyp, this is just a rebutle to some of the things you debated (and some of what I say is going to over lap other a little. I'll try to keep it short.


First, you wanted me to cite this forced rape legelation. Here's the website I went to petition against it:

http://dccc.org/page/s/womensrightsgen


While arguing against funding the EPA to protect the people's safety, you only address the large picture of things like global warming which are going to affect us even more in the future, but isn't something we may be able to deal with--especially if nature takes a long time to repair itself on its own.

Well...I'm not going down the road of explaining how a change in the environment could, you know make things so humans can't survive and all that (changes in atmosphere, terrain and all that.) You can take a class or something, cause I can't explain in a post, and don't feel like it. What I do want to address is immediate threat to people's safety. You think smoking cigarettes your whole life is bad...try attaching a hose to your car's exhaust pipe and leading it to your car. Pretty sure you won't make it (don't really do this-duh-I'm just making a point.) Those fumes are what hang in the smog above major cities. Yes, the government is finally beginning to come down on it, but we didn't sign the Kyoto Treaty (look it up) and we aren't doing enough to lower those emissions.

CANCER. Why one word? Well, take a look at some cancer statistics. I bet more people die of cancer a year than do from smoking or drunk drivers (I admit, I should look these statics up, but I'm in a hurry.) Though we don't have 100&#37; proof of what causes all the different types of cancers, may instances are related to chemicals or some type of outside influence causing mutations of cells (not talking about people who have a genetic history of cancer.) Radiation does this, obviously, but other chemicals are harmful as well. Chemicals we used to spray in the streets, have finally been banned because of people finally raising the issue of environmental health (Silent Spring, Rachael Carson, to name but one.) Did the government support DDT? Yes, they were the ones spraying it in the summer while kids danced through it--even though concentrated shampoos used during WWII killed soldiers out right (see Silent Spring.) Bottom line, it is important for the safety of the people to spend money on environmental issues. We shouldn't minimize the importance of the EPA's role in government--cause they actually were created for the people's safety, and they can't even do their job because of lack of funding. Making marijuana illegal wasn't.


On the Am. people voting for their representatives:

We always say we live in a democracy. It's technically a democratic-republic I believe. We don't vote for our reps directly--we vote for people who vote how they think we want them to vote (electoral college.) Also, even when we vote for someone, they don't always vote the way we intend them to, or how they say they will vote. Blanch Lincoln was a conservative democrat who voted contrary to how many people wished she'd had voted. I don't have statistics, but I remember reading how pissed people were in the I think the Washington Post, or the NY Times. So yeah we "pick" the reps, but they don't always represent us.

On drug related crimes:

I'm not going into too much detail cause others have already touched upon this. Remember learning about when Prohibition was enacted, and the organized crime was pretty much the result? Then it was ended, and so the mafias had to adapt in order to survive? A lot of them deal in illegal drugs now, I understand (and other things, too) but I first want to note where these synicates got their beginnings--and why (making alcohol illegal.) Also, I just want to throw this out there. If you make marijuana legal, then crime's going to go down. There will still be crime violence related to drugs like heroine and such, but making pot legal will at least reduce it by a little. Plus, the crime rate within the nations would also lower. It'd make it so that America could compete with the formerly illegal pushers. It would also be regulated, and thus safer for people (I'd assume the FDA would have to regulate pot?) A better product would be the result--and like I think HOS was saying, dealers would have to either compete or find something else.

On the forest thing which is a digression, you wanted an example: Controlled burns in National Forests. Granted, they have to be controlled for safety, but they are required. Otherwise, why would we do it? Well, if we didn't, then a natural burn would occur and cause more damage to human lives and property. But you get what I'm saying? I gave an example, per request :)

On organic food:
Yes, I do realize that it's expensive. But it's also not in high demand because most people don't care (apathy is our worst enemy.)
Spraying chemicals might keep your food cheaper, and make more produced, but it's also less healthy, has chemicals used to make meth infused in their structure (thus, it's like a slow poisoning,) and it's taking away from jobs. Yep, I said it. It costs more to buy organic because it takes more people to harvest and care for the plants (I have friends who seasonally go to help on organic farms--there's my citation. I can find the farm later if you want, it's in CO.) But jobs are in demand now. We need jobs, so this could be one thing that helps with the economy (along these lines, as I mentioned before, growing marijuana and hemp here would do the same.)
And if you're complaining about the cost, the only thing I can do is link to the theory of supply and demand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand), because this is the basic idea behind how pricing works (it's deeper than that, but this touches the tip of the ice-berg.

On people "deserving" to smoke pot:

If I said those words, it's my mistake: I used improper diction. I don't mean that we "deserve" to smoke it. I meant the illegality of pot is unjustified. However, I also don't think someone "deserves" to be fined or thrown in jail for smoking pot. Smoking doesn't make you a bad person. It doesn't hurt anyone. (I'll get back to this later, on society.)

On my government imposing unjust laws comment:
you say I give examples that are of unfounded, bigoted, archaic artifacts. I'm glad you noticed that, because I'm comparing laws against pot to archaic legislation. Though obviously no along the same lines as slavery, I'm saying that unjust laws are supported in government all the time, and that this is one of them. Want another, present day example? Besides the whole debate on same-sex marriage (which I'm glad to see you're not against--good for you! :P) we still have Blue Laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law) in some places. They're stupid and archaic, but they exist. They may not be enforced, but they exist.

Finally, if it wasn't obvious, I disagree with your statement that pot would harm our society and infrastructure. Besides the examples given of Holland, there are thousands of Americans who smoke pot and are otherwise upstanding citizens--we think it's just the lazy "dirty hippies" that smoke pot. No, it's not. Pretty much every part of society has people who do their work well, and smoke pot--from poor to rich. And they're doing it now. If you really want examples, I can give you some later, but I'm almost done, so I'm not going to expand right now (I'm also very tired, so I might have to come back and defend things later. Sorry!)

I do want to say touche on the comment about how not everything can be policed and caught. This is true. I understand the police are often understaffed (though overall, I have mixed feeling about coppers--it's like anything else, some are awesomely amazing people who genuinely care, some are asses and have too much power and no one willing to stop them from abusing their power.) But I will agree, that yes, the cops can't catch everything (this whole thing was in regards to traffic violations. Oh--and you can tell a tailgater by him not leaving at least a car and half or more between himself and the proceeding car. Just cause everyone sucks at driving and is tailgating, doesn't mean they're "normal" good drivers. I don't think you were saying that, but I wanted to clarify myself, I guess.)

Geez, this was long winded--sorry everyone, if you'r reading or just trying to skim by it!

Sylux
02-09-2011, 01:50 PM
Just wanna point this out: When was the last time you heard of a guy committing a violent crime while high on weed.

ClockHand
02-09-2011, 03:43 PM
Cyp, this is by far the most absurd debate you have made. Most of your arguments are fallacies or are presuming something that is not true.

You claim that legalizing weed the crime is going to be strongest. That’s a fallacie because 1) not legalized weed make more crimes (just having possession of weed is a crime) and 2) having more control over the consume and sell of weed make it easy to control crimes related to it and 3) most marijuana illicit sells are nothing compared with other heavy drugs.

In Amsterdam prostitution is legal, but is controlled, and yet the crime rate is not bigger than in USA. In Netherland the sell of weed is legal and controlled, yet the crime ret is not bigger than in USA.

Your statement that making it legal is going to create more crimes is a fallacie, because we have 2 proves that the controlled sell and consume have less crime rate than in a place where not.

As I said before, “The amount of people who smoke weed is not equal to the amount of crime. But the a mayor no-control of drugs does equal more crimes.”


That's not the point, PWhit. I meant if smoking were made illegal, lol. If you don't understand the argument, don't get involved. I'm already fending off 3 people who think the right to "get high, dude" is greater than the negative societal and structural impact that legalizing recreational marijuana has on America.

So which is the negative societal and structural impact? Make consume more clean and controlled? Create laws to protect others?

Then, why marijuana should be illegal?

By your statements you talk about protecting people and a social damage, but there are no big crimes related to weed (big crime = kill someone, by accident or intentional). People who smoke weed is still functional in the society, and can have a normal life. And with a controlled sell and consume of weed, you are neither going to have the problem you mention.

I don’t share your points, only in the aspect that the state should take care of people safety (and this can be done at the same time marijuana is legal).

Hayashida
02-09-2011, 04:34 PM
It's hard to compare the Netherlands to the United States and say that since it works in one country it will work in another. I'm not saying it wont, but since the cultures of both countries are so different and the mindsets of their citizens is probably a lot different, it's not strong evidence to say that legalizing marijuana will work in the US since it works in the Netherlands.

PWhit
02-09-2011, 04:42 PM
By God... I finally climbed over the second great wall of text to find that I never had my question answered. Safe to say I didn't miss a point. Anyway, Clockhand hit everything I would have said anyway on the head. So I will make this an easy read.

1. People are responsible for their own decisions. People still die because of over dosage on any drug, that sucks for them.
2. The government doesn't need to be involved at all. The government is there to protect the people from outside forces and pave the roads, not PSA us to death.
3. The only reason weed is causing so much crime is the fact that is illegal to have in the first place. If it was legalized, maybe it would be cheaper and even a paid cross guard could afford some every day. That's less crime and more money for the economy.
4. Cyp, you still never answered my question: How does one person who quit weed save another 999? This time, don't brush me off and write a health care bill.

CypressDahlia
02-09-2011, 04:48 PM
140,000?
That's a tiny tiny number.

Really, you don't think 140k people is a big deal? That's over 3 times the number of troops we mobilized in Iraq (which we're still moaning about, despite the fact that they're actually //serving their country//, and not just killing themselves on booze). Not to mention that's 140 thousand people a YEAR. War on Terror began in '01, it's been 10 years since then. Rough estimate: over 1.4 million people have died due to alcohol abuse since '01, over 30 times the number of troops sent to Iraq. So yeah, I think 140 thousand people dying every year is a huge fucking deal. But I guess I'm alone in this, because obviously THE RIGHT TO SMOKE AND DRINK overrides the value of 140 thousand human lives.


I don't know the population of America, and can't be bothered to work shit out...

You're telling me I'm wrong and you don't even know the population of America?


In fact, I'd be more inclined to say only 140,000 people are dying.

Wow. //Only// 140,000 people? Man, the fact that you so severely downplay the deaths of so many people is really shocking.


Besides, more than 140,000 people a year are born due to alcohol related instances.

Uhm...please cite this. And honestly, you think people being born justifies people dying? Your mom dies, but a baby on the other side of the continent is born. Do you feel better about your mom's death? But honestly, what the hell kind of argument is this? Are you actually going to sit here and say that alcohol makes babies? And furthermore, that it's okay if alcohol kills people because it makes babies (which it doesn't)?


But anyway, no I wouldn't give up my drinks and my smokes (if I did either) for them, because they made the choice. And that's the whole point. People are not children. They're not supposed to be protected from themselves.

I don't think you realize how much the government protects you. The fact that you, yourself, are a responsible drinker is probably due largely in part to government-funded ad campaigns, youth programs and propaganda. Tell me, where did you learn first that smoking causes cancer, or that alcohol causes brain damage? Or that drunk driving is bad?


No one dies immediately after drinking--once.

You're joking, right? Hell, people die because //other// people drank once.


Your argument that you can only be responsible if you can learn your lesson doesn't apply here because people can learn their lesson.

I'm sorry, but unlike "food" and "candy", alcohol and cigarettes are chemically addictive substances and your body builds an internal dependency on them, even after a single contact. Though I know many people who have recovered from chain smoking and alcoholism (my father, for instance), because they were strong enough to get themselves out of the hole before they dug too deep, 140 thousand Americans are not that strong. And, despite their lack of responsibility, I'm not down for letting those people die. Hell, I rarely believe anyone //but// criminals should die.


Most of the deaths you quote are with 60 year olds finally succumbing to liver disease or lung cancer, after a lifetime of smoking/drinking heavily. If, say, 40 years isn't a long enough time to 'learn the error of you ways', then I don't know what is.

Okay, let me break this down. Drunk driving makes up roughly a quarter of all alcohol attributed deaths, with all other alcohol-related causes numbering below 20&#37; of the whole. Over 60% of drunk driving accidents occur within the age bracket of 21-34 (http://www.edgarsnyder.com/drunk-driving/statistics.html). So your argument is debunked.

Now, I didn't even mention smoking. Yep, 140k is accounting just for alcohol abuse alone. But if you wanna get detailed about smoking: the number of deaths caused by smoking, annually, is triple the number caused by alcohol, rounding out at about 390k. Over 50% of the deaths caused by smoking occur within the age bracket of 35-69 (http://health.learninginfo.org/cigarette_smoking_facts.htm).

So honestly, look up your facts first, buddy.


You should also realise that drinkers/smokers know the risks. It's hard not to. They still do it anyway, which means they obviously put the drink/nocitine above their own life which means, to them at least, you would be doing worse than murder by banning those substances.

I don't even know how to respond to this... So if I value my laptop more than my life, if you took my laptop, you would've...done worse than kill me? WHAT?! Also, do you value cigarettes and booze more than your life? I'm pretty sure most people //don't//. Also, I'm pretty sure most people don't smoke and drink //expecting// to die because of it. As I said to Fenn: it's not like they're trying to commit suicide.


And before you go on about how cars are useful and alcohol/smoke/drugs are not, I'd like to say that you're saying that the benefits outweight the consequences, and so you evidently don't care about the people as much as you say.

Actually, no, it's not that the benefits outweigh the consequences. It's that the consequences outweigh the consequences. Do you realize how difficult life would be for every person in America if cars were banned, dude? It would make everyone's life hell, a far more negative effect than leaving them on the road. Unless, of course, you want to propose a better way of getting food to supermarkets, medicine to hospitals, pregnant women to maternity wards, firefighters to fires, road crews to roads in disrepair, etc, etc. I'm sure cars save more peoples' lives than they kill, man. Do you know what the average LIFE EXPECTANCY in 1910 (before cars were mass produced) was? 48.4 years old. You know what it is now? 78.

But explain to me: what are the downsides to banning alcohol and cigarettes? Unlike cars, all they do is kill. They help nobody, except maybe the psychologically dependent. So what could we //possibly// suffer by banning them?


Also: Why's getting high a bad thing?
Just because it doesn't really serve a purpose for anyone else doesn't make it bad.

I never said getting high was bad. Using it as a reason to legalize something that might harm society at large is bad, considering "it doesn't really serve a purpose". Your words, not mine. "Feeling good" is not a great reason to legalize a drug, as I explained to HoS.


About the gang thing: Drug wars are gonna be going on for ever, I guess. If legalising drugs, and thereby reducing the demand for drugs from the gangs, could improves things even a little bit, wouldn't that make it worth it?

I'm sorry, but maybe this could work in Marijuana's favor (highly doubtful), but definitely not drugs at large. Some drugs are just too bad to even consider legalizing. And, as long as there are illegal drugs, there will be illegal cartels.


Also Democracy. It's a fallacy to say that because they're in power, we voted for them.

This is true, because not everyone votes and not everyone votes for the same person. But please, propose a better way of electing a single group of people run an entire country?

Also, maybe the condition in Britain is bad, but Americans get consistently high turnouts. And, for those who don't vote, how can they complain? They had their chance to choose, but never followed through. And don't tell me "I'm too young to vote". The legal age to vote here is the same as the legal age to smoke, and still underage for alcohol. So you can't really testify your //legal right// to smoke or drink anyway, if you're too young to vote, because it's...well...not legal. Beyond that, you guys have been hammering the "majority rules" point into my skull for the last 8 or so posts. So why isn't Rep. Democracy an ideal system for you? I only speak for America, of course.

M3S1H
02-09-2011, 05:18 PM
Nope
How does it NOT increase your chances of lung and mouth cancer? One of the prime sources of cancer itself is heat - where you get heat? That's right, on a cigarette lit to the brim. The other main source for cancer is highly acidic matter that is capable of causing a mutation. Study this for a little bit.

