Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The Case for the Legalization of Marijuana

By benna in Culture
Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 08:13:03 AM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

Sixty thousand people are behind bars today for marijuana offenses.  This is costing taxpayers $1.2 billion per year (Thomas).  Is it really worth it?  Marijuana should be legalized in the United States for all to grow, distribute, purchase, and use, because marijuana prohibition causes far more damage than marijuana itself.

Those in favor of prohibition would have you believe that marijuana destroys people's lives.  They would tell you that innocent little Johnny would have been successful, but then he smoked some weed and his life was ruined.  This is far from the truth.  The reality is that people who are not going to succeed are in a position in which they are more likely to smoke marijuana.  There is no causal relationship however, between marijuana and personal success.


ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsor: rusty
This space intentionally left blank
...because it's waiting for your ad. So why are you still reading this? Come on, get going. Read the story, and then get an ad. Alright stop it. I'm not going to say anything else. Now you're just being silly. STOP LOOKING AT ME! I'm done!
comments (24)
active | buy ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Sometimes, marijuana does cause harm indirectly to someone's life.  If a person is convicted of any marijuana crime, under federal law, he or she is denied federal financial aid for college.  These laws are creating a reason for their own existence, by making it harder for marijuana users to succeed.  This damage is not caused by marijuana but by the laws prohibiting its use.  A murder conviction, it should be noted, does not prevent the murderer from receiving financial aid from the federal government.

Marijuana itself is not as dangerous as prohibition advocates suggest.  According to the editors of the prestigious British medical journal, The Lancet, "The smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health. ... It would be reasonable to judge cannabis as less of a threat ... than alcohol or tobacco" (1241).  A federally commissioned report by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine states, "Except for the harms associated with smoking, the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range tolerated for other medications" (125). Cigarettes are legal in this country, so clearly the effects of the smoke are not enough to justify prohibition.

Another argument made by prohibition advocates is that marijuana is s "gateway drug" and that it leads people to try other, more serious drugs.  However, this is just another abuse of logic.  While it is true that most users of heavier drugs such as cocaine or heroin also use marijuana, this is not proof that marijuana causes people to try other drugs.  Correlation is not causality.  Most people who use marijuana do not go on to use other drugs.  The National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine found, "There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs" (5).

Marijuana prohibition takes valuable resources away from law enforcement that could be used much more productively to pursue murderers, rapists, thieves, or any other more serious criminals.  The arrest and prosecution of 734,000 people on marijuana charges, almost 90% of which are for possession alone, costs taxpayers between $7.5 billion and $10 billion annually (NORML Report on Sixty Years of Marijuana Prohibition in the U.S.).  More people are arrested on marijuana charges each year than for all violent crimes combined (Federal Bureau of Investigation table 29).  In California alone, when the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana was decriminalized between 1976 and 1985, nearly $1 billion was saved (Aldrich and Mikuriya 75).  A 2001 report to the governor of New Mexico said that marijuana decriminalization, "will result in greater availability of resources to respond to more serious crimes without any increased risks to public safety" (New Mexico Governor's Drug Policy Advisory Group).  Clearly murderers and rapists pose more of a danger to society than does a person in possession of a plant.

Money spent on enforcement of marijuana laws is money wasted.  Marijuana prohibition simply does not deter use. There is no relationship between the changing levels of enforcement of prohibition laws and levels of marijuana use (Morgan and Zimmer 46).  In surveys, most people say they quit smoking marijuana for health or family reasons, not because it is illegal (Institute of Medicine).

The most troubling aspect of marijuana prohibition is that it is simply an abuse of government power.  The founding fathers of this nation would be appalled at the drug laws of today.  Nothing is more sacred or private than a person's own consciousness.  The government does not have the right to interfere with what a person does to his or her own body.  Nor does it have the right to control what kinds of plants a citizen grows in his or her own home.  When the government outlaws something that can grow wild in nature, there is something seriously wrong.  The implied right to privacy in the fourth amendment should protect people against such intrusions by the government into their personal lives.

Marijuana prohibition should be completely abolished.  It only serves to demonize the 76 million Americans who have tried the drug.  One would expect that if marijuana were as damaging as it is made out to be, our society would be crumbling because of those 76 million people.  But is it?

References

Aldrich, M., and T. Mikuriya. "Savings in California marijuana law enforcement costs attributable to the Moscone Act of 1976." Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20 (1988): 75-81.

"Deglamorizing Cannabis." Editorial. Lancet 346 (1995): 1241.

Federal Bureau of Investigations. Uniform Crime Report: Crime in the United States 2000. Washington: US Department of Justice, 2001.

Morgan, J., and L. Zimmer. Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence. New York: The Lindesmith Center, 1997.

National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. Marijuana and Health. Washington: National Academy Press, 1982.

National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. Washington: National Academy Press, 1999.

New Mexico Governor's Drug Policy Advisory Group. Report and Recommendations to the Governors Office. Santa Fe: Sate Capitol, 2001.

NORML Report on Sixty Years of Marijuana Prohibition in the U.S. 1997. National

Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. 10 Nov. 2004 http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4428.

Thomas, Chuck. "Marijuana Arrests and Incarceration in the United States." Drug Policy

Analysis Bulletin 7 (June 1999): Nov. 10 2004 http://www.fas.org/drugs/issue7.htm#3.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Legalize it?
o Yes 63%
o No 4%
o Decriminalize it 32%

Votes: 98
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o (Thomas)
o (1241)
o (125)
o (5)
o (NORML Report on Sixty Years of Marijuana Prohibition in the U.S.)
o (Federal Bureau of Investigation table 29)
o (Aldrich and Mikuriya 75)
o (New Mexico Governor's Drug Policy Advisory Group)
o (Morgan and Zimmer 46)
o (Institute of Medicine)
o http://www .norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4428
o http://www .fas.org/drugs/issue7.htm#3
o Also by benna


Display: Sort:
The Case for the Legalization of Marijuana | 226 comments (195 topical, 31 editorial, 0 hidden)
I say (none / 1) (#2)
by dhall on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 03:19:11 PM EST

Reinstate alchohol prohibition!

Save money by de-criminalization (2.55 / 9) (#6)
by SocratesGhost on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 04:01:58 PM EST

I never really bought into this argument. Costs are a secondary consideration: everyone speeds or commits traffic violations and yet we wouldn't say that we need to dismantle the vehicle code because the problem necessitates an entirely secondary court structure to manage the load. Heck, we could save taxpayers the entire cost of our penal system by legalizing everything. Why waste money prosecuting for murder (especially with the expense of trying murder trials). Maybe it's best if we first analyze whether the costs for prosecuting murders exceeds the net anticipated tax revenue by the murdered? This sort of cost/benefit analysis may work in the business world but I think it has only a diminished efficacy in legal or political arguments.

Convince people on the merit of whether it causes harm first. Cost is an issue with implementation. We can always change the implementation and make it like paying a speeding ticket, for example.

Also, when you cited the statistic for the reasons most people quit, did no one say they quit because of the legal issue? While the majority may quit because of family reasons, I'm pretty sure that at least some people quit because of legal pressures and not wanting to go to jail. If so, the law is having an effect. Remove the law and those people may not have quit, no? Since you refer to a not-online publication I can't fully dispute you, however.

I do dispute your selective citation from Lancet. Are they talking about the long term effect of smoking a single joint in one's life? Cannabis contains more carcinogens and toxins than cigarettes so the long term effects of sustained use ought to be the issue, and in this regard, there is evidence for both sides. All told, I go with my gut: if it's more poisonous than cigarettes, it's bound to have at least some cumulative negative effects.

In addition, indicating that the negative effects are within the tolerances allowed for medicines is a non-issue. That's just saying that using it to treat glaucoma is similar to using other treatments for other ailments. That's an argument in favor of allowing it for medicinal purposes and not for full decriminalization for casual use.

And finally, one of your own links says: "Hawks can still legitimately argue that heavy cannabis use by adolescents predicts an increased risk of harder drug use." Not a gateway drug?

And, yes, I do think that cigarettes should be outlawed. I haven't really been enjoying watching my mom slowly kill herself over the years to the point that she now needs to carry a breathing tank with her at all times. It's the same thing as packaging rat poison and selling it as candy (now with nicotine!). For the same reason we don't allow people to sell tainted beef, we shouldn't sell tainted smoke.

-Soc
I drank what?


Ok. (2.66 / 6) (#7)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 04:18:13 PM EST

Let's be a little more practical. Laws aren't meant to discourage bad habits... so whether or not people would be more encouraged to keep using is hardly an issue.

We outlaw murder because everyone has natural rights, including the victims. It is a crime of the highest order to deny someone their right to life without a damned good reason. Murder isn't legal, and murderers are sent to prison/death either as a deterrent or maybe as punishment.

When a pothead tokes up, he is doing me no harm. Directly or indirectly. If somehow his intoxication results in my death, he should be penalized for that... and we have laws for that that no one is suggesting be rescinded. Discouraging them isn't enough justification, we've found that out. Prohibition didn't work, despite the hearthache and thousands of death that alcohol causes. People die of alcoholism all the time, cirrhosis and toxic poisoning and accidental deaths. Are you suggesting we re-implement prohibition? It's completely arbitrary to pick one drug and say it's ok, but not another.

We make the age limit for pot either 18 or 21 (I favor 18, not because it is less than alcohol, but because the age limit should be lowered to 18 for booze too). Make it illegal to sell it without a license. Regulate it. Tax it if you must. Make it illegal to fire anyone for using it in their own time, keep it legal to terminate employment if they do it on the job, or come to work already high.

Consistency demands we treat it much like alcohol.

As for outlawing tobacco, what can I say? The health risks were known to non-idiots as far back as the mid-1800s. It's regrettable that someone you love is in ill health because of it, but I wonder if you'd think the same thing of milkshakes if she were on Geraldo via satellite as the 1200lbs guest who "was going to die if she didn't get the weight off, and fast".

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

Not really (none / 1) (#14)
by SocratesGhost on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 05:15:16 PM EST

First of all, victorian medical journals trumpeted the health benefits of smoking: the coughing it induces was seen as a sign that it was helping to remove the body's toxins. To put together the link between cancer and habitual daily smoking use required a lot more sophisticated medical research than anyone ever had until the last 30-40 years; the effects are just too far removed from the source.

Also, there are long term benefits to the habitual consumption of alcohol. Marijuana can claim no such distinction. It's only medical advantages have been in the areas of remedy not in promoting good health. So, no, I don't think we should treat alcohol and marijuana the same. I think we should treat alcohol like alcohol and marijuana like marijuana. If anything, we should treat it like cigarettes and I've already told you my position on that.

Still, you missed one assertive point in comparing it to selling tainted beef: we don't allow it. Period. You cannot make a choice between three different quality beef: one that is guaranteed to be germ free, one that might be germ free, and one that they just used to clean the bathroom. People can only sell the first one and the public may only buy the first one. I suppose you lament that loss of freedom that would've permitted people to buy cheaper, poorer quality meat?

The majority of those who are in jail are not in there for mere possession. They are in there for selling and distributing. It's not the vast majority but a majority nonetheless: 58%.

I'm only mildly bothered by the idea that people don't mind placing additional burdens on our health system through the habitual poisoning of themselves(and then consequently petitions for universal healthcare), but I refuse to consider any argument that permits one party to contribute to the harm of another. So, yes, there are harms caused by others, by every friend who passed a joint--and you're not one to bogart, are you?

The only person who wouldn't face criminal liability in my world is one who grows it and is the only one who smokes it. But we both know that's not the real world case. It's not even the case with tea or tobacco or any home brewer. Human nature is to share.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Well... (2.33 / 3) (#20)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 05:46:20 PM EST

First of all, victorian medical journals trumpeted the health benefits of smoking: the coughing it induces was seen as a sign that it was helping to remove the body's toxins. To put together the link between cancer and habitual daily smoking use required a lot more sophisticated medical research than anyone ever had until the last 30-40 years; the effects are just too far removed from the source.

By the mid-1800s, it was obvious to some that heavy tobacco use was causing problems for some people. You can't make a case that coughing it beneficial, when the person's emphysema is getting worse every day. I don't know that they could have made what we consider a solid medical case today, but even then anecdotal evidence counted for alot. Someone that was a practicing physician for 40+ years tended to make alot of those connections intuitively.

Also, there are long term benefits to the habitual consumption of alcohol. Marijuana can claim no such distinction. It's only medical advantages have been in the areas of remedy not in promoting good health.

Alcohol consumed in a minimal fashion may have health benefits. It's going to be difficult to know if that's the case for marijuana unless and until it is legalized in some fashion. Not to mention, that we rescinded Prohibition long before we knew of the benefits that alcohol could provide.

Still, you missed one assertive point in comparing it to selling tainted beef: we don't allow it. Period. You cannot make a choice between three different quality beef: one that is guaranteed to be germ free, one that might be germ free, and one that they just used to clean the bathroom. People can only sell the first one and the public may only buy the first one. I suppose you lament that loss of freedom that would've permitted people to buy cheaper, poorer quality meat?

I don't think that you can use a regulated product to argue that another product should be entirely illegal. I would expect marijuana to be regulated in the same fashion, and that any contaminated or dangerous varieties to be prohibited from sale. Not to mention, that I can buy poor quality meat if I truly want to, I just can't sell it at the local grocery store.

The majority of those who are in jail are not in there for mere possession. They are in there for selling and distributing. It's not the vast majority but a majority nonetheless: 58%.

That doesn't mean that legalization wouldn't eliminate the incarceration of those jailed for distribution and sale. Prohibition saw many jailed for illegally selling alcohol, and yet few are today... more so, people rarely sell alcohol illegally today, it's not just a matter of them going unjailed.

I'm only mildly bothered by the idea that people don't mind placing additional burdens on our health system through the habitual poisoning of themselves(and then consequently petitions for universal healthcare), but I refuse to consider any argument that permits one party to contribute to the harm of another. So, yes, there are harms caused by others, by every friend who passed a joint--and you're not one to bogart, are you?

They didn't harm me. I've been offered marijuana 3 times in my life, and I refused (politely) every time. I'm not a druggie. If I were though, it wasn't them doing it to me... it would have been my choice.

The only person who wouldn't face criminal liability in my world is one who grows it and is the only one who smokes it. But we both know that's not the real world case.

We do? That's news to me. I've read many times of people that grew marijuana presmably for their own use. They get jailed too. You can split hairs all you want about whether giving some to a friend counts, but what's the difference between that, and giving him a seed so he can grow his own.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

well (none / 0) (#23)
by SocratesGhost on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 06:17:15 PM EST

All of the evidence indicates that marijuana is more harmful than beneficial. Liability attaches to those who distribute harmful consumables and where there is a collective burden, liability and cost, we must collectively decide whether to permit the activity. Since it causes a degree of harm beyond a threshold that I am unwilling to tolerate, that's enough for me to vote against legalization. For medicinal purposes, I'm a lot more open minded especially if the law is good (and not like the ones we've passed in California recently).

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
You can disagree all you like. (3.00 / 5) (#43)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:28:17 PM EST

All of the evidence indicates that marijuana

Bullshit. DEA "Say No to Drugs" propaganda notwithstanding, there is limited evidence which itself is inconclusive. And personal harm isn't something that we should be legislating with gestaop-esque statutes.

Escalators are more harmful than beneficial. They use precious irreplaceable fossil fuels, cause people to be fat, and maim quite a few children every year. Why not outlaw them?

Roller coasters. Automobiles. Peanut products.


--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

Sources please (none / 0) (#113)
by Mousky on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 10:18:29 AM EST

Please cite ALL of the evidence that marijuana is more harful than beneficial?

[ Parent ]
crappy world of beef (none / 0) (#64)
by speek on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 08:43:38 AM EST

We have some strict standards about or beef, but: A)The beef we eat is artificially unhealthy due to some crazy things they do in raising the beef that the FDA doesn't care about, so those regulations often miss the mark of protecting us and B) what a terrible world it would be if all products bought and sold were subject to the same amount of regulation.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Lancet (none / 0) (#15)
by Sgt York on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 05:21:43 PM EST

In the public interest, I looked up the article.

It is talking about long term, habitual use over an extended period (years), discussing the situation in the Netherlands. However, it's only an editorial. No data is presented, and the assertation, has no reference.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

Tainting (3.00 / 3) (#17)
by Sgt York on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 05:28:10 PM EST

I disagree with that....It's not the same thing. People know cigs will kill you, so it's not like pacakaging rat poison as candy. It says right on the package that it will kill you.

It's not like selling tainted beef. It is not contaminated, it is exactly what the buyer expects, a cancer stick packed with stuff that will slowly kill you. It's like selling rat poison as rat posion. It has been that way for about 30 years now.

And yes, it will kill you, and it's marketed for consumption in a way that will kill you.

Just like that untainted beef. And the candy.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

The fact that it's illegal causes some to toke up. (none / 1) (#54)
by Surial on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 02:46:52 AM EST

The position that making something illegal automatically reduces the number of people that engage in the activity is a bit of a naive standpoint; on the surface it makes sense but in practice this really needs to be proven with some statistics.

ie: When soft-drugs were legalized in the Netherlands, drug use did not go up, but criminal activity did go down a bit as a result. hard-drug usage dropped a lot, soft-drug usage dropped slightly, though in all fairness it's rather hard to measure (while there's hard numbers on legal soft-drug usage, it's always difficult to get a bead on how much of an illegal substance is used, before the legalization).

Also, there are proven cases where people have engaged in certain activities specifically -because- they are illegal, and thus 'cool', or 'exciting'. It's fairly silly to engage in drug use just because it's illegal, for sure, but the fact remains that some think this way.

So, before one can claim that some of the value of anti-drug laws lies in how it causes some people to refrain from using drugs, you'll need some real statistics to back it up. As far as I know, there aren't any solid numbers to fall back on - the only thing there is is a suspicion that if anything, drug laws don't help.

For example, Americans are widely known as both the largest consumers of drugs, on a per-person basis, as well as the country with the most draconian drug laws - compared to western european countries. Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that americans toke up far more often than europeans just because the USA has some hefty laws against marijuana usage - I'm merely saying that there COULD be a relationship.

