Jump to content
Destiny

I still don't understand marijuana legalization people.

Recommended Posts

I am in favour of both legalising dope and of public healthcare. What's the contradiction?

 

Most of the damage to society that is attributed to drugs is actually a consequence of their illegality.

Both publicly funded healthcare and legalising (most) drugs would improve the health of the nation.

If we stopped police wasting time chasing drug dealers we could get by with fewer cops (and save money) or we might reasonably expect them to do a better job of the other aspects of their work, for example we might improve the clear up rate for murder (it's not bad but there's always room for improvement).

That's a choice of ways we win in addition to the fact that a lot of crime is drug related and would go away anyway.

 

On a not entirely unrelated note, would someone like to explain this "No intelligent individual supports and/or endorses an illegal activity" to Nelson Mandela?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a not entirely unrelated note, would someone like to explain this "No intelligent individual supports and/or endorses an illegal activity" to Nelson Mandela?

Excellent point. That's like saying that there are no stupid laws... and that your laws are flawless.

 

That's an attitude that I would expect from religious people towards their religion and/or God. Not towards a democratically chosen government which is by definition not perfect for everybody, but a compromise of what everybody wants and doesn't want.

 

There are plenty of examples of people who were disobedient, and turned out to be a hero.

Mandela - but also in American history - Rosa Parks: the woman who wouldn't move to the back of the bus.

 

On a sidenote: I am afraid that our OP has created a fire-and-forget post. I doubt he or she will be back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect you are right about the "drive-by trolling".

Of course, since all our laws are now perfect, we can disband parliament/ congress/ whatever.

That will probably save enough money to rehabilitate the poor souls who get into difficulties with their drug use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's interesting that some folks are okay with requiring people to purchase health insurance, but want drugs legalized. Are we all connected, with our actions impacting one another, or not?

 

Put another way, being okay with legalization would seem to undermine support for that aspect of Obamacare.

 

I thought the argument for legalization was that the impact of legalizing marijuana was far less than, say, the impact of alcohol. Whereas the impact of everyone having healthcare is the difference between dying and getting medical treatment.

 

We may all impact each other, but sometimes that impact isn't all that bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been a long time since I saw such a poor argument in favor of banning weed. Your argument goes something like this:

1. Marihuana is illegal, so you should not use it.

2. Because you shouldn't use it anyway, it should be illegal.

That is a circular argument... and therefore flawed.

 

I live in the Netherlands. Marijuana is tolerated here (de-criminalized). We have shops (like bars) where you can simply buy it if you're over 18. It is a topic which can be openly discussed in our free society. I know plenty of people (students and working people) who smoke pot. These can be accomplished scientists and engineers.

In our country, despite the fact that it's freely available, the amount of habitual smokers is less than in the countries around us - there are multiple sources (summarized in this article) which support that.

 

It's a pity that people like you abuse your freedom of speech to write such complete nonsense.

 

Is it really necessary to ostracize someone's opinion in order to make your point? Please make an effort to be more polite.

 

I am in favour of both legalising dope and of public healthcare. What's the contradiction?

 

Most of the damage to society that is attributed to drugs is actually a consequence of their illegality.

Both publicly funded healthcare and legalising (most) drugs would improve the health of the nation.

If we stopped police wasting time chasing drug dealers we could get by with fewer cops (and save money) or we might reasonably expect them to do a better job of the other aspects of their work, for example we might improve the clear up rate for murder (it's not bad but there's always room for improvement).

 

The argument that legalization would improve health is certainly a valid opinion, but it's quite debatable and in fact it's regularly debated, with both sides having pretty good arguments. That's why I don't think it's a contradiction/hypocrisy, I just think it's interesting. It's essentially saying "we're all connected, and these aspects of that connectedness are going to be tolerated, while these others are not." It's a values-based judgment.

 

That's interesting because a key motivation for legalization has always been that values-based legislation (no actual harm) is detrimental in a democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it really necessary to ostracize someone's opinion in order to make your point? Please make an effort to be more polite.

Pointing out circular arguments is ostracizing opinions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pointing out circular arguments is ostracizing opinions?

 

No, this is:

 

It has been a long time since I saw such a poor argument
It's a pity that people like you abuse your freedom of speech to write such complete nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, this is:

It still seems to be critiquing the argument rather than the opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've no problem with what he said, I'd just like him to be more polite about it. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've no problem with what he said, I'd just like him to be more polite about it. Thanks.

 

And I would like you to stop posting from a position of victimhood, for like, five minutes. It tends to truncate the threads because then there is the expectation to tippy toe around your itty-biity huwt feewings, when the post was never about you in the first place as a poster, but directed towards your post.