Um what backlash? Also see my first point.
I like your thinking here, but you can't deny that there's a backlash. It's like saying someone is drunk in an extreme sense - when you are artificially high, you cannot comprehend the world around you as you normally would, and the same thing happens when you are drunk. I mean sure not everyone gets high, but don't deny that many people have been waiting for a safe source of drugs. If someone was to get high, what next? He/she'd act as a primative and only respond to whatever is in his visions while he/she's high. This is like committing a crime without realizing it - if you do something wrong while you are high, chances are you will not realize what you have done. The backlash is what the drug inhaler has done - thus we can assume there is a backlash only if the person responds violently while he/she is high, causing abuse to surrounding citizens. The backlash can be huge, and it can be subtle, almost even non-existent. It all depends on the person. Imagine it as a high-stakes game: If you play wrong, you lose it all, and if you play right, you don't lose anything. As I said, it depends on the user.

ClockHand
02-09-2011, 05:22 PM
It's hard to compare the Netherlands to the United States and say that since it works in one country it will work in another. I'm not saying it wont, but since the cultures of both countries are so different and the mindsets of their citizens is probably a lot different, it's not strong evidence to say that legalizing marijuana will work in the US since it works in the Netherlands.

Thats why pressuming both: that crimen is going to rise or get downer is a fallacie. There is no prove of both statement. The difference is, I'm using both as analogyc references.


Edit:

Also Tabacco doesn't provoke lung cancer. Provoke lung emphysema (if you are going to debate the damage of tabacco, at least know the difference).

And weed doesn't provoke neither of both.

Most damaging stuffs we consume are: Alcohol, Tabacoo, Jonke food, Sex (even with the hundred of disseas, we still want sex), Smoke (made by cars), videogames and others.

Accoding with Cyp, if the state have to protect the people, why stopping with alcohol and tabacco? we can ban sex, jonke food and others. No more pre marital sex!!! because doesn't made a function in our society, it jsut satisfy people. No more video games!!! because have no social function and are a source of violence and psychologic adiction!

Delphinus
02-09-2011, 05:47 PM
Now, I didn't even mention smoking. Yep, 140k is accounting just for alcohol abuse alone. But if you wanna get detailed about smoking: the number of deaths caused by smoking, annually, is triple the number caused by alcohol, rounding out at about 390k. Over 50&#37; of the deaths caused by smoking occur within the age bracket of 35-69 (http://health.learninginfo.org/cigarette_smoking_facts.htm).

It's interesting how statistics can be manipulated to your own causes, isn't it? This (official source) lists alcohol-related deaths as 23,000, not 144,000. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm)
Intriguingly, the same census (from 2007) doesn't list alcohol-related deaths as one of the largest causes of death (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm), as you'd think they would if your claims were true. Instead alcohol-related deaths comprise only 0.95% of all mortalities in the US per annum, and since I rounded the total number of deaths down and the number of alcohol-related deaths up that statistic is actually biased in your favour.
Your statistics are off by a factor of six, your argument sucks, and your debating 'tactics' seem to consist of crushing people with a wall-of-text fillibuster, making only one or two main points, then claiming they've misunderstood your argument (which is inevitable when you're so sesquipedalian and make largely empty posts). You've also ignored several of the points I've made and focused only on a few very specific points that seem to hinge around "ALCOHOL IS BAD. FREEDOM IS DUMB. I HAVE A SUPERIORITY COMPLEX".

Your rebuttal?

CypressDahlia
02-09-2011, 06:03 PM
4. Cyp, you still never answered my question: How does one person who quit weed save another 999? This time, don't brush me off and write a health care bill.

Wake the hell up, man. You're really slow on the uptake.

I said, if cigarettes and alcohol were made //illegal//, not if one person were to drop their habit. Making a substance that kills hundreds of thousands of people a year either difficult or impossible to obtain would probably save more than just one person, PWhit. Unless, by some crazy logic, you want to protest that notion.

This is kind of hilarious because the beginning pages of this thread were all like:
"Oh, if alcohol and cigarettes are legal, weed should be legal, too! Look how many people alcohol and cigarettes kill!"
And now that I propose that we make all of it illegal, everyone's like, "oh alcohol and cigarettes ain't so bad". Talk about blowin' in the wind. And also, I'm getting kinda tired of responding to everyone individually, so lemme paraphrase.


Marijuana to candy? How strange.

Blame Blue_Dragon. Was her comparison.


The reason marijuana is banned,in the US anyway, is becuase...

Alright, I'll take that. It makes a lot of sense to me, so I'll accept it. And toast, earlier in this thread, cited sources for this; so, okay. But I guarantee you this is not the only reason marijuana is outlawed.


Also, the liquior industry, that had just come out of prohibition, funded the infamously stupid propaganda movie 'Reefer Madness.' Depicting a load of people smoking joints and all killing eachother.

That's fkin hilarious, because I actually room with 3 stoners and they're the most hilarious people when they're high. But you know, old American stuff is stupid most of the time. Example (http://www.elephantjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/picture-172.png).


Anyway, this is not to say that legalising marijuana will make all bad things go away, ofcourse not, the point is that if you think that the US government banned marijuana for reasons of public safety, then you are either misinformed or deluded. The government did it for the money, not because they cared about your well being.

Maybe not initially, but, give how much the government does do to nurture our well-being, I'm not going to doubt their motivations have changed. /shrug Besides, given the market for marijuana these days, it would financially benefit the government more to legalize and monopolize it. But they aren't, are they?


Drug dealers aren't stupid. If people aren't buying what their selling, they won't sell it, and start to sell something else.

Marijuana is one of the lowest risk drugs to sell and the cheapest to grow/cure. Why would drug dealers stop selling something at low risk for high reward just because demand for it decreases? Besides, the average age of marijuana users is 17 (http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k3/newMJ/newMJ.htm), lower than the legal age to smoke cigarettes. Considering the majority of the market lies in underage (well, purporting that the legal age for weed would be 18, like the Netherlands) users, I'm sure private vendors would still get a lot of business. A person I know makes good money off selling alcohol to the underage. So, even if legalized, chances are that marijuana will most likely be consumed in an illegal way.


My god, you sound a moaning old man at a conservative club. The lack of values that US society has is no different to anyone elses.

Okay, so everyone's values are fucked up. Does that make it any better? lol.


...I am not aware of the evidence suggesting that America is irresponsible with drugs

Just Google drug stats for America, man. I don't feel like gathering up all of the links I've already posted in this thread.


And isn't the medicinal purposes argument enough?

Yes, I previously stated that I fully support medical marijuana because it can actually save lives/has a redeeming property. 16 states and growing have legalized MM. But "legalizing weed" and "legalizing prescription-only medical marijuana" are two different things, man.


That has nothing to do with a marijuana debate, and more to do with a health care debate, IMO.

TBH, I didn't even know we were having a health care debate. That was just an example I provided of how reckless Americans are with drugs. And you're right, no other nation in this hemisphere has done the same. What does that say about good 'ol US?


Wrong, flyers, posters, cannabis menus written in 4 languages outside said coffee shops to draw the punters in. The Netherlands are much more liberal than you think :)

I'll take your word for this one. But from what I read, advertising was illegal. Hmm.


How so? Oh, and the fact that there is more of you doesn't count as an argument.

In terms of overall crime rates, non-weed induced drug-related deaths by percentage, so forth and so forth. This is the same thing Dokken is arguing: the Netherlands and the US are two different places. The US is pretty much a shithole, whereas the Netherlands never had a problem with crime rates, drug-related crime or death rates, etc. in general. So the fact that legalizing weed succeeds in a relatively tame country doesn't mean it'll succeed here, considering we are home to some of the most dangerous cities on Earth.


How does that make sense? I'll leave it for you to decide :)

The fact that a greater percentage of Americans are willing to break the law to smoke weed (which could easily be hundreds of times the absolute number of people, given the size disparity between US and Netherlands) than Dutch people smoke legally is a shocking testament to the irresponsibility of Americans. /shrug That was the point. It doesn't make sense, and it shouldn't make sense. But it happens anyway. How fucked up is that?

CypressDahlia
02-09-2011, 07:08 PM
It's interesting how statistics can be manipulated to your own causes, isn't it? This (official source) lists alcohol-related deaths as 23,000, not 144,000.

Did you even read the source? Quote:

"Number of alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides: 23,199"

Here (http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=57F55116-C4F2-4759-A2B7-D576BC5872C) is an abstract that lists deaths caused by alcohol as exceeding 100 thousand. Here (http://www.come-over.to/FAS/alcdeath.htm) is a site with multiple cited sources that lists 100 thousand as well. The lowest estimate I've seen, by far, is here (http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/index.htm) at 79 thousand. But still significantly greater than your misinformed 23 thousand. Admittedly, lower than 140 thousand, but I have to find that source again considering I've been providing dozens of sources and statistics over the last couple of pages whereas people have provided me with nothing.


Intriguingly, the same census (from 2007) doesn't list alcohol-related deaths as one of the largest causes of death, as you'd think they would if your claims were true.

But it is (http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/index.htm)? Regardless, alcohol claims over 100 thousand peoples' lives a year and cigarettes roughly 400,000 peoples'. That's more than enough reason to call it a cause.


Your statistics are off by a factor of six.

Lol. Read src, plz.


your argument sucks

Obviously the argument that thousands of people should die to maintain our expressly un-guaranteed right to smoke and get drunk is much better than mine.


...and your debating 'tactics' seem to consist of crushing people with a wall-of-text fillibuster.

I'm sorry that I have to write walls of text. I'm debating with 6 people at the same time. =)


then claiming they've misunderstood your argument (which is inevitable when you're so sesquipedalian and make largely empty posts). You've also ignored several of the points I've made and focused only on a few very specific points that seem to hinge around "ALCOHOL IS BAD. FREEDOM IS DUMB. I HAVE A SUPERIORITY COMPLEX".

lol. This whole post you just made was almost entirely a personal attack against me. Talk about "empty posts". And great way to paraphrase my argument. Yes, I totally hate freedom, and I have a superiority complex. Says the guy who thinks his entitlement to drink is greater in value than the lives of people. But if you go back maybe 2 or 3 pages, you'll realize that I've addressed every one of your posts up until this point. If you think I missed a point, say so and restate it (like I do, //gasp//).


Just wanna point this out: When was the last time you heard of a guy committing a violent crime while high on weed.

Never. But I didn't mean violent crime //induced// by weed. I meant violent crime revolving around weed.


Cyp, this is by far the most absurd debate you have made. Most of your arguments are fallacies or are presuming something that is not true.

That's ironic because I'm the only one constantly linking his arguments to sources and statistics...


1) not legalized weed make more crimes (just having possession of weed is a crime)

This is true. The number of people going to jail for possession of weed will decrease, if weed is legalized. But also consider that the average age for marijuana users is 17, below the legal smoking age in the Netherlands, even. So, even though we'll see a decrease in weed-based crimes in terms of possession, drug cartels and illegal dealing will probably still occur. And underage smoking will sky-rocket. 8.3&#37; (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/) of kids ages 12 (yes, as young as 12) to 17 use weed regularly. That's more than people 26 and beyond use altogether.


2) having more control over the consume and sell of weed make it easy to control crimes related to it

We have more control over the consumption and selling of weed now than we would if it were legalized, man. Police are allowed to arrest simply for possession under any circumstance (aside from places where prescription MM is legalized). This is the most control you're ever going to get: zero-tolerance. I don't know how you figure we'd have more control if it were legal. If anything, it'd be harder to control, with all the commercial vendors, and tracking who got what weed from where, and whether or not it was through a legal method.


3) most marijuana illicit sells are nothing compared with other heavy drugs.

Marijuana is the 3rd most commonly used drug, aside from alcohol and cigarettes. Followed by Cocaine, at 4th. And all of that is illegally dealt, too. So I don't know what you're trying to say.


In Amsterdam...the crime ret is not bigger than in USA.

The crime rates, in general, are lower in Amsterdam than in the US. Beyond that, the fact that prostitution and weed are illegal here contributes a lot to the crime rates, don't you think?


“The amount of people who smoke weed is not equal to the amount of crime. But the a mayor no-control of drugs does equal more crimes.”

I agree, but that was not the purpose of that figure. If you read what I wrote to HoS, you will understand what I meant.


Create laws to protect others?

That's exactly why, to all of the questions you asked: to protect others. The reasons, I already explained above. I can't believe you're still asking me why marijuana should be illegal. It's like you've ignored everything I said up until now.


People who smoke weed is still functional in the society, and can have a normal life

I never questioned that. I have restated over and over that I know marijuana has no long-term effects on people. But THC can temporarily impair your ability to function, undoubtedly.


Accoding with Cyp, if the state have to protect the people, why stopping with alcohol and tabacco? we can ban sex, jonke food and others. No more pre marital sex!!! because doesn't made a function in our society, it jsut satisfy people. No more video games!!! because have no social function and are a source of violence and psychologic adiction!

Now this is just getting retarded. I've seen this same argument like 5 times now, except with various different things: books, cars, candy, even. The thing is, alcohol and tobacco, unlike the above has: 1.) no redeeming features or 2.) the ability to kill people in large, LARGE numbers.

How often are deaths attributed to video games, Clockhand? Furthermore, you do realize that:

"More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined."
source (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/)

Unless you're telling me that Gonorrhea kills more people than car accidents, or Hepatitis B kills more people than murder. /shrug You don't really have an argument with the premarital sex thing.

And don't get me started on the fkin cars again. Christ.

Harvester_Of_Sorrow
02-09-2011, 07:24 PM
Ok, firstly I have to say how impressed I am that you taking on 4-5 people in a debate and giving equal amount time to each point. Especially giving some of the points raised which I must say you are dealing with a tremendous amount of patience. I would have started calling people 'uneducated cunts' a long time ago. So kudos there.

Anyway,


Maybe not initially, but, give how much the government does do to nurture our well-being, I'm not going to doubt their motivations have changed. /shrug Besides, given the market for marijuana these days, it would financially benefit the government more to legalize and monopolize it. But they aren't, are they?

No, they're not, and I'll be honest and say I don't know why governments don't legalise it and tax the fuck out of us like they do with booze, cigs and gasoline. But my best guess would be that public opinion of marijuana is so low now because of the bullshit that the government has been spreading about it over the years. But in truth? No idea. But it definatly is not to protect us.


Marijuana is one of the lowest risk drugs to sell and the cheapest to grow/cure. Why would drug dealers stop selling something at low risk for high reward just because demand for it decreases? Besides, the average age of marijuana users is 17 (http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k3/newMJ/newMJ.htm), lower than the legal age to smoke cigarettes. Considering the majority of the market lies in underage (well, purporting that the legal age for weed would be 18, like the Netherlands) users, I'm sure private vendors would still get a lot of business. A person I know makes good money off selling alcohol to the underage. So, even if legalized, chances are that marijuana will most likely be consumed in an illegal way.

Ok, you're glossing over my point a little. I didn't say (or if I did, then I didn't intend to say) that drug cartels would leave marijuana alone once legalised. But you can't argue that marijuana related crime would considerably lower. And you are right, marijuana, if legalised, would only be allowed to be sold to those who are old enough to smoke cigarettes. Fair point. But my point still stands.



Okay, so everyone's values are fucked up. Does that make it any better? lol.

The point is because everyones values are fucked up, which I dont agree that they are, then we shouldnt just ban everything. If we did, then it raises the ever on going question of 'Where do ya draw the line?'




TBH, I didn't even know we were having a health care debate. That was just an example I provided of how reckless Americans are with drugs. And you're right, no other nation in this hemisphere has done the same. What does that say about good 'ol US?