--
"is a signature" is a signature.

[ Parent ]

Trying to save others (3.00 / 2) (#192)
by localman on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 01:55:41 PM EST

And, yes, I do think that cigarettes should be outlawed. I haven't really been enjoying watching my mom slowly kill herself over the years

I haven't really enjoyed watching my mother slowly kill herself over the years with unhealthy diet and lack of exercise (I'm not exagerating, she's over 300 lbs and very ill).

Yet I don't think food (or even food abuse) should be outlawed.  Nor should tobacco or alcohol or marijuana.  Because my mom would not be better off in prison.  Neither would yours.  And if you think making something illegal stops it, well, why are we having this discussion about marijuana in the first place?  It's illegal, but it's still in use.

The big picture view is that people choose their own destiny.  If they are not harming others then it's very unlikely it should be illegal.  The only argument might be that harming themselves causes problems for society.  I think one could argue that TV, unhealthy diet, cigarettes, alcohol, and stupidity are each more expensive for society than marijuana.

Disclaimer: I don't smoke tobacco or marijuana, but I support legalization and donate regularly to NORML and/or MPP.

Cheers.

[ Parent ]

marijuana (none / 0) (#227)
by THCGod69 on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 11:15:21 AM EST

socrates Ghost u are a friggin douche bag.  you should be repeatedly kicked in the nuts until you learn to like cigarettes and then get arrested and raped in the ass until you start smoking pot.  you friggin homosexual crackwhore.
Thankyou
THCGod69

[ Parent ]
Conditions of Marijuana Safety (2.00 / 4) (#9)
by feline on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 04:23:46 PM EST

It would be reasonable to judge cannabis as less of a threat ... than alcohol or tobacco.

Marijuana is only safer under a certain condition: it is not used as regularly as cigerettes.

In reality, inhaled marijauna smoke itself is less healthy. Joints never have a filter, allowing many toxins to enter the lungs that the filters of a cigerette prevent.


FYI (none / 0) (#19)
by Altus on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 05:33:59 PM EST


first off, you can in fact smoke a joint with a filter... they sell them at good tobacconists, you can even use the filter straight out of a cigarette and roll it right into your joint if that is what you want.

second, you dont have to smoke pot from a joint, you could use any number of water filtration devices that should provide some filtering of the smoke, although I have no idea if this is more or less effective than drawing the smoke through cotton fibers (a cigarette filter).

third, there are even safer, smoke free methods of consuming marijuana.  These methods include ingestion (mmmm... magic brownies) or vaporization, where the plant mater is heated to the vaporization point of THC but below the combustion point of the plant mater resulting in a smoke free cloud of marijuana vapor.

"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
[ Parent ]

This is touchy. (none / 0) (#22)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 05:59:53 PM EST

First, there are some cigarettes that are sold without filters. When I worked at a convenience store, only sold 2 packs in 6 months.

Second, were it legalized, we'd likely see filters in all pot cigarettes sold, too. But. Even with that the case, at best, it would only raise pot up to the level of tobacco, to a more or less equal risk. It has different natural chemicals in it than tobacco, it is possible some are more dangerous.

Finally, is the slightly more dangerous smoke of unfiltered marijuana smoke reason enough, by itself, to ban it? Is it enough, in combination with other factors, to ban it?

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

But if it was legal (none / 1) (#35)
by D Jade on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 08:52:31 PM EST

It is also highly likely that you would be able to purchase pot cakes and drinks from your local cafe as well.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
True. (none / 0) (#50)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 11:56:09 PM EST

Which would have almost zero lung disease issues.

Maybe we should just outlaw smoking it? The few potheads I have know probably wouldn't care either way, and would stick to the legal methods.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

And the reality is (none / 0) (#55)
by D Jade on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:12:00 AM EST

That eating cakes is much more entertaining if you really wanna get high!

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
hmm (3.00 / 2) (#69)
by reidbold on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 11:26:14 AM EST

Let's just say that if Starbucks started selling weed cookies, I might actually go into a Starbucks.

[ Parent ]
Maybe you don't roll filters in your's (none / 0) (#36)
by D Jade on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 08:53:59 PM EST

But many people do. The regularity of use is not the only condition that makes it safer. You can also eat or drink marijuana. This is much safer than smoking a cigarette and safer than drinking alcohol...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
But surely it's typical use that matters (none / 1) (#60)
by daani on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 07:10:06 AM EST

Otherwise, one could argue that kool-mints were a healthier form of food than steaks, since eating 10 steaks a day will make you seriously sick but 10 kool-mints a day is not a problem.

Or some other, better, analogy.


[ Parent ]

Filters (none / 0) (#111)
by bobbuck on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 10:12:11 AM EST

If marijuana was legal, wouldn't the government require filters and other standards? (And gobs and gobs of taxes, of course.)

[ Parent ]
Which ignores newer technology (none / 1) (#121)
by ckaminski on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 11:55:35 AM EST

Such as vaporizers which never burn the marijuana at all.  You can make the argument that the THC itself is carcinogenic (and I've read some research in the past that indicated this), but that makes it no worse than nicotine chewing gum.

[ Parent ]
The choir stands preached (2.33 / 3) (#10)
by nkyad on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 04:33:31 PM EST

But from all known facts and all known reasons for legalization you list, I find no hint about you opinion on how to get there. Aside minor exagerations (you can't honestly believe that whole one fourth of the US population is "demonized") you wrote a correct article, but nothing more.

Don't believe in anything you can't see, smell, touch or at the very least infer from a good particle accelerator run


ehehe (none / 0) (#40)
by D Jade on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 09:12:13 PM EST

Thanks to your venerable leader all of the US population has been demonised because everyone hates them now. So I think his point about pot users has been mooted by Bush Inc.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
My venerable leader? (none / 0) (#47)
by nkyad on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 11:45:19 PM EST

If you're speaking about Bush, I am not even American...

Don't believe in anything you can't see, smell, touch or at the very least infer from a good particle accelerator run


[ Parent ]
Was talking about the US. (none / 0) (#49)
by D Jade on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 11:50:26 PM EST

Your comment read like you were USAmerican... But if you are a member of the planet earth, Bush is still your venerable leader. All must bow down to him if they wish to live.. If not, you are terrorists and must be put to death.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Bow down to bush... (none / 0) (#58)
by monkeymind on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:36:52 AM EST

he is a dumb fuck, come get me.

Your witty saying here
[ Parent ]

Nevertheless (none / 0) (#93)
by D Jade on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 07:39:29 PM EST

We should bow down to his wisdom

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
When he displays some, I will [nt] (none / 0) (#94)
by monkeymind on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 07:51:13 PM EST


Your witty saying here
[ Parent ]

Tihihihi! (none / 0) (#99)
by D Jade on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 10:17:05 PM EST

How dare you speak of his highness with such impudence. If you were not the mind of a monkey, I would strike you down where you stand.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
You would have (none / 0) (#103)
by monkeymind on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 03:04:15 AM EST

a long swim ahead of you.

Your witty saying here
[ Parent ]

I know (1.50 / 2) (#104)
by D Jade on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 05:05:51 AM EST

And my backstroke is terrible... It must be my convict heritage

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Don't worry (none / 0) (#105)
by monkeymind on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 05:40:32 AM EST

Being from a family tainted by The Stain is hardly a set back in these modern, enlightened times. However some people do still hold it against one. You secret is safe with me.

Your witty saying here
[ Parent ]

It IS a little odd... (none / 1) (#123)
by mikelist on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 12:09:42 PM EST

...that all drug dealers/users should be executed or be given long stints in the local graybar, except W (fairly well documented allegations, with only qualified denial) and Rush Limbaugh (I was only doctor shopping because I couldn't afford decent medical care).

Watch carefully, I'm going to choose 'plain text'.

[ Parent ]

Logic (1.63 / 11) (#12)
by kitten on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 05:00:25 PM EST

However, this is just another abuse of logic. While it is true that most users of heavier drugs such as cocaine or heroin also use marijuana, this is not proof that marijuana causes people to try other drugs. The people who use harder drugs tend to use marijuana, but they also tend to drink water and breathe oxygen.

It's obvious what you mean here, and what point you're getting at, but in fact, what you are saying is the abuse of logic. Yes, they all breathe oxygen, but so does every other human; not every human, however, smokes pot. It's a habit common among a certain subset of people (harder drug users) and not common among others. That is what the "gateway drug" arguers are pointing out -- that users of hard drugs tend to do X, while non-drug-users do not, therefore X might have something to do with drug use.

This is not an abuse of logic on the surface; the error comes from the ol' correlation-causation quandary. However, in this particular instance, it is pretty easy to draw the conclusion that pot smoking invites experimentation with harder substances.
mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
Not really (3.00 / 2) (#34)
by D Jade on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 08:50:14 PM EST

I know a lot of people who wouldn't touch weed but would love to large it on a few lines of charles. Just as I know a lot of people who wouldn't touch charles that love to toke on a joint.

The big problem with research surveys is that harder drug users tend to be a minority, so it's hard to get an accurate sample. It's also the case that many people may also deny their drug use when questioned (*cough* George Bush *cough*). It is likely that if you surveyed 10,000 people, some would lie and also that you may luck out and pick a handful of people that don't do drugs at all and another handful that do every drug known to man.

Also, researchers may be asking loaded questions (especially if researching for the government) such as "Have you ever used cocaine?" So if a subject answers yes, they could be classified as a hard drug user (like GWBush) when in fact, they're not.

I stick by what I can see, and what I see in the individuals around me is that people don't use one drug because they are using another. They use a particular drug because that's the feeling they like to get.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

That isn't what I said (none / 0) (#56)
by kitten on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:35:53 AM EST

I happen to agree with you insofar as pot probably isn't much of a "gateway" drug. I'm simply saying that the argument is, at least on the surface, sound -- the majority of hard drug users also use pot, while the majority of non-drug-users do not. You can find exceptions in both groups, obviously, but the math is pretty simple even for a math-idiot like me: The percentage of drug users who do pot is much higher than the percentage of non-drug users who smoke pot.

The researcher can conclude some correlation there, though he couldn't prove causation just from that.

To get some causation, though, a simple question can be asked of the people who are willing to admit to being hard drug users: "What was the first illegal drug you tried?" Overwhelmingly, the answer will be pot -- very few people go from being totally clean right into coke or meth. There's a gradual buildup. That's where the argument comes from.

Whether you agree with the findings or not, it is a logical argument, whereas your comparision to people who breathe oxygen and drink water is not.
mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]

first drug (none / 0) (#90)
by noproblema on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:52:02 PM EST

normally is tobacco or alcohol. Only if you put "illegal" before "drug" little maria becomes a "gateway".

[ Parent ]
Well of course (3.00 / 2) (#95)
by D Jade on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 07:51:43 PM EST

But I would expect that ALL non-drug users would say that they didn't use pot because they don't use drugs...

I think what you are meaning to say is that the majority of hard drug users would say that they have tried/used pot. It doesn't necessarily prove that it's a gateway drug. That's my point though, the logic behind saying something like that is ludicrous.

I'll repeat the example I used in a previous post.

I don't discount the fact that many hard drug users have first tried pot. But I think the reason any drug user has tried mj first is because of the fact that its use is so widespread - one of the reasons it should be legal. Some people will move on to other drugs, yes. But I don't think this constitutes a gateway drug.

The issue I have with the term "gateway" drug is that it implies that if you use it you WILL end up using those harder drugs. It's not that you MAY use harder drugs.

I don't believe in this theory and I have yet to see it in action. I mean, one could say that alcohol is also a gateway drug because it's highly unlikely that someone would have smoked weed before they tried a drink.

In turn I could then say that sugar is a gateway drug because it's highly likely that a person has tried a soft drink before they drink alcohol.

Also, don't forget caffeine, because I am sure that you would have tried a caffeinated drink as well.

I could also say that prescription drugs, antibiotics and the like, are also gateway drugs because people would have had them before they tried these others.

Now, all of these above statements are completely ludicrous, I agree. Which is why the "gateway" drug theory is so pathetically stupid...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

The Case Against Marijuana Legalisation (1.25 / 16) (#27)
by Rapeman on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 07:50:46 PM EST

Marijuana is not dissimilar to other drugs, except in that its users seem to be rather slow witted after heavy and extended use. You know the type.

Tobacco and alcohol have their disadvantages too though, so really marijuana is not too different. Except that for some reason, marijuana users have been unable to make a convincing case in favour of marijuana. They haven't won the argument at all, and their lack of success can only be explained by the negative effects of marijuana on their ability to put forward convincing and sophisticated arguments with the charisma and social nous required to carry the day.

This leads me to think that marijuana is perhaps not as innocent as its advocates claim. If it was it would be legal, wouldn't it? But the bumbling ineptitude and stupidity of the typical stoner campaigner, as typified by this article, is a damning indictment of the negative effects of marijuana.

Your argument boils down to... (none / 0) (#28)
by benna on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 08:07:56 PM EST

If it's the law it must be right.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
Not even (none / 0) (#30)
by D Jade on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 08:18:23 PM EST

He clearly is not familiar with the original case to have it criminalised.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Pot's not the reason (3.00 / 5) (#31)
by D Jade on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 08:27:08 PM EST

The reality is that pro-weed advocates put forth a very good argument. They have presented a lot of factual evidence and research in support of their claims. On the other hand, the neo-cons on the other side of the fence haven't put forth any evidence to support their position. What they have though is this wonderful thing called agression. See, the forces opposed to its legalisation shout at the pro-weeders and call them hippies and stoners and such. A perfect example of what a neo-con would say can be viewed here.

It's really quite pathetic. But this is the way the world works. We learnt from the war in Iraq and this ongoing war on terror that it doesn't matter what the actual facts are. Truth doesn't mean anything in this day and age...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

lol (none / 0) (#67)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 10:52:58 AM EST

great argument in and by itself.

BTW, the reasons why mj is illegal may be due to a  conspiration to advantage cotton instead of mj.

Yes, because weed is a great plant. It was relegalised during WWII to make ropes. Tt's a superb textile fiber.

But at one moment, machines to mechanically recolt weed existed, and had the potential to outweight cotton. One producer had some link with a judge in washington, and managed to make mj illegal.

This obviously need some references lookup...

[ Parent ]

Hemp For Victory (none / 0) (#74)
by Magnetic North on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 01:17:59 PM EST

Hilarious WWII propaganda from Uncle Sam.

--
<33333
[ Parent ]
False arguments (none / 0) (#122)
by mikelist on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 11:56:17 AM EST

I once belonged to an organization that sought to have cannabis hemp legalized for environmental reasons. I quit because they were dishonest about recreational use (slogan: the joint is not the point). Poorly informed advocates are worse than no advocates. ex: George HW Bush's parachute WAS NOT made from hemp, but the shroud lines were. There are other specious arguments that IMHO, hurt the overall credibility of decriminalization/legalization advocates. If you are going to be dishonest, at least be clever.

[ Parent ]
ok... (3.00 / 2) (#82)
by khallow on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:41:02 PM EST

Tobacco and alcohol have their disadvantages too though, so really marijuana is not too different. Except that for some reason, marijuana users have been unable to make a convincing case in favour of marijuana. They haven't won the argument at all, and their lack of success can only be explained by the negative effects of marijuana on their ability to put forward convincing and sophisticated arguments with the charisma and social nous required to carry the day.

While this is a beautiful troll, I'm curious how you explain the proponents, such as myself, who haven't taken the drug?

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

Meh (none / 1) (#85)
by ubu on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:13:15 PM EST

I think that's a little unfair, man. Stoners have a lot of things besides the drug working against them. Like, the other side has the power to put them in jail whenever they can catch stoners doing their thing. That's a pretty powerful advantage, wouldn't you think? But you didn't even mention it.

Another advantage the other side has is that they can publish studies all day long about how the drug is harmful, provided they can come up with any reasons. But stoners aren't even supposed to have it, so how can they conduct studies to promote their view?

In fact, in that same vein I'd point out that the "other side" can even fund anti-marijuana studies with tax money.

Marijuana is very illegal because it's been pretty inappropriately scheduled, so it's really not an up-or-down question of MJ's legality at this point, anyhow. The question right now is how to get it knocked down to a more fitting schedule, so we can all quietly break the law without worrying too hard about sitting in jail over it.

I mean, think about it: you probably break speed laws all the damned time, which has the potential to kill humans. We know it does, because people are killed by speeders every day. But people rarely go straight to jail for speeding, right? We want comparable treatment, at the very least.


--
As good old software hats say - "You are in very safe hands, if you are using CVS !!!"
[ Parent ]
Allow me to make a sad analogy (3.00 / 2) (#191)
by localman on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 01:39:41 PM EST

It is 1950:

Blacks are not dissimilar to other races, except in that blacks seem to be rather slow witted by the time they've reached adulthood.  You know the type.

Being Italian, Irish, or English has its disadvantages too, though, so being black is not too different.  Except that for some reason, blacks have been unable to make a convincing case in favour of equal rights.  They haven't won the argument at all, and their lack of success can only be explained by the black person's lacking ability to put forward convincing and sophisticated arguments with the charisma and social nous requird to carry the day.

This leads mt to think that being black is perhaps not as innocent as it's advocates claim.  If it was they would receive equal rights, wouldn't they?  But the bumbling ineptitude and stupidity of thhe typical black activist, as typified by this article, is a damning indictment of the negative effects of being black.

---

I apologize for any offense I've caused with this experiment in analogy, but I want people to see how completely ridiculous the original poster's reasoning is.  With people like that, claiming that "what is should be", our society would never have progressed at all.  Thank god that there aren't enough to hold the rest of us back as we move towards a brighter future.

Disclaimer: I do not smoke tobacco or marijuana, but I support legalization and I donate regularly to NORML and/or MPP.

Cheers.

[ Parent ]

other drugs (3.00 / 4) (#45)
by RelliK on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 10:49:00 PM EST

The founding fathers of this nation would be appalled at the drug laws of today. Nothing is more sacred or private than a person's own consciousness. The government does not have the right to interfere with what a person does to his or her own body.

ok, so does that apply to any drug or just marijuana?
---
Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism it's just the opposite.

