Decrim is up again

[SCpoloRicker]

"The vast amount of human activity ought to be none of the government's business," Rep. Barney Frank

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/30/frank.marijuana/index.html)

Decriminalization of marijuana is up in Congress again. Limited government conservatives (of which I would count myself) should be in support of this.

Comments?

/flame on

[Steelrat]

While limited government conservatives SHOULD be in favor of it, the ideological tilt of the right wing really makes it impossible.

[punkncat]

Never going to happen.

[SCpoloRicker]

Also, first person to raise the Commerce Clause gets an e-kick in the pants. :)

I really, really dislike how broadly that gets interpreted.

[Lohman446]

The Federal government has no authority to legislate it - I'm with Ricker on the BS reading of the commerce clause.

However, if states chose to do so that's the states business. Being an ethical hedonist I'm going to go with the consenting adults / no direct harm to non-consenting adults / no foul.

[kosmo]

Limited government conservatives (of which I would count myself) should be in support of this.

Comments?

/flame on


You only consider yourself conservative because you live in California. To the rest of us, youre still a left wing nut-job.


Anywho,
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/57DdviStOFo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/57DdviStOFo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[SCpoloRicker]

You only consider yourself conservative because you live in California. To the rest of us, youre still a left wing nut-job.

Probably so, but I'm considered card-carrying NEO-FASCIST-CON-BABYKILLER out here, so hopefully it evens out.

[Hilltop Customs]

Kosmo, ive never seen that be4....made me lol. :cheers:


(IMO)too many companies stand to lose money if weed becomes legal including big pharm, they have too much influence to let that happen.....therefore officials will use every possible way to keep it illegal for as long as possible. Till then stay safe.


tobacco-addictive, creates dependence, kills you, legal
alcohol-addictive, creates dependence, kills you, possible to OD, legal
prescription drugs- widely abused, some highly addictive, little regulation to stop abuse, EASY TO OD(more common than all illegal drugs combined)....kills you
(when i say kills you I mean when someone becomes addicted to the drug and abuses in quantity)

marijuana-not addictive, not possible to OD, illegal, enforced as strictly as possible

why?

[billybob_81067]

I have one question... how do they claim it is non-addictive? Anything can be addictive if you're weak-minded enough to get addicted to it. People are addicted to Alcohol, Cigarettes, Paintball, Cola, Sweets, World of Warcraft, Coffee, Cosmetic surgery, the internet, television... etc.

So you're telling me that there's no way that a person can become addicted to pot... I call B.S because damn near anything can be addictive. Hell I'm sure if you got kicked in the nuts enough you might become addicted to that too... just wouldn't feel like yourself unless you got your nuts kicked to start your morning off right.

Most people that I know of that have smoked pot continue to do so, so there must be something that they enjoy about it that makes them want to keep doing it. That's like step one for some (weak) people to become an addict right there isn't it?

[questionful]

I'm pretty sure there's a biological (or neurological, one of those fancy words) definition of addiction. Something to do with dopamine? I don't know. . .


California FTW.

[pmstc]

I do not smoke, and I think that the criminalization of MJ is a huge waste of time and money.

But then again, what government bans aren't?

[Hilltop Customs]

I cant figure out a way to post the table, but heres the info off it.
--------------------------------------------
Relative Addictiveness of Common Drugs
(100=Most Addictive; 0=Least)
Drug, Rating
Nicotine, 99
Alcohol, 81
Heroin, 80
Cocaine (Nasal), 71
Caffeine, 70
Marijuana, 22

Conclusion:
(1) The most addictive drug, nicotine, is not only not scheduled, it can be purchased without a prescription by anyone over the age of 18.
(2) Cocaine is about as addictive as coffee or tea's caffeine.
(3) Alcohol is about as addictive as heroin.
------------------------------------------------

My bad for putting not addictive, I guess what I should have said was that chronic use does not lead to dependence like the other drugs listed.