The point I was making, as I'm sure you were aware, is you said Americians are somehow more 'drug crazy' (which I know you didn't say, but it describes what you said quite well, imo) than everyone else. An example you gave of this was of cough medication being sold as a perscription only drug in D.C. due to kids abusing it. I countered this by saying this was not a 'drug issue' more like a 'health care issue' You misinterpreted my point.


I'll take your word for this one. But from what I read, advertising was illegal. Hmm.

I'm only telling what I saw when I went there, dude. If you don't believe me, buy a plane ticket. It is true that you can't advertise 'coffee shop produce' on TV or in newspapers and magazines etc. If thats what you meant, then you are correct.


In terms of overall crime rates, non-weed induced drug-related deaths by percentage, so forth and so forth. This is the same thing Dokken is arguing: the Netherlands and the US are two different places. The US is pretty much a shithole, whereas the Netherlands never had a problem with crime rates, drug-related crime or death rates, etc. in general. So the fact that legalizing weed succeeds in a relatively tame country doesn't mean it'll succeed here, considering we are home to some of the most dangerous cities on Earth.

I'm sorry, I refuse to accept the 'different culture' argument. It ain't gonna wash, dude. I can understand why people use it in regards to the Netherlands, many people have. The logic being that the Netherlands has been a peaceful place, relativly free of crime for the last 160 years (as thats when they sent all their violent criminals to South Africa). If you think that is true, then do me a favour; say that to a Dutch person living across the river in northern Amsterdam. It is simply not true.

Violent crime, in every country in the western world, is primarly restricted to areas. You will find many more drug dealers in South Central L.A. than you would in a fishing town in Maine. I'm sure you'll say thats because more people live in L.A but read on when I talk about ratios. The Netherlands has just as many problems with drunk drivers, police brutatlity, hard drug use, rascisim in public and every thing else as the rest of us, including your USA. The only difference between us and them, is they aren't locking people up for such pathetic crimes as smoking a joint.

And the reason I said 'the fact that there is more of you doesn't count as an argument' is because you are not taking into account ratios. By ratio, Switzerland has just as many gun murders as the USA. You may have noticed Switzerland is alot smaller, hence why we use ratio to make it fair. If we just go by population and not take ratio into account, then whatever you do don't go to China.

America has alot of problems, ofcourse, but it has no more violent crime via drug use/cartels than anywhere else. On ratio.


The fact that a greater percentage of Americans are willing to break the law to smoke weed (which could easily be hundreds of times the absolute number of people, given the size disparity between US and Netherlands) than Dutch people smoke legally is a shocking testament to the irresponsibility of Americans. /shrug That was the point. It doesn't make sense, and it shouldn't make sense. But it happens anyway. How fucked up is that?

Yeah, I addressed most of this in my previous point.

PWhit
02-09-2011, 07:28 PM
Making a substance that kills hundreds of thousands of people a year either difficult or impossible to obtain would probably save more than just one person, PWhit. Unless, by some crazy logic, you want to protest that notion.

Challenge Accepted.

Well, if it was legal the fact that overdosing being the cause of death may very well be the only thing we would need to worry about. The fact that trying to keep it out already isn't working is causing even more problems. More deaths due to gang warfare, spending countless amounts of dollars to stop it from coming in (even though it does come in anyway), deaths under the influence and extensive pricing from dealers are other problems we still need to consider.

When prohibition started in the U.S., it failed due to so much bootlegging and countless amounts of corruption coming from alcohol related issues. Once booze was legalized, everything was dandy. Prohibition failed because it cost so much money, manpower and time to just have one thing out of the country that people liked. People who couldn't get their hands on alcohol probably were in the same situation that most vagrants are in now, poverty. It also made multi-million dollar illegal industries flourish under the nose of the United States government since the demand was so much greater than the supply.

Sound a little familiar? It's actually happening again right now with a different drug!

Consider these facts and apply them to today's situation. With claims that marijuana is being vilified as much as alcohol was at their time period, the same exact things are happening from back then and it will only repeat itself. Marijuana should be legalized sooner rather than later as it will only cost people more time and more money to keep it out rather than to accept it and be knowledgeable of its side effects or negligent of them.

With marijuana legalized, gang warfare will go down tremendously as most gang wars are fought over weed. Just like how gangs fought over alcohol. Bloody over one simple product.

TL;DR

Deaths due to Prohibition (many) = Gang Warfare (unsurmountable) + War on Drugs with the U.S. Government (uncertain tbh) + People Dying in the Streets (uncommon, as gangs price them at high rates) + Negligent Users (common) + Overdoseage (rare)

Deaths due to Legalization = People Dying in the Streets (rare, due to lower pricing) + Negligent Users (common) + Overdoseage (rare)

Therefore: Deaths due to Prohibition > Deaths due to Legalization, legalizing Marijuana would actually cause less deaths.

ClockHand
02-09-2011, 08:06 PM
That's ironic because I'm the only one constantly linking his arguments to sources and statistics...

Indeed you are the only linking, but your arguments are awful.

Linking is not equal good arguments.






This is true. The number of people going to jail for possession of weed will decrease, if weed is legalized. But also consider that the average age for marijuana users is 17, below the legal smoking age in the Netherlands, even. So, even though we'll see a decrease in weed-based crimes in terms of possession, drug cartels and illegal dealing will probably still occur. And underage smoking will sky-rocket. 8.3&#37; (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/) of kids ages 12 (yes, as young as 12) to 17 use weed regularly. That's more than people 26 and beyond use altogether.

Of course, it will still happening, but at least people can smoke in peace in their homes, while the people who want to go against the law are going to still doing stupidity. If weed is legal or not, crime are going to still happening, so making it illegal is not a solution to drug crime related. Also even the marijuana is illegal, the demand is going to existe no matter what, making it illegal, is just having less control over it. Also bad link (biased).






We have more control over the consumption and selling of weed now than we would if it were legalized, man. Police are allowed to arrest simply for possession under any circumstance (aside from places where prescription MM is legalized). This is the most control you're ever going to get: zero-tolerance. I don't know how you figure we'd have more control if it were legal. If anything, it'd be harder to control, with all the commercial vendors, and tracking who got what weed from where, and whether or not it was through a legal method.

You are just making a presumtion. You don't know if we could have more control or not if it were legal. Even so, being illegal fails as a form of control, because you already know that people smoke weed, and is illegal (as you can see, there is no control).







Marijuana is the 3rd most commonly used drug, aside from alcohol and cigarettes. Followed by Cocaine, at 4th. And all of that is illegally dealt, too. So I don't know what you're trying to say.

What I'm traing to say, is that is the harmles drug. Any one can harvest it, and sell it. So most of the dealers who work with marijuana are low dealers (people who want some money, but not being a drug lord). Also telling me is the 3rd most common drug, make your statement of "illegal = more control over it" a failure.








The crime rates, in general, are lower in Amsterdam than in the US. Beyond that, the fact that prostitution and weed are illegal here contributes a lot to the crime rates, don't you think?

Prove? Is just a observation. The same kind of observation than if I say "there are less crimes in Amsterdam than in the US and they have legalized weed and prostitution, ergo weed and prostitution are not related to the crime rate".






I agree, but that was not the purpose of that figure. If you read what I wrote to HoS, you will understand what I meant.

Sorry, even if is not the purpose of that figure, it was bad used. Find another one (one that doesn't destroy your own argument).





I never questioned that. I have restated over and over that I know marijuana has no long-term effects on people. But THC can temporarily impair your ability to function, undoubtedly.

So marijuana doesn't have long-term effects on people.
People who smoke weed can have a normal life.
If weed is legalized, there is no prove that crime are going to get higher or lower.
We have proves of other places with legalized weed that have low crime rate.

So why you still oppose? I know, you have been saying it houdnred of times, but most of your arguments are presumptions (there is no real prove).

You care about the safety of other people. So we need to destroy alcohol, jonke food, premaritarial sex, video games and others.

Also cyp, this is the stage were you don't want to lose, so you start saying that anyone is getting your point. Am I right?




Now this is just getting retarded. I've seen this same argument like 5 times now, except with various different things: books, cars, candy, even. The thing is, alcohol and tobacco, unlike the above has: 1.) no redeeming features or 2.) the ability to kill people in large, LARGE numbers.

How often are deaths attributed to video games, Clockhand? Furthermore, you do realize that:

"More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined."
source

Unless you're telling me that Gonorrhea kills more people than car accidents, or Hepatitis B kills more people than murder. /shrug You don't really have an argument with the premarital sex thing.

And don't get me started on the fkin cars again. Christ.

Video games have killed no one yet, but how many kids are obseded? how many teenagers are obessed? Also, how many people have die by weed? You see, weed and video games haven't kill no one, yet you are against only weed.

My argument is that, you put weed as a number 1 murder, where video games and sex have taken more life than weed.

CypressDahlia
02-09-2011, 08:07 PM
Okay, PWhit. Not gonna lie, that actually makes a lot of sense. But that's under the assumption that a lot of people die due to prohibition. People didn't die in the early 1900's prohibition era... well at least, not at an above-average rate. So I don't believe prohibiting things (in terms of smokes and booze) will cause a negative effect (or at least, none greater than allowing them to remain in circulation). But thank you for finally taking a different approach to this debate. I'm really tired of explaining why cars aren't bad to random people.

And also, HoS, I think we should draw the line where a large number of lives are in danger. We're not lemmings, afterall. If our people are killing themselves, we're not so stupid as to continue to let them. You know what I mean?

But here is an interesting thing I found out while researching further into crime rates in the Netherlands and the US. Netherlands is ranked #17 in terms of drug offenses by ratio, and the United States is ranked #41. That's an impressive 24 rank difference (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_dru_off-crime-drug-offences). And this is by ratio per 100,000 people, so we don't get disproportionate stats. Yet, it's still significantly lower than Germany or the UK's...hmm. At this point I don't know whether or not the system is working lol. It's quite literally middle-of-the-road. Though it's still worse than the United States, which is already drug crazy. And no, that's not a health care issue, regarding the cough medication. Kids just wanna get high through the lowest risk method.

But, as purported the overall crime rates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States) for the United States are still significantly higher in regards to homicide, theft, rape, etc, usually by a factor of 5 or more. And this is by ratio per 100,000 people, also. So can we say that it's safe to legalize weed in a country so ravaged by crime (at least, in comparison to the Netherlands), when a much tamer country is already showing a disproportionately large number of drug offenses through controlled distribution? I feel like, were we to legalize it, our drug offenses would be five-fold that of the Netherlands...just like the rest of our crime rates...


Indeed you are the only linking, but your arguments are awful.

And telling me my arguments are awful is a good argument, I'm guessing. Lol.


Of course, it will still happening, but at least people can smoke in peace in their homes, while the people who want to go against the law are going to still doing stupidity. If weed is legal or not, crime are going to still happening, so making it illegal is not a solution to drug crime related. Also even the marijuana is illegal, the demand is going to existe no matter what, making it illegal, is just having less control over it.

Okay, so you agree with me that legalizing weed doesn't fix anything crime-related. And making it illegal is having less control over it? What the hell? So, lemme propose this: If we were to legalize murder, would we have more control over homicides? Like I said, a zero-tolerance policy is the MOST CONTROLLED you can get. I don't understand why you would think otherwise.


Also bad link (biased).

Explain to me how that link is biased? You can't just //tell// me it's biased. Christ, Clockhand.


You are just making a presumtion. You don't know if we could have more control or not if it were legal.

Obviously, I do. Let's take HoS' advice and observe the Netherlands. Oh, look at that (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_dru_off-crime-drug-offences), the Netherlands has 24 (TWENTY FOUR) times the number of drug offenses the United States has, by ratio of 100,000 people. Yeah, those guys are totally in control. Lol.


Even so, being illegal fails as a form of control, because you already know that people smoke weed, and is illegal (as you can see, there is no control).

According to your own statistic: "758,593 people (45.6&#37;) were arrested for marijuana possession alone."

45.6&#37; is an impressive batting average of apprehending drug offenders (or criminals in general), Clockhand. Are you sure that our policy isn't working?


What I'm traing to say, is that is the harmles drug. Any one can harvest it, and sell it. So most of the dealers who work with marijuana are low dealers (people who want some money, but not being a drug lord).

It's a drug. Drugs are regulated by the FDA, you know, the FOOD--and--DRUG Administration. Chances are, private growing of weed will still be illegal.


Also telling me is the 3rd most common drug, make your statement of "illegal = more control over it" a failure.

I'm pretty sure legalizing it won't make it //less// popular, man. So if we were to legalize it, are you proposing it would become the 5th or 6th most common drug? lol. How does that even prove your point, though? Weed is used significantly less than both alcohol and tobacco. The only reason it's 3rd is because 4th (cocaine) and beyond are extremely expensive, high-risk drugs that are not only hard to obtain, but will probably kill you. lol.


Sorry, even if is not the purpose of that figure, it was bad used. Find another one (one that doesn't destroy your own argument).

Again, telling me my argument is a bad argument...is not a good argument. lol. Explain why, at least.


So why you still oppose? I know, you have been saying it houdnred of times, but most of your arguments are presumptions (there is no real prove).

From what I recall, I'm still providing you with a lot of corroborative data.


Also cyp, this is the stage were you don't want to lose, so you start saying that anyone is getting your point. Am I right?

I've only said that maybe 5-6 times throughout the thread, you know, within giant walls of text comprised of me actually debating with people. Lol. Be more observant, you're a smart guy.


Video games have killed no one yet, but how many kids are obseded? how many teenagers are obessed?

Too many. Do you want to propose that we outlaw fast food, or something? I thought your argument was that "too much control is bad"?


Also, how many people have die by weed?

None by overdose, but a lot by means of weed-related crime. And I'm not really down for, you know, 12 year olds doing drugs. Likewise, I'm not down for 12 year olds playing violent video games. It's not against the law, though, and look how "controlled" that is. The ESRB can't do shit. Also, I was talking about alcohol and tobacco. And you were, too, actually...so why the hell did you change the topic back to weed?


Accoding with Cyp, if the state have to protect the people, why stopping with alcohol and tabacco? we can ban sex, jonke food and others. No more pre marital sex!!!

That point was made against alcohol and tobacco. Because YOU initially made that point regarding my idea to prohibit alcohol and tobacco...WTF, dude. lol.

Delphinus
02-09-2011, 08:39 PM
Obviously the argument that thousands of people should die to maintain our expressly un-guaranteed right to smoke and get drunk is much better than mine.
Yes I read the source. I'm too tired to debate now but I'd just like to say that people have the right to do anything they like including rape, murder, whatever because there is no natural law.

toast
02-09-2011, 09:53 PM
But here is an interesting thing I found out while researching further into crime rates in the Netherlands and the US. Netherlands is ranked #17 in terms of drug offenses by ratio, and the United States is ranked #41. That's an impressive 24 rank difference (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_dru_off-crime-drug-offences). And this is by ratio per 100,000 people, so we don't get disproportionate stats. Yet, it's still significantly lower than Germany or the UK's...hmm. At this point I don't know whether or not the system is working lol. It's quite literally middle-of-the-road. Though it's still worse than the United States, which is already drug crazy.

But, as purported the overall crime rates for the United States are still significantly higher in regards to homicide, theft, rape, etc, usually by a factor of 5 or more. And this is by ratio per 100,000 people, also. So can we say that it's safe to legalize weed in a country so ravaged by crime (at least, in comparison to the Netherlands), when a much tamer country is already showing a disproportionately large number of drug offenses through controlled distribution? I feel like, were we to legalize it, our drug offenses would be five-fold that of the Netherlands...just like the rest of our crime rates...

But why? What do you think it would actually do specifically, if weed was legalized here? If weed was legalized tomorrow, and slowly small smoking cafes opened up, and we essentially developed a similar control over marijuana as the Netherlands, how do you think the US would react? Do you think a war would break out, or there'd be suddenly an increase of murders and rapes or something because a little drug people wanted to legalize because they felt it was harmless became legalized?