Yes. n/t (2.50 / 4) (#52)
by benna on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 01:59:07 AM EST


-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
yes what? (none / 1) (#62)
by RelliK on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 08:06:23 AM EST

which is it?
---
Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism it's just the opposite.
[ Parent ]
It applies to any drug. n/t (none / 0) (#88)
by benna on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:45:52 PM EST


-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
Some drugs (none / 0) (#154)
by ErikOsterholm on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 07:08:03 PM EST

Ultimately, it should probably depend on the effect it will have on other people.  

Pretend we have drug Z, which is so incredibly addictive that one hit of it and you suddenly crave more.  You are in excruciating pain every moment you are without it, which pretty much leads you to doing anything to get it.  Once you have exhausted your savings, there are two options:  live in pain, or resort to crime.

Drug Z probably should not be legal.  The end result of anyone taking drug Z is (almost universally) going to be increased crime for the purposes of getting more Z.  Or put more simply, just about anyone using Z is going to, at some point, restrict someone else's rights by taking their property and/or their lives.

The key is to strike a balance.  Drug Z falls pretty far on the "restrict" side of the scale due to its effects on other people.  Marijuana, having very few effects on people other than the user, should fall pretty far on the "permit" side.  This is not the case, and it is wrong.

And to reiterate the point, it's wrong because unless something I do is going to have a significant negative effect on someone else's rihgts, I should be able to do it.  Government should exist to create order and protect its citizens.  Criminilazing marijuana does neither.

[ Parent ]

-1, pothead (1.00 / 15) (#48)
by dhall on Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 11:46:33 PM EST

I have nothing against marijuana, but I do hate potheads.

Myself, I hate bigots. Passionately. (nt) (3.00 / 4) (#57)
by daani on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:35:57 AM EST



[ Parent ]
I don't hate anyone in particular. (none / 1) (#83)
by khallow on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:42:51 PM EST

I find the whole exercise to be pointless. And the "hate bigots" thing? Doesn't that, you know, make you a self-hating bigot? Or just a hypocrite?

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

I don't consider hating bigots to be bigottry, (none / 1) (#107)
by daani on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 09:34:59 AM EST

if that's what you mean. So in this sense I am neither bigot or hypocrite. However you sir, are a pedant!

[ Parent ]
maybe so (none / 0) (#182)
by khallow on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 09:32:57 PM EST

I don't consider hating bigots to be bigottry, if that's what you mean. So in this sense I am neither bigot or hypocrite. However you sir, are a pedant!

I however do stand by my point. Bigotry seems pretty hardwired in people and I've seen it in some people I otherwise admire. I'm not here to fix those people. The "hating bigotry" just is another variant of it. I accept that you're bigotted, but I really don't care. So yes by making this point, I guess that does make me a grade A pedant.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

Oh come on! (none / 0) (#185)
by daani on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 11:35:04 PM EST

I suppose disliking terrorists is bigotry too?

If I were black and had a problem with people who said all blacks should be locked up, would that be bigotry?

The key word in the definition of bigot is "irrational". The joker I responded to who claims to "hate potheads" is being an asshole. As a one time pothead, if I hold that against him it is not irrational and not bigotry. Particularly given the measures he doubtless supports taking against people who happen to enjoy a good smoke.

It's good to try to see the symmetry in  situations, sometimes that's a useful tool. But sometimes you also have to apply some judgement and acknowledge that all points of view are not equal.

[ Parent ]

not quite the same (none / 0) (#194)
by khallow on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 02:33:47 PM EST

I suppose disliking terrorists is bigotry too?

Those people are actively trying to harm someone or at least advocating the harm of someone.

If I were black and had a problem with people who said all blacks should be locked up, would that be bigotry?

Again these people are advocating harming innocent people.

But let's be honest, most bigots don't actively harm anyone by their beliefs. So it's not proper to irrationally lump them in the same category as terrorists or people who advocate the imprisonment of entire ethnicities.

The key word in the definition of bigot is "irrational". The joker I responded to who claims to "hate potheads" is being an asshole. As a one time pothead, if I hold that against him it is not irrational and not bigotry. Particularly given the measures he doubtless supports taking against people who happen to enjoy a good smoke.

But you happen to be intolerant of all bigots not just people who irrationally hate potheads. And I'd have to say that your lack of focus appears irrational. So yes, I think you exhibit bigotry.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

Well I respectfully submit that IMO this is... (none / 0) (#197)
by daani on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 11:32:10 AM EST

But let's be honest, most bigots don't actively harm anyone by their beliefs.

...Bullshit. Not always as serious a harm as that done by the terrorist, but harm nevertheless.

Besides, your definition is too narrow. Maybe I just get sick of rednecks telling me that I can't write good, count good and deserve to go to jail for sharing a hobby with ex-Presidents and future Kings of England.

[ Parent ]

But did they inhale! (none / 0) (#198)
by khallow on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 01:33:14 PM EST

I know if I really keep trying I'll win this argument somehow! :-)

As far as "rednecks" go, there's a long history of drug use in that culture. Mind you, the drug of choice is alcohol, but marijuana is not that rare.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

yes what? (1.50 / 2) (#61)
by RelliK on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 07:57:44 AM EST

which is it?
---
Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism it's just the opposite.
Mental facilities. (none / 1) (#63)
by kelbear on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 08:13:44 AM EST

Not trolling, but I'm actually curious about an answer.

Everyone I'm sure knows the stigma of a "pothead" right? They're typically depicted as slow and lazy, perhaps stupid as well(See Half-baked, GTA:San Andreas, any teen movie). It's all throughout the media where anybody using marijuana acts like that.

What's the legalization movement's response to that concern? Has anyone done studies either for or against it?(Is it even possible to make an unbiased one?:P)

Anecdotal evidence in either direction doesn't prove anything, however the media's take on it is the only one that will ever be pushed through to the audience.
*I am dead, leave a message and I'll get back to you as soon as possible.*

I was going to write a long commen, but I got high (3.00 / 2) (#70)
by Hillgiant on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 12:20:10 PM EST

There is no denying that marijuana is an intoxicant. Your behaviour will be different while you are high. However, there is no medical evidence of lasting side affects.

-----
"It is impossible to say what I mean." -johnny
[ Parent ]

regardless..... (none / 0) (#71)
by thekubrix on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 01:02:05 PM EST

Alcohol does faaaaaaaaaar more damage personally and externally.....but yet its 100% legal.

Besides, who would you rather roam the streets, a pot head or a drunk?

[ Parent ]

Neither (none / 0) (#79)
by NaCh0 on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:07:26 PM EST

That's why cops are out there to throw both into jail.

--
K5: Your daily dose of socialism.
[ Parent ]
Weeeellll (none / 0) (#149)
by Sgt York on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 06:07:28 PM EST

Not really.

Alcohol may seem to do more damage because it is 100% legal. See my above post. There are studies (summarized in Lancet 1998:352 pp1611-16) that say pot is about as harmful as alcohol, with a few tradeoffs.

Specifically, chronic pot use causes lung problems that are worse than cigs, and it suggests that the mechanism involved is different from cig smoke (cigs + pot is worse than pot alone). It's slightly less addictive (yes, addictive) than alcohol, and doesn't cause liver problems like alcohol.

So, basically, you're swapping alcoholic pancreatitis for chronic lung disease. Either one = really bad.

Now, this isn't an argument against legalization. I think pot should be legal for exactly that reason; it's no more harmful than alcohol, and alcohol is legal.

But the statement that alcohol is a lot more damaging than pot is unfounded.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

Damaging.. (none / 0) (#203)
by katie on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 07:57:35 PM EST

I don't know about "a lot more damaging", but alcohol seems pretty damaging; in the UK the majority of hospital admits on the weekends are for alcohol related injuries. The majority of police calls on the weekend are for alcohol related incidents.

I just don't see potheads running around town centres beating people up and breaking windows the way drunks do...

[ Parent ]

Wrong damage (none / 0) (#209)
by Sgt York on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 06:40:32 PM EST

I was talking about damage to self, as in long term medical problems.

And of course you don't see potheads on the rampage; alcohol is orders of magnitude more prevelant. Sure, the stereotype stoner is laid back and passive, but he's also an idiot slacker.

Stereotypes are very often dead wrong. I've seen plenty of stoned guys do things that should have gotten them killed, or did get them & others seriously injured (driving, taking huge risks, just being dumbasses).

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

Potheads (none / 1) (#72)
by Magnetic North on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 01:02:29 PM EST

Most of my friends smoke pot, some of them qualify as potheads, none of them could be described as slow, lazy or stupid. I have met one or two potheads that matched the stereotypes of popular culture, but they're few and far between in my experience.

In fact, of all my aquaintances, the only ones I consider slow and dimwitted are all vehemently anti-pot.

--
<33333
[ Parent ]
my take on that (none / 0) (#80)
by khallow on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:26:25 PM EST

What's the legalization movement's response to that concern? Has anyone done studies either for or against it?(Is it even possible to make an unbiased one?:P)

Legalization doesn't imply destigmatization. Continue to allow people and businesses to discriminate on the basis of drug use.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0) (#119)
by mikelist on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 11:42:22 AM EST

I am a high school dropout. When I was estranged from high school long enough, I took my GED test, in which I scored an 88th percentile score overall, with one test showing me to be in the 99th percentile. At that time I was smoking incredible amounts of cannabis, and had been since I was 12-13 years old. Starting that early was very definitely a mistake, but to suggest that it harmed me intellectually is to suggest that I would have been a very exceptional individual indeed, had not the demon weed crossed my path. I'm not ready to buy into that idea, since in my elementary school years,(Catholic parochial school)I was physically disciplined EVERY DAY, for stupid shit. I wasn't a thief or bully, just a spacey little fuckup that didn't tow the line. I was beat for cheating by copying a girl's paper who was three rows away from me, without regard for the fact that I would have been unable to even read her answers from that far away. The fact was, I thought she was cute, and couldn't keep my eyes off of her. That was my first brush with violent penguins, but by no means the last. I was dragged out of class by the hair for telling a substitute teacher that I was finished with an in class assignment, in spite of the fact that several classmtes assured her that I did it in compliance with the regular teachers instructions. I was slapped for suggesting that 'the Roaring 40's' wasn't an era of unrest and frivolity in South America. These incidents happened well in advance of my introduction to pot, yet some would consider these to be typical of potheads. Since my GED, which I took in five sessions, all of which I attended while completely baked, I got married, raised four fairly to very successful children, stayed employed fairly steadily, was in the military (reserve component)for 8 years, during which I showed my complete lack of common sense by being an honor graduate in my advanced training at helicopter school(don't get me wrong, I don't advocate aircrew getting high on anything but aircraft during working hours), and graduated in the top five percent of my NCO academy cycle. I will admit to being amotivational, but there's nothing wrong with not being a compulsive overacheiver, and I think that my drug addled brain served me quite well, thank you very much. I have since moderated my smoking (I am in my 50's)but will smoke again even if apprehended by drug warriors. My point is that I'm NOT that exceptional, and there are others who have attained some degree of success while toking up on my own time, just ask Bill Gates, for example.

[ Parent ]
I plead insanity( I'm just crazy about that stuff) (none / 0) (#120)
by mikelist on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 11:46:00 AM EST

I keep forgetting to post my comments in plain text, rather than the default HTML format. So put me in prison.

[ Parent ]
anecdotally... (none / 0) (#160)
by mikelist on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 10:41:42 PM EST

I don't advocate cannabis use, I merely engage in it. All of my kids went through periods of time where they smoked cannabis, but three eventually quit, and I say good for them, they had the presence of mind to know that it effectively disqualifies you from some occupations and activities, sometimes with good reason, sometimes less good reason. Two of the three also don't drink, which is another indication of their motives, and I'm also proud of that.

[ Parent ]
Concerns. (none / 0) (#159)
by Back Spaced on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 10:16:51 PM EST

What's the legalization movement's response to that concern? Has anyone done studies either for or against it?(Is it even possible to make an unbiased one?:P) This is a tough one. Many people in prominant academic positions (doctors, researchers) stand to lose their jobs, licensure or both if they appear to be users of marijuana. However, all of the biosciences PhD candidates that I knew in school smoked MJ, as did about half of the medical students. The people that are public about their use are those with nothing to lose.

Bluto: My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.
Otter: Better listen to him, Flounder. He's pre-med.
[ Parent ]

Promoting Jury Nullification (2.62 / 8) (#65)
by harrystottle on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 10:05:21 AM EST

One proposal I've been toying with is - I hope - self explanatory below. Suggestions and improvements welcome. You can read my detailed arguments here.

******************************

The Marijuana Manifesto
a proposed strategy for promoting Jury Nullification

Marijuana Manifesto is a "working title". I'd prefer something like "The Cannabis Defence" but a bit snappier...
On no account should anyone be tempted to act as suggested by this document YET. I am not a legal expert and I haven't a clue, at this stage whether what I am proposing could actually work. If I'm wrong, it might actually make your situation worse! I propose to copy this to various better informed bodies and its final form will no doubt be influenced by their input. They may even take over the project and you'll need to go to their page/s to pursue the matter further.

I also accept that I need to add another paragraph to deal with the ludicrous argument that has gained currency since 9-11 - viz that drug use funds terrorism. That's in the melting pot.

The document proper follows:
******************************
The Marijuana Manifesto

The purpose of this document is to state clearly why the Government's insistence on prohibiting our private pleasure is unecessary, illegitimate and an inappropriate issue for the Law to deal with.

Our advice to anyone arrested for using Cannabis is that you should, when asked to comment or make a statement, make only the following response:

"In order to understand and judge my behaviour, you need to read the [this document whatever its called]".

You should plead "not guilty" to any charges related to the use of cannabis by virtue of the fact that no crime has been committed.

You do not need to deny using or possessing Cannabis. Neither do you need to admit it. You need make no other statements about the case other than the formalities and, at the appropriate time, to insist on exercising your right to a trial by Jury.

As this document (and, if necessary, expert witnesses called to support it) will then form the entire basis of your defence, the court has no choice but to accept it in evidence which means that your fellow citizens on the Jury will get to read it.

Our advice to those citizens is as follows:

The Prohibition of Cannabis is an issue of Liberty.

You may not have known it, but in most Western Democracies, the State cannot deprive anyone of "Liberty", without your consent!(1)

What this means is that when, as a juror, you sit in judgement of your fellow citizens, you have to be convinced not just that an offence defined by statute has been committed, but also that the Statute itself is fair and reasonable. Yes - you can judge the Law itself. (For precedents and further explanation please see The Juror's Handbook (1) In passing you might ask the question - why haven't we been told about these rights and powers as members of the Jury by the judge or courts themselves?)

It is our contention that the Law prohibiting the use of Cannabis is a gross infringement of our civil liberties, a gross excess of the powers of elected governments and a gross injustice to all the victims who have been labelled as criminals by virtue of breaching an illegitimate law.

Cannabis has been defined by irrational legislators as being a dangerous drug. This definition is the entire basis for the law as it now stands. It is why you may be reading this as part of a criminal prosecution.

This allegedly "dangerous drug" has been used continuously by the Human Race for over 4,700 years. During all that time, no case has ever been recorded of a death caused by overdose or allergic reaction to Cannabis. None. Ever! And although many attempts have been made, in the absence of newsworthy deaths, by government's to find evidence of less than mortal clinical damage, the medical consensus is that even heavy use of the substance does considerably less damage than either Tobacco or Alcohol(2), which, as you know, are both permitted substances. Even the Police acknowledge that Cannabis is somewhat less addictive than Coffee (3).

Even attempts to show that marijuana users cause more traffic accidents have singularly failed. The Government's own evidence suggests that Marijuana users are no more nor less likely to be involved in car accidents unless they've also been drinking alcohol - possibly because, unlike alcohol which impairs performance but makes drivers reckless, Cannabis also impairs performance but tends to make drivers more cautious(4). It seems that the worst danger associated with marijuana is that as it affects balance and co-ordination (like alcohol but to a lesser extent) there is an increased risk of accidents in general, the vast majority of which damage the user rather than innocent bystanders.

More recently much noise has been made regarding a few studies which have shown that a combination of early and heavy use of Cannabis can double the risk of psychosis in susceptible users. This is a highly controversial point because no existing studies can distinguish between cause and correlation. This is best illustrated by the relative prevalence of three drug dependencies among the psychotic population, with a comparison to the percentage of the wider population who use the three drugs.

30-40% of the Population use Tobacco (6) while 64% of psychotics use it.

75% of the Population use Alcohol (7) against 27% of psychotics and

roughly 8% of the Population use Cannabis (8) against only 2% of psychotics

Which makes it clear that, surprisingly, both Alcohol and Cannabis users are under represented in the Psychotic population while tobacco smokers are heavily over-represented. None of which proves, for example, that smoking causes psychosis. It is just as likely that psychotics simply find some relief from nicotine. As indeed they report with all three drugs. Most importantly it puts the alleged risks of cannabis induced psychosis into context with the other (legal) drugs and makes it very clear that any such risk is dramatically less than with those other drugs.

Prohibition, therefore, can never be justified on the basis of harm caused either to users or to third parties. There has, in short, rarely, if ever, been a LESS dangerous drug than Cannabis. Even Aspirin is vastly more dangerous and kills about 100-500 people a year(9).

Juries should thus be asking themselves the question: "On what reasonable basis has this substance been branded dangerous and illegal?"

Juries should further consider whether the use of Cannabis, for which the defendant is now on trial, involved anyone else or breached the rights or freedom of action of any other person. If not, then the obvious question is "Why is this a matter of Law at all?"

Isn't it rather odd to find a supposed Criminal behaviour in which there is no victim, or even potential victim, of the alleged crime?

If we commit the crime of theft the victim is the owner of the stolen goods
If we commit the crime of fraud, the victim is the person or organisation we have defrauded
If we commit the crime of homicide, the victim is dead
If we commit the crime of possessing cannabis, the victim does not exist

At worst - if the substance was indeed harmful - then those accused of the crime would also be the victim. And what sense can it possibly make to have the Law punish the victim for harming themselves? In fact, as Cannabis is so innocuous, there is no victim at all.