Most people I know that smoke continue to do so also, but anytime someone needs to quit for a drug test, no money, or any other reason they have no problems quitting.....is it possible to say the same for coffee, cigs, alcohol, or even cola? From my experience it was harder for me to stop drinking cola than it was to stop smoking weed for 4 months for a hair drug test. And there is a million dollar industry solely for people who are addicted to nicotine and no longer want to smoke cigarettes.

[questionful]

I'm pretty sure that table is wrong. Where'd you get it? I think they're defining "addiction" much more differently than it's true meaning.


I'm pretty sure cocaine is theoretically the most addictive drug.

[kosmo]

Youd be wrong on that assumption.

[BobTheCow]

I have one question... how do they claim it is non-addictive? Anything can be addictive if you're weak-minded enough to get addicted to it. People are addicted to Alcohol, Cigarettes, Paintball, Cola, Sweets, World of Warcraft, Coffee, Cosmetic surgery, the internet, television... etc.

So you're telling me that there's no way that a person can become addicted to pot... I call B.S because damn near anything can be addictive. Hell I'm sure if you got kicked in the nuts enough you might become addicted to that too... just wouldn't feel like yourself unless you got your nuts kicked to start your morning off right.

Most people that I know of that have smoked pot continue to do so, so there must be something that they enjoy about it that makes them want to keep doing it. That's like step one for some (weak) people to become an addict right there isn't it?
When people bring up the addiction argument, they mean that there's no known chemically addictive property in marijuana, such as nicotine in cigarettes. You are right, of course, that anything can become addictive through psychological dependence, but in this case, marijuana is not known to be physically addictive.

[Steelrat]

I cant figure out a way to post the table, but heres the info off it.
--------------------------------------------
Relative Addictiveness of Common Drugs
(100=Most Addictive; 0=Least)
Drug, Rating
Nicotine, 99
Alcohol, 81
Heroin, 80
Cocaine (Nasal), 71
Caffeine, 70
Marijuana, 22

Conclusion:
(1) The most addictive drug, nicotine, is not only not scheduled, it can be purchased without a prescription by anyone over the age of 18.
(2) Cocaine is about as addictive as coffee or tea's caffeine.
(3) Alcohol is about as addictive as heroin.
------------------------------------------------



This table completely ignores the effects of the various substances. I don't think anyone could argue that an addiction to cigarettes is as bad as an addiciton to cocaine or heroin, though this table seems to argue just that.

Oh, and...

Commerce clause. Just for you Ricker.

[Steelrat]

I'm pretty sure cocaine is theoretically the most addictive drug.

Meth is far, far worse.

[Lohman446]

As long as noone brings up the "no negative health consequences argument".

There is no conceivable logical way something you smoke into your lungs (and hold) has no ill consequences.

[behemoth]

Actually, i kinda liked meth more....

[skife]

I'm pretty sure cocaine is theoretically the most addictive drug.


i know quite off people that have done coke, none addicted.

heroine, meth, and prescription painkilers are all alot more addictive.

[SCpoloRicker]

Commerce clause.

http://www.stus.com/images/products/ccc0019.gif

Valid point about cigarettes not being as dangerous as heroin, I guess, but still.

[ThePixelGuru]

Kosmo, ive never seen that be4....made me lol. :cheers:


(IMO)too many companies stand to lose money if weed becomes legal including big pharm, they have too much influence to let that happen.....therefore officials will use every possible way to keep it illegal for as long as possible. Till then stay safe.


tobacco-addictive, creates dependence, kills you, legal
alcohol-addictive, creates dependence, kills you, possible to OD, legal
prescription drugs- widely abused, some highly addictive, little regulation to stop abuse, EASY TO OD(more common than all illegal drugs combined)....kills you
(when i say kills you I mean when someone becomes addicted to the drug and abuses in quantity)

marijuana-not addictive, not possible to OD, illegal, enforced as strictly as possible

why?
Don't forget it's quite possible to OD on nicotine - in fact, the guys picking the tobacco wear heavy gloves for just that reason (they pick the leaves when the oils rise to the surface). It can absorb straight through the skin and cause headaches, nausea, vomiting, and, in extreme cases, heart attacks. Pure nicotine is occasionally used as a poison because it's extremely easy to mistake for a natural heart attack in autopsies. You also don't need it to be taken orally or injected, enough of it spread on something like a doorknob can kill. I've personally become pretty sick from overdoing it with a hookah after not smoking for a while - not fun.