Your stats don't really say anything about marijuana anyway, other than the fact that the Netherlands has more drug use when you look at ratios. Have you ever visited the Netherlands? Do you think this really affects the people that live there? Do you think the dutch are constantly terrified that some guy up on coke is going to crash through their door? I doubt it. It might just be the fact that, since marijuana is legal there, people get curious. But it doesn't affect anyone other than them. You don't constantly see articles talking about the drug war in the Netherlands or something, unlike in the US.

I think if marijuana was legalized in some place in the US, and if the government enforced a proper, fair control over it (like no smoking in public and such), at a fair price, it wouldn't bother anyone and might even help people a bit more. I can't see anything wrong going on with this, other than some teenagers trying to steal weed, but that would essentially be the same as teenagers trying to take alcohol or something. I seriously think this isn't a big deal, and people are making it seem like a huge complicated thing.


I never said getting high was bad. Using it as a reason to legalize something that might harm society at large is bad,

If you don't think getting high is bad, then why do you think it harms people? To be honest, you've been really vague on actually explaining what marijuana does to your health and to society. I might just not be reading well enough, but explain to me.

CypressDahlia
02-10-2011, 12:51 AM
But why? What do you think it would actually do specifically, if weed was legalized here? If weed was legalized tomorrow, and slowly small smoking cafes opened up, and we essentially developed a similar control over marijuana as the Netherlands, how do you think the US would react?

Toast, the figures speak for themselves. The people who are arguing against me are arguing that legalizing marijuana would decrease drug-related crime rates. The Netherlands, which was an example provided by HoS, who is also debating against me, is the only place in the world where we can actually observe the outcome of this protocol, and gauge the effectiveness of "legalizing crime to reduce crime". Obviously, it doesn't work, considering, despite having 1/5th of the crime rates respective to everything BUT drugs, the Netherlands has over 24 times the number of drug-based offenses. That's not concerning--at all?

Beyond that, a country where crime is 1/5th is prevalent as it is in the United States obviously can't handle the responsibility of legal drugs (according to HoS, it's actually a quite liberal "legal"). So, going by figures alone, how do you think the United States will perform, given that there is roughly five times more of every other type of criminal act here than in the Netherlands, under a system of controlled marijuana? Mind you, the Netherlands controls their marijuana quite prudently, but even then--twenty-friggin-four times the number of drug-related offenses? That's 24 times the number of DUIs, DWIs, illegal possession of marijuana, underage drinking, underage smoking, soliciting substances to minors, etc. that the US has--which is already a STAGGERING figure in itself. The US already has a drug problem, could we really deal with 5 times that number?


Your stats don't really say anything about marijuana anyway, other than the fact that the Netherlands has more drug use when you look at ratios.

Which is ironic because hard drugs (our alcohol and tobacco) are very strictly regulated in the Netherlands as opposed to the US, but soft drugs (among which is marijuana) are not. So, actually, we can attribute most of that figure to marijuana. Hell, even cannabis coffee shops aren't allowed to sell hard drugs.


Have you ever visited the Netherlands? Do you think this really affects the people that live there?

Drugs affect people here on a daily basis, and around the world. Is this even a serious question, toast? Think about it.


Do you think the dutch are constantly terrified that some guy up on coke is going to crash through their door?

In some parts of their country, like in some parts of ours, this is actually a reasonable fear. Have you ever been to Detroit, or inner New York? Scary places. You don't even wanna encounter homeless people out of fear of getting mugged. /shrug


You don't constantly see articles talking about the drug war in the Netherlands or something, unlike in the US.

Nope. How often do we get news about the Netherlands, though? If I hadn't told you they had an astounding 24 times the number of drug-related offenses the United States has (which is actually a pretty big deal), would you have known it? If I hadn't looked it up, I sure wouldn't have.


I seriously think this isn't a big deal, and people are making it seem like a huge complicated thing.

I agree. Stoners just wanna get high, but they try to dress it up like some kinda political issue. lol. If you wanna get high, just say you wanna get high, and that's your reason for supporting legalization of weed. I won't judge you--I'll disagree with you heavily, but I won't judge you. But when you try to be overly political about it, I'm going to be there to debunk any misconceptions.


If you don't think getting high is bad, then why do you think it harms people? To be honest, you've been really vague on actually explaining what marijuana does to your health and to society. I might just not be reading well enough, but explain to me.

I have honestly written a light novel in the past 3 days. I don't feel like reiterating everything just because you missed the point, I'm sorry. There's plenty of text here for you to read, so I guess you better get to it. Also, what is with all of your (not just yours, but everyone's) crazy misconceptions that I think marijuana is bad for your health? Since the FIRST POST I made, I acknowledged that marijuana is not harmful to your health, and never used that as an argument. o_O I guess you guys are really itching to use the "it don't harm no one" spiel on me.

But lemme tell you this much: at the risk of having our drug-related offenses increase by five-fold, I'm willing to give up my right to get stoned, despite the fact that it is clearly unessential anyway. Anyway, don't we already have a coupl'a drugs that we legalized, "under moderation"? I unno', like tobacco and alcohol. Hmm, I'm pretty sure people are still using those pretty illegally, despite our "tight control". /shrug


1. Cannabis was made illegal in the first place because of certain selfish and ambitious businessmen and politicians who saw that it threatened their companies.

Okay, I've come to terms that I can't speak on behalf of these "businessmen", so I will not argue this point further with either you or HoS. I'll accept this. But how is this a reason to make it legal again, given that we do have legitimate reasons for it to remain illegal?


2.Once it's legalized, sure, there might be a huge amount of people smoking up all of a sudden and all, but the excitement WILL die down. Human psychology. If something's forbidden, it'll seem more attractive. But if you are allowed to do it, it won't have as much charm.

That's just...horrible. What you just said to me is that people do illegal things //because// they're illegal. Is that some kind of justification? Furthermore, you're suggesting that we should legalize weed, because it's illegal? Apparently, that is the reason a LOT of people violate the law, amirite? =P Dude, making something legal isn't a solution to having laws broken. lol. That's like saying "maybe people won't murder if we made murder legal." That defeats the purpose of having laws at all.

Also, Blue_Dragon, that is one HELLUVA post lol. And I'll do my best to address every point. This is probably going to be my last one for the night, too.

Okay, so the rape bill: yeah, that really fucking sucks. But at the same time, statutory rape, date rape and--well--any form if rape is actively being combated by law enforcement. Though you may not get health care, the government is not just like...letting it happen, ya know what I mean? So you can't say they don't care. I have signed the petition myself, but I can't say this is an "evil" decision considering the government is also giving free money (in extremely short supply) to many other needy demographics. Surely, the raped should be prioritized, though.

I'm pretty sure you're talking about death by Carbon Monoxide poisoning there, which actually only occurs in large concentrations of Carbon Monoxide gas (7k PPM), and can kill within 20 minutes of exposure. Surely, CO is bad stuff, but the traces of it in our atmosphere are hardly enough to do anything but cause lung irritation to people with asthma. It's not projected to shorten life expectancy, even. Some workplaces and even our electric stoves give off more CO in PPM than is present in our atmosphere. Also, most of the industrial smog was produced pre-World War 2, before catalytic converters and nuclear energy, electric stoves, etc. Comparatively, we actually took a huge step forward in saving the environment from then to present day.

On the topic of cancer. Of the 500,000+ (http://www.cancure.org/statistics.htm) people who die yearly due to cancer, over 3/5ths of these deaths are due to Breast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_cancer#Risk_factors) and Prostate Cancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_cancer#Causes), which have no known environmental causes. Guess what the third leading cancer is? Lung Cancer. 90&#37; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_cancer#Causes) of which is attributed to smoking tobacco.

As I have asked to many previous posters: do you think there's a better way to select a handful of people to rule the entire nation?

I don't really want to reiterate my points about drug-crimes. You can skim my previous posts if you want somma' dat. But Organized Crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organized_crime#Origins_and_conceptual_background) dates back as far as 13th century India, with groups of bandits. I highly doubt prohibition is where it began.

Also, in regards to the forest: I distinctly remember using "wildfire" as my example. In other words, when have firemen sat back and allowed an uncontrolled, undesired fire to ember out? A controlled fire is a different story, and doesn't fit into my analogy at all. lol. I'm gonna skip the point about the organic food, because that's something we can agree to disagree on. Personally, I don't care for it.

I agree that smoking doesn't make you a bad person. I just think there are things more valuable than smoking, like human life lol. And I would easily give up smoking to preserve it. And yes, on Blue Laws being unjust. They're not only unjust, but entirely unconstitutional (separation of church and state n' all). But you know, as you said, they are not enforced, therefore can't really be considered law to begin with. Just a stern suggestion. =P Though I agree that Blue Laws are bullshit, I don't think the same of anti-weed legislation. There is actually reasoning there.

And also, like I said: I have no misconceptions about people who smoke pot. My room mates, all three, do and they're great people. I just think it has potentially harmful effects on our society, through observation of drug-abuse trends among the general populace and, recently, observation of drug-crime rates in the Netherlands.

butternut
02-10-2011, 04:47 AM
Okay, I've come to terms that I can't speak on behalf of these "businessmen", so I will not argue this point further with either you or HoS. I'll accept this. But how is this a reason to make it legal again, given that we do have legitimate reasons for it to remain illegal?

What are the reasons? I honestly want to find out. And no, I do not want stats of what it has done. I already asked this in one of my previous posts too. All I seem to gather from the internet is variations of this (http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/). Well, you can say look at all these drug wars, and crimes associated with it. Well, isn't it because weed's illegal? All that hype surrounding it, and all the bad things associated with it...if it was made legal, that would mean it is available easily (okay, i am not for underage kids smoking up and stuff, and all this is assuming there are sensible restrictions put on it like limitations on age and quantity)..so if it was available easily at a fair price, why would there be a need of drug-trafficking (talking only about weed here) or middlemen or private sellers college kids buy from?


That's just...horrible. What you just said to me is that people do illegal things //because// they're illegal. Is that some kind of justification? Furthermore, you're suggesting that we should legalize weed, because it's illegal? Apparently, that is the reason a LOT of people violate the law, amirite? =P Dude, making something legal isn't a solution to having laws broken. lol. That's like saying "maybe people won't murder if we made murder legal." That defeats the purpose of having laws at all.

NO, I did NOT say or mean that that's the reason to make it legal. At least didn't intend to. I was just saying how it wouldn't be so much big of a deal if it was made legal, but no, that's not the reason to make it legal.

Ceta
02-10-2011, 06:50 AM
We shouldn't be banning anything, we should be allowing more everything in moderation.
This would be ideal if most people knew how to exercise moderation. Fast food is a perfect example of this.

Harvester_Of_Sorrow
02-10-2011, 11:14 AM
Ok, dude, that is not what I was getting at by ratio. But regardless, lets take those statistics and do the math.

Pop of USA: 307,006,550 (2009 census). Now if 540 people out of every 100,000 have a drugs offence, do the math.

Pop of Netherlands: 16,531,294 (2009 World Bank) 12,683 people out of every 100,000 have drug offences.

I thought this website sounded a bit odd in its phrasing of the statistics, because according to it, the UK, where I live, has 183,000 odd drug offences to every 100,000 people. Hmm. Something seems odd there. Also Germany has been regarded for years as having a very low amount of hard drug offences compared to the rest of Europe.

But anyway, despite the shaky statistics, you are somewhat correct in what you say. The Netherlands does have a higher number of drug offences, on ratio, than the USA. Although no where near 5 times as many.

But, before I start, I would like to address a reply you gave to toast:


Which is ironic because hard drugs (our alcohol and tobacco) are very strictly regulated in the Netherlands as opposed to the US, but soft drugs (among which is marijuana) are not. So, actually, we can attribute most of that figure to marijuana. Hell, even cannabis coffee shops aren't allowed to sell hard drugs.

Wait, what? How did you come to that conclusion? Didn't we establish a short time ago that only 5.4% of Dutch people smoke marijuana on a regular basis? Yet 12,000 odd people every 100,000 are convicted of drug offences, therefore the majority of these are pot crimes. Ok, you've lost me. And ofcourse cannabis coffee shops aren't allowed to seel hard drugs...no where is. I feel toast asked a very good question there and you have seemed to have glossed over it. But given the fact that you are addressing 5 or 6 different people at once, I'll let it go.

Although, to be fair, you are not totally wrong about marijuana contributing to the crime level. But we're talking minor crimes of possession of over 30 grams and smoking joints in public. Basically very thick British and Australian tourists who think that because they are in Holland they can do what they like when it comes to weed. They can't. The law is more liberal over there, but its still the law.

Anyway, moving on.

I never argued that the Netherlands didn't have a problem with drugs, only the offences for marijuana related crime have been dramtically lowered. This is a fact. If I painted the Netherlands up to be some sort of Utopia, then I certianly had no intention of doing so. When it comes to the issue of drugs, they have as many problems as the rest of us.

The big problem the Netherlands has is the fact that a) is the drug capital of Europe (legal marijuana, duh) b) Amsterdam is a major port town c) its geographical location in Europe. All these things make it a hot spot for hard drug trafficking throughout the rest of Europe.

Here is a BBC articule talking about the drug issue in the UK and the Netherlands. If you can't be arsed to read it, then I don't blame, but I'll quote the things that address my points: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/693257.st


Dutch authorities admit that drug seizures in recent years have risen, especially for heroin - seizures of which doubled between 1997 and 1998, for example.
But Mr Brugdink says this is mainly because of the Netherlands' general trading and port status, not because of its drugs policy

Yeah, just comfirming what I'm saying. So, yes, the Dutch has a fairly high amount of hard drug users in Europe, but atleast they are the only country I can think of that are thinking outside the box to actually do something about it. As I've said, legalising marijuana has considerably lowered marijuana related crimes amoung the Dutch people (as oppose to tourists), but did you know that the Netherlands is the only country in the world that treats heroin addicts with heroin? You may think that sounds retarded, but hear me out. Heroin is obviously very addictive, and when one decides they wish to give up heroin, they have to have something to replaced the smack. Its not like marijuana where you can use your will power or cigarettes where you can chew gum, you need another drug to weane you of it. In the UK (and just about everywhere else) the drug used for this treatment is called methodone, a very mild form of heroin. Because there is much regulations regarding this drug, and it is expensive to produce, addicts get very little of the stuff to help them weane them off. Its like if you were used to drinking 3 bottles of whiskey a day then you had to replace that with two cups of coffee. The Dutch realise that this system doesn't work, too many addicts are going back to heroin and fucking shit up for socitey to get their fix, so their using reduced doses of heroin to help these people. Is it working? I don't know to be honest, I haven't found any research online that supports it either way, but atleast their trying something different.

And thats the point of this whole discussion, banning things that have no desernable negatives and many positives, simply doesn't work. People will still do them and get thrown in jail for a Mister Meaner. I don't wanna sound like an old fart here, but shouldn't they 'be out catching real criminals?' Legalising marijuana in the Netherlands has reduced the number of marijuana related crimes. This is undoubtable. If you want to argue that it has therefore increaesed other crimes, then thats another discussion.

CypressDahlia
02-10-2011, 03:55 PM
What are the reasons?

Okay, honestly, Saphira, //read the fkin posts//. I honestly don't feel like starting from page 1 for every person who decides to jump on my back and is too lazy to read everything I've already written a million times over.


Pop of USA: 307,006,550 (2009 census). Now if 540 people out of every 100,000 have a drugs offence, do the math.

Pop of Netherlands: 16,531,294 (2009 World Bank) 12,683 people out of every 100,000 have drug offences.

HoS, you do realize that //by ratio// this means that more people in a smaller population commit more drug crimes (more often) in the Netherlands than in the US. What you're actually looking for is an //absolute number//, which accounts for the size of the US population (which is, in fact, significantly larger than that of the Netherlands). The data I gave it is actually //by ratio//. An absolute number is not really representative because we have //more people// to account for. That's like a guy with a handful of jellybeans saying, "Oh, I bet I have less blue jellybeans than you" to a guy with a bucketful. Statistically, of course, it will be the case that the guy with the bucketful has more blue jellybeans in terms of absolute number. But, BY RATIO--as you requested--there are only 560 drug offenses out of 100k people in the US. The Netherlands has 24 times that number per 100,000 people.