Can there possibly be any sensible definition of crime which doesn't require there to be either a victim of that crime or at least a potential victim? (such as exists when you are caught exceeding a speed limit) And should we be expected to support a Law which criminalises behaviour which does no harm other than breaking the law itself. Even the tiny minority of abusers of cannabis is - first - a much smaller proportion of the user population than we find with alcohol and - second - MUCH less likely to cause harm to other members of society.

Laws like this are made to be broken and it is the Jury's power and privilege to strike down such laws before they allow governments to exercise excessive and unnecessary control over their citizens. Governments declare that they are our humble Servants. It is the Jury's ultimate duty to ensure that the Servant of the People doesn't get ideas above its station and begin to act as though they were our not so humble Masters.

It is, of course, too late for the hundreds of thousands of cannabis convicts already created by this unjust and irrational law, but it is not too late to prevent further convictions.

We believe that the average juror, when allowed to exercise their freedom of thought in regard to these matters will conclude that the prohibition of Cannabis is without any foundation in science or common sense. Furthermore we believe many jurors will agree that such private behaviour should never in any case be subject to the Law in the first place.

On these two grounds Juries can and, we hope, will freely decide to refuse to convict any defendant charged with these artificial offences.

References:

1 Jurors Handbook

2
Studies Find Alcohol MUCH worse than Cannabis

"it would be reasonable to judge cannabis less of a threat to health than alcohol or tobacco"
From The Lancet editorial Volume: 352, Number 9140 republished here.

3 BBC Panorama special

4 Cannabis and Road Safety: an Outline of the Research Studies to Examine the Effects of Cannabis on Driving Skills and on Actual Driving Performance

5 Mental Health Specific Problems (see Datasets and Reports

6 Thinkquest Library

7 British Heart Foundation Statisics

8 Drugscope Annual Report 2001

9 Oh Willow Don't Weep

Drug Deaths in USA



Mostly harmless
Forgot to add the reference (none / 0) (#66)
by harrystottle on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 10:10:07 AM EST

to the source of Psychotic dependence prevalence. Its reference number 5

Mostly harmless
[ Parent ]
Works for Me, Dude! (3.00 / 2) (#92)
by Misterfixit on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 06:37:21 PM EST

Looks like a plan. Return the USA to where it was in the 1890's as far as control (or non-control, actually) of narcotics, cannibis, etc. is concerned. It was scientifically proven years ago in studies that cocaine and heroin addicts when able to obtain the pure drug functioned relatively well. Obviously, they didn't have to belong to a criminal culture. The whole facade of "War on Drugs" in the USA is nothing more than Government Business as Usual. Bureaucrats at work. The more things that are illegal the more people working in law enforcement and the more promotions for "stamping out evil". I say kill all the laws from start to finish. Eliminate laws against any and all of the so-called "Schedule" drugs in the USA. If you want to hot shot yourself with some medically pure heroin from the local Eckerds drug store, then knock yourself out (pun, I think). Last time I smoked dope was in 1974, matter of fact I quit smoking tobacco in 1985, but that's me, and not you. Smoke 'em if you got 'em, I say. YMMV, M2CW Dave

[ Parent ]
Narco Terrorism Solved in 1 Stroke (3.00 / 2) (#97)
by harrystottle on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 08:41:02 PM EST

Thanks

Although my emphasis in the above is limited to Cannabis, simply because its a slightly less emotive area, I agree with the idea of complete decriminalisation. It is, in fact, the obvious answer to the pathetic argument that "drug users fund terrorism."

I'm actually prepared to accept that it is true. Many argue, like the Jamestown Foundation, that any such claims based on the wonderful intelligence sources which told us all about the WMD in Iraq should be treated with somewhat more than usual scepticism. In commendably restrained terms they say

reports alleging (narco-terrorism's) existence seem to originate from "political intelligence" for which "truth is not the goal" of intelligence gathering

But we know, most recently after watching Peter Taylor's "The New Al Qaeda" this week that some drug money is definitely financing terrorism. (One of the Madrid terrorists was recruited to the cause precisely because he was a long established drug runner and organised the purchase of 200 kilos of dynamite in exchange for 80 kilos of Moroccan Hashish)

But the fact that this is the case provides absolutely no support for the continued prohibition of currently illicit drugs. Indeed it should be seen as one of the most potent arguments for the ending of prohibition.

First, it will, by some estimates (admittedlly usually based on intelligence from the WMD tainted sources), immediately reduce the funds available to MIFT by up to 30%. That's a pretty damn good result on its own.

Second, it will free up approximately 50% of police resources currently wasted on trying to solve a problem using techniques which are vastly more damaging than the problem they are trying to solve. These resources would become immediately available for the much more real and important war against MIFT; which is particularly topical and relevant given the stories which are beginning to emerge about Londons Metropolitan Police becoming overstretched by the ongoing investigations into the London bombings, and the knock on effects this is having on Police Forces around the country (Newsnight BBC2 tonight)

The Metropolitan Police Federation today warned that the police's ability to protect London from terrorism and other crimes will be "fatally compromised" if they have to keep up their current level of performance. Already the Met has admitted that it's had to put major investigations on hold while it copes with the huge demands of the terror threat. So how long can the police manage the extra work, who's paying the extra cost, and do we need a radical overhaul of the way we organise policing in the country?

Third, as this leaked Government report (pdf) reveals, it will eliminate no less than £16 BILLION cost of crime to the economy (that's over and above the cost of policing) That also equates to the elimination of approximately 2/3 of all property crimes in the UK which amounts to about half of all recorded crime.

Fourth it will reduce the prison population by about one third.

Fifth it will eliminate about 90% of the deaths and disease caused by drugs, the vast majority of which are caused directly by prohibition. (Lack of regulation, impure product, overdosing based on false estimates of potency, gang warfare over black market territories, shared needles etc etc)

Sixth, as legal regulated products, they can all be taxed. And providing governments don't get greedy and tax to the point of producing another black market (like the UK government has done with tobacco), the legal prices should allow health profit for the distributors, healthy tax take for the government, lower street prices for the consumer together with guaranteed consistency of quality and potency. The net financial benefits of taxation have been variously estimated at between £3 and £15 billion.

All of which adds up to:

A kick in the financial bollocks for terrorism:

Roughly 50% reduction in all recorded crimes and the elimination of the whole class of drug related crimes

Liberating 50% of stretched police resources to allocate to the real war

£20 to 30 Billion extra in the economy, of which about half would go to the Treasury. (About a third of which could be allocated to harm reduction and palliative care, as it is with the excess tobacco taxes)

and 90% reduction in drug related deaths.

So remind me, why are drugs still illegal?



Mostly harmless
[ Parent ]
Pass the Pipe Dude! (none / 0) (#201)
by Misterfixit on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 06:10:26 PM EST

You are, of course, on target with your reply to my reply which was a reply to someone else's reply.  But I digress.

When I studied under Professor Jeff Reiman at The American University back in the 1970s, we endlessly debated the "British Example" of decriminalization and prescription heroin.

Dr Reiman and I argued against most of the rest of our senior class that decriminalization of all drugs would totally destablize the "international drug trafficking junto".

Well of course it would.  Medically pure Heroin can be produced for pennies an ounce.  Marijuana isn't called "Weed" for no reason.  It will grow ANYPLACE.  The synthetics can be made using a Gilbert Company "Junior Einstein" science fair chemistry kit.  Producting and distribution of any kind of narcotic drug could be done on the same level as a bottle of aspirin tablets.

No shit.

Now that we have solved the problem of "drug wars" what oh what will we do with the thousands of unemployed drug enforcement agents who have gotten every so used to their delicious jack boots and mailed fists.  Oh, and their $50,000 plus per year salaries.

One possibility is to enlist them into the army and send them to Iraq.  The other is to retrain them as border patrol agents.

What to do, what to do.

Once your nation births a bureaucracy it is practically impossible to rid your finger of that noxious booger.

My 2 Kopecs worth.

Cheers,

Dave

[ Parent ]

+1 FP. (none / 0) (#134)
by your_desired_username on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 02:47:58 PM EST

Fix this up and throw it in the edit queue.

[ Parent ]
Telephone game (none / 0) (#147)
by Sgt York on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 05:52:26 PM EST

Please read all the way...according to the paper I just read, you potheads have a short attention span ;) , so please, read it all before responding, especially the last few paragraphs.

That quote is from the editor of the Lancet, not someone who worked on MJ effects. He bases that statement on a Hall and Solowij study from 1998, and the authors would probably take issue with him on it, based on what they said in their study. They'd definately disagree with the "MUCH" in your reference.

In their study (Lancet 1998:352 pp1611-16), they outline the adverse effects of cannabis. For chronic users, these include reduced lung function (worse than for tobacco), addiction (10% addiction rate, cp 15% for alcohol), and increased risk of premature death (similar rate as alcohol). So basically, when comparing alcohol to MJ, you get pretty much the same thing, with MJ being a little less addictive, and trading liver disease for lung disease. It looks like the lung disease for MJ use is more common than liver disease in alcohol, but they didn't come out and say it, it was just referenced. BTW, combining MJ and cigs is worse than cigs or MJ alone, so it's not just the smoke. Lung funtion is nonsmokers > cigs > MJ alone > cigs & MJ. MJ is possibly carcinogenic, and they reference immune supression, but that has been more recently been disproven. MJ does not significantly suppress the immune system.

They also outlined driving effects, saying the data is mixed, but they think that MJ has less impact on driving ability than someone with a BAC of 0.1%, but still does impair driving ability due to decreased task focus. BTW, chronic user is anyone who uses on a regular basis, including addicts and nonaddicts.

I'm all for MJ legalization. I think that it is no more harmful than alcohol, and certainly less harmful than tobacco as that it is less addictive. However, misrepresenting the published data is not the way to get people to flock to your cause.

You have a bit of a telephone game going here. When the editor said that cannabis was less harmful than alcohol or nicotine, he was exaggerating what the study said. When you say it is much less, you are exaggerating what the editor said. This hurts your credibility.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

Campaigning for legalization (none / 1) (#73)
by Magnetic North on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 01:12:39 PM EST

Look, marijuana will never be legalized in the US through politics or jury nullification.

I suggest doing like we do over here, band together in large groups and smoke pot in parks. When the cops try to break up the meeting or arrest any of the participants, then give the fascist pigs the beating of their life. After a couple of years of this, police willingness to prosecute marijuana "crimes" will go down.

Of course, if this behaviour is illegal where you reside, I must advice against it.

--
<33333
Have fun when they come back with tear gas (none / 0) (#84)
by jaredbeck on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 04:00:14 PM EST

That's all well and good until they come back with the guns.

Then you would need your own guns... and it escalates.

Which is why protests must be non-violent.

[ Parent ]

I'm sure you know this.. (none / 0) (#86)
by Magnetic North on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:18:22 PM EST

but that is not why protests must be non-violent.

--
<33333
[ Parent ]
Campaigning? (none / 0) (#126)
by thecheat137 on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 12:55:02 PM EST

There's one big problem I see with this. You're going to get a group of people totally stoned in a park. Then when the cops arrive, you're going to give them the beating of their life. While stoned. I have never partaken myself, but from what I'm lead to believe, the last thing that someone who is high on pot wants to do is something extremely active, like give someone the beating of their life.
God does not care about our mathematical difficulties; he integrates empirically.
[ Parent ]
Give the facist pigs the beating of their lives... (none / 0) (#136)
by your_desired_username on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 02:55:22 PM EST

and risk becoming just like said facist pigs.

Police brutality hasn't won the drug war. Anti-cop brutatlity hasn't won the drug war either. Violence is fun to watch, but there are all kinds of problems it cannot solve.

[ Parent ]

So okay let me get this straight. (1.12 / 8) (#75)
by /dev/trash on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 01:38:48 PM EST

We legalize marijuana.  So what next?  The 60k people who are jail for heroin, legalize that?  Then there are 50k in jail for grand theft auto, so we best legalize that too.

---
Updated 02/20/2004
New Site
Ugh! A "slippery slope" argument, (3.00 / 3) (#77)
by MrMikey on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 02:17:04 PM EST

and a bad one. Your argument is like saying that a change in speed limit from 55 MPH to 60 MPH will require we keep upping it until we get to the speed of light.

In our culture, some substances are legal, and some are not. We can legalize marijuana without having to legalize each and every other illegal substance, too.

[ Parent ]

That goes both ways (none / 0) (#78)
by NaCh0 on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 03:04:46 PM EST

In our culture, some substances are legal, and some are not. We can legalize marijuana without having to legalize each and every other illegal substance, too.

We can also keep marijuana illegal without criminalizing alcohol and tobacco. I think this is the best policy. (with more sin taxes)

--
K5: Your daily dose of socialism.
[ Parent ]

better legalize heroin (none / 0) (#87)
by noproblema on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 05:19:53 PM EST

less harmful, more addictive
Long-term use
In its pure form, heroin is relatively non-toxic to the body, causing little damage to body tissue and other organs. However, it is highly addictive and regular users are very likely to become dependent on it, even after a few days. Some long-term effects include constipation, menstrual irregularity and infertility in women and loss of sex drive in men.

Users often spend less on other things such as housing and food and, combined with reduced appetite, this can lead to malnutrition and susceptibility to infections.



[ Parent ]
ever hear of prohibition asshole? (2.25 / 4) (#102)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 02:27:07 AM EST

were you there during prohibition saying "let me get this straight, if we legalize alcohol we have to legalize pedophilia?"

no you stupid fuck, the answer is no to heroin and gta

but thanks for playing

talk about your fake hysteria straight from the propaganda department


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

right, cause heroin == peadophilia... retard [n/t] (none / 1) (#210)
by procrasti on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:00:48 AM EST



-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
You are stupid (none / 0) (#108)
by Mousky on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 09:37:00 AM EST

No one is arguing that a crime should be legalized because people are in jail. People are arguing that thousands of people are in jail because they possessed marijuana. Many did not hurt or steal from anyone. Many did not cause any damage because they smoked up. Yet, they are in jail. Drunk people injure and kill thousands of people, but it is not illegal to possess alcohol. Think before you write.

[ Parent ]
Go back to kindergarten. (none / 0) (#110)
by grendelkhan on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 09:58:58 AM EST

Clearly you're not ready to sit at the grown-ups' table. Perhaps you should go back to kindergarten and sharpen your skills at the vital game of one of these things is not like the fucking others, 'kay?

--grendelkhan
-- Laws do not persuade just because they threaten --Seneca
[ Parent ]

NOOOO! (none / 1) (#129)
by your_desired_username on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 01:43:59 PM EST

Grand Theft Auto is much, Much, MUCH more addictive than heroin. Oh, and it's also got barbie-doll sex.

[ Parent ]
Misunderstanding (none / 1) (#190)
by localman on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 01:22:47 PM EST

It sounds to me like you're just repeating arguments you've heard before without really thinking about it.

Heroin and marijuana are different things, as every bit of research in the world would indicate.  If you're going to argue that all drugs are the same, then you must think alcohol and tobacco users (and hell, why not caffiene and sugar users) should be imprisoned too.

Thievery is an actual crime: it is violating another human's rights to their property.  Those crimes are pretty much univerally agreed upon.  But marijuana use doesn't violate any other human's rights.  So comparing the two is meaningless.

The correct thing to do is to measure the harm of the activity (in this case, marijuana use) with the harm of the prohibition.  There is plenty of research on this, and there is the example of alcohol prohibition.  You will have a hard time finding evidence that marijuana use is more damaging to individuals and society than marijuana prohibition.

Disclaimer: I don't smoke tobacco or marijuana, but I support legalization and I donate regularly to NORML and/or MPP.

Cheers.

[ Parent ]

Legalise every drug. (3.00 / 3) (#91)
by Russell Dovey on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 06:33:01 PM EST

Take away a person's right to choose what they do to no-one but themselves, and they lose the vital experience and knowledge that a free person needs to survive and prosper in a free society.  Drug prohibition also stops people learning what drugs actually do to them.

This is why I hate the nanny state; I hate the control freaks who think that their opinion is so important that it outweighs that of everyone else. Because of a primitive xenophobic reaction to people on drugs ("Look, Frank, he's talking to things that aren't there!" "Well, Martha, looks like electric shock treatment is the only answer.") those on drugs are no longer considered people.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan

only effect themselves ? (none / 1) (#96)
by minerboy on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 08:09:03 PM EST

That's not really true. For example, if you misuse antibiotics, it can result in the evolution of resistant bacteria, which could infect me. Harder drugs, like heroin, LSD, etc. change behavior in such a way that individuals are a danger to their neighbors, and long term those people cause substantial public health risk because of the significant related communicable diseases, like HIV and hepatitis.



[ Parent ]
LSD??? (none / 1) (#98)
by Back Spaced on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 09:07:00 PM EST

I never knew anyone who got HIV from a sugar cube. The best point that can be made about illicit substances is that they are not all the same thing.

Bluto: My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.
Otter: Better listen to him, Flounder. He's pre-med.
[ Parent ]

yeah (none / 0) (#100)
by minerboy on Wed Aug 03, 2005 at 11:32:27 PM EST

Its a bad sentence. LSD is known to result in Mental problams - which has an impact on those around you.



[ Parent ]
Psychosis. (none / 1) (#158)
by Back Spaced on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 10:10:42 PM EST

"LSD Psychosis" has not really borne out to be the disorder that it was represented as in the sixties. In the early eighties, it was discovered that the disorder occurred in individuals with a history of psychotic disorder in either themselves or their close families. There is little doubt at this point that LSD can exacerbate the symptoms of patients with underlying psychiatric conditions. Psychotic episodes, suicide attemps and suicides occur at no higher rate among users of LSD than among the general population.

That's not to say that there aren't risks to doing it. I wouldn't consider it, for example, if I had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. And there is also the potential in any user of having a truly bad experience.

That being said, the idea that any activity should be restricted because it could have a negative impact on those around you is frankly ridiculous. By such logic, any risk-taking behavior such as scuba diving, parachuting, or riding a motorcycle should be likewise banned.