 

I think that it is ridiculous to outlaw a plant. There is no processing involved at all, unlike hops. And I would be willing to bet that the addiction to pharmaceuticals is much higher than the addiction to marijuana.

 

The prohibition of marijuana, as has already been pointed out, was due to outdated governmental morality and a disinformation. It is time that this was reevaluated, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at recent history it appears that a few states have begun to reevaluate the criminality of Cannabis. Since 2000 the issue of complete or limited decriminalization of Cannabis on the state level has been voted on roughly 9 times. Here are the results:

 

-2000: Alaska Voters Reject Measure 5 60%-40%

-2002: Nevada Voters Reject Question 9 61%-39%

-2004: Alaska Voters Reject Measure 2 56%-44%

-2006: Colorado Voters Reject Amendment 44 60%-40%

-2006: Nevada Voters Reject Question 7 56%-44%

-2008: Massachusetts Voters Approve Question 2 65%-35%

-2008: New Hampshire Senate Rejects Bill Reducing Marijuana Penalties

-2010: Arizona Voters Approve Proposition 203 50.13% to 49.87%

-2010: California Voters Reject Proposition 19 54%-46%

 

So a although the initial logical used to support the criminalization of Cannabis may have been flawed it appears that currently our society might not believe that legalization is not justified yet either.

 

"Decriminalization of Marijuana"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at recent history it appears that a few states have begun to reevaluate the criminality of Cannabis. Since 2000 the issue of complete or limited decriminalization of Cannabis on the state level has been voted on roughly 9 times. Here are the results:

 

-2000: Alaska Voters Reject Measure 5 60%-40%

-2002: Nevada Voters Reject Question 9 61%-39%

-2004: Alaska Voters Reject Measure 2 56%-44%

-2006: Colorado Voters Reject Amendment 44 60%-40%

-2006: Nevada Voters Reject Question 7 56%-44%

-2008: Massachusetts Voters Approve Question 2 65%-35%

-2008: New Hampshire Senate Rejects Bill Reducing Marijuana Penalties

-2010: Arizona Voters Approve Proposition 203 50.13% to 49.87%

-2010: California Voters Reject Proposition 19 54%-46%

 

So a although the initial logical used to support the criminalization of Cannabis may have been flawed it appears that currently our society might not believe that legalization is not justified yet either.

 

"Decriminalization of Marijuana"

 

Could these statistics not also be the result of the prominent scare campaign in the 50s and 60s in America about 'marijuana cigarettes' that is still going on now with talk of it being a 'gateway drug' and the like. How many people voted on a purely scientific basis and how many voted from a biased viewpoint on either side.

ie. I want to get stoned legally or alternatively drugs are bad and illegal therefore legalising illegal drugs is bad....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it really necessary to ostracize someone's opinion in order to make your point? Please make an effort to be more polite.

On a relative scale of politeness, I think that the OP's post is less polite than mine. I haven't used rude words (instead, it was the OP who calls pot-smokers "idiots", and said that certain people were "full of shit").

I am very surprised that I get the public reprimand here, while the OP walks free to insult again. Please explain me your definition of politeness, and I will try to adapt.

 

On an absolute scale of politeness, I do not accept that I wrote something impolite. Sometimes you have to call a horse a horse. The OP's post was founded on a circular argument, but it contains more fallacies than just that. It contained rude words, too. It has little or no scientific facts to back it up. It contains no references. I should be allowed to call such a post "poor" or "complete nonsense".

 

We all constantly ostracise people on this forum - hell, we have a special "speculations" (formerly pseudo-science) forum for that. People who cannot write a decent post sometimes even get banned.

 

Pangloss, I will forget your post (the phrase that I quoted here) for now. You wrote it as a member, not as a moderator... I know you will be more objective as a mod than as a member.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a mind altering drug. Now if you say you can make revenue via tax, the government will be indirectly making immoral money off people, and I would not approve of this if I were you.

 

I hear ya. I've been trying to eliminate taxes on food for the same reason. The government making money off people being immoral and gorging themselves with unhealthy food is nothing we should approve of. Also, people who sell their bodies for minimum wage, making Subway sandwiches, or people working for a corporation for eight hours a day. It's immoral that people have to prostrate themselves and be separated from their families for such immoral lengths of time.

 

But, people disagree with me about what is moral and what is not. I see nothing moral about obese people eating hungrily right in front of my children. It influences them and makes them think eating like that is ok. And then people who refuse to cover their hands, is completely immoral, and has lead to society where no one covers their hands except when its cold.

 

Why can't we make people be moral with laws? Right now the government is making a lot of money off people being immoral.