If you wanted to upscale the ratio so that the populations between the US and Netherlands was roughly equal, we'd have to upscale the Netherlands' population by 20 times or so. In the process, we'd also have to upscale the number of drug offenses per 100,000 by 20, which would mean an even GREATER difference (roughly [20x24=480] more) between the number of drug offenses by sample. Besides, isn't the fact that the guy with only a handful of jellybeans has significantly greater number of blue jellybeans by ratio than the guy with a bucketful strange? That means he has an unusually large number of blue jellybeans.

But okay, to be fair, let's do the math:

So, on a 560:100,000 ratio, upscaled to account for the entire population (300million), the US has 1,553,453 drug offenses.
On a 12,683:100,000 ratio, upscaled to account for the entire population (16million), the Netherlands has 2,096,664 drug offenses...

I think the math still works against you here. A country that's 20 times smaller than the US has roughly 1.3 times the number of drug offenses. And this is by absolute number, disregarding the ratio in your favor.


I thought this website sounded a bit odd in its phrasing of the statistics...

The website also accounts for multiple offenses, so that might account for the disparity.


But anyway, despite the shaky statistics, you are somewhat correct in what you say. Although no where near 5 times as many.

Actually, by ratio, they have Twenty-Four times as many. By absolute number, they have 1.3 times as many. But I already explained why absolute number doesn't really work for comparing concentrations of something between two very differently sized samples. Especially considering their difference is a factor of 20.


Wait, what? How did you come to that conclusion?

The Netherlands has an equal level of enforcement, if not greater enforcement on the selling/use of hard drugs (tobacco and alcohol, for example) than the US. The only difference between us is that they have legalized the use of "controlled marijuana". The Netherlands is not developmentally or economically, structurally or politically poorer than the United States, either. So, if anything, the Netherlands should have a similar number of alcohol, tobacco, cocaine (or any other drug mutually deemed illegal) offenses. But not only do they have a larger RATIO of drug offenses (24x), but a larger overall absolute number (1.3x) of offenses as well. If anything, the number of offenses should be 1/20th that of the US', given that the population ratio between Netherlands and here is roughly 1:20. So, unless you're willing to suggest that the Netherlands has an //absolutely insane// drinking, smoking, cocaine sniffing or whatever problem (enough to warrant a 24-fold increase in drug offenses by ratio), it's safe to assume that a lot of said crimes are attributed to marijuana. That was my point. And, yes, only 5.4&#37; of the Dutch population has smoked legal marijuana within the last month. Likewise, only 0.7&#37; of Americans end up in jail, but they are responsible for the greater number of our crimes. As Clockhand said: "the number of weed smokers is not equal to the number of crimes". Except not in broken English.


The big problem the Netherlands has is the fact that a) is the drug capital of Europe (legal marijuana, duh) b) Amsterdam is a major port town c) its geographical location in Europe. All these things make it a hot spot for hard drug trafficking throughout the rest of Europe.

This is all true, and I'm willing to accept the fact that this does contribute to the oddly disproportionate level of drug-crimes. But the figures are still pretty surprising.


Yeah, just comfirming what I'm saying. So, yes, the Dutch has a fairly high amount of hard drug users in Europe, but atleast they are the only country I can think of that are thinking outside the box to actually do something about it...

Hmm, according to other sources, heroin addiction has actually decreased by 30&#37; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands) due to this treatment. I guess what you're saying is that some of the drug crime rates can be attributed to heroin, because it's actually distributed medically? Supposing what you say about heroin seizures is true, then obviously the model of "controlled distribution" doesn't work. Supposing that heroin addiction has actually decreased by 30%, that's less crime that can be attributed to heroin, and onto other drugs (like weed, per se =P). Supposing they're both true, they both support my argument. Supposing they're both false...well, we might just need to find better sources lol.

As I said, thinking out of the box might be good for them, but I just don't trust America, despite being an American lol. That's how bad it is. And not gonna lie, this whole discussion, due to a //couple of people// (not you, of course), has made me more vehement about keeping weed illegal, reading some of the stupid shit people are willing to say to legalize weed. Esp. the whole alcohol and cigarettes thing (cry, because I called your bluff) and countless car analogies. Lol.


And thats the point of this whole discussion, banning things that have no desernable negatives and many positives, simply doesn't work.

Hmm, alright, it's my turn to play the "why not" game. Why is incest illegal in a number of states? Furthermore, why do we have ages of consent?


People will still do them and get thrown in jail for a Mister Meaner. I don't wanna sound like an old fart here, but shouldn't they 'be out catching real criminals?'

People who break the law are criminals, HoS. Essentially, they are catching criminals. =P And, as I said, considering most dealing is done to people who would still be underage (even by Netherlands' standards), I would consider it highly criminal to deal weed. But, TBH, I'm sure if we could catch //more// homicidal maniacs, or serial rapists, or arsonists, we //would//. But those guys are a little harder to catch than hippies, frat boys and high schoolers, considering potheads are dumb as shit when it comes to actually keeping the fact that they're potheads a secret.

DemonKaiser93
02-10-2011, 09:32 PM
I vote "Hell Yeah", why? is easy:
1. I have smoked marijuana and it feels good.
2. It dosen't provoke adiction (well, fisicaly it dosen't, but It depens on the person's will power)
3. Because it only targets your short-time memory, not like Tobacco that can produce cancer.

Look I'm not saying is harmful, but is one of those soft drugs
that don't produce TOO MUCH HARM (and is great for cancer treatment)
but I only would like to be legal to plant my own weed because if is legal
they will start to industrializating the plant and will end up like 20&#37; canabis
and the other 80% will have some other shit, so yeah.

NOTE: I dont smoke too often so there, you have my personal opinion

PWhit
02-10-2011, 09:37 PM
but I only would like to be legal to plant my own weed because if is legal
they will start to industrializating the plant and will end up like 20&#37; canabis
and the other 80&#37; will have some other shit, so yeah.

NOTE: I dont smoke too often so there, you have my personal opinion

Lots of the tobacco companies use the other stuff you're talking about to addict the user and add flavor to it, or something like that. It wouldn't surprise me either.

PWhit
03-28-2011, 04:06 PM
I'm not trying to double post but here's something interesting I just dug up about a ban on cigarette wrapping paper, cartons, and ads near schools and stuff. What do you guys think?

http://www.telegram.com/article/20110327/NEWS/103270543/1116

violin
03-29-2011, 07:43 PM
I doubt you'll let your kids take drugs or smoke just because it makes you feel good.
It's a school, a place where kids are to be educated - a safe place. Not a place where your kid could find alcohol or cigarrets...
Even if they make drugs legal - they should be forbidden to be sold around schools.

That's how cigarrete box looks like in europe:
http://inlinethumb63.webshots.com/47550/2448754770088170885S425x425Q85.jpg

Other more simlpe text they use are:
Smoking kills.
Smoking couses cancer.
Smoking can make you potent.
Smoking during pregnancy can bla bla....

People joke around with: "Non-smokers die healthy" :D

Ozzaharwood
03-29-2011, 08:12 PM
If the government legalizes weed, it would get rid of a TONNE of illegal drug trade, thus shutting down the main finances of many major gangs. The Hells Angels gang actually paid NGO's to advertise that marijuana should be illegal when the government decided to legalize a certain amount of it in the Summer a few years back. It may be bad for us, but it'd get rid a lot of criminals and probably stop a lot of criminal activity.


People will still do them and get thrown in jail for a Mister Meaner.

Do you mean misdemeanor?

PWhit
03-29-2011, 09:32 PM
It's a school, a place where kids are to be educated - a safe place. Not a place where your kid could find alcohol or cigarrets...

That's interesting, high school has plenty of unsafe moments and there is plenty of drug trades under the table.

Bacon_Barbarian
03-29-2011, 09:48 PM
I
http://inlinethumb63.webshots.com/47550/2448754770088170885S425x425Q85.jpg

Since I don't smoke I wouln't know, but I don't think we have anythig that clear cut in the US.

Also, Im with Ozzar.

Evil_Cake
03-29-2011, 10:12 PM
Since I don't smoke I wouln't know, but I don't think we have anythig that clear cut in the US.

Also, Im with Ozzar.
ya we do

GunZet
03-29-2011, 11:15 PM
Lame: Warning, cigarettes may be hazardous to your health.

Better: Warning, cigarettes cause cancer. But not just any cancer; turbocancer.

ClockHand
03-30-2011, 10:34 AM
I think one of the most dangerous places after jail, are schools.

PWhit
03-30-2011, 01:40 PM
No matter what a school is very dangerous, but in most cases it depends on where the school is that determines the amount of danger. Sometimes it's more of a social issue too, but I think a lot of the danger has to do with location. So I wouldn't rank school danger near the footing of prisons necessarily.

justforflag
05-25-2011, 12:24 PM
bump (Don't hunt me down.)

I voted yes on legalizing drugs, and I am not from the USA. To all those people who say that drugs are bad for the brain, I think I ought to mention one thing.

Carl Sagan.

Bacon_Barbarian
05-25-2011, 08:28 PM
Drugs ARE bad for the brain. That's why they're drugs. A drug is something that chemically affects your brain. Anything you smoke can lead to emphysema. Alcohol ... do I really need to explain? Hallucinogens are filled with horrible stuff, do you want Kerosene in you, do you know how many people kill people on bad trips? Enough caffeine of all things can lead you to depression and withdrawal.

Also, who?

Sylux
05-25-2011, 08:34 PM
The brain reverts to normal a few days after the effects of the drug(s) wear off. What now, Bacon.

Ozzaharwood
05-25-2011, 08:52 PM
It's been proven that drugs create long lasting and permanent damage and altercations to the brain. Smoking nicotine alone has been known to cause Lung cancer, urinary tract cancer, oral and nasal cavity cancer, pharynx, oesophagus, larynx, pancreas, stomach, liver, cervix and bone marrow cancers. It can also pose many other risks, such as asthma, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, kidney failure, and COPD. There are many other more less serious health effects, such as fertility problems, bad eyesight, higher risk for cataracts, stained teeth and gums, bad breath, higher risk for ulcers and to have paler skin and more wrinkles.

If all of that wasn't enough for you to stop, it also can have the same effects on the people who are with you when you smoke. Second hand smoke has even said to be equally dangerous as first hand. Cigarettes are only still around because the government makes too much money off of them to get rid of them. Marijuana is just as dangerous as tobacco, but it's only leaves in a joint compared to all the chemicals in a cigarette. Also, since it's illegal, most people won't be exposed to the second hand smoke very often, or sometimes not at all.

Ugh, I hate writing so much.

Bacon_Barbarian
05-25-2011, 08:57 PM
The brain reverts to normal a few days after the effects of the drug(s) wear off. What now, Bacon.

Yeah, but it builds up. Eventually, you get to the point where you can't take a dose that does anything for you that isn't lethal. About 1 in 3 first time users of Hallucinogens die Sylux.

Harvester_Of_Sorrow
05-25-2011, 10:28 PM
Where did you find your sources on Hallucinogenic drugs, Bacon?

Bacon_Barbarian
05-25-2011, 11:14 PM
Health class.

EDIT: That brings up it's own can of worms, but most of it comes from articles and textbooks.

And by Hallucinogens, I (generally) mean PCP and LSD. Bad shit.

Harvester_Of_Sorrow
05-25-2011, 11:33 PM
Hmm, well while I will agree that PCP and LSD are bad shit, it is not even remotely true that 1 in 3 first time users of Hallucinogenic drugs die. I have no idea where you got that information from or who told you it. Interesting. Always remember, alot of people dont know what their talking about when it comes to illigal drugs, from both the users and the 'do-gooders'.

Bacon_Barbarian
05-26-2011, 03:35 PM
It might have actually been specifically PCP and LSD. I think I got a little mixed up. >.>

Delphinus
05-26-2011, 05:46 PM
This website (http://www.urban75.com/Drugs/) is an accurate source of drug information, though relying on it for legal advice would be a bad idea given it's based on UK law.

EDIT: Note that in the 'drug deaths' section there's only 1 on record from LSD. Your health class has been feeding you bullshit.

EDIT 2:
There are no known physical side effects associated with acid use, nor is there any evidence of brain damage. There are some psychological risks, however, particularly for those with a history of mental problems.

CypressDahlia
05-26-2011, 06:54 PM
That website is clearly biased. And this is funny because I'd often offer websites that link to national health databanks and actual, federally maintained statistics or even abstracts off textbooks and Clockhand would unabashedly call them "biased" (lol) and never tell me why. But that, sir, is a site run by people with an agenda. Why do I say that?

I looked at the site map. Over half the stuff is about anti-legislation campaigning. If you read the "About Us" page, there are some heavy, HEAVY anti-corporation themes. In fact, they said that the site was personally funded //because// they are so anti-corporation. They even refer to their site as "organically grown". I mean, c'mon, really. Not just that, but it's founded by a community of angry football fans, not written or maintained by sponsored researchers or scholars. And lol, this is the best part:

"This site neither condemns nor condones drug use. This resource is for people to access the facts and make their own, informed decisions."

If you look directly across from it--like, literally, on the other side of the page.

"Decriminalising drug use could drastically reduce crime and improve health..."

Oh yeah, there is obviously NO agenda here.

Delphinus
05-26-2011, 07:04 PM
If you look into the drug pages themselves, you'd realise that they don't downplay the potential health risks nor do they play up the positive effects. In addition the sections on health risks correspond with pharmacological data on the dangers of usage and the details of the effects of the drug are from the perspective of a user rather than a scientist. So in terms of the pages on drugs themselves they have a fairly balanced style of reporting; despite (or because of?) the perspectives of the founders of the website, they offer unbiased information on the 'ground level' effects of various substances.

While their stance on the politics of drugs is clearly pro-drug, the important stuff - the information about those drugs - is fairly solid and neutral. Even assuming they are pro-drug in some way, combine it with the official sites about drugs (FRANK in the UK) and you ought to be able to work out the truth of the matter.

EDIT: Also of note: that site's been cited in House of Commons debates (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmstand/deleg1/st051031/51031s01.htm) and described as "disconcertingly well-informed". I believe that should be a fairly strong point for its neutrality when it's used to argue against the legalisation of drugs.

EDIT 2: And you have a clear agenda for making drug use look bad, given you're a preacher of tee-totalling. You're probably more biased than the website.

CypressDahlia
05-26-2011, 07:20 PM
Of course I'm biased. I have an opinion.

That doesn't mean the sites I link are biased. In fact, most of the sites I've linked have corroborated data from the NIH. Other sites, which dealt with crime rates and incarceration, were also federally supervised.

I looked at the drug pages and I agree that the data itself is accurate. But the site wasn't the best to link to. If anything, just link to the sources. I know I sound a little anal right now, but data becomes less relevant if you have to slog through a bunch of anti-legislation propaganda first, which can be highly misleading and beside-the-point. So just link the data.

EDIT: +++ For the record, as I said in the Upop. Opinions thread, I don't actually believe in tee-totaling. I just said that to call the "if weed is banned, alcohol and cigs should be banned to!" bluff (because it's hardly implausible or detrimental to do so). Sadly, I ended up arguing that point more than I argued weed. =_='''

Bacon_Barbarian
05-26-2011, 10:10 PM
This website (http://www.urban75.com/Drugs/) is an accurate source of drug information, though relying on it for legal advice would be a bad idea given it's based on UK law.

EDIT: Note that in the 'drug deaths' section there's only 1 on record from LSD. Your health class has been feeding you bullshit.


No. People die on LSD, PCP, Meth and Ecstasy all the time. People jump out windows, stab themselves to death. It's not rare.