According to the DEA, though, the therapeutic dose to LD 50 for pot is something between 1:20,000 and 1:40,000 - you'd need to smoke 1500 pounds of weed in 15 minutes to OD on THC. That's 1 and 2/3 pounds every single second for 15 minutes straight. Hell, there was even a guy who ate 6 ounces of hash - I doubt he enjoyed himself, but there are no lasting effects.

Also consider that schedule 1 is reserved for drugs with no possible medicinal uses, and that scientists have successfully used THC to literally kill inoperable brain tumors while tons of patients use it to live far longer than any doctor ever told them they could.


This table completely ignores the effects of the various substances. I don't think anyone could argue that an addiction to cigarettes is as bad as an addiciton to cocaine or heroin, though this table seems to argue just that.

Oh, and...

Commerce clause. Just for you Ricker.
That's because the point of that chart is not to compare the effects of these drugs, it's to compare how addictive they are.



Of course, weed's illegal for a lot of reasons. Racism, cotton, logging and big pharma are a couple of them. It sure as hell isn't because it's more harmful or addictive than tobacco or alcohol, though. The difference between weed being illegal and prohibition is that we don't have a nearby period of legal weed to compare the current period of illegal weed to and see how ridiculous it is to lock people up for a "crime" where the only victims are due to the gangs the government essentially handed a huge cash crop to.

[Steelrat]

Of course, weed's illegal for a lot of reasons. Racism, cotton, logging and big pharma are a couple of them.

I know this thread is going straight towards lockville, but I gotta call you out on this. The pro-pot lobby loves to jump all over the "harmful" and "gateway drug" arguments, but roll out their own tired arguments (racism, big pharma, etc etc) again and again. You can't have it both ways. I'm sure that there is some substance to your arguments, but there is also substance to the arguments that it's harmful and is a gateway drug.

But, in actuality, no one is going to convince anyone to change their mind. Another pointless argument (not discussion) thread.

[Hilltop Customs]

weed is not a gateway drug, there is no such thing. There is gateway situations...where you are around drugs being used, so you are more likely to be offered and use those drugs, but does weed put you in those situations? NO, you are forced into those situations by 2 things, your choices, and the illegality of weed. I bet your saying "what" to the last one, but think about it, weed is illegal, you are forced to buy from a dealer, many dealers will sell anything, so you are forced into a situation with other drugs by the illegality of weed. If you could go to a cigarette shop and pick up weed, where are you going to be exposed to other illegal drugs?

A drug cannot make you use other drugs...if you chose to believe that then cigarettes should be illegal because most drug users smoke cigs. People commonly use that argument against pot, so of course pro-pot people will refute it.

Also if weed was a gateway drug, why wouldnt the 1/3 of HS students who have smoked weed also use coke and the "harder" drugs? The overused gateway drug argument is BS, it is that simple.


If you want to have a discussion, lets ignore all the argumentative history and start it as simple as possible.....Why should pot be illegal? I say it should be legal simply because it is widely used even though it is illegal and is America's #1 cash crop among many other reasons.



ThePixelGuru your completely right about ODing on nicotine, I was thinking about smoked tobacco, but nicotine itself is fairly easy to OD on....makes me think of the movie "thank you for smoking" where they cover the guy in the nicotine patches....I dont even want to know what that would feel like. The scheduling of pot is just ignorant, and it should be reexamined...but there has to be some reason that it is staying where it is, ethical or not.

[Steelrat]

You aren't going to convince me, and I'm not going to convince you. Threads like this are just a waste of time.

[Hilltop Customs]

i'm not trying to convince you, i'm trying to have a discussion with you. The topic is interesting and I'm curious as to some people believe so strongly that pot should be illegal. Discussing topics lead to a gain of knowledge and more informed decisions by people on both sides of the discussion, not discussing a topic leads to nothing and ignorant opinions on both sides of the issue.