If you want to experience life, you're not necessarily going to be safe doing it. Live to your comfort level, but don't force others to go along with it.

Bluto: My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.
Otter: Better listen to him, Flounder. He's pre-med.
[ Parent ]

Licence to drug (none / 0) (#220)
by 15pso3n on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 05:02:39 AM EST

>If you want to experience life, you're not necessarily going to be safe doing it. Live to your comfort level, but don't force others to go along with it.

I completly agree with you comment, and I think that this should be the actual subject of debate.

Creating a system that protects the general public from common dangers, but allowing willing individuals to risk, explore, experiment.

Drugs are tools for body and mind manipulation. True, some of them are very dangerous if mishandled, but that is the case for almost all tools that people use. Respectivly, they can be very useful if mastered.

Maybe a licence should be issued for every drug, like for guns in some countries.

--
Addict of drugs not yet synthesized
[ Parent ]

Fair enough points, (none / 0) (#109)
by daani on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 09:56:32 AM EST

but surely not too significant by themselves?

For fun, rank from greatest to most lenient the punishments that the following crimes should attract:

(a) Possession of syringe and 2 hits of heroin.
(b) Possession of 50 hits of heroin, divided up ready to sell or use.
(c) Driving home at 80 mph three times over the legal limit.

[ Parent ]

In what country? [nt] (none / 0) (#112)
by monkeymind on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 10:14:21 AM EST


Your witty saying here
[ Parent ]

A western country with a BAC limit 0.05 (nt) (none / 0) (#115)
by daani on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 10:27:10 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Ok options: (none / 0) (#164)
by monkeymind on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 02:06:23 AM EST

1: They way it should be B, C, A 2: The way it most likely is C, A, B

Your witty saying here
[ Parent ]

You miss the point (3.00 / 2) (#118)
by meatsandwich on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 11:36:22 AM EST

For example, if you misuse antibiotics, it can result in the evolution of resistant bacteria, which could infect me.
This has nothing to do with legalizing recreational drugs. It only is relevant for medicinal drugs.
Harder drugs, like heroin, LSD, etc. change behavior in such a way that individuals are a danger to their neighbors
I call bullshit. People on heroin basically lie around like zombies. They are only a danger to their neighbors because prohibition means that heroin is expensive and they have to steal. Nobody steals to feed their alcohol and tobacco addictions. Prohibition, not drug use, is the danger to the neighbor. Although an argument could be made that amphetamine use increases violence risk, but because this is not true in all cases you need to criminalize the violence, not the drug use.
, and long term those people cause substantial public health risk because of the significant related communicable diseases, like HIV and hepatitis.
Yes, but you are missing the point again. This is a result of sharing needles, not of taking the drug. Legalize the drug and the user now has money to buy needles, or you can give the needles out to addicts (as a lot of the more progressive countries already do). Prohibition is not the answer to this problem.

[ Parent ]
pre-emption (none / 0) (#150)
by minerboy on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 06:22:26 PM EST

First, I was responding to the post that argued that people should be free to use whatever drugs they wanted, and that government shouldn't regulate chemical substances. As for other abused substances, people do steal, and panhandle to support alcohol addiction and smuggling of tabacco to avoid taxes is a significant crime. Legalizing the drug - as was tried in Switzerland, created a public nusiance, public welfare and health problems. Add to that the added cost to public health systems, particularly if the health care system is socialized.



[ Parent ]
i need to take strychnine (2.00 / 2) (#101)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 02:13:44 AM EST

to know what it does to me?

i am for the legalization of all drugs except opiates and stimulants

because the inebriating effects and addictive effects of these drugs effectively zombifies those who are exposed to it

lsd is perhaps more inebriating: but not addictive

nicotine is perhaps more addictive: but not inebriating

so lsd and nicotine should be legal

but every single drug has to evaluated individually, and there ARE factors which outwiegh some drugs acceptance

still, why do i have to be a "control freak" about that?

because these fucking zombies effect me

they wind up on my street panhandling, they steal my tv, etc.

i have no right to tell you what to do

i have no right to impede your life or your freedoms

DRUG ADDICTS IMPEDE MY RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

it's not about control asshole, it's about not wanting to fucking deal with fucking zombies

go to vancouver between gastown and chinatown and tell me again opiates and stimulants have no effect on anyone else/ neighborhoods

if YOUR drug use effects YOUR neighbors, we can regulate YOUR drug use, because your drug use DOES NOT HAPPEN IN A VACUUM

next time you comment on something, understand the reality of what the fuck you are talking about first moron

your ignorant idealism is not useful

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You never learn CTS (2.50 / 2) (#106)
by procrasti on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 07:46:15 AM EST

Those people affecting you do not affect you because of the drugs they take, but simply because the drugs they take are illegal.  Yes, I will agree that those drugs will turn those people into drug hunting 'zombies'*, but if they can get their hit for $10/week, rather than $1000, why would they steal from you for it?  Why would they mug you?

* : Just because they need the drugs doesn't make people less intelligent btw.

For the sake of your own property and safety, these drugs should be legalised.

On the other hand, if you can't see that people doing what they want with their own bodies in their own privacy is a matter of liberty, then I can't see why mj or mushies, or anything else you like should be legal either.  MJ and mushies clearly turn you into an idiot, with dangerous and mixed up views and you deserve many years in the pen snuggled up to bubba for endagering my life by messing with your brain chemistry.  How do I know what you might do after going crazy with these drugs?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

the fucking truth (none / 1) (#125)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 12:47:50 PM EST

if drugs that were addictive + inebriating like opiates and stimulants were not outlawed, their use would skyrocket

do you understand that or not?

in addition, let's make believe the government hands out these drugs for FREE (to smash your economic argument bullshit as well)

now tell me oh great einstein, what the fuck would happen?

play it out in your head

figure it the fuck out

idealistic assholes like you talk of personal freedom all the time

and yet you can't fucking see that the biggest argument AGAINST drugs is on eof personal freedom

not freedom from a busybody government

FREEDOM FROM THE FUCKING DRUG ZOMBIES

wake the FUCK up

use your FUCKING brain

play it out

figure it the fuck out you fucking hopeless ignorant idealistic twat

go to vancouver between gastown and china town

and then tell me your fucking moronic idealistic shit again

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Talking 'hard' drugs (none / 0) (#174)
by procrasti on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 02:24:49 PM EST

if drugs that were addictive + inebriating like opiates and stimulants were not outlawed, their use would skyrocket

Without arguing about addictivity again, I still disagree. Obviously you can't sell drugs like they were CocaCola. They would need more restrictions than probably both alcohol and tabacco. You might need more restrictions than soft drugs. However, you could make it available from centers which discourage use and provide education, rehabilitation programs and health care.

Education is the key though. Why would people take it up just because it isn't outlawed? Do you need strychnine to be illegal to stop you taking it? Especially if you knew that an addiction would lead to a lifetime of standing in a queue everyday/week signing on to get your dose, while being preached at about how screwed up your life is and will become.

Drugs would not be so cool if you signed for them rather than having someone at a club or a dealer at a party offer you them (first one free).

The problem with drugs and the us simply that they are not compatible with capitalism.  The demand curve is entirely inelastic, there's no price someone won't pay. You outlaw them and they just become an untaxed black market feeding crime*.

* most drug user's are more like vampires than zombies... When they are hungry, they are dangerous. Soft drug users are more like zombies.

I don't know how you can implement such centers in law and trust the government to run them and not use them to control the population like some soma nightmare. Then again, I don't know how you can trust the goverment to run schools and provide education either.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

Gastown and the smack zombies (none / 0) (#124)
by triddle on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 12:39:26 PM EST

You forgot the part about what those zombies are doing in downtown Vancouver: laying on the streets, being peaceful, some of them smell bad, and a few of them hit you up for money. Not that big a deal. I've been hit up to buy crack a couple times while vacationing there, I don't really care. I saw hookers shove suppositories up their ass on street corners and ally ways; again I don't care. A zombie came to the hotel we were staying at; the front desk told him to get out of there. Not that big a deal. I even saw a guy take out a gum wrapper, put some sort of drug on it, and snort it off the side of a 20 story building near Gastown. I just don't care.

I spoke to the locals, they all said the same thing: its not in the zombie's interests to be violent, so they aren't. Additionally it wouldn't do them any good to mug anyone because no one has money anyway (with the caveat that you are more likely to get mugged in Gastown than the part of town we stayed in). Now don't get me wrong, I live in Washington where we have decent gun laws and property rights (there are lots of ways to take care of someone breaking into your house to steal your TV), and I'm damn glad about that. But I don't think Gastown is exactly ammo for drug prohibition.

[ Parent ]

put your money where your mouth is tourist (none / 0) (#127)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST

do you own a business in china town? do you live there?

"I've been hit up to buy crack a couple times while vacationing there, I don't really care. I saw hookers shove suppositories up their ass on street corners and ally ways; again I don't care. A zombie came to the hotel we were staying at; the front desk told him to get out of there. Not that big a deal."

wow, that guy at the front desk must love all the business he gets!

was it titillating to you to visit the set of george romero's next movie you fucking tourist?

did you take a lot of pictures?

did it feel like going to the aquarium, seeing all the weird and different creatures asshole?

"Now don't get me wrong, I live in Washington where we have decent gun laws and property rights (there are lots of ways to take care of someone breaking into your house to steal your TV), and I'm damn glad about that."

ooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh, now we see how you REALLY feel

"But I don't think Gastown is exactly ammo for drug prohibition."

gee, maybe because YOU DON'T LIVE THERE?

hmmmmm.......

that's a hard question!

answer it, then rethink the shit you just spewed

fucking moron


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Ignorant insults (none / 0) (#128)
by triddle on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 01:27:52 PM EST

While the ignorant insults are going around let it be stated that you don't behave like any Canadian I've ever encountered. In fact, based on your behavior around here, I'd have guessed you were from rural redneck Texas. And exactly what are my true colors and how did you deduce them from two paragraphs? I like guns and don't think people should be coming onto my property with nefarious intent? I must be evil!

[ Parent ]
dude i agree with you 100% (none / 1) (#131)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 01:56:30 PM EST

"I like guns and don't think people should be coming onto my property with nefarious intent?"

i am not criticizing that in the least

please read what i wrote again

i'm ask you to stop being hypocritical

why do you apply one set of standards to how you take care of your place but, as a tourist, you don't apply the same standards or exepct that someone else would have the same standards where they live?

learn to read, and stop being a hypocrit, and watch the insults dissolve away


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

And further more (none / 0) (#130)
by triddle on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 01:54:14 PM EST

I didn't go to see a movie set, I don't care about the movies. I went to see a different culture, get some insight on what our neighbors think of Americans, and frankly because I enjoy being able to buy a slice of pizza and a pop for that wonderful two dollar Canadian coin. I don't know why you would assume my visit would be for some kind of "aquarium" styled enjoyment. Maybe you should settle down with the accusations  and try to engage in civil conversation; you might actually find out some truth rather than simply reinforce your view of the world with a positive-feedback cycle that involves you always being right.

And if you are going to bitch about me not referring to Canada as "America" know that I talked to the locals about that too and they said not even Canadians refer to themselves as Americans anymore. So you think I'm stupid but you also think the locals I spoke to are stupid; I doubt that all the people I spoke to were tourists.

[ Parent ]

i repeat, moron (none / 0) (#132)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 01:59:45 PM EST

why do you apply one set of standards to how you take care of your place but, as a tourist, you don't apply the same standards or exepct that someone else would have the same standards where they live?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
What? (none / 0) (#133)
by triddle on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 02:36:34 PM EST

I don't understand..... I'm not involved in Canadian politics. If you think you should have the right to blow away someone for breaking into your house, so be it (I don't know if this is legal or not in Canada). However, how can you call me a fucking moron for repeating the conversations I had with local Canadians?

Perhaps you could point out my hypocrisy (obviously I can't see it). If you can explain why I'm being a hypocrite then maybe I can learn something. If you just call me a hypocrite tourist asshole I'm not going to learn much, am I? I've re-read your reply to me and I don't see you pointing out hypocrisy, I see you screaming and jumping up and down and bitching about what a horrible person I am.

Instead of taking the attitude of "You don't live here, what can you know" why don't you point out *why* I am wrong with examples. So far all you have done is said that I don't know anything about Gastown (you have not even asserted that you live there, only that I don't). I'm assuming you do, so can you provide examples of why the locals I spoke to were wrong? Was it just because I was in "cracktown" (as I recall it was about 1.5 miles east down the same street that New Amsterdam Cafe is on, I can't remember the name, it was 2 years ago) and too far away fro Gastown? Do the locals there despise the richer part of Vancouver? Why was I in cracktown? I'm a broke college student and the hotel was inexpensive enough I could afford it but still with in nice walking distance of Gastown and my favorite pizza joints and markets.

What exactly do you think you can accomplish with being so abrasive that most people won't even spend this much time to understand your *opinion*; personally I thought this was a loosing battle the whole time and I'm surprised that the insults have stopped hurling my way. Would you like the opportunity to engage in civil discussion where another human being might learn something from your experience or are you just interested in degrading me because I am ignorant (in your eyes)?

[ Parent ]

i am an abrasive person (none / 1) (#135)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 02:55:07 PM EST

i didn't know my job here was to be your wet nurse

you don't like my insults? you don't like me?

who fucking gives a shit, i certainly don't

deal with it, or don't fucking respond

otherwise, i'm not your fucking nanny, asshole

now: i'm insulting you because you are giving me reason not to respect you

i repeat: why do you expect that taking care of yourself is an amaerican quality?

canadians don't care about their neighborhoods?

my problem with you is simply this: it makes sense for you to defend what's yours from decay

AS YOU SAID IN YOUR INITIAL POST

but not for canadians to do the same

AS YOU SAID IN YOUR INITIAL POST

that's funny

i thought canadians were my fellow human beings

i didn't know that you cross an arbitrary geopolotical border, and suddenly, no one wants to take care fo their neighborhoods

do you know what that kind of thinking is called

HYPOCRISY

wake the fuck up


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Congratulations on being abbrasive (none / 0) (#138)
by triddle on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 03:22:33 PM EST

and for getting the last word in because I'm not going to reply to this but I'm sure you are. I didn't advocate Canadian's being pushovers, I said the local Canadian's I spoke to said violent crime isn't a problem because of the smack zombies running around. That may not be true but it is true that I was told that. You still have not stated that there is a problem with violent crime in Gastown (and if there is, that it is related to drug use) or offered possible reasons for why the opinion I was given by locals may be wrong. Considering that you live in NYC and have only alluded to the fact that you have business interests in Gastown (with out a definitive statement) I'm just going to consider you taking the same tactic as politicians: its all in what is not said (and not what is alluded to) and that you are full of shit. If you like being considered a politician then keep up the good work.

[ Parent ]
ok, i'll take the final word (none / 0) (#139)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 03:34:45 PM EST

"You forgot the part about what those zombies are doing in downtown Vancouver: laying on the streets, being peaceful, some of them smell bad, and a few of them hit you up for money. Not that big a deal."

guess what?

it's a big deal

thought experiment for you: if it was in front of your house, would you have such a laissez faire attitude?

didn't think so

hypocrite

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Finally a decent point (none / 1) (#142)
by triddle on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 04:47:37 PM EST

What the hell, I'll break my silence. I wonder if that is the first time anyone got something useful out of you? Anyway, you did make a good point. But think of this: I don't live in the big city; I live in a semi-rural area with 4 houses on my private street. If a crack head took up refuge on my door I would kick him off my property. There is little recourse to get him off the private street because there is easement on it but what does that matter? I'll step over him on my way to my car and ignore his pleas for money. He can't hurt me from the street and all my neighbors would notice him breaking into my house. Our property and gun rights take care of the rest.

You choose to live in a Big City with gun control but that is your *choice* as is the choice for those who live in Gastown. Here is a thought experiment for you: if you didn't live in the Big City would you care so much? I don't understand why you claim strong gun and property rights, with the ability to defend yourself and your property, yet choose to live in dense New York City. Call me ignorant if you want but exactly what can you do about someone burgling your house?

Also, do not confuse polite with pussy. And if you think I want to suck on your tits you have a new thing coming; please do not offer again, I'm not attracted to men.

By the way, if you really are worried about the consequences of the weak drug prohibition in Vancouver, BC why haven't you brought up the point of how much in taxes it costs? You raised points about smelly people living in your doorstep but as a fiscal conservative (I'm assuming) shouldn't you be worried about the amount of taxes that it takes to support the previously mentioned crack heads? The only reason they can have that life style with our resorting to violent crime is because the tax rate is so high the Province (I believe) can afford to support those non-working citizens. They also are fed at no cost and I believe they receive a stipend which goes directly to their drug use. Your oversight on this matter leaves me with the following questions:

Have you ever been to Gastown? Do you have *any* idea what you are talking about? Or are you just so hot-headed that you can't make any logical argument? Or am I so out of date (its been two years since I've visited) that the crackheads are no longer being supported by the government and violent crime has become a problem, or has violent crime always been a problem? Do you think you can act civilly for one more post and answer these questions?

[ Parent ]

"Do you think you can act civilly... (none / 1) (#143)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 05:08:30 PM EST

for one more post and answer these questions?"

no

fuck off asshole

i'm not interested in discussing tangential issues like gun control and tax rates with you as a precondition to proving me wrong on the original point

you conceded i had a point about zombies in the street and hypocrisy

so good for you

now the rest is just fucking fascinating, but you don't win an argument by changing the subject

so bye bye asshole, you lose

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

The drug problem is not clear cut (none / 0) (#148)
by triddle on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 06:04:55 PM EST

The problem is that drug control is not clear cut. Why does it take these side issues such as gun control, property rights, and the behavior of drug addicts? Because this is an extremely complex issue. Prohibition is not going to solve it; case in point:

It is impossible to keep drugs out of prisons. How are we going to keep it out of the hands of the normal populace?

How much does it cost to implement the War On Drugs?

How much does it cost to implement the solution that Canada uses?

How much does it cost to implement another solution?

How much does it cost to not have the problem (rural areas).

The War On Drugs and prohibition will not work in the long run and will continue to get more and more expensive. The Canadian solution is probably the same way.