EDIT: Those death statistics are from '94 Delp. And the UK only. I'm sticking with Health, as you can find all sorts of horror NEWS stories on the subject.

For example. The CIA World Factbook says 8 in 1000 users dies. Now, it's not because the drug harms them, but it's because what the drug does. I never said direct effects.

CypressDahlia
05-26-2011, 10:24 PM
Now this is just an issue of conflicting sources.

Bacon_Barbarian
05-26-2011, 10:46 PM
I trust the CIA over what Del had. Oh, and I divided into my notes/handouts/classwork. I mixed up the 1 in 3 first time users thing. It isn't PCP or LSD, it's inhalants. Like people who huff glue. A little different. :/

Delphinus
05-27-2011, 04:38 AM
No. People die on LSD, PCP, Meth and Ecstasy all the time. People jump out windows, stab themselves to death. It's not rare.

LSD is not PCP, Meth, or Ecstasy. Actually, LSD isn't harmful (or addictive!) in any physiological sense: the harmful effects only come about when one starts having a bad trip. Which, sure, is a compelling argument for being with people who aren't tripping off their nuts when one takes it, but it's hardly a great argument for illegalising it. As with most other drugs, the danger comes when people are personally irresponsible. Which, to my mind, makes the drug pretty much blameless: it's just stupid people not preparing themselves before doing it.

Kind of like the Darwin Awards.

Bacon_Barbarian
05-27-2011, 03:07 PM
Oh, I know good stuff can come from doing LSD. It was originally used to treat alcoholics. But, well, people are (general) irresponsible. And it's not really like the Darwin Awards. You can't know when you'll have a bad or good trip (though you can certainly guess). If you do something stupid on a trip, it isn't really your fault. (Though the drug is still to blame.)

Ozzaharwood
05-27-2011, 11:36 PM
LSD is one of the least dangerous drugs out there. It has been proven to not have ANY long term effects when taken over 2500 times. This was a test done on 5000 people, and out of all of them 2 became schizophrenic and one killed them self. This makes LSD one of the least dangerous drugs probably because when you take it, you ingest only about 100 millionths of a gram. The only possible complications that come with it are a bad trip, but this can be easily avoided if doing it with a group of friends. All the friends have to do is convince you that you are in a safe situation, and you'll be fine. I'm not saying anyone should do LSD, or it is good to do... But this is the drug thread and I thought I should share my info.

LSD is also one the hardest drugs to find on a drug test, as it only lasts in your urine for 24 - 48 hours and regular drug tests do not test for LSD. Unless specifically designated by the doctor or a guardian, a drug test will not test the drug user for LSD.

CypressDahlia
05-28-2011, 01:42 PM
Again, I'd like to say that blaming the circumstances around a drug-related accident is avoiding the issue. "Not having friends around" is misdirecting the blame, when the drug itself is to blame. Unlike a lot of other things that are objectively nigh harmless, drugs are a little more...prolific in their effects.

Bacon_Barbarian
05-28-2011, 02:21 PM
Yeah. And even if you are surrounded by friends, what are the chances that they wont be tripping too? Even if all LSD deaths are caused by behavior, it doesn't mean LSD isn't dangerous. The behavior is cause by the drug after all.

Socrates
06-01-2011, 12:38 AM
Bacon Barbarian, if you and your friends are all tripping it is highly unlikely every single trip will be bad. Even with this highly illogical scenario you presented, most people who experiment with psychedelics who aren't completely void of intelligent thought have a certain guy who is the 'designated driver' that will not take the drugs but make sure nothing goes bad.

I believe many drugs have very positive effects on people, psychedelics included. Marijuana has been proven to stimulate creative thought, the study that showed marijuana kills braincells was never tested on humans. The outcome was largely based on the fact the rhesus monkey in the experiment was being given marijuana through a gas mask, which eliminated oxygen, therefore killing braincells. The actual reason Marijuana was outlawed has nothing to do with the fact that it was bad for you. The real motivation for outlawing it is much less noble. Mexican Laborers smoked Marijuana and white landowners out of fear that they would rebel, outlawed it in California. Other states soon followed suit, one senator in Texas going as far as to say, 'All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy.'

My biggest problem with the argument on drugs is you are putting Heroin, Meth and Crack in the same category as Marijuana, LSD and Mushrooms. I certainly don't believe the former have any positive effects long term, while the last three may actually be beneficial to how a person thinks, while including LSD may be a bit of a stretch, it is something that changes how you look at things if only for a short while.

CypressDahlia
06-01-2011, 01:59 AM
Everything and anything could stimulate creative thought. Not a great reason to base legislation on. Also, I've read like 3 different stories about why "marijuana was really outlawed" in this thread alone. Suspension of disbelief is failing me.

Delphinus
06-01-2011, 05:19 AM
Marijuana was outlawed because of a moral panic. Like everything else. Duh.

Bacon_Barbarian
06-01-2011, 07:15 AM
Bacon Barbarian, if you and your friends are all tripping it is highly unlikely every single trip will be bad. Even with this highly illogical scenario you presented, most people who experiment with psychedelics who aren't completely void of intelligent thought have a certain guy who is the 'designated driver' that will not take the drugs but make sure nothing goes bad.
I never said that they would all have bad trips, but if even one of them does, you can have no what sort of horrible thing they could try and do. Also, people are stupid as fuck.


I believe many drugs have very positive effects on people, psychedelics included. Marijuana has been proven to stimulate creative thought, the study that showed marijuana kills braincells was never tested on humans. The outcome was largely based on the fact the rhesus monkey in the experiment was being given marijuana through a gas mask, which eliminated oxygen, therefore killing braincells.
Any citations on that? Is so, yeah, that's pretty dumb. If not, well ...


The actual reason Marijuana was outlawed has nothing to do with the fact that it was bad for you. The real motivation for outlawing it is much less noble. Mexican Laborers smoked Marijuana and white landowners out of fear that they would rebel, outlawed it in California. Other states soon followed suit, one senator in Texas going as far as to say, 'All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy.'
I love how the few places you can find that are all sites that share the same cause as Cannabisnews.com. Plus, they don't even attribute it to a Senator, let alone name one. I'm kind of disbelieving.


My biggest problem with the argument on drugs is you are putting Heroin, Meth and Crack in the same category as Marijuana, LSD and Mushrooms. I certainly don't believe the former have any positive effects long term, while the last three may actually be beneficial to how a person thinks, while including LSD may be a bit of a stretch, it is something that changes how you look at things if only for a short while.
All drugs are bad for you. They're drugs. They should all be outlawed for recreational use. (Not including Caffeine. I need my Coffee.)

You think Marijuana isn't bad for you? THC is the active ingredient in it (which wont kill you in a joint, but can as an isolated substance). Guess what else is in Maijuana smoke? Ammonia and Cyanide (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx700275p). It can also cause Emphysema (http://www.webmd.com/lung/copd/news/20000320/regular-marijuana-emphysema) (just like Cigarettes).

Yeah, Marijuana has it's medical uses, but the risks outweigh the benefits.

Also, I'm pretty sure I never mentioned 'shrooms anywhere.

Delphinus
06-01-2011, 07:48 AM
All drugs are bad for you. They're drugs. They should all be outlawed for recreational use. (Not including Caffeine. I need my Coffee.)

Last time I checked, 'drug' meant 'substance that causes a temporary psychological/physiological change' not 'EVIL WILL KILL YOU'. You need to stop watching those 1970s PSAs...

Bacon_Barbarian
06-01-2011, 07:08 PM
Anything that changes what your body does naturally (and should be doing (So no saying Diabetics shouldn't take Insulin, that's not my argument.)) shouldn't be taken for recreational purposes.

Sylux
06-01-2011, 07:16 PM
That's a very poor argument. My argument to you is: why not? We own our bodies, we should be able to do whatever pleases us to it. It is our inalienable right as humans to do to ourselves as we see fit.

Bacon_Barbarian
06-01-2011, 07:22 PM
Because individuals who have been corrupted screw things up for everyone else.

Socrates
06-01-2011, 07:39 PM
That's a very poor argument. My argument to you is: why not? We own our bodies, we should be able to do whatever pleases us to it. It is our inalienable right as humans to do to ourselves as we see fit.
Exactly. The government should not be able to decide whether or not psychedelic drugs are bad for me. I'm a big educated boy, I can do that for myself.


Any citations on that? Is so, yeah, that's pretty dumb. If not, well ...

It is fairly common knowledge. No .Gov's for obvious reasons but here are a few sources:
http://www.electricemperor.com/eecdrom/HTML/EMP/15/ECH15_03.HTM
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_flyer1.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRrQWIX2QcA

The last one is if you do not wanna read.


All drugs are bad for you. They're drugs. They should all be outlawed for recreational use. (Not including Caffeine. I need my Coffee.)

You think Marijuana isn't bad for you? THC is the active ingredient in it (which wont kill you in a joint, but can as an isolated substance). Guess what else is in Maijuana smoke? Ammonia and Cyanide. It can also cause Emphysema (just like Cigarettes).

Yeah, Marijuana has it's medical uses, but the risks outweigh the benefits.

Also, I'm pretty sure I never mentioned 'shrooms anywhere

The first two sentences in this quote are atrociously narrow minded. Drugs is a very broad term, Tylenol is a drug. Marijuana is only bad for you because of smoke entering your lungs, which can be avoided through a number of ways, as you can do more then just smoke it. In fact, to outlaw marijuana and not coffee is ridiculous. Marijuana has been proven to not be addictive, nor is it a gateway drug. Drinking coffee regularly then stopping can lead to Headaches, irritability, Nausea and even vomiting. Not to say caffeine should be outlawed. I think the biggest problem is people think they need a government telling them what they should and should not have. Saying all drugs should be outlawed is like saying all weapons of any kind should be outlawed because
they are potentially dangerous.

The 'shroom thing was simply me proving a point and ranting.

Sylux
06-01-2011, 07:54 PM
That's a great point, Socrates. I've found that marijuana culture and hard drug culture are two very different worlds, so it's only natural that the former would not gate to the latter.

Bacon_Barbarian
06-01-2011, 07:54 PM
Exactly. The government should not be able to decide whether or not psychedelic drugs are bad for me. I'm a big educated boy, I can do that for myself.
Deciding what's bad for you is kind of one of the things a Government's suppose to do. Should they allow people to drive drunk because alcohol effects people differently?


It is fairly common knowledge. No .Gov's for obvious reasons but here are a few sources:
http://www.electricemperor.com/eecdrom/HTML/EMP/15/ECH15_03.HTM
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_flyer1.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRrQWIX2QcA
Im rather dubious of these, as I can't find the original study anywhere. That Erowid site seems legit though. So yeah, stupid.



The first two sentences in this quote are atrociously narrow minded. Drugs is a very broad term, Tylenol is a drug.
Fine, all recreational drugs. You have a good point.


Marijuana is only bad for you because of smoke entering your lungs, which can be avoided through a number of ways, as you can do more then just smoke it. In fact, to outlaw marijuana and not coffee is ridiculous. Marijuana has been proven to not be addictive, nor is it a gateway drug. Drinking coffee regularly then stopping can lead to Headaches, irritability, Nausea and even vomiting. Not to say caffeine should be outlawed. I think the biggest problem is people think they need a government telling them what they should and should not have. Saying all drugs should be outlawed is like saying all weapons of any kind should be outlawed because
they are potentially dangerous.
You're barking up the wrong tree about that. (Psst, I'm a Quaker.)

EDIT:
That's a great point, Socrates. I've found that marijuana culture and hard drug culture are two very different worlds, so it's only natural that the former would not gate to the latter.

You're 104x more likely to do Cocaine if you've done Marijuana. Though, I don't think I (specifically) have ever made an argument about it being a gateway drug. And I won't either.

http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-that-will-not-die/

Fenn
06-01-2011, 10:28 PM
Deciding what's bad for you is kind of one of the things a Government's suppose to do. Should they allow people to drive drunk because alcohol effects people differently?

NONONONONONONONONONONONO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Ehem, sorry bout that, but this is such a dangerous thought I had to overreact. The government should not exist to tell you what's bad for you. That's what parents and doctors are for. The government is supossed to protect people from other people. If drunk driving did not put anyone but you at risk 100&#37; of the time, it wouldn't be a big deal. It's illegal because you can hurt OTHERS, not yourself.

If the government's role is what you say it is, then parkour, gambling, and soda would be illegal too. All of those are "bad" for you.

ClockHand
06-01-2011, 10:42 PM
A government shouldn't tell you what you do to yourself, but it's there to create consensus between the relationship of individuals.

If we say that marihuana should be banned, the same we can say about a kitchen knifes. If you say marihuana should be banned because is dangerous, I think we all agree that a knife is equally or even more dangerous. And if you say that drugs promote crime rate, the same we can say about the knife. At the end there is no reason why marihuana should be banned, but if it is legalized it need to be controlled.

CypressDahlia
06-02-2011, 12:39 AM
Oh my god, enough with the crappy analogies. No more "kitchen knives", "cars", "video games", none of that. I can give you thousands of reasons why a kitchen knife or similar instrument is essential to our daily lives. Most of these reasons are different kinds of food items. Seriously, marijuana is not AN ESSENTIAL TOOL FOR LIVING, stop comparing it to those. Besides, knives and knife-like instruments (scalpels) probably SAVE more lives than they end. Ever consider that?


...but it's there to create consensus between the relationship of individuals.

Yes, a consensus based on ballots, studies, censuses and observations. They use all this data in order to create and enforce laws that benefit the greater number of people. Now, I'm not saying all laws are perfectly justified. Gay marriage laws, for example. But, if an alarming number of people are projected to be harmed or even killed by something, chances are it's illegal. Unless, of course, these things provide FAR greater benefits than they do harm. Like cars and knives.

Marijuana, I can only see objectively benefiting those who need it for medicinal purposes. It would be purely recreational for anyone else. Ironically, the people who need it the least are the ones yelling the loudest.

ClockHand
06-02-2011, 01:34 AM
Kitchen knifes have killed more people than marihuana (and killed directly).


Seriously, marijuana is not AN ESSENTIAL TOOL FOR LIVING

And neither Kitchen Knifes. There are other options to kitchen knifes which are more safe and less capable to be used in a murder (and still kitchen knifes have not been banned).


Besides, knives and knife-like instruments (scalpels) probably SAVE more lives than they end. Ever consider that?

Actually drugs have saved more life in the history of humanity. How do you think people deal with illness before the scalpel? Also drugs are still used to save lives (what amuses me more is that in USA there are many addictive medical drugs which are legal).


But, if an alarming number of people are projected to be harmed or even killed by something, chances are it's illegal.

Again: Kitchen Knife. Also, many other medical drugs, and many other things in life.


Unless, of course, these things provide FAR greater benefits than they do harm. Like cars and knives.

Where is the motivation of implementing electric transport? Oh yeah, money stored in fuel companies. And yeah knifes do so much good in the world, you can cut and pierce and... wait I think that's all. Yeah you use to cut food and so, but also other kitchen tools that exist in the market and are less capable of killing someone can do it too.


Ironically, the people who need it the least are the ones yelling the loudest.

I don't know, I don't smoke weed but I find it retarded that is illegal.

CypressDahlia
06-02-2011, 04:05 AM
Nevermind. I'll save myself the effort. Clockhand, if you honestly think knives and other cutting tools are not essential to mankind, then I really have nothing to say to you. Lol.

Evil_Cake
06-02-2011, 09:19 AM
dont u use a fork to slice your vegetables

Bacon_Barbarian
06-02-2011, 10:38 AM
If the government's role is what you say it is, then parkour, gambling, and soda would be illegal too. All of those are "bad" for you.
Guess what's illegal most places in the US?


KNIVES ARE BAD
Knifes have a potentially positive use for everyone. Marijuana does not.