 

I think it's interesting that some folks are okay with requiring people to purchase health insurance, but want drugs legalized. Are we all connected, with our actions impacting one another, or not?

 

Put another way, being okay with legalization would seem to undermine support for that aspect of Obamacare.

 

Excellent observation. In fact, it's the "gateway" to greasy, fatty foods right?

 

Of course, your logic here also seems to imply that supporting Obamacare while simultaneously supporting any lifestyle choice that runs counter to "living as long as possible" is therefore undermining that support. As much as I hate Obamacare, I don't think that's fair.

 

I still reject any state imposed obligatory charity to cover my medical bills as somehow a justification for regulating my lifestyle in lieu of those costs. I didn't ask for your charity. Citizens should have the right to live as short and unhealthy as they want, as sloppy and ridiculous as they can imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to interrupt the argument, but I wonder if someone can tell me if the votes referred to in DJBruce's post were actually referenda (i.e. votes by the people ) or votes cast in some sort of senate/ parliament (i.e. votes by political representatives)?

 

If it's the latter then I think we might be seeing the politicians preference not to be seen as "soft on drugs" rather than any manifestation of the real will of the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-2000: Alaska: Indirect Initiative Result: Failed

-2002: Nevada Initiative Result: Failed

-2002: Arizona Initiative Result: Failed

-2004: Alaska: Indirect Initiative Result: Failed

-2006: Colorado: Initiative Result: Failed

-2006: Nevada: Initiative Result: Failed

-2008: Massachusetts Initiative Result: Passed

-2008: New Hampshire: Legislature Result: Rejected

-2010: Arizona Voters Approve Proposition 203 50.13% to 49.87%

-2010: California: Initiative Result: Failed

 

Sorry after more research I found the Arizona's 2010 Proposition 203 was specific to medicinal marijuana. The 2002 law was the one that had more general language on Cannabis.

 

Looking at the results of the 9 changes I have above 8 were voted on by the people, and of those 7 were rejected by the people, and one was passed into law. The other statue was voted on by the legislature, and was rejected by the state legislature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that clarification.

It suggests to me that the people who vote don't like or don't understand drug use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then we need to get into definition of addiction and reach an agreement as to what defines addiction. Many medical journals and user testimonials state addiction happened (happens) with first time use. So is addiction an intense desire to use the substance again for the pleasure inducing experience or is addiction only defined as a negative physical reaction if the drug is not present in the body? I personally define it as the intense desire to use the substance again which will with constant use eventually induce the physical aspects of addiction.

 

Well, my point is that if you do heroin once you won't exactly be clucking the next day.

 

Do heroin every day, even for a week, and you start to get withdraw signs after stopping. And, some people will do heroin once and feel REAL incentives to do it again, and again, and again.

 

But no one starts clucking after their first time. Similar with every addictive drug.

 

Anyway, this thread's about ganj, and i'm pretty sure we'd all agree that ganj isn't adictive, so I guess it's moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a relative scale of politeness, I think that the OP's post is less polite than mine. I haven't used rude words (instead, it was the OP who calls pot-smokers "idiots", and said that certain people were "full of shit").

 

Maybe so; drive-bye shooters bug me too. Perhaps I shouldn't have said anything, and I can understand your frustration, as well as Divagreen's point about interrupting the thread. I apologize for the digression, and if I was too sensitive about your wording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know people who refuse to do drugs because they're illegal. They refuse to do drugs because they're scared of them, or don't even want to try - laws have very little to do with it.

 

However, laws have everything to do with creating the criminal, violent element we all now associate with drugs. That's how the rules are created and disputes are resolved in a black market - guns and violence. Rules and disputes in a legal market use court rooms and freedom of choice - like everything else we buy and sell.

 

Even if you could get hooked on a drug the first time, no one can demonstrate how abstinence laws will make that better. When have they made drug use safer? The only working method of making drugs safer is when their manufacture and indulgence is protected by the state and then subsequently regulated by the state - like everything else we buy and sell.

 

You can make demands to Phillip Morris, or force aspirin manufacturers to make safer tamper proof bottles - but you can't get illegal drug dealers to stop lacing their product with rat poison. For criminals, making drugs illegal gives them an entire industry - last I heard a 90 billion dollar a year industry. Just handed to them.

 

Wow. We create crime and then act all shocked and surprised about it.

 

I think I've made this point before...that "passing laws" is a pyschological game people engage in to pacify their conscience - if we "pass a law" then we've "done something", so we believe. When nothing gets done, we pass even more laws, presumably so we can "do even more somethings".

 

I'll tell you what, shake the hand of a rehab counselor, they are the only ones doing anything about the drug problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know people who refuse to do drugs because they're illegal. They refuse to do drugs because they're scared of them, or don't even want to try - laws have very little to do with it.