Compromise idea: "Drug" camps where addicts can go, work, live. Government sponsored but the addicts perform in a local economy. Hopefully the economy could support some of its own costs and doing remedial labor could even produce a profit. The drug addicts have a stable place to live and are secure; they have no need to perform "ills" against society. Provide a detox and treatment center and try to get people over their *medical condition* (note: prison will not achieve this).

Why would you want this? Get the camp out of the city; now circletimessquare doesn't have to put up with it anymore. And if you don't have to pay for the impossible task of the policing the populace for substance abuse taxes might just go down.

It may not be a perfect idea but discussion is required to come up with something better. Screaming, insulting, and calling to repeat the exact same failures is getting the entire country no where.

So by the way, fuck you too, because with out all of us working together we can never solve this problem.

[ Parent ]

snore... (none / 0) (#151)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 06:24:22 PM EST

the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on pedophilia...

these things are expensive and never ending

and they are static states of being, they're simply the wages of maintaining civilization

when you take the trash out on wednesday, do you not have to take out the trash every wednesday in the future?

no, trash keeps accumulating, taking out the trash is the wages of maintaining your house: nothing will make trash go away

likewise: pedophiles, drug addicts, and terrorists

they are born anew in ever generation, at a regular statistical rate, no matter what the hell you do

it's expensive to fight them, BUT IT'S MORE EXPENSIVE NOT TO

now i have no interest in debating you the exact nature of HOW to fight them, however fucking complex that is, because i'm just not fucking interested in that in this thread

there are many ways to fight these things, some good, some bad

my point is simply that you have to fight them, forever

and what i'm interested in is this:

telling off the fucking morons who think not fighting drugs is cheaper (by which i mean opiates and stimulants, lsd is not addictive, nicotine is not incapacitating, and marijuana is more harmless than alcohol: all should be legal)

and telling off the fucking morons who think the war on drugs/ terrorism/ pedophilia will end someday, or ever CAN end

these morons are toxic to the debate, because they simply don't fucking understand reality

so i'll make you a deal: you debate endlessly with some other egghead about the best way to fight drugs

i'll stand at the front door and remove the ignorant idealistic assholes who think that there could be no war and so in fact do nothing more than make things worse, simply because you can do nothing BUT make things worse if you don't recognize the exact nature of the problem before you

deal?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Strangest debate ever... (none / 1) (#161)
by triddle on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 11:03:01 PM EST

.. but I learned something. I think we are aiming for the same prize here and I really understand where you are coming from about people poisoning any intelligent debate. I think your garbage analogy is spot on as well. The stress level be damned, this is politics. Cheers.

[ Parent ]
cheers ;-) nt (none / 0) (#163)
by circletimessquare on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:16:44 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
How to Legalize Marijuana (3.00 / 3) (#116)
by Low End Dan on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 10:51:44 AM EST

The way to get pot legalized in Corporation America has to be based on financial incentives. The rights argument and the less harm argument haven't worked.

Almost every state, the federal government, and tobacco companies aren't taking in money like they used to. Solution: legalize marijuana and tax it at least as heavily as cigarettes, alcohol, and gasoline. Allow farmers to grow pot, make money, and pay taxes. Finally, save those who smoke the expense of illegal pot of questionable quality and the danger of jail time for choosing something not significantly different from tobacco or alcohol.

Once marijuana is legalized, release everyone held on pot charges - possession or distribution - and pot-related charges (tax evasion, illegal importation, etc.). Expunge pot charges and convictions from everyone's records.

Make a safer joint. One argument is that pot is more dangerous than tobacco because it's smoked unfiltered. Let Phillip Morris & others make marijuana cigarettes with filters and known quality pot and that problem is solved.

The way to get pot legalized? Convince the bigger tobacco companies that it is their best interest to do so. They know how to lobby.

The worst way to get pot legalized? Civil disobedience. Public demonstrations. Smart ass remarks. The public has to perceive marijuana users are decent, respectable members of society, not social misfits or rebels.

I am not a smoker (pot or tobacco), but I do have a vested interest as a taxpayer who sees so much money beint wasted on "victimless" crimes.

Funny (none / 1) (#117)
by ak1 on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 11:18:41 AM EST

Let Phillip Morris & others make marijuana cigarettes with filters and known quality pot and that problem is solved.

In Austria's national archive you can find huge piles of cargo papers from the late 19th century, showing that the "Austria Tabak", the only Austrian tobacco company at that time, imported shiploads and shiploads of Marijuana from overseas, and selling it in the country. :-)



[ Parent ]
Phillip Morris? Hell no. (none / 1) (#156)
by cburke on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 09:19:19 PM EST

The first thing those bastards would do is cut the joint with tobacco so they can continue to enjoy the benefits of physically addicted customers.  Then they'd add a bunch of other chemicals that would make pot as bad as cigarettes.

Plus, since the big tobacco companies have (rightly) been smeared as evil bastards for years now, I don't think they would make the best advocates at the forefront of any legalization movement.

Other than that, I agree completely.  Isn't that basically what NORML is trying to do?  Make pot smokers seem normal?

[ Parent ]

Typical pot-head "logic" (1.00 / 14) (#137)
by omegageek on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 03:09:40 PM EST

You claim that pot isn't dangerous. Well it's pretty obvious to us non pot-heads that there's something seriously wrong with you stoners. Your "thinking" is so full of logical holes it's like Swiss cheese.

Part of your arguement is that pot itself isn't necessarily the reason that so many of you pot smokers are so cognitively challenged. Ok, lets explore that. According to your "logic," the low-lifes, down and outers, and mental deficients of our society are the ones more likely to take up using pot, (for reasons you don't bother explaining and without showing any statistics to back it up). So according to you pot isn't the cause of their problems, but just a symptom. Even making the wild assumption that this claim is true, well, so what? Just because they are down and out they should be entitled to uninhibited indulgence in their drug of choice? Is that what you are saying? Let them get stoned out of their minds if they like so they don't have to deal with the fact that they are losers who have messed up their lives, instead of facing up to reality and trying to work toward improving their situation. Is that it?

As for your legal "arguments," well they are simply assinine. Just because the law forbids you from using your drug of choice doesn't make it a bad law. It just means you have a drug problem. If you choose to break the law then you are a criminal and deserve to be treated like one. As for your whining about murderers and rapists being "worse" criminals than pot users, well that's debatable. The law is the law. If you are willing to break one law, who knows how many others you'd just as willingly break if you thought they also somehow obstructed your imagined personal freedom to do whatever the hell you please. A criminal is a criminal. All criminals deserve, and need to be, punished. Otherwise laws are pointless. The severity of the punishment the only variable. The casual user caught with a small amount for personal consumption isn't punished anywhere nearly as harshly as murderers or rapists. Even big-time dealers and industrial scale growers don't have to worry about the threat of being executed like murderers do. So your arguments about murders and rapists is just a straw man.

You also claim that the anti-pot laws themselves cause people to smoke pot. Huh?!?! You seem to be arguing that if someone can't get a federal student loan because of a drug conviction, their next logical move is to go buy some pot and get stoned, instead of just going to a bank and getting a loan, or otherwise sucking it up and getting on with life. Laws don't make people criminals. People make themselves criminals when they choose to break a law. People need to take responsibility for their own poor choices in life and quit looking for someone or something else to blame.

Then you go on to make the outrageous claim that the government has no right to control what sort of plants people grow in their own homes. What idiocy. Of course the government has that right because we the people gave them that right because we don't want pot growers or poppy growers living next door to us. The majority of people don't want to live next door to a drug growing operation, and they have every right to enact laws prohibiting it.

Laws are rules that govern how a society works. They are made by and for people of that society. They don't just come out of nowhere. If you don't want to obey the laws of our society then you really only have two choices. Either pack up your bong and move elsewhere (and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out), or go ahead and break the law and face the music. Either way, nobody wants to hear your pathetic stoner whining.

Omegageek


Digital Rights Management? Hell no! The only person with any rights on MY computer is ME.

Your sig.. (3.00 / 5) (#140)
by svara on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 03:59:13 PM EST

Digital Rights Management? Hell no! The only person with any rights on MY computer is ME.

Put in perspective of the rest of your comment, that's actually a funny thing for you to say.



[ Parent ]
How so? (1.50 / 2) (#168)
by omegageek on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:35:37 AM EST

Since DRM isn't law, I fail to see the connection.

So, no response to anything else I wrote? I'll take that as tacit agreement then.

Omegageek>


Digital Rights Management? Hell no! The only person with any rights on MY computer is ME.
[ Parent ]

Hey hypocrit (3.00 / 4) (#170)
by meatsandwich on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 10:03:23 AM EST

Digital Rights Management? Hell no! The only person with any rights on MY computer is ME.
The war on drugs? Hell no! The only person with any rights on MY body is ME.
Since DRM isn't law, I fail to see the connection.
You break the DRM and you are breaking the law (DMCA).
Laws are rules that govern how a society works. They are made by and for people of that society. They don't just come out of nowhere. If you don't want to obey the laws of our society then you really only have two choices. Either pack up your bong and move elsewhere (and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out), or go ahead and break the law and face the music.
If Apple/Microsoft/Intel get the DRM on your computer you better just shutup and accept it, or leave the country.

[ Parent ]
More stoner "logic" (1.00 / 2) (#175)
by omegageek on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:03:39 PM EST

The war on drugs? Hell no! The only person with any rights on MY body is ME.

Fine. Do whatever you like to your body. I don't care, unless you are a down and outer who expects taxpayers like me to pick up the medical tab for your self-destructive behaviors, in which case I intend to have a say in what you are allowed to do to your body via getting laws against said behaviors passed.

Anyway, buying, selling, transporting, growing, etc., drugs is illegal. Nobody gets prosecuted for simply using drugs, unless there are extenuating circumstances. So you are free to pollute your body any way you please, as long as you can do it without breaking the law. Break the law and you will be dealt with as the criminal you are. Get used to it.

If Apple/Microsoft/Intel get the DRM on your computer you better just shutup and accept it, or leave the country.

Until that day comes your "argument" is just a whiny straw man.

Omegageek


Digital Rights Management? Hell no! The only person with any rights on MY computer is ME.
[ Parent ]

We're being attacked left and right by straw men (3.00 / 2) (#181)
by meatsandwich on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:53:19 PM EST

... who expects taxpayers like me to pick up the medical tab for your self-destructive behaviors, in which case I intend to have a say in what you are allowed to do to your body via getting laws against said behaviors passed
And what medical problems do you expect a pot user to have? I can see an alcoholic to have liver problems, and suffer from potential accidents. So why is it alcohol should be legal and pot not? You conveniently ignored that question in the other post. Obesity is an industrial world epidemic right now, where you and I are picking up the tab for the resulting heart-conditions and diabetes. So I guess we should make it criminal to possess sugar, fatty foods, McDonalds, ... etc. Oh, I know, "a straw man". Except that this analogy is entirely apt unless you can tell me what makes pot more of a problem than alcohol, or in the medical costs issue you raise, overeating.
Nobody gets prosecuted for simply using drugs, unless there are extenuating circumstances.
Possession is also illegal. I don't know how you expect people to use drugs without buying it and possessing it.
Until that day comes your "argument" is just a whiny straw man.
I think I've seen you use the word straw man in every post you've written. Your vocabulary range is astounding. I think you think every analogy is a straw man, but it's not if it's relevant.

[ Parent ]
Logical fallacies (1.00 / 2) (#188)
by omegageek on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 11:47:34 AM EST

And what medical problems do you expect a pot user to have?

Most of the same ones of any smoker. Inhaling smoke, no matter what plant is producing it, isn't any good for your lungs and heart. Deny it all you like, but you get most of the same nasty gunk from pot that you do from tobacco. Then there is the impairment issue. If you do an injury to yourself or others while under the influence, don't expect me to pick up the tab. And don't bother whining about how pot doesn't impair you. I've seen it.

So I guess we should make it criminal to possess sugar, fatty foods, McDonalds, ... etc. Oh, I know, "a straw man".

Well if you knew it, why did you go ahead and say something so stupid anyway? I mean really! Is that the best argument you shit-stupid stoners can come up with? That you should have the right to be as self-destructive as those other people?

I think I've seen you use the word straw man in every post you've written.

Maybe that's because you stoners are all incapable of actually coming up with a valid argument and so instead fall back on the same few logical fallacies. Do you people really believe that shit doesn't kill brain cells?  Have you actually read the "arguments" of the pro-legalization faction in this thread. You all come across as drooling morons.

Omegageek


Digital Rights Management? Hell no! The only person with any rights on MY computer is ME.
[ Parent ]

Re; Logical fallacies (none / 0) (#204)
by chroma601 on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 08:13:04 AM EST

You come across as an authoritarian bastard.
aibohphobia: the fear of palindromes
[ Parent ]
huh? (3.00 / 3) (#207)
by meatsandwich on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 05:14:37 PM EST

And what medical problems do you expect a pot user to have?
Most of the same ones of any smoker. Inhaling smoke, no matter what plant is producing it, isn't any good for your lungs and heart. Deny it all you like, but you get most of the same nasty gunk from pot that you do from tobacco.
Hey bonehead, did you hear? Tobacco smoking is legal.
Then there is the impairment issue. If you do an injury to yourself or others while under the influence, don't expect me to pick up the tab. And don't bother whining about how pot doesn't impair you. I've seen it.
Impaired like alcohol you mean? Umm, legal. We tried criminalizing alcohol remember? How did that turn out? A clue: the same way the criminalizing of marijuana has turned out.
So I guess we should make it criminal to possess sugar, fatty foods, McDonalds, ... etc. Oh, I know, "a straw man".
Well if you knew it, why did you go ahead and say something so stupid anyway?
Because whenever you are presented an argument you can't counter you cover your eyes and ears and yell at the top of your voice "straw man! straw man! staw man!"
I mean really! Is that the best argument you shit-stupid stoners can come up with? That you should have the right to be as self-destructive as those other people?
How self-destructive is it? I'd say not very. Probably less risky than over-eating, over-drinking, parachuting, horse-riding, swimming, ... you get the idea. If people want to take risks it's up to them, not you.
Have you actually read the "arguments" of the pro-legalization faction in this thread. You all come across as drooling morons.
Arguments:
1) More costly to police and prosecute the prohibition than it would be for say potential health issues if it were legalized.
2) Organized crime profits from the black market. If legal government, would tax it and profit.
3) Less health risk associated than some currently legal recreational activities
4) What I do with my body is my business and no-one elses.


[ Parent ]
Wake up (1.33 / 3) (#215)
by omegageek on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 08:21:00 AM EST

Hey bonehead, did you hear? Tobacco smoking is legal.

For the moment. However the number of places you can light up legally is dwindling and the taxes are being cranked up in a deliberate effort to make smoking prohibitively expensive. The handwriting is on the wall. The days of legal tobacco are numbered because the damage it does to our society is simply too expensive. Comparing pot to tobacco is a great way to never get it decriminalized.

Impaired like alcohol you mean?

Yes. Comparing yourselves to drunks who do all sorts of destructive things is a sure-fire winner of an argument for decriminalization. Yesseree bob!

We tried criminalizing alcohol remember? How did that turn out? A clue: the same way the criminalizing of marijuana has turned out.

The difference is that the majority of people drink. So alcohol prohibition was doomed from the start. The majority of people are not pot-heads. Then there is the whole defeatist attitude of "We can't stop the criminals so lets just decriminalize it." That isn't going to fly with a lot of people.

Because whenever you are presented an argument you can't counter you cover your eyes and ears and yell at the top of your voice "straw man! straw man! staw man!"

No, I only do that when I am presented with a straw man. I have yet to see a coherent argument out of you pot heads, let alone one I couldn't counter.

How self-destructive is it? I'd say not very.

Of course you'd say that.

If people want to take risks it's up to them, not you.

If you could somehow convince the rest of society that your risky behavior would in no way impact them then you might have an argument. But in reality we know you aren't just risking your own skin. While impaired you are a danger to others, and any medical expenses you incur (to yourself or others) due to your pot use will almost certainly have to be covered at least in part by the rest of us (if not directly through public assistence then through higher medical insurance premiums). So the rest of us can and do have a right (if not an absolute obligation) to prohibit some forms of risky behavior. That's just part of living in civilized society. Get used to it.

1) More costly to police and prosecute the prohibition than it would be for say potential health issues if it were legalized.

Proof? Where are the numbers to back up this pot-head utopian delusion? Also this same "argument" could be (mis)applied to almost any illegal activity by those who are deluded enough to think they have some sort of god-given right to engage in that activity.

2) Organized crime profits from the black market. If legal government, would tax it and profit.

Again, this is a generic argument that can be applied to any illegal activity, so it is no argument at all. If nothing were illegal then there wouldn't be any criminals. However, civilized people have a right to decide what is legal and illegal in their societies. That is kind of the definition of civilization after all. As for the taxation issue, well then organized crime will just move into the black market for illegal tax-free pot just like the black markets for illegal tax-free booze and tobacco we have had for as long as there have been taxes on booze and tobacco. If you think organized crime will dry up and blow away through decriminalization then you have killed far too many brain cells with that shit already.

3) Less health risk associated than some currently legal recreational activities.

Irrelevant. Even in the unlikely event you can someday prove it is somewhat less risky than say smoking, that doesn't mean that people are going to allow yet another self-destructive behavior to be legalized. We already have enough legal ones.

4)What I do with my body is my business and no-one elses.

See above. If you lived all alone on a desert island that argument might fly. But since you are part of the rest of society and the rest of us have to deal with you and the consequences of your actions, we have the right to tell you what you can and can't do with your body. Deal with it.