[SCpoloRicker]

Steelie, I've got three guesses who you're talking to.

edit: a-yup, usual suspects

[Steelrat]

i'm not trying to convince you, i'm trying to have a discussion with you. The topic is interesting and I'm curious as to some people believe so strongly that pot should be illegal. Discussing topics lead to a gain of knowledge and more informed decisions by people on both sides of the discussion, not discussing a topic leads to nothing and ignorant opinions on both sides of the issue.

The catch is that no matter what I say, you aren't going to change your mind. I'm not going to wheel out any revolutionary ideas, I'm just going to regurgitate the same anti-pot arguments and statistics/link/articles/research that have been used thousands of times before. In the same way, the arguments you guys are making are old, tired, and have been regurgitated a thousand times before. None of us is doing any revolutionary research on the topic, and none of us is going to be influenced by the same, tired old arguments. I know what you are going to say even before you say it, just like you know what I'll argue.

So, what's the point? Not being nasty, I just know better.

[Sumthinwicked]

my 2 cents (usually i dont type well so deal ) someone who is high on pot will usually make bad decisions like stealing to get more weed or robbing someone or one of the many other stupid things to do.. you want it legal tax the crap outta it and make money but your going to be in the decline of the structure of the nation I hope thats what your looking for . shall we have blood tests on the side of the road or piss tests to see how high someone is like the blow test for drinking >? every pothead i know is a moron and i have never met one who isnt just because it doesnt have an effect on you doesnt mean the rest of the people are not EFFECTED "sharks are like dogs they only bite you when you touch thier private parts " smoke another one bro (anyone get who that is???) now for medical use i semi agree but even that is abused .... i have had freinds who died because of stupidity when they were high now fix that issue with legalizing something that impeeds judgement thats stupid (insert beer fight here) besides that make it legal because of this thing is legal :P lol okie i have vented now discuss

[Hilltop Customs]

If you dont want to discuss it thats fine, I dont want to pressure you or anyone else. I just see discussion as the only way to bring out new ideas on a subject, no matter how repetitive it seems.

Heres an example of what I mean
One of my friends was having and argument with his g/f about the legality of weed, and somehow they touched on prescription drug abuse. After hearing this I came up with this idea "legalizing weed may reduce the number of people who abuse prescription drugs." Now thats an argument Ive never heard be4, and it came from discussion that was old and stale, but its still a new idea(at least to me).

anyhow for anyone thats wondering my reasoning behind the idea here it is:
Weed is illegal and it comes with the criminal stigma, many people are afraid of being labeled as criminals, so instead of using pot, they choose pharmaceuticals as their drug of choice since they are "legal". If you remove the criminality associated with pot, people will have one less influence toward the abuse of pharmaceuticals. (why is this good? pot has less side effect, is less addicting, and is less harmful to the user than the majority of pharmaceuticals)


Steelrat I understand completely where your coming from, this debate has been beaten to death, but that shouldnt stop either of us from considering every point and counter point on both sides. It is people who dismiss the other sides point of view before listening to their claims who make arguments(in general) repetitive.

[ThePixelGuru]

I know this thread is going straight towards lockville, but I gotta call you out on this. The pro-pot lobby loves to jump all over the "harmful" and "gateway drug" arguments, but roll out their own tired arguments (racism, big pharma, etc etc) again and again. You can't have it both ways. I'm sure that there is some substance to your arguments, but there is also substance to the arguments that it's harmful and is a gateway drug.

But, in actuality, no one is going to convince anyone to change their mind. Another pointless argument (not discussion) thread.
Yeah, it is a gateway drug. I know tons of people who started out smoking weed and then moved on to drugs that could actually hurt them, like alcohol and tobacco. ;)

And I'm not saying weed isn't harmful, I'm just saying it's less harmful than alcohol or tobacco.

Also, it's a fact that weed was banned for political reasons and not medical ones.

Whatever. Next stop, Lockville!