I don't know, I don't smoke weed but I find it retarded that is illegal.
As I stated way back on the 1st page, it is sort of stupid for Marijuana to be illegal. If it was legalized, it would be like alcohol. It could be regulated, and a White Market does more for the world then a Black Market, but still.

Delphinus
06-02-2011, 10:45 AM
Yo Cypress, I have a great idea for preventing deaths. We could remove everything that's potentially harmful from society!

Junk food, sweets, skateboards (you might break limbs or even crash into other people!). Also, perhaps things which cause potential harm to society in other ways! Subversive literature, for example, and the anarchist cookbook. While they're only information and don't directly harm people, they're only likely to be read by people with bad ideas and could lead to them harming others. In fact, the anarchist cookbook (horror of horrors) gives them the knowledge to make bombs! The risk of such dangerous materials causing terrorist acts outweighs the benefit of leaving this information freely available, so let's ban that too. In fact, anyone who knows that sort of information or has read that sort of subversive literature represents a potential threat to society, so let's arrest them or kill them. This is a totally sane and logical response to the problem, I hope you'll agree...

Fenn
06-02-2011, 10:59 AM
Guess what's illegal most places in the US?

Okay, examples 1 and 2 were terrible. But what about soda?

Cypress, Bacon, we seriously need to make soda illegal. It has no positive or essential use in our lives. Not to mention, it causes obesity! Soft drinks are one of the leading sources of unneeded, empty calories that is causing severe obesity. Not to mention the plastic containers are polluting the environment and hurting others by destroying the natural world!

Delphinus
06-02-2011, 12:33 PM
http://lsdex.ru/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/350px-Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_mean_ph ysical_harm_and_mean_dependence.svg_.png

Just leaving this here. Note that tobacco is about as addictive as cocaine.

CypressDahlia
06-02-2011, 12:59 PM
dont u use a fork to slice your vegetables

Apparently, forks should be banned too because owning one presents you with a potential to kill someone with or be killed by one. I wonder when the last fork-related killing happened. I know that only 3.1% of American adults are in jail. But I'm pretty sure all American adults own at least one knife, and benefit from owning it. Even making the impossible assumption that everyone in jail went to jail for knife murdering someone, that is only 3.1% of the population. I wouldn't take away an essential tool that's been with us for over 2.5 million years (Stone Age) and has lent countless benefits to the development of mankind just because 3.1% of the population is irresponsible.

Whereas, what? MOST pot smokers don't actually benefit from smoking pot, yet there is plenty of pot-related crimes. Nobody actually benefits from smoking or drinking, but it kills countless numbers of people. Again, I don't mind smoking and drinking in moderation, but comparing it to an essential tool is stupid.

-----

Delphinus, you've tried this same argument 3 times already (cars here and knives in the Unpopular Opinions thread), and I've debunked it twice. Feel free to re-read the Unpopular Opinions thread if you want to hear it again.

Fenn, I get what you're trying to say but it's stupid, no offense. There is a distinct difference between a psychoactive drug and literature, soda, candy and skateboards. If you're willing to ignore that simply for the sake of argument, then I don't know what to say to you. I mean, it's in the name for chrissake: PSYCHOACTIVE. That means there is a chemical high involved. That means there will always be a risk of psychological dependency because weed affects all users chemically. Whereas dangerous literature only affects those with dangerous intentions. Skateboards are only dangerous when used dangerously. Obesity is an issue of inactive lifestyle, not junk food. Plenty of people who eat junk food aren't obese because they're active. In other words, none of those things are direct causes of their effects. But psychoactive drugs are. Furthermore, obesity can come from any food, not just junk food. It's a disease born from eating disorders and bad lifestyle choices. By your logic, we should ban every type of food item. Where do you draw the line?

Beyond that, banning anything for pollution is stupid considering every good and service known to man pollutes. Hell, every aerobic organism pollutes. Though pollution to the point where it affects our daily lives is bad, there is only so little pollution we can produce while still efficiently delivering goods and services. It's inevitable design, dude. If there was a better way, we would do it.

Last, but not least, when was the last time you heard of a literature, skateboard, candy, or soda-related crime? Furthermore, where is evidence that soda and skateboards can lead to psychological dependency? The experience of these things is unique to every individual because there is no chemical high. Therefore, psychological dependency is not a common risk among soda drinkers, candy-eaters, skateboarders, etc, etc. Weed, on the other hand...

So can we please stop with the pointless analogies? Jesus, the things people are willing to say...

Sylux
06-02-2011, 01:14 PM
Smoking marijuana can benefit you in temporarily enriching your life with very simple pleasures, stronger bonds with already close friends, memorable ventures and memorable euphorias.

ClockHand
06-02-2011, 01:32 PM
I don't understand you (Cyp). You are basically saying that smoke and drink is okay with moderation, but smoking marihuana is wrong (no matter if you do it with moderation). And you are the same who stand the proposition that says that if something does more harm than good (or doesn't do any good at all), should be banned.

I just don't understand it. We use the example of the knife, videogames, movies, books, etc. To prove that there are many things that does more harm than good (more than marihuana), and then you say that shouldn't be banned because does some kind of good (going against your own proposition).

It's hard for me to see how entertainment (which can potentially do harm) be legal and not marihuana as a way of entertainment.

Sylux
06-02-2011, 01:36 PM
Does more harm than good, not some harm but most good.

ClockHand
06-02-2011, 01:40 PM
Still the example of knifes and entertainment works for that same proposition.

Sylux
06-02-2011, 01:48 PM
No, no, it doesn't. More people use knives as assisstance tools than weapons, and more people take entertainment less-than too seriously with the exception of adolescents.

Delphinus
06-02-2011, 01:51 PM
Quoth Cypress: "Drugs are bad because they cause more harm to their user than good; the only good from them is entertainment, and that doesn't count."
Say I: "Soda is bad because it causes more harm to its drinker than good (true, physiologically); the only good from it is entertainment, and that doesn't count."

Says Cypress: "OMG YOU ARE STUPID THESE TWO THINGS ARE NOT THE SAME"

Sylux
06-02-2011, 01:55 PM
What's the difference, really. All entertainment is basically okay.

ClockHand
06-02-2011, 01:55 PM
No, no, it doesn't. More people use knives as assisstance tools than weapons, and more people take entertainment less-than too seriously with the exception of adolescents.

One of the most common weapons on murders are knifes. If we also count the use of knife as a killing tool in the history of humanity, is still a bigger number than the good it gave us. There are also new kitchen tools less capable of killing someone and which also work to cut food. So I don't see why knifes are not banned.

I don't see how entertainment is not serious, even if you don't take it seriously you might agree or disagree with some ideas and with the time this can help to develop a specific personality. The reason why are not harmful is because we can see the difference between reality and fiction, but if you can't, well entertainment is not going to be to fun for everyone else.

Also marihuana would be a entertainment tool, which according to you, it wouldn't be serious.

Sylux
06-02-2011, 01:57 PM
You can't ban knives because you can't ban anything. Everything is okay, and it should be treated as though it were okay.

ClockHand
06-02-2011, 02:10 PM
And I agree with some exceptions, but I'm just showing how the knive/marihuana analogy work.

Marihuana has proved to do almost nothing of harm to yourself, and compared with other legal drugs, it's illogical that it's banned. If I can have a knife (with which I can harm myself or other), drink beer or play videogames for my entertainment, then why not marihuana?

Delphinus
06-02-2011, 02:12 PM
Don't let's complicate the argument now, Sylux.

CypressDahlia
06-02-2011, 02:22 PM
First of all, my backing for why marijuana should remain illegal is based on the implications of legalizing it. Mostly, due to Netherlands drug-offense statistics which skyrocketed after the legalization of marijuana. Therefore, I see "controlled substances" as a risk and I'm telling you that marijuana's lack of benefit for the majority of people is not worth this risk. Again, balancing benefits with harm. I'm not just saying "there are no benefits". I'm saying "there are not enough benefits to outweigh the potential harm". This is also an inherently different argument than alcohol and cigarettes because we're talking about making something illegal legal. I'm just arguing what's relevant; ie. something that's still subject to change. I can't go on a one-man crusade to make booze and cigs illegal, so I won't try. Of course they're worse than weed, though.

Again, Delphinus. Weed is inherently different from soda because soda does not have outstanding statistics supporting why it should be made illegal. Furthermore, soda is not a DIRECT CAUSE of its effects, unlike psychoactive drugs. Obesity is a LIFESTYLE disease. So soda, despite not having particular benefits, doesn't do particular harm, either. It's quite different.

And Clockhand, how many people do you think own knives, or have ever owned knives throughout history? I'd say anyone who had access to one probably owns/ed one, because being able to cut things is essential to daily life. How many people do you think have used that knife to kill, outside of a combat setting? As I said: only 3.1% of US adults are under corrective supervision (jail, parole, etc.). An even smaller percentage of that is attributed to knife killings. Yet I guarantee you almost every household has a knife in it. That's like <3.1% harm, 96.9% benefit, dude. And that's not even counting workplaces, where the function of a knife is vital to the work process. So how can you say knives kill more people than they benefit?

Bacon_Barbarian
06-02-2011, 07:25 PM
Okay, examples 1 and 2 were terrible.
Yeah.


But what about soda?

Cypress, Bacon, we seriously need to make soda illegal. It has no positive or essential use in our lives. Not to mention, it causes obesity! Soft drinks are one of the leading sources of unneeded, empty calories that is causing severe obesity. Not to mention the plastic containers are polluting the environment and hurting others by destroying the natural world!

I honestly wouldn't mind outlawing soda, and I certainly would be glad if we outlawed alcohol and tobacco. But here's the thing. It's a lot easier to keep something previous outlawed outlawed then it is to outlaw something that hasn't been. If Marijuana hadn't been outlawed in the 60s, guess what side of the argument I'd be on? Probably Delph and Sketti's. As it is, I'm not.

I'll even admit that Marijuana has medical uses (something Tobacco and Alcohol never will). If we legalized Marijuana nationally as a pharmaceutical, I would have no problems, I'd actually be quite impressed. I've been assuming this legalization argument has been solely about recreational use.

Am I wrong?

CypressDahlia
06-02-2011, 07:48 PM
Most marijuana arguments are about recreational use. Sadly. Oppositely, I'm all for medical marijuana.

Fenn
06-02-2011, 10:21 PM
I can see Cypress argument now: drugs which mess with your brain do often DIRECTLY alter and inhibit your self control. You can say :I won't do anything stupid" 100 times before getting trashed, and still end up hurting someone.

I think that calls for two things (but still not illegalization). 1. highly controlled environments where drugs/alchohol can be consumed and 2. greatly increased penalties for anyone who breaks these rules, whether they end up hurting someone or not. Example: smoking marijuana or drinking alchohol is forbidden in public (already is). If alcohol or drugs are being used at a private locale (a home or club), there must be a sign out front indicating use of these substances while they are being used.

Cyress, I may have misled you into thinking I supported people walking around the street somking blunts and pounding shots. I think any brain-altering entertainment should be restricted to severely confined and monitored areas. Anyone breaking these laws is punished very, very heavily.

CypressDahlia
06-02-2011, 11:24 PM
Naw, I didn't think that. That's actually the system the Netherlands uses. It's just a question of whether or not it's effective and, right now, evidence shows that it's not. Netherlands has <1/20th of the United States population, but over 24 times more drug offenses by ratio, as it stands. o_o

I'm just glad someone finally got the point, though. Sorry if I sounded edgy, it's just that that's probably the 6th or 7th time I've been given the same argument and mostly from the same person. Reductio ad absurdum isn't effective if the two things being compared aren't fundamentally similar. Furthermore, no rules are without exceptions, especially laws (which have plenty of built-in exceptions), so suggesting that certain legal principles apply to everything is not only illogical but...well...annoying if you've heard it too many times.

EDIT: Not only that, but I just don't think it's a great argument in itself.

Bacon_Barbarian
06-03-2011, 08:02 AM
Also, it's not a question of illegalizing Marijuana, it's already illegal (for recreational use).

Delphinus
06-03-2011, 08:43 AM
Reductio ad absurdum isn't effective if the two things being compared aren't fundamentally similar.

True. But you're claiming that things that are similar in the pertinent ways are dissimilar in other ways and claiming that furthers your argument. It's very much similar to the claims of the religious; to quote the great philosopher Tim Minchin: "faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved".

Premise 1: Action X can cause physical harm to the actor.
Premise 2: The only benefit of action X is entertainment.
Premise 3: Entertainment never outweighs potential physical harm.
Conclusion: Action X should be banned.

"Taking drugs" fits in there, but like we said, so do many other things. Which we don't argue for banning. Skydiving, for example. Or any other extreme sport.

CypressDahlia
06-03-2011, 09:51 AM
Yes, but those are hardly the three main points of my platform. If anything, they're just icing on the cake. So drawing conclusions from the three weakest arguments I've made and ignoring the bulk of my type is not really fair. Yes, according to those three premises, Skydiving should also be banned. But there are distinct differences between skydiving and marijuana, those differences being...well...the rest of my platform.

Fenn
06-03-2011, 09:54 AM
Premise 1: Action X can cause physical harm to OTHERS.
Premise 2: The only benefit of action X is entertainment.
Premise 3: Entertainment never outweighs potential physical harm.
Conclusion: Action X should be banned.

fixd.

And as Cypress has said, drugs/alchohol affect you mentally, so saying you won't hurt anyone isn't a guarantee. You can enter a bar and say "I won't drive home drunk," and end up DUI ing because your mental state has been altered.

And Cyp, I know you didn't support my solution; that was me responding, not trying to interpret you. I'd like to ask, though: in the Netherlands, how many of those 24x offenses involved victims other than the user? I'd also be interested in stats like the average quality of life there. I'm not sure if that first one is even available so no need to go searching; my point is the way they handle drug laws and the number of offenses may not be explictly related.

Delphinus
06-03-2011, 09:55 AM
Can you state your argument in a semi-logical form, then? By which I mean premises, then conclusion? You're unclear when you write things in essay form.

Fenn
06-03-2011, 10:10 AM
Can you state your argument in a semi-logical form, then? By which I mean premises, then conclusion? You're unclear when you write things in essay form.

Me or Cyp?

If me then thats funny cause I just did that in the morality thread for a different topic...

CypressDahlia
06-03-2011, 10:31 AM
- In order to make the most accurate predictions for the result of legalizing weed, we have to observe a place that actually has a controlled substance policy. The only known place is the Netherlands.
- The Netherlands has a drug crime rate that is 24x greater than that of the US' by ratio. They have less than 1/20th of the US' population, though.
- Given that the remainder of their crime rates are roughly 1/5th that of the US' by ratio, we can assume that the Netherlands is a relatively tame place in comparison.
- Conclusion: Acknowledging that the US not only has 5 times the crime rates for everything but drug offenses by ratio and has outstanding trends of drug abuse and lifestyle diseases, we can assume that it's NOT a good idea to legalize weed here. We are not only observably more reckless, but the apparent inefficiency of a "controlled substance" policy is a great risk.
- Furthermore, this debunks the idea that legalizing and controlling a substance will reduce related crime rates.

Regarding the aforementioned three points: Marijuana has properties that separate it from other things.
- Marijuana induces a chemical high, which can lead to psychological dependence. Unlike eating fast food, which has no unanimous effect on everyone who eats it, marijuana does have a unanimous effect on everyone who smokes it. Therefore, everyone faces a similar risk of psychological dependency. Whereas it's obvious that not everyone who eats fast food will become addicted to it. That is because a taste for fast food is subjective; a chemical high is not.
- Marijuana is a direct cause of its effects. Its chemical properties induce the high, which can lead to impaired judgment. Holding a kitchen knife isn't going to suddenly make you want to stab someone. This is because the kitchen knife itself is not directly responsible for the act. Instead, it is the murderous intent of the wielder. Whereas marijuana does affect everyone in the same way. Your judgment will be impaired.
- The fact that it has no recreational value beyond entertainment is just there to ice the cake. Why suffer the risks when it yields no apparent benefits for the average person?