Omegageek


Digital Rights Management? Hell no! The only person with any rights on MY computer is ME.
[ Parent ]

Finally some points from you (3.00 / 3) (#217)
by meatsandwich on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 12:20:47 PM EST

Hey bonehead, did you hear? Tobacco smoking is legal.
For the moment. However the number of places you can light up legally is dwindling and the taxes are being cranked up in a deliberate effort to make smoking prohibitively expensive. The handwriting is on the wall. The days of legal tobacco are numbered because the damage it does to our society is simply too expensive. Comparing pot to tobacco is a great way to never get it decriminalized.
Tobacco will never be illegal. There's a big difference between banning it from public places and criminilizing it altogether. Prohibitively expensive? It's under $10 a pack isn't it. Excuse me while I mortgage my house to pay for my tobacco habit. <sigh>
Impaired like alcohol you mean?
Yes. Comparing yourselves to drunks who do all sorts of destructive things is a sure-fire winner of an argument for decriminalization. Yesseree bob!
The mistake you make is to assume everyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic. Most alcohol drinkers are not dependent and drink in moderation. Same holds true for cannibas smokers. That is, the vast majority of alcohol and cannibas users are doing negligible harm to themselves. Comparing the average cannibas smoker to the average alcohol drinker is a fairer analogy than the worst case scenario which you use.
We tried criminalizing alcohol remember? How did that turn out? A clue: the same way the criminalizing of marijuana has turned out.
The difference is that the majority of people drink. So alcohol prohibition was doomed from the start. The majority of people are not pot-heads. Then there is the whole defeatist attitude of "We can't stop the criminals so lets just decriminalize it." That isn't going to fly with a lot of people.
Nobody is saying "we can't stop the criminals so decriminalize it". We've outlined the reasons for legalization. Every body speeds occasionally while driving. Should we say "OK, no more speeding tickets"? Using the argument that it should be legal because everybody is doing it is not how our laws should be determined. There should be no hypocrisy in the legal system.
Because whenever you are presented an argument you can't counter you cover your eyes and ears and yell at the top of your voice "straw man! straw man! staw man!"
No, I only do that when I am presented with a straw man. I have yet to see a coherent argument out of you pot heads, let alone one I couldn't counter.
You think that every analogy is a straw man. It's only a straw man if it's a bad analogy. Comparing marijuana laws to alcohol and tobacco laws, and marijuana's health risks to other legal recreational activity's health risks is not a straw man if you are basing your criminalization arguments on the health risks of marijuana. If you are using health risks as an argument you better stand up and tell us why certain other activities of higher risk (overeating, skydiving, horse riding, motorcross, cycling, ocean swimming, skiing) should not be criminalized. Otherwise you just look like a hypocrit.
How self-destructive is it? I'd say not very.
Of course you'd say that.
As above, you are more likely to die or end up in hospital overeating, skydiving, horse riding, motorcross, cycling, ocean swimming, skiing, ... etc than if you are a marijuana smoker.
If people want to take risks it's up to them, not you.
If you could somehow convince the rest of society that your risky behavior would in no way impact them then you might have an argument. But in reality we know you aren't just risking your own skin. While impaired you are a danger to others, and any medical expenses you incur (to yourself or others) due to your pot use will almost certainly have to be covered at least in part by the rest of us (if not directly through public assistence then through higher medical insurance premiums). So the rest of us can and do have a right (if not an absolute obligation) to prohibit some forms of risky behavior. That's just part of living in civilized society. Get used to it.
See above for other riskier but legal recreational activities. If this is your argument then you have to draw a line in the sand and define "what is considered too risky?". i.e. Come up with a number. For example: "if more than 0.1% of people who participate in the activity end up in hospital (or dead) as a direct result of that participation then the activity should be illegal". If you don't want to be a hypocrit you need to define the law like this, and not just arbitrarily criminalize certain activities based on a whim.
1) More costly to police and prosecute the prohibition than it would be for say potential health issues if it were legalized.
Proof? Where are the numbers to back up this pot-head utopian delusion? Also this same "argument" could be (mis)applied to almost any illegal activity by those who are deluded enough to think they have some sort of god-given right to engage in that activity.
If there is no victim there is no crime. Any activity that has a victim should usually be criminalized. The use of non-addictive drugs has no victim.
Even if I am incorrect on the cost comparison (I'm not, but I don't have evidence handy) the taxation I describe below will be adjusted to include the medical costs. i.e. If legalized the general public would not pay one cent towards medical costs that result from marijuana use. The same can't be said right now. We are all currently paying taxes towards marijuana law enforcement.
2) Organized crime profits from the black market. If legal government, would tax it and profit.
Again, this is a generic argument that can be applied to any illegal activity, so it is no argument at all. If nothing were illegal then there wouldn't be any criminals. However, civilized people have a right to decide what is legal and illegal in their societies. That is kind of the definition of civilization after all. As for the taxation issue, well then organized crime will just move into the black market for illegal tax-free pot just like the black markets for illegal tax-free booze and tobacco we have had for as long as there have been taxes on booze and tobacco. If you think organized crime will dry up and blow away through decriminalization then you have killed far too many brain cells with that shit already.
Illegal tax-free pot market? You mean like we have a massive illegal tax-free tobacco and alcohol maket? Who the hell buys alcohol and tobacco illegally? Give me a break. The market is miniscule. Compare it to the market during alcohol prohibition and you've got a fair comparison in the potential drop in organized crime. Their business in marijuana will drop close to 100% (as it did with alcohol). Organized crime will not disappear, but their disappearing profits in marijuana will force most of them to direct their investments elsewhere.
3) Less health risk associated than some currently legal recreational activities.
Irrelevant. Even in the unlikely event you can someday prove it is somewhat less risky than say smoking, that doesn't mean that people are going to allow yet another self-destructive behavior to be legalized. We already have enough legal ones.
Bullshit irrelevant. Your entire argument is based on healthcare costs to society (please mention other arguments if you have them). Like I said earlier, if risk is your issue then lets not just compare it to smoking, you need to compare it to every other recreational activity in terms of risk.
4)What I do with my body is my business and no-one elses.
See above. If you lived all alone on a desert island that argument might fly. But since you are part of the rest of society and the rest of us have to deal with you and the consequences of your actions, we have the right to tell you what you can and can't do with your body. Deal with it.
I agree you society has the right, but if your laws are hypocrisy and there are no victims to your "crimes" then I have a right to point it out and try change those laws.

[ Parent ]
Forgot to add ... (none / 1) (#218)
by meatsandwich on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 12:52:28 PM EST

Checkout this table. My God, look at all those marijuana deaths!

Now if healthcare costs to society are your issue then please tell me why we aren't throwing all those "poor diet and physical inactivity" people mentioned in the survey in prison?

And if there is another issue other than healthcare costs to society then please mention it, because you haven't yet.

[ Parent ]
Hide(0), Tries too hard, overall a weak troll [nt] (none / 0) (#141)
by Empedocles on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 04:08:39 PM EST



---
And I think it's gonna be a long long time
'Till touch down brings me 'round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home

[ Parent ]
Where to start? (none / 0) (#144)
by meatsandwich on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 05:09:00 PM EST

If you don't want to obey the laws of our society then you really only have two choices. Either pack up your bong and move elsewhere (and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out), or go ahead and break the law and face the music.
How about fighting to change the bad laws? Oh but wait, according to you the legal system is perfect, every law and every punishment is just dandy. The alcoholics and the tobacco addicts are just great, but fuck those evil pot smokers. You don't need to think do you, when you have the government to tell you what's morally right and wrong?

I won't address the rest of your moronic post since I've already fed you enough, troll.

[ Parent ]
Straw men (1.00 / 2) (#167)
by omegageek on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:31:54 AM EST

Oh but wait, according to you the legal system is perfect

I never said that, moron.

The alcoholics and the tobacco addicts are just great

I never said that either, moron.

you have the government to tell you what's morally right and wrong?

No, you moronic pot-head. If you were capable of reading for comprehension you'd have clearly seen that I said the people decide what is right and wrong.

Since you have no response to anything I actually said, I'm just going to assume you have no logical rebuttal and your silence constitutes tacit agreement. HAND.

Omegageek


Digital Rights Management? Hell no! The only person with any rights on MY computer is ME.
[ Parent ]

So should we criminilze alcohol? (none / 1) (#171)
by meatsandwich on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 10:18:36 AM EST

The people who argue against legalizing pot can never answer the following:
Explain to me why pot should be criminal and alcohol legal?
Every argument you and everyone else make against pot legalization also applies to alcohol. Do you advocate the criminilization of alcohol? If not, explain why and how the same argument does not apply to pot?

[ Parent ]
Irrelevant (2.00 / 2) (#172)
by omegageek on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:48:42 PM EST

I don't drink alcohol. If you think you can get alcohol banned then go for it. It makes no nevermind to me. That would be great if for no other reason than it gives the druggies one less thing to whine and bitch and moan about, and draw inappropriate comparisons to.

Anyway, bringing up alcohol is just another straw man. The people have decided alcohol is legal and pot is illegal. Deal with it.

Omegageek


Digital Rights Management? Hell no! The only person with any rights on MY computer is ME.
[ Parent ]

No clue (3.00 / 3) (#180)
by meatsandwich on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:40:52 PM EST

The point to the article is "should we legalize marijuana?". Your response is "it's illegal". Yes, we know that moron, we're discussing whether or not the law should change. You seem to offer no reason why it shouldn't change other than "it's illegal". So I take it that if the law was to change you'd be OK with it? If not, why not?

[ Parent ]
Missing the point (none / 1) (#187)
by omegageek on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 11:29:08 AM EST

The point to the article is "should we legalize marijuana?". Your response is "it's illegal"

Actually that was my response to side issues about why people are punished for "just using a plant" that were raised in this thread. And the reason is because it is illegal. HTH.

So I take it that if the law was to change you'd be OK with it? If not, why not?

Whether I am ok with it or not is irrelevant. I'm not going to use the shit whether it is legal or not. The point is that you stoners have presented no good argument for legalization. The best you seem to be able to do is to compare pot to booze and alcohol and then whine that you ought to be able to screw up your body with your drug of choice like the alkies and smokers do. That's a pretty lame argument that will never lead to legalization.

Omegageek


Digital Rights Management? Hell no! The only person with any rights on MY computer is ME.
[ Parent ]

see other post (none / 0) (#208)
by meatsandwich on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 05:23:18 PM EST

Whether I am ok with it or not is irrelevant. I'm not going to use the shit whether it is legal or not.
Just like you'll not have any friends whether having them is legal or not. Nobody cares what you are going to do. The issue is whether society has the choice or not.
The best you seem to be able to do is to compare pot to booze and alcohol and then whine that you ought to be able to screw up your body with your drug of choice like the alkies and smokers do. That's a pretty lame argument that will never lead to legalization.
I summarize my basic arguments over here. Please counter them.

[ Parent ]
Tomacco (none / 0) (#145)
by JVincent on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 05:23:11 PM EST

A lage procentage of people who suffer from stress smoke tobacco. It's not the cause but still, we shouldn't let these people just escape their problems using this drug Tobacco isn't the cause of their problems, but just a symptom. So what? Just because they are down and out they should be entitled to uninhibited indulgence in their drug of choice? We shouldn't let them lean agains this abuse so they don't have to deal with the fact that they are losers who have messed up their lives, instead of facing up to reality and trying to work toward improving their situation. Is that it? Tobacco ruins you life(or it would be if possession was illigal) and leads to heavior drug use(Anyone doing cocaine will most certainly have used tobacco at one time or another, and most still use it). We could try this again with alcohol or even caffeine. The point is that I as a free man have the right to select my addictions. Ofcause this doesn't transfer to America, land of the not so free.

[ Parent ]
Irrelevant, but anyway ... (none / 0) (#184)
by cdguru on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 10:34:44 PM EST

There is no reason why we need to have alcohol or tobacco addicts running around either. Tobacco would be very simple to control and would eliminate hundreds of thousands of deaths each year worldwide. Especially considering most of the cigarette tobacco is grown in the US. Turning off the subsidies to tobacco farmers would virtually end this crop in the US and save these people.

Yup, you guessed it - I am a non-smoker. Both parents died from complications from smoking. Not a pretty way to go.

[ Parent ]

Marijuana is a drug SOLUTION, not a problem! (none / 0) (#146)
by fragermk on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 05:28:49 PM EST

I am a senior system analysis major. I smoke pot, I am a long distance runner and a Perl programmer. Smoking weed has never hurt my ability to do either of these things. Also, when I smoke it puts me in a very relaxed and happy mood which often makes me want to either hack more code or go for a run. Either way, pot is not harmful, it doesn't cause cancer, because it contains metabolizable resin instead of tar like tobacco.

Marijuana should be legalized with all possible haste.

[ Parent ]

How do you know? (1.00 / 3) (#177)
by omegageek on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:14:09 PM EST

I am a senior system analysis major. I smoke pot, I am a long distance runner and a Perl programmer. Smoking weed has never hurt my ability to do either of these things.

How do you know that? Maybe if you hadn't toasted your brain and smoked up your lungs you could have been pulling down six figures as a programmer and winning the Boston Marathon.

pot is not harmful, it doesn't cause cancer, because it contains metabolizable resin instead of tar like tobacco.

Riiiiiiiiigggggghhhhhhhtttttttttt. So pot is the only plant on Earth that doesn't produce tars and tons of other toxic chemicals when it is burned? Try to get a grip on reality you silly pot-head.

Marijuana should be legalized with all possible haste.

Dream on, stoner.

Omegageek


Digital Rights Management? Hell no! The only person with any rights on MY computer is ME.
[ Parent ]

No experience == No knowledge (none / 1) (#219)
by fragermk on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 11:56:56 AM EST

Thanks for replying to my post! However, I have done the research on marijuana, it does have some tar, but only in trace quantites, FAR less than in tobacco. Marijuana has metabolizable RESIN, tobacco has virtually no resin. If you are at a university like me, I challenge you to analyse each of these two substances using a mass-spectrometer and see for yourself.

You obviously have no personal experience with marijuana, so you, like other non-users just restate what you were told by the prohibition aparatus. I have personal experience with marijuana, and without marijuana. I don't smoke tobacco, I only drink in moderation and I am in far better health than most of the fat people I'm around on a daily basis.

Do you run much? If so, how far? Can you write Perl programs? Do you understand nested data-structures? Do you really want your fellow American citizens to be sent to jail and prison just because they like marijuana? What does that say about you? Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.

[ Parent ]

Bottoms Up! (none / 0) (#155)
by Joey Shabadu on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 08:23:19 PM EST

I bet this Drunkard Alcoholic poured himself a whiskey after writing this comment, because according to euro/USians alcohol, niccotine and caffeine aren't drugs at all! Just like the DEA Team Leader who was found in his house literraly buried in FILTH and DRANK HIMSELF TO DEATH (alcohol poisoning), but no, alcohol isn't a dangerous drug.  This are the same morons who can't handle the intellectual challenges of science and must resort to "Intelligent Design", stupid barbarian Christians. My only confort is that moron christians believe that (at least Dante) that hypocracy is the second worst sin.

[ Parent ]
Lame (none / 1) (#173)
by omegageek on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 01:55:55 PM EST

I bet this Drunkard Alcoholic poured himself a whiskey after writing this comment...

No. I don't drink alcohol. And no I don't smoke either before you start pointing fingers at me for that. I'm not into self-destructive behaviors.

Anyway, is that really your whole argument? "Look the boozers and smokers get to kill themselves with their drugs of choice so why can't I?" That's pretty lame. If that's the best you stoners can come up with as an argument then pot will surely be illegal forever.

Omegageek


Digital Rights Management? Hell no! The only person with any rights on MY computer is ME.
[ Parent ]

Pirate. (none / 0) (#162)
by der on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 12:07:37 AM EST

Digital Rights Management? Hell no! The only person with any rights on MY computer is ME.

Laws are rules that govern how a society works. They are made by and for people of that society. They don't just come out of nowhere. If you don't want to obey the laws of our society then you really only have two choices. Either pack up your computer and move elsewhere (and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out), or go ahead and break the law and face the music. Either way, nobody wants to hear your pathetic nerd whining about DRM and fictional "rights" the law says you don't have.



[ Parent ]
Moron (none / 1) (#166)
by omegageek on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:23:29 AM EST

DRM isn't law.

Omegageek


Digital Rights Management? Hell no! The only person with any rights on MY computer is ME.
[ Parent ]

DRM... (none / 0) (#178)
by Wouter Coene on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:55:46 PM EST

DRM isn't law.

Marijuana wasn't illegal until very recently.

[ Parent ]

Irrelevant (none / 1) (#179)
by omegageek on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:34:26 PM EST

Marijuana wasn't illegal until very recently.

What does how long it has been illegal have to do with anything?

Omegageek


Digital Rights Management? Hell no! The only person with any rights on MY computer is ME.
[ Parent ]

RE: pot-head "logic" (none / 0) (#176)
by aiflux on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 04:05:36 PM EST

Just because the law forbids you from using your drug of choice doesn't make it a bad law.
Sure it can, it's called evolution. Sometimes a law changes over time as social norms change or when more knowledge develops about said subject matter.
As for your whining about murderers and rapists being "worse" criminals than pot users, well that's debatable.
Wow.
Laws are rules that govern how a society works. They are made by and for people of that society. They don't just come out of nowhere. If you don't want to obey the laws of our society then you really only have two choices. Either pack up your bong and move elsewhere (and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out), or go ahead and break the law and face the music.
Don't forget debating the law with rational individuals to determine whether the law is justified or not. And as for "pot-users" being so "cognitively challenged", this is simply daft. I knew several pot smokers in college that had 4.0 GPAs. Some of these same people are now running very successful multi-million dollar corporations and still smoking. Yes, there are a lot of dumb asses that smoke, but there are also a lot of dumb asses that don't...this is just human nature. The smart ones just won't let anyone know unless they are your friend.

[ Parent ]
speeding (none / 1) (#193)
by Rhodes on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 02:08:30 PM EST

you had some good stuff there, until you started talking about the trickle down effect- if people are willing to do one thing illegal, then who can tell what else... Well nearly everyone speeds. That means everyone would be willing to rob a bank, too. Of course.

[ Parent ]
Confronted by shithead logic (none / 0) (#212)
by tonedevil on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:30:55 PM EST

Oh and by the way the only thing that makes people criminals, are laws.