[Hexis]

my 2 cents (usually i dont type well so deal ) someone who is high on pot will usually make bad decisions like stealing to get more weed or robbing someone or one of the many other stupid things to do.. you want it legal tax the crap outta it and make money but your going to be in the decline of the structure of the nation I hope thats what your looking for . shall we have blood tests on the side of the road or piss tests to see how high someone is like the blow test for drinking >? every pothead i know is a moron and i have never met one who isnt just because it doesnt have an effect on you doesnt mean the rest of the people are not EFFECTED "sharks are like dogs they only bite you when you touch thier private parts " smoke another one bro (anyone get who that is???) now for medical use i semi agree but even that is abused .... i have had freinds who died because of stupidity when they were high now fix that issue with legalizing something that impeeds judgement thats stupid (insert beer fight here) besides that make it legal because of this thing is legal :P lol okie i have vented now discuss

Are you high? There is no way a sober person wrote that.

[Hilltop Customs]

my 2 cents (usually i dont type well so deal ) someone who is high on pot will usually makes bad decisions like stealing to get more weed or robbing someone or one of the many other stupid things to do.. you want it legal tax the crap outta it and make money but your going to be in the decline of the structure of the nation I hope thats what your looking for . shall we have blood tests on the side of the road or piss tests to see how high someone is like the blow test for drinking >? every pothead i know is a moron and i have never met one who isnt just because it doesnt have an effect on you doesnt mean the rest of the people are not EFFECTED "sharks are like dogs they only bite you when you touch thier private parts " smoke another one bro (anyone get who that is???) now for medical use i semi agree but even that is abused .... i have had freinds who died because of stupidity when they were high now fix that issue with legalizing something that impeeds judgement thats stupid (insert beer fight here) besides that make it legal because of this thing is legal :P lol okie i have vented now discuss


holy generalizations batman! :rofl:

Bad decisions are the responsibility of the person who commits them, Ive made many bad decisions and I have never tried to claim it was pot's fault. I'm sure you have also made some bad decisions too, but that has nothing to do with weed right?

I do agree with you, impaired driving is a huge hurdle. IMO a general reaction time/imparment test for ANY drug should be implemented, since there are so many drugs out there that can have detrimental effects to a persons ability to drive, hell driving tired is dangerous. I also agree about taxing the hell out of it, but that is because we will have to make up for the huge amt of money lost from fines and seizures more so than making money.

On the other hand I dont understand how legalization would create "the decline of the structure of the nation"(at least thats what I think you meant?) its already widely used, and if anything the people who are using this drug currently have a mistrust for our law system and our government....which is detrimental to our society. Now I can understand the logic behind it being detrimental to our society if you believe that everyone is going to run out and become potheads the moment it becomes legal, but I dont believe there is a snowballs chance in hell that will happen. Could u explain this more if you get a chance? I'd like to know where your coming from here.

I also agree with you that anything that slows judgment can be dangerous, that is why it is the responsibility of the people using the drugs to determine when, or when not to use the drug. If that responsibility is granted to people with the use of alcohol, sleeping pills, or anything else that is legal and effects judgment, then what makes marijuana different enough to be outlawed for use? Impairment of the user is a GREAT argument for the illegalization(or at least tight restrictions) of all drugs, but by differentiating between one drug and another that have similar effects....the argument is completely negated. If you want to use that argument you have to approve of tight restrictions of ALL drugs(including alcohol) that can cause impairment.

I'm sorry for your loss of friends, but it was their choice to smoke, and it was their choice to conduct an activity that could be dangerous while impaired.....the drug didnt make the choice for them.