And Fenn, I don't think it's relevant whether or not the crime affects others. It's a drug crime. I say this because I already know and acknowledge that there has been no record of violent or accidental crimes primarily due to influence of weed. The only violent crimes observable have occurred because of cartels or dealing. Either way, the objective is to lower these rates altogether. Legalizing weed presents us with a likelihood of raising them drastically. And the living standard of the Netherlands is p. high. According to Human Development Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index), it ranks 7th, which is only 3 ranks behind the United States.

Fenn
06-03-2011, 12:16 PM
- In order to make the most accurate predictions for the result of legalizing weed, we have to observe a place that actually has a controlled substance policy. The only known place is the Netherlands.
- The Netherlands has a drug crime rate that is 24x greater than that of the US' by ratio. They have less than 1/20th of the US' population, though.
- Given that the remainder of their crime rates are roughly 1/5th that of the US' by ratio, we can assume that the Netherlands is a relatively tame place in comparison.
- Conclusion: Acknowledging that the US not only has 5 times the crime rates for everything but drug offenses by ratio and has outstanding trends of drug abuse and lifestyle diseases, we can assume that it's NOT a good idea to legalize weed here. We are not only observably more reckless, but the apparent inefficiency of a "controlled substance" policy is a great risk.
- Furthermore, this debunks the idea that legalizing and controlling a substance will reduce related crime rates.

Interesting. I'll admit this strengthens your argument. I'll have to read up on their actual laws to see what the system entails.


Regarding the aforementioned three points: Marijuana has properties that separate it from other things.
- Marijuana induces a chemical high, which can lead to psychological dependence. Unlike eating fast food, which has no unanimous effect on everyone who eats it, marijuana does have a unanimous effect on everyone who smokes it. Therefore, everyone faces a similar risk of psychological dependency. Whereas it's obvious that not everyone who eats fast food will become addicted to it. That is because a taste for fast food is subjective; a chemical high is not.
- Marijuana is a direct cause of its effects. Its chemical properties induce the high, which can lead to impaired judgment. Holding a kitchen knife isn't going to suddenly make you want to stab someone. This is because the kitchen knife itself is not directly responsible for the act. Instead, it is the murderous intent of the wielder. Whereas marijuana does affect everyone in the same way. Your judgment will be impaired.
- The fact that it has no recreational value beyond entertainment is just there to ice the cake. Why suffer the risks when it yields no apparent benefits for the average person?

Your points:
1. Psychological dependancy doesn't matter. Most everyone who smokes weed is aware of this and still chooses to smoke it, and those wo don't shouldn't be putting strange things in their mouths and lungs (aka do your research); thus on its own this fact is worthless.
2. This is your strongest argument--you should focus on it, and you already have.
3. Good wording. This isn't really an argument on its own, but it is nice support for #2.


And Fenn, I don't think it's relevant whether or not the crime affects others. It's a drug crime. I say this because I already know and acknowledge that there has been no record of violent or accidental crimes primarily due to influence of weed. The only violent crimes observable have occurred because of cartels or dealing. Either way, the objective is to lower these rates altogether. Legalizing weed presents us with a likelihood of raising them drastically. And the living standard of the Netherlands is p. high. According to Human Development Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index), it ranks 7th, which is only 3 ranks behind the United States.

This is where we disagree. Read here:


The only violent crimes observable have occurred because of cartels or dealing.

And here:
there has been no record of violent or accidental crimes primarily due to influence of weed...Either way, the objective is to lower these rates altogether.

So crimes for smoking weed are nonviolent, but crimes involving illegally selling it are? Then why not legalize it? If people can buy weed cheaply and legally, drug dealing and smuggling will be severely reduced, thus stopping the violence and freeing up many, many tax dollars spent trying to stop drug trading. In return, we see an increase in the number of potheads who, as you explained, have no record of violent crime towards others.

The objective is not to lower the rate of drug use. As I said, the government should not try to protect people from themselves; if it was extreme sports would be illegal. Our aim should be to protect the innocent people. Let the potheads smoke.

Bacon_Barbarian
06-03-2011, 02:39 PM
1. Psychological dependancy doesn't matter. Most everyone who smokes weed is aware of this and still chooses to smoke it, and those wo don't shouldn't be putting strange things in their mouths and lungs (aka do your research); thus on its own this fact is worthless.
Just because someone knows they can become adicted to something, doesn't not mean they know when or if they are addicted. In fact, they hardly ever do.

Fenn
06-03-2011, 05:40 PM
Just because someone knows they can become adicted to something, doesn't not mean they know when or if they are addicted. In fact, they hardly ever do.

Either way, they know it might happen, and are accepting the risk. Plus, addiction by itself does not hurt anyone but the user.

CypressDahlia
06-03-2011, 06:17 PM
Just because someone knows they can become adicted to something, doesn't not mean they know when or if they are addicted. In fact, they hardly ever do.

Exactly. It's like alcoholism in a lot of ways because not everyone goes into it expecting to be addicted. I know it's stupid, but it's true. Just like a lot of people who choose to drink and drive don't think to themselves, "I'm practically committing suicide right now". When it comes to drugs, the worst possible scenario is rarely considered.

Fenn, given the observable data from the Netherlands' policy of controlled substances, I highly doubt that legalizing weed will reduce crime rates. I never said reduce "drug use". I guess I should've been more clear: I meant reduce //drug crime rates//. Even if we see a decline in violent crime, which is unlikely, we still face the likelihood of seeing a dramatic increase in non-violent offenses. So, all in all, it's likely that //more// people would end up being arrested for petty offenses. So, even if we do manage to stop illegal selling and trading (unlikely) through legalization, it's projected that we'll see a massive increase in other drug offenses--multiple times our current rate, actually. I think we can agree that having more people in jail = bad, regardless of the crime.

And legalization itself is going to require massive reconstruction of our infrastructure, which will cost a lot of money in itself. Given that we follow the trend of the Netherlands and start seeing multiple times the number of drug arrests, the amount of tax payer money spent on maintaining penitentiaries and supporting prisoners will increase exponentially. Also, we'd have to pump more money into the FDA to research and regulate marijuana and put it on shelves in a manageable fashion. We'd have to buff up law enforcement to enforce a new set of tight regulations regarding weed specifically. Sadly, we can barely enforce drunk driving laws. I mean, look at how much money is spent on anti-drunk driving campaigns alone.

And, chances are, legalization won't stop illegal growing/trading. First of all, weed dealing is surprisingly lucrative to whoever can manage it. It can be assumed that the street value of weed will drop if it's widely available, but chances are people will still make a pretty penny off of it. Why? Because of the age demographics that smoke pot. The average age for pot smokers is 17 (http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k3/newMJ/newMJ.htm) years old, which is still underage by Netherlands standards. Also, 15 is the median age at which people start smoking weed. It gets worse: this (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/) source cites that 8.8&#37; of 12-year-olds smoke weed on a regular basis (at least once in 30 days). The 10-14 age demographic for the US is comprised of over 10 million kids. So at least half-a-million 12-year-old kids are smoking pot. So yeah, there is still going to be a lot of illegal trade given that a large portion of the weed smoking demographic is underage. Beyond that, we'd have to integrate licensing procedures so that we can license people to grow and sell the stuff (like in the Netherlands). We'd basically be setting up a whole new economy specifically for weed.

All in all, I'm pretty sure that more crime will result from legalization and much more money will be spent.

Bacon_Barbarian
06-03-2011, 08:03 PM
While Cype has done a good job, I'd lack to make one last addition ...


Either way, they know it might happen, and are accepting the risk. Plus, addiction by itself does not hurt anyone but the user.

An alcoholic is much more likely to drive drunk then a non alcoholic, simply by being an alcoholic. So while an addiction only hurts one person, that person's addiction is liable to hurt others.

Fenn
06-03-2011, 09:56 PM
Exactly. It's like alcoholism in a lot of ways because not everyone goes into it expecting to be addicted. I know it's stupid, but it's true. Just like a lot of people who choose to drink and drive don't think to themselves, "I'm practically committing suicide right now". When it comes to drugs, the worst possible scenario is rarely considered.

Fenn, given the observable data from the Netherlands' policy of controlled substances, I highly doubt that legalizing weed will reduce crime rates. I never said reduce "drug use". I guess I should've been more clear: I meant reduce //drug crime rates//. Even if we see a decline in violent crime, which is unlikely, we still face the likelihood of seeing a dramatic increase in non-violent offenses. So, all in all, it's likely that //more// people would end up being arrested for petty offenses. So, even if we do manage to stop illegal selling and trading (unlikely) through legalization, it's projected that we'll see a massive increase in other drug offenses--multiple times our current rate, actually. I think we can agree that having more people in jail = bad, regardless of the crime.

And legalization itself is going to require massive reconstruction of our infrastructure, which will cost a lot of money in itself. Given that we follow the trend of the Netherlands and start seeing multiple times the number of drug arrests, the amount of tax payer money spent on maintaining penitentiaries and supporting prisoners will increase exponentially. Also, we'd have to pump more money into the FDA to research and regulate marijuana and put it on shelves in a manageable fashion. We'd have to buff up law enforcement to enforce a new set of tight regulations regarding weed specifically. Sadly, we can barely enforce drunk driving laws. I mean, look at how much money is spent on anti-drunk driving campaigns alone.

And, chances are, legalization won't stop illegal growing/trading. First of all, weed dealing is surprisingly lucrative to whoever can manage it. It can be assumed that the street value of weed will drop if it's widely available, but chances are people will still make a pretty penny off of it. Why? Because of the age demographics that smoke pot. The average age for pot smokers is 17 (http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k3/newMJ/newMJ.htm) years old, which is still underage by Netherlands standards. Also, 15 is the median age at which people start smoking weed. It gets worse: this (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/) source cites that 8.8&#37; of 12-year-olds smoke weed on a regular basis (at least once in 30 days). The 10-14 age demographic for the US is comprised of over 10 million kids. So at least half-a-million 12-year-old kids are smoking pot. So yeah, there is still going to be a lot of illegal trade given that a large portion of the weed smoking demographic is underage. Beyond that, we'd have to integrate licensing procedures so that we can license people to grow and sell the stuff (like in the Netherlands). We'd basically be setting up a whole new economy specifically for weed.

All in all, I'm pretty sure that more crime will result from legalization and much more money will be spent.

You have two arguments here, I'm gonna reply to one then the other:
1. Increased crime rate: If they aren't hurting others they shouldn't be in jail. You say:

Even if we see a decline in violent crime, which is unlikely, we still face the likelihood of seeing a dramatic increase in non-violent offenses.
Non-violent offenses? Such as...what? Could you give examples? Because possession of weed would not be a crime; illegal usage (in a prohibited area) would be. I can't imagine these crimes being punishable by jailtime--ideally, it would be confiscation of the drug from the person and a hefty fine, worth several weeks/months of drug purchases.

Controlling this, admittedly, would be very difficult. The money for enforcement, however, could be derived in part, if not completely, from the money we are currently spending trying to prevent illegal drug trade (millions, I don't have the stat though).

2. Underage use and illegal trade: This falls on parents. Unless I'm being naive, I don't see a lot of "illegal alchohol trade" going on. The issue, like with alchohol now, won't be drug cartels selling to minors; it will be friends and adults buying for their children or other underage users. This is stil on the parents.


An alcoholic is much more likely to drive drunk then a non alcoholic, simply by being an alcoholic. So while an addiction only hurts one person, that person's addiction is liable to hurt others.

Yes. That's why Cyp's other arguments are important. If addiction by itself was a legit argument, coffee would have to be illegal as well.

CypressDahlia
06-03-2011, 11:19 PM
Coffee does not impair judgment, though, so it is fundamentally different from drugs. Don't forget that.

To answer your question: non-violent crimes such as smoking in prohibited areas, violating trade regulations and anything else that doesn't involve violence. Consumption of marijuana in prohibited areas is treated similarly to public intoxication in that it's a high order misdemeanor which is punishable by weeks of jail time. Of course, it's based on the degree of disturbance, so I can't guess an average sentence. Likewise, violating trade regulations is punishable by months of jail time and millions of euros in fines.

Yes, weed is a generally harmless drug as far as being a primary factor in violent crimes. I agree and have conceded to that point since the beginning. But there are many related crimes that affect us adversely. Regardless, the objective is to keep more people out of jail and I don't think legalizing weed will accomplish that.

Also, the Netherlands spends 130 million euros (USD190 mil) a year on detox clinics, yet more are being demanded. Though we would save some money, we would sink even more into other resources to facilitate legalization. In the end, "saving money" is not a convincing argument because facilitating legalization would cost much more than what we're spending now.

2.) Illegal vending of alcohol to minors is extremely common (http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduhLatest.htm).


Among underage drinkers (ages 12-20), 30.8&#37; paid for the alcohol the last time they drank – including 8.3&#37; who purchased the alcohol themselves and 22.3&#37; who gave money to someone else to purchase it. Among those who did not pay for the alcohol they drank, 37.4&#37; got it from an unrelated person of legal drinking age; 21.1&#37; received it from a parent, guardian, or other adult family member.

Studies such as the ones conducted by the University of Hawaii (http://archives.starbulletin.com/2008/07/10/news/story03.html) and the University of Twente (http://www.utwente.nl/organization/stories/minors-buy-alcohol) (Netherlands), show that retailers don't really think twice about selling the stuff to minors either. Either way, placing blame doesn't resolve the issue. If it's a parenting problem, then legalizing weed won't solve it either. If anything, making it more widely available is counterproductive. So that argument is overall neutral at best.


EDIT:+++ I guess it would be wise to clarify that I'm not arguing everything wrong with weed right now. I'm arguing why legalizing weed won't solve the issues you say it will solve and, instead, creates more issues.

Scarletlight
06-05-2011, 08:45 AM
id legalize all manor of things in the US. I dont live there haha.

But seriously, I dont see the harm in legalizing it. I mean tobacco is legal , as is alcohol. I would ban it from public places though like smoking is in the UK. Simply because if one person chooses to take it, its not right that people who choose not too would have to passivly inhale it.

Fenn
06-05-2011, 11:30 AM
Coffee does not impair judgment, though, so it is fundamentally different from drugs. Don't forget that.

I explicitely stated that I was talking about addiction on it's own, not coupled with the effects of the substance. (<not meant to be read in an angry tone fyi)


EDIT:+++ I guess it would be wise to clarify that I'm not arguing everything wrong with weed right now. I'm arguing why legalizing weed won't solve the issues you say it will solve and, instead, creates more issues.

You clearly did your research. While I still think people need to be held more resposible instead of relying on the government to handle everything, I will concede that just rushing in and legalizing the stuff could do more harm than good. I'll have to read up on the matter more myself.

CypressDahlia
06-05-2011, 08:29 PM
Yeah, I know. I was just making it clear before anyone gets inspired to start making horrible comparisons again. It's like...the worst thing.

M3S1H
06-11-2011, 01:56 AM
I don't think there's much to argue about. First off, everyone should have their own free choice, so long as that choice doesn't harm anyone in any way or break any legalized laws. This should apply to Marijuana. I mean, sure, smoking it could be bad for some people, but that's their own choice. Legalizing marijuana gives the people more options, and brings us closer to the meaning of a free country. As stated above, alcohol is a good example of why Marijuana should be legalized. You can get drunk in the same aspect that you can get high, and you can pose as a threat to the population, but people shouldn't take action until you actually hurt someone. The point I'm trying to make is this: Alcohol and Marijuana aren't too different in the view of legalizing both - they can both kill you, (Marijuana by killing off brain cells, Alcohol by liver cancer/disease.) they can both make you a threat to others, but only one is legalized. Crazy, isn't it?

Kache
06-18-2011, 03:15 AM
I never really tried marijuana, but my friends that did say it isn't addicting.

But then again, my friends who smoke cigarettes say they arent addicted, yet they smoke 2 packs a day.