[ Parent ]
The Ultimate Argument (3.00 / 2) (#152)
by smartypants on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 06:31:04 PM EST

The terror bombs in Madrid, Spain, some years ago were supposedly finaced by hash and marijuana smugeling. That's an good argument for legalizing. I've used it with success in discusstion with conservative friends. It should work very well in the US. Why don't use "fear" to do some good ;)

or even better... (none / 0) (#153)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 06:55:21 PM EST

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18911

not that i'm for cocaine legalization, i just think the story is funny as hell

you would think that a militantly religious conservative would WANT the great satan to take more drugs, not give them a good reason to stop

but, if the story is true, the fact that osama DOESN'T think that tells you something of how osama views the west: snorting cocaine is something we just have to do, and striking at our cocaine supply would strike at a critical weakness of the great satan

interesting insight into the mind of a hopeless religious bigot and how they view those outside of their stupid fucking cult

we're subhuman to osama bin laden

taking cocaine is just a helpless part of our nature as subhumans, so you should attack that, that's how the fucking bigot thinks of us subhumans

fucking religious conservative assholes

religious conservative assholes really believe you're not human if you aren't in their stupid little cult


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

We tried prohibition once. It didn't work. (none / 1) (#157)
by cburke on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 09:38:23 PM EST

In fact it just made things worse; much worse.

We're trying it again.  It still isn't working.  We don't stop.

How stupid are we?

Re: We tried prohibition once. It didn't work. (none / 1) (#196)
by skwang on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 07:09:02 AM EST

No No No. Prohibition worked so well that the following decade was known as the "Sober Twenties."

(With apologies to Jon Stewart.)

[ Parent ]

discuss what? (none / 1) (#165)
by pakje on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:21:59 AM EST

most people on kuro5hin agree with your points. I think you should come with some solutions:
What would be the best method to legalize marijuana?, which steps should be taken?
I think it is going to be very difficult. There is an increasing group of conseratives getting less tolerant to sex and drugs. Even in my country where it is legal to use soft drugs like marijuana. A couple of months ago a magazine tried to include seeds with their issue about weed. Local retailers didn't want to sell it and boycotted the magazine. I don't think it will be easy to legalize a drug with its representing lifestyle while there are debates about prohibiting game mods with filthy contents.

Decriminalize it. (none / 0) (#169)
by blacksunrise on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:54:45 AM EST

Maybe Holland has got the legal thing down, but in the states I foresee crappy weed and high (pardon the pun) prices if it is legalized.

"He who angers you conquers you."~Elizabeth Kenny

Think about this reasonably (none / 1) (#183)
by cdguru on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 10:23:20 PM EST

Today there are hundreds of individual farmers growing tobacco. How many independent cigar or cigarette makers are there? While there are relatively few such farmers, I believe the ratio of growers to independent or small distributors would hold. In other words, there would be none.

This would mean that legalization of marijuana would almost certainly mean that one or two large companies (think Philip Morris) would own marijuana distribution in the US. Regardless of your attitude towards marijuana legalization, I can't imagine that mass-merchandised marijuana with the marketing power of a large multinational tobacco company would be a good thing.

Another point that this article fails to consider is the number of users. Today, there is some control on the upper bound of users by it being illegal. While people that are going to use it do not stop because it is illegal, it is undeniable that there are people who do not use it simply because of either (a) lack of availability to them, or (b) it being illegal and the potential consequences.

Legalization would remove both of these controls. I would expect current levels of usage in the US to be multiplied by at least three or four because of the removal of these controls and the introduction of mass merchandising and advertising.

Do you believe this would be a good thing?

You're right. (none / 0) (#186)
by daani on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 02:44:26 AM EST

Legalization is insane. Why hand another weapon to big tobacco? Best answer is decriminalization with no enforcement of fines etc.


[ Parent ]
Good Thing? Absolutely. (none / 1) (#189)
by localman on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 01:06:34 PM EST

I would expect current levels of usage in the US to be multiplied by at least three or four because of the removal of these controls and the introduction of mass merchandising and advertising.  Do you believe this would be a good thing?

"Good thing" compared to what?  Compared to our current policy?  Yeah, I think that would be a huge improvement.

Think of it in reverse: do you think it would benefit society to turn all tobacco smokers into criminals?  To deny them financial aid in college?  To raid their homes?  Throw them in prison to be raped and abused and then tossed back into society as broken people?  You might have a few less tobacco smokers, though.

We already have a nearly perfect historical test case with alcohol and prohibition: despite alcohol's liabilities, it is still far, far worse to criminalize it.

Disclaimer: I don't smoke tobacco or marijuana, yet I believe strongly marijuana should be legalized.  I donate regularly to NORML and/or MPP.

Cheers.

[ Parent ]

if it is leagal (none / 0) (#211)
by Altus on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 01:30:37 PM EST


why not just grow your own... sure you could go down  to  the local Val-u-mart and pick up a pack of Marlboro "Marleys" if you wanted to, or you were running low, but if marijuana is legal  you would be able to grow it yourself, at least in small quantities, like making homebrew or growing tomatoes.

in addition I would point out that at my local tobacconist I can get an ounce of high grade, small grower tobacco for  a few bucks an ounce... why would you expect marijuana to be any different.

sure... I dont love the idea of everyone smoking big tobacco brand joints as it only increases the power of these companies, but I dont think it is a forgone conclusion that this would be the only source for legal weed

"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
[ Parent ]

Violent revolution... (3.00 / 2) (#195)
by BlahFace on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 02:31:35 AM EST

...is the only option.

It's what the opposition used. And uses.

JUST DON'T DO IT! (3.00 / 3) (#199)
by Vin Vilan on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 03:50:09 PM EST

M'kay.

Obviously, politicians ignore logic critical thinking and good old fashioned common since. The majority of peoples opinions who actually matter, as far as laws in this country. Don't believe marijuana is some kind of forbidden fruit like they would like you to believe.

They are evil, pure and simple. Their decisions have nothing to do with peoples best interests. But THEIR best interests THEIR families best interests, and THEIR Friends best interests. The common people don't much matter to them. Much like the Egyptians didn't care much about the thoughts feelings and opinions of the Hebrews. Just an example, I have respect for the Egyptians, or what they used to be, from what I know of their history. I can't say the same for the US government.

It's not about bud being bad for society, or bad for the majority. Unlike other civilizations, who usually seem to like to sort class by race. The US government just hates poor people. The fact is, if you are rich, via career, there isn't much risk of being arrested for smoking weed. You could likely drive around every day with a pound of weed in your trunk without getting arrested for it. Because rich people have the power, and can get away with far more than poor people, they don't give a fuck about what poor people have to go through. Cause hey, it's not them.

Prison, is an industry. A multibillion dollar industry. Criminals are slaves, who have to pay huge ass fees for the privilege of being a slave. A lot of people make a lot of money for locking people up, people who have done nothing wrong. Because, as educated people know, the majority of prisoners in the US society have done nothing wrong. They are rotting in hell on earth because they pleasured themselves in a way that, the powerful don't necessarily disagree with, but can simply use as an excuse. That's all they need, is an excuse, not even a good excuse.

Drugs are the perfect excuse, because a certain kind of person uses drugs. These kinds of people, aren't the same people who have power in this country. They are people who the powerful people dislike, or simply don't care about and see as a good way to make cash. Torturing innocent people is great for any economy it seems.

Personally, I believe all drugs should be legal. I hear all this whining about how marijuana should be legalized because it's safe. It is. But, what if it did leave everyone who used dead. What if it killed you the first time you used it, and was a poison, rather than a drug. I would say, it should be legal and people should be able to use it if they want. Hey, if you want to go buy a box of rat poison and down it, me nor a cop is going to stop you. Why not? It's you're fucking life, if you want to die, please, kill yourself. I encourage it.

Well, drugs cause violent behavior. What if 50% of drug users were also rapists and robbers. They aren't, but what if they were. Should we now punish the other 50% of drug users for shit they haven't done? Just because  a lot of rapists and robbers use drugs, anyone who uses drugs is a rapist and robber, even though they aren't? That, is insane thinking. It's beyond moronic. It's a sick fucked up way of thinking. Anyone and everyone who thinks like that should be shot in the head immediately. They are lower than any other group of people throughout human history.

Because you place people in hell who do not deserve hell you deserve an even worse hell. You can not be punished several enough for the hundreds of thousands of people you have tormented for a lifetime.

All police deserve to die. Excuse me, death is honestly to good for them. They deserve, to be strapped to a table for the rest of their life fed through an IV  with their eyes burnt out and nails in their ear holes and lye on their groin and in their ass. Why all police you say? Some are good you say?

No, all police chose to be police. Understand that. None were forced. They decided they wanted to go lock up people for using drugs. They decided they like hurting people, they like hunting people, they like ganking people, they like the power, they are pathetic sickening cowards who need tortured. All the judges, all the prosecutors. Every fucking one of them.

Chaos without law you say? Oh really, I never worry about some robber coming into my house, I have a gun. I don't worry about my girlfriend getting raped. I don't have to worry about these things. What I have to worry about, is something I have no chance of defending myself against. I worry about police coming into my home. I worry about running into a cop walking the streets at night, not some criminal. A criminal I can beat up or shoot, and worst case scenario, i get robbed beat up or killed. With police, i could get robed beat up and thrown in hell. My only defense is to run.

The law creates criminals. The real sickos. The child rapers mass murderers and serial killers. By putting people through extreme horrible conditions and putting them through trauma after trauma. Even the mass murderers and serial killers I have some kind of respect for. At least, people have a chance against them. At least they have balls, they are after all, risking their lives, and for real.

All drugs should be legal, because it is insane to punish drug addicts for the actions of other drug addicts. It is insane to punish people for things they haven't done, especially knowing they haven't done them. All drugs should be legal because punishment for drugs is worse than the effects of the drugs. Drugs should be legal because people should have possession over their own body, and thus be allowed to do what they wish to their own property. Drugs should be legal, because prohibiting drugs doesn't deter users of any kind of drug. Drugs should be legal so resources can be spent on real wrongdoers. Drugs should be legal because I'm going to do them anyways but now society has effectively convinced me I am a ruthless villain. Drugs should be legal, because if they were, I could do drugs in peace rather than have been turned into an extremely paranoid nut-job installed with an extreme hatred for society.
~V~

I have a hangover right now... (none / 0) (#200)
by BlahFace on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 04:39:16 PM EST

...I wanna kill whoever made this shit legal and everything else illegal.

we can't legalize (none / 1) (#202)
by uptownpimp on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 06:52:44 PM EST

marijuana or Taco Bell shall be a world super-power.

=========================
My name is actmodern and I approve of this message.
Do it the Dutch way :) (none / 1) (#205)
by sxmangel on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 09:41:37 AM EST

Do it the Dutch way..smoke to your heart's content within certain limitations.

You gotta be at least 18.
You can only smoke in certain places(coffeshops).
You can only have a certain amount in your possession at a time...when you run low, you get more.
Let the government grow it (don't let them grow too much else you'll end up like the queen..stuck with alot of weed)
Tax it like a bitch!! If people wanna smoke marijuana let them...but they gotta know that it'll cost them. Growing weed ain't easy.

The Dutch used this logic "most people go for things that are out of their reach"...so if you put things right in front of them...it isn't a big deal. They let us smoke cigarettes at 16, smoke weed at 18 and get drunk at 16. The logic makes sense in the greater scheme of things. We don't waste over 1 billion on people who were arrested for having alc n weed on them.

All in all..legalizing weed isn't that bad. The people who are growing it will have jobs, the people who are smoking it are gonna be happy, the government will be saving a lot of money, the police can eat more donuts and the world will spin like normal.

Then again...what the hell do I know? I'm Dutch n living the life Blissfully

"Legalize it, Time to Recognize it" -Sean Paul

Latermentationz,
Angel
not everywhere (none / 0) (#221)
by foreach on Tue Aug 23, 2005 at 12:53:02 PM EST

>You gotta be at least 18.
Right
>You can only smoke in certain places(coffeshops).
In some regions of the Netherlands you may only smoke in coffeshops, but in most you can take it home. Hell they built new coffeshops at a highway near the border of Germany (where I live) so the German drug tourism stays outside of the city of Venlo.

>You can only have a certain amount in your possession at a time...when you run low, you get more.

Right
>Let the government grow it (don't let them grow too much else you'll end up like the queen..stuck with alot of weed)
The goverment doesn't grow it, its grown by companies.
>Tax it like a bitch!! If people wanna smoke marijuana let them...but they gotta know that it'll cost them. Growing weed ain't easy.

Dont know about the tax rate but its quite cheap :)


[ Parent ]

legalize now (none / 0) (#206)
by tbc2002 on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 04:00:23 PM EST

Why isn't it legal now? Simple...the government has yet to find a way to get their hands on the money that's involved. When and if they do, you can bet that it will be legal. After 91 years of drug legislation in this country we have a bigger problem than ever. It is painfully obvious that legislation is not working. I do not think all drugs should be legalized. Some are just too dangerous. Marijuana IS NOT ONE OF THEM. This has been proven time and time again but the self righteous, puritanical nimrods that make the laws refuse to admit it. I do believe they have an agenda of their own that does not include people that have opinions different from theirs. Tax it, legalize it, and the death penalty to anyone who sells it.

No smoking, please (1.50 / 2) (#213)
by Raindoll on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:41:52 PM EST

I don't mind if people put marijuana in "magic brownies" or whatever. It is much less addictive than tobacco, and people willingly subject themselves to many other brain-damaging substances such as alcohol, solvents, etc.. Just don't subject anybody to your marijuana smoke, please.

The thing with smoking, which has made tobacco so popular is that new addicts are created by subjection to second-hand smoke. If a man wants to use marijuana, it should be his choice, not because somebody else does not care.

I think what they have done in Holland is in the right direction. It is legal, but as with any harmful and/or addictive substance, it is regulated.

This is absolutly false (none / 1) (#214)
by benna on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:03:07 PM EST

Nobody ever became addicted to tobacco from second hand smoke.  It's true, second hand smoke isn't real good for anyone's lungs, but that is far from being addictive.  To become truly addicted to nicotine one must smoke a number of weeks in a row at the least.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
Truly addicted? (none / 0) (#222)
by nanometer on Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 04:17:44 PM EST

I lived in a house with a bunch of chain smokers a number of years ago. Everyone smoked and they did it inside all the time. I didn't really mind the haze of smoke and I kinda liked the atmosphere. After a couple of months around all that I moved out and I started to crave the haze. I picked up a pack at the local convience store and have been smoking on and off ever since.

I'm not saying that I got addicted from second-hand smoke, but it was far and away the primary fuel for my habit.

--- He who has imagination without learning has wings but no feet.
[ Parent ]

Also weed not demonstrably addictive (none / 1) (#216)
by Have A Nice Day on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 10:35:09 AM EST

Certainly not on the same scale as tobacco. There is not really any good evidence either way because most studies on MJ get swept nicely under the carpet, but anecdotal evidence suggests it's psychological addiction (which requires constant and deliberate use for extended periods) if there is even any addictive nature to it at all.

And if you don't like marijuana smoke blowing in your face then what the hell are you doing in my living room anyway?

Seriously though, if some places (like coffee shops in amsterdam) allowed it, you don't have to go there....

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
All bullshit (none / 0) (#223)
by Fairydust9821 on Thu Sep 01, 2005 at 05:57:02 AM EST

All this fucking shit about WEED is outragous. People should not be in jail for getting high. Give me a fucking break. It is really kinda sad that there are pot heads behind bars when child millesters, and murders, and fucking dirty cops out runnin the damn streets. I have never herd of someone kill someone over weed nor have i herd of one getting in a wreck like a drunk driver. All i have ever seen was pot heads driving 20 miles under the speed limit and gettin the muchies. Drugs dont control people, people are the ones that have no control and throw things way out of proportion. Sorry i cant spell me SPECIAL well thats what my mom always use to tell me.

THE WEED WAR (none / 0) (#224)
by DeadSoul on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:47:50 AM EST

ok, what is with all this bullshit. Like i mean people are gonna keep on smoking pot weither the govenment likes it or not, its always gonna be avalible to people that want it so why not fucking legalize it. Like im canadaian, and this shit has been going on for way to long, im a pothead my self and weed is avalible to me where ever when ever i want it, literaly. so i say if people wana smoke it let them, its their life, their body let them do what they want with it. Like i mean, coke or XTC or anything like that shouldnt be leagl but just weed, because all stoners do it, smoke a join, get the munchies and sleep. And weed is not a "gateway" drug. Iv been smokeing it for 10 years now. I have never done another drug and never will, im gonna stay cronic my whole life. Im getting my collage educatiion, weed never hurt my ability to get my education so what the big fucking deal about it? Stoners dont hurt a soul, they smoke up, eat, and go to sleep thats all they do. SO JUST FUCKING LEGALIZE IT U SILLY FUCKERS!

GO FUCK A DUCK (none / 0) (#225)
by DeadSoul on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:54:05 PM EST

i also forgot to add, that weed is a natural growing substance, does the government think that they can just wipe it off the face of the planet? I think not. Weed will always bearound, because it will never die out, its a naturaly grwoing plant that is probly growing somewhere in the forest by its self, just no one has found it yet. And like i mean, whats so bad about it, its a natural herb, it use to be use as a medicien for fuck sakes, and people still use it as a herbal remedy, so why does the govenment make a big deal about, saying that it kills people, THATS JUST BULL SHIT, look at the statistics, always see people dieing from cigaretts and Alcohol, but never weed, what is up with that? U never see on the statistics people dieing from weed. The govenment are JUST A BUNCH OF PANZIE LITTLE FUCKS TRYING TO CONTROL THAT PEOPLE DO. No one can control your actions or mind, and if u wana grow a plant in your how can the governemt control, its in your own plubic space where no one has say on what goes on in there. and who ever is aginst legalizing weed GO FUCK YOUR SELFS U LITTLE PANZIE WHINEY LITTLE FUCK ASS BITCHES, GO FUCK A GOD DAMN DUCK, AND MOLEST A CHILD OR TWO, how the fuck can u critizize a stoner if u never smoked it your self, you are just being a hyprocritical little bastards.

[ Parent ]
The Case for the Legalization of Marijuana | 226 comments (195 topical, 31 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!