[Sumthinwicked]

yea you get the gist of my thoughts on the matter ...
just a few points to think on

i see the thoughts of legalisation of one drug whats to prevent the lobby of more

as to the decline : it would make weed easily accessible to the public which isnt a good idea( you know why)
when your party'in people like to try new things that are illegal or stupid that they usually wouldnt have tryed like : the driving thing, hookin up on other drugs, and the such that is far to much discussed on that matter

they do have legal pot shops somewhere i forget ??? where they have a system that allows pot if you like it so much and America isnt good enough for you the way it is GO THERE

and what would all the pot dealers do your putting 100000s of people out of buisiness ;)

farmers making legal pot availible to the world ( yea the world gets alot of stuff from our farmers)

when the drinking age was dropped below 21 there were alot of kids drinking which = stupid things happening which equaled alot of deaths which is why its back up to 21 in most places

take all of the neg and stack them against the posititive and the neg outway the positives far to much i dont ever see it becoming legal here.... there are many more things of importance that we need to deal with than the legalities of weed LOL

[cdacda13]

yea you get the gist of my thoughts on the matter ...
just a few points to think on

i see the thoughts of legalisation of one drug whats to prevent the lobby of more
You're arguing the snowball effect? So, if weed becomes legal, then heroin is next?
Marijuana is a Schedule one drug.
Schedule I

* The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
* The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
* There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Examples: Heroin, LSD, Marijuana, MDMA (Ecstasy), methaqualone (Quaalude).
Not a terrible argument. But, since not many government funded, non-slanted, current tests(supposed to be confusing, I promised :rolleyes: ) have been done on marijuana, the government refuses to change marjiuana to a schedule 4 or 5.

as to the decline : it would make weed easily accessible to the public which isnt a good idea( you know why)
when your party'in people like to try new things that are illegal or stupid that they usually wouldnt have tryed like : the driving thing, hookin up on other drugs, and the such that is far to much discussed on that matter
An easier access leads to more users argument eh?
Well, Alcohol is extremely easy for teens, pre-teens, and even kids to get. Hell, I remember stealing whiskey from my parents when I was 14. (Don't remember much after that though)
Just cause something is illegal doesn't mean its unatainable, and just because somethings legal doesn't mean everyone is doing it.

they do have legal pot shops somewhere i forget ??? where they have a system that allows pot if you like it so much and America isnt good enough for you the way it is GO THERE
If you don't love it, leave it. Fine. But the differences of every citizen is what makes America the greatest place to live. How many other countries can you have this argument, or even challenge the government in any way, shape, or form and not get shot? (Rhetorical question)


and what would all the pot dealers do your putting 100000s of people out of buisiness ;)
Funny. But you can't tax dealers of illegal substances, so what does the government care. By legalizing it, numerous tax-able jobs will be created, which should make the government happy.

farmers making legal pot availible to the world ( yea the world gets alot of stuff from our farmers)
Hm, what now?


when the drinking age was dropped below 21 there were alot of kids drinking which = stupid things happening which equaled alot of deaths which is why its back up to 21 in most places
The drinking age never went down from 21, it when up to 21. In 1984, Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. This act removed highway funding to any state that didn't have a 21 year old drinking age. I've seen 21 year old men act like 14 year old girls when alcohol is involved.(Granted, it takes a lot more alcohol for a 21 year man to get drunk then a 14 year old girl, but they still hit the same place.) But why not let these young adults learn how to drink at 18, instead of making them go though the underground to purchase, steal, obtain, alcohol? (Kind of mirrors the statements of the decriminalization crowd, doesn't it.)
t
ake all of the neg and stack them against the posititive and the neg outway the positives far to much i dont ever see it becoming legal here.... there are many more things of importance that we need to deal with than the legalities of weed LOL
So, stack the negatives and the positives of legalizing marijuana, and the negatives win? Depends on your beliefs.
I completely agree with you on the last point. But remember, its congress, the important stuff never gets done.

[Sumthinwicked]

as to the hmmm we as a country sell everything to others we love to export and flooding the market with pot if its legalized here would not help things in hte world in general ( unless everyone was to stoned to want to fight ) on second thought maybe we should drop lots of dimebags over THERE to end the war everyone would be to stoned to wanna fight LOL

[cdacda13]

as to the hmmm we as a country sell everything to others we love to export and flooding the market with pot if its legalized here would not help things in hte world in general ( unless everyone was to stoned to want to fight )
That's the wonderful thing about capitalism and a free market economy. Farmers will figure out at some point where supply meets demand. This is called the equilibrium.

on second thought maybe we should drop lots of dimebags over THERE to end the war everyone would be to stoned to wanna fight LOL
Hashish is a common drug is most middle eastern countries.
And again with the sweeping generalizations that all everyone who smokes marijuana is lazy.