I agree. The numbers I linked to earlier support this.

Under the assumption that European countries are comparable, it is a striking fact that the percentage of marijuana users in the Netherlands (where it's freely available) is lower than the countries around it such as the UK, France. This indeed suggests that the fact that it's illegal is not very relevant. I just found this source too, which claims to compare the Netherlands to the USA. Those numbers would suggest that the war on drugs (making it illegal, and use strict laws and punishments) isn't working to reduce the number of users.

 

Unfortunately, we don't have many countries where weed is legalized or decriminalized... so it's difficult to make a statistical analysis of the data.

 

Personally, I think that legalization of marijuana is the only way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reminded by elements in this discussion of a portion of a sketch from Episode 2, Series 1 of Monty Python's Flying Circus.

 

" Well, we psychiatrists have found that over 8% of the population will always be mice. I mean, after all, there's something of the mouse in all of us. I mean, how many of us can honestly say that at one time or another he hasn't felt sexually attracted to mice. (Linkman looks puzzled) I know I have. I mean, most normal adolescents go through a stage of squeaking two or three times a day. Some youngsters on the other hand, are attracted to it by its very illegality. It's like murder - make a thing illegal and it acquires a mystique. (Linkman looks increasingly embarrassed) Look at arson - I mean, how many of us can honestly say that at one time or another he hasn't set fire to some great public building. I know I have. The only way to bring the crime figures down is to reduce the number of offences - get it out in the open - I know I have, ...."

 

On a more serious note, for all of the excellent reasons put forward for legalising marijuana and for the absence of any substantial reasons against, I am in favour of legalisation. If legalised I would only consider taking it if it could be embedded in some kind of drink, preferably one that was similar to a frozen Margarita, no salt. Oh heck, just let me have the Margarita.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Triple Sec, Tequila, Lime, Ice and Hash - now that is my sort of cocktail (but you can hold the salt, it's not good for me)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprise surprise surprise. I'm absolutely right about this mind altering drug alright. The thread starter didn't name names, you all came out and identified yourselves. I can't understand the logic you guys put forward. but I realised that it is of no use arguing about it with those deep in the culture.

I don't know people who refuse to do drugs because they're illegal. They refuse to do drugs because they're scared of them, or don't even want to try - laws have very little to do with it.

well, there are people who refuse to do drugs because they're illegal ! When there is smoke, there is a possibility of fire, although we don't see the fire. The gov made the decision years ago, backed by medical advisers. Sometimes you don't need to do it to know if the result is true. Sure it doesn't kill out right, but like a virus, the most contagious virus doesn't kill the host, but weakened it , enabling the virus to spread. If it is bad for the government, usually in terms of economic considerations, the gov will take actions against it. Is it good or bad to do drugs in the first place ? If bad, surely good governments will say it is bad. Political parties that seek popular sentiments is pandering to the crowd. Logical thinking parties with sound policies are more worth supporting.

This situation the west is in now, is probably due to failure in drug policies, porous borders , which now they decided that they can't police it but put it on damage control.

Another thing that is odd is that you guys argued legalising drugs to stimulate the economy. In the history of the world, opium is traded to china. England sold india's opium to china, yeah it must be good for england's economy, ruining families elsewhere. The same is tobacco, medical people have established it as bad, but some countries are exporting it to developing nations, earning immoral revenues. I'm slightly naive for saying this. LOL..

You guys are so deep into this, that it has become the norm, and it mean nothing, So what ?? right ?

 

The pop/rock/etc bands popularied some cultures. Some fans of such entertainers probably take up their ways of life. Lots of news reports of entertainers going in and out of rehab, and some went away. Not marijuana, but other drugs. I'm saying the drug culture. You guys have lax views regarding drugs. Without the coorporation from citizens, the governments are fighting futile wars against drugs. Again is drug good or bad ? I've the feeling some of the more liberal guys here feel drugs is ok. You save money on jail maintanance, but spend more money building more rehab facilities. eh... save a penny but pound foolish..

 

I understand there is a international treaty regarding drugs. The countries that participated promised to criminalize perpetrators. If drugs are bad, you need deterrence. Without deterrence, does it even work ? maybe, maybe not. but , you can lower the sentences if it is too stiff, heroin and cannabis are different. or maybe some enforced social services.

 

However, I'll have to say that I've not encountered marijuana. On a movie, Drew Barrymore ate a special cookie at a party, and she went on stage dancing, and use a feather boa to do some unthinkable moves. I guess that is the popular perception. no inhibition. Those with daughters have to be worried.

Edited by skyhook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.