[Lohman446]

There is a fatal logical flaw in the gateway argument. First, let me clarify something, I think smoking pot is a poor decision, and in my opinion those who have convinced themselves that it is harmless are idiots. That being said I have a problem with federal regulation of it (and most other drugs).

The gateway argument uses vague information to support itself. Those who are doing "harder" drugs started with marijuana. This is statistically true, but horribly controlled. It automatically makes the assumption that these people would not have done the harder drugs without the stepping stone of pot. There is no control groupd to it

Its wrong. People have done harder drugs without ever touching pot. I know this for 100% certainty.

There are a lot of bad arguments on both sides, and thats why the debate is able to circle for so long. There are very few strong, good arguments on either side of the issue.

[Steelrat]

I'd love for someone to show me a debate about legalizing pot where someone has said "Gee, you're right, I'm going to change my mind on the subject."

NEVER HAPPENS.

The internet has produced a whole generation of opinionated people. Seriously, how oftern do you see someone back down in an argument on any forum?

[skife]

Originally Posted by Sumthinwicked as to the decline : it would make weed easily accessible to the public which isnt a good idea( you know why)


so ummmm, weed isn't easily accessible huh?

Its very very easy to get weed, it just depends on who you know, and i'd bet you know where to get some weed, or know someone that could get you some.


its a very common thing.

my argument is why should this be illegal? really, i thought this was a free country.
If i want to sit around with my friends and get high and watch the labyrinth, why shouldn't I be able to?

[billybob_81067]

so ummmm, weed isn't easily accessible huh?

Its very very easy to get weed, it just depends on who you know, and i'd bet you know where to get some weed, or know someone that could get you some.


its a very common thing.

my argument is why should this be illegal? really, i thought this was a free country.
If i want to sit around with my friends and get high and watch the labyrinth, why shouldn't I be able to?

Because if you're doing that then you're not being productive... and if you're not being productive then you are dragging this country down. ;)

[Hexis]

Because if you're doing that then you're not being productive... and if you're not being productive then you are dragging this country down. ;)

So sitting around and watching sports while drinking beer is different how?

[Steelrat]

my argument is why should this be illegal? really, i thought this was a free country.
If i want to sit around with my friends and get high and watch the labyrinth, why shouldn't I be able to?

So if I want to own a machinegun and snort coke, I should be able to, right? I mean, it's a free country.

[Lohman446]

So if I want to own a machinegun and snort coke, I should be able to, right? I mean, it's a free country.


Yes.

As long as you do both responsibly in a way that does not harm anyone else and are of age to be considered an adult yes you should be able to.

[SCpoloRicker]

Lohman: ding, ding, ding!

As for the premise that noone ever changes their mind on positions, I have a counter-example. Albinonewt and I went back and forth for a month on Commerce Clause as it relates to Roe v. Wade, and he managed to convince me of the validity of his argument. I'm still pro-choice, but I understand his position of how the ruling as it is written is a poor one.

[Lohman446]

So if I want to own a machinegun and snort coke, I should be able to, right? I mean, it's a free country.

Even if I accept that regulation can and should be enforced I argue it to be at a state level only and not by the federal government. I don't beleive it should but thats a moral argument

[Sumthinwicked]

Because if you're doing that then you're not being productive... and if you're not being productive then you are dragging this country down. ;)
ty!

[Steelrat]

Yes.

As long as you do both responsibly in a way that does not harm anyone else and are of age to be considered an adult yes you should be able to.

It's the age-old argument of individual benefit vs. risk to society. Is your ability to own, say, a submachinegun more important than the potential risk to society? Government has clearly said that it isn't, and so it heavily regulates our ability to own them. Same with cocaine. The effects on society are considered more important than any personal benefit you might enjoy.

Remember, it's not about YOU in particular, but everyone in general. You may be the most responsible person on the planet, but I know from experience that you would be the exception, not the rule.

For me, it's worth it to sacrifice ultimate freedom for some regulation of society. I mean, we really do it all the time. I could say I'm a professional race car driver, and so I should be able to drive at any speed I like. I might even be right in this, and wouldn't harm anyone else. But there are sure a lot of other people who WOULD harm others. When drafting rules and laws, you need to consider the lowest common denominator.

[Lohman446]

I have a problem with the federal government sticking its finger into a pie it has no place in. If there is any spot for legislation such as this it is at a state level and does not fall under the authority of the Federal government.

That being said: We don't legislate to the lowest common denominator. People are allowed access to harmful substances. People are allowed to do (or not do) things that directly harm the public health and tax the healthcare system. If we are going to legislate morality do we not need to legislate such things as sexual behavior, physical fitness, etc?

Why do we legislate some level and not others? It is not purely about harmfullness or risk to reward. The fact is we allow the Federal government to operate in an unconstitutional grey area that has grown its power to levels that would astound and alarm our founding fathers.

That being said big oil and the healthcare industry have shown that a purely libertarian policy would likely have incredibly negative consequences.

[Steelrat]

I have a problem with the federal government sticking its finger into a pie it has no place in. If there is any spot for legislation such as this it is at a state level and does not fall under the authority of the Federal government.

That being said: We don't legislate to the lowest common denominator. People are allowed access to harmful substances. People are allowed to do (or not do) things that directly harm the public health and tax the healthcare system. If we are going to legislate morality do we not need to legislate such things as sexual behavior, physical fitness, etc?

Why do we legislate some level and not others? It is not purely about harmfullness or risk to reward. The fact is we allow the Federal government to operate in an unconstitutional grey area that has grown its power to levels that would astound and alarm our founding fathers.

That being said big oil and the healthcare industry have shown that a purely libertarian policy would likely have incredibly negative consequences.

There is no set level. That's just the nature of government. When it hits a gray area, it usually goes to court, and the court decides. And sure we legistlate to the lowest common denominator. There's just a limit to what can be legislated. Obviously there would be a public outcry if you tried to legislate physical fitness. But cocaine? Not so much.

And, I'm sorry to say it, but the state governments ceded authority to the fed a long, long time ago. That ship has sailed. Being upset about it won't change it. The courts have made decisions on the matter supporting the Fed position, including the ability of the Fedral government to regulate and enforce it's laws on marijuana grown in California, for medicinal purposes, for consumption in California.

[Lohman446]

There is no set level. That's just the nature of government. When it hits a gray area, it usually goes to court, and the court decides. And sure we legistlate to the lowest common denominator. There's just a limit to what can be legislated. Obviously there would be a public outcry if you tried to legislate physical fitness. But cocaine? Not so much.

And, I'm sorry to say it, but the state governments ceded authority to the fed a long, long time ago. That ship has sailed. Being upset about it won't change it. The courts have made decisions on the matter supporting the Fed position, including the ability of the Fedral government to regulate and enforce it's laws on marijuana grown in California, for medicinal purposes, for consumption in California.

Oh, I understand it is highly unlikely the argument is going to change anything. And in the case of weed I really don't care as I truley beleive those making the argument that it is harmless are being idiotic and have no intention of ever messing with it.

That being said I still beleive the argument is right, even if being right doesn't matter.

[maxama10]

Hmm.

I had a friend, this friend smoked a lot of weed from a young age. Sure, you could say the positions he put himself into didn't help, however I feel he wanted to try other drugs.

My friend soon started using painkillers, muscle relaxers, anything he could get. (thanks erowids! :rolleyes: ) Soon after he started doing coke, opium, and various other drugs of that nature.

Wow what fun stuff! Then he became physically dependent on pills. Lied constantly to everyone. Failing at school.

This is when he went to rehab, intervention, etc... ($$$$$$$)

Got out of rehab, new man!

Fell back into pills.

Kicked out of family.

Who knows?


No profit.





You may not believe it, but to many people pot is a gateway drug. People don't just start off popping pills or snorting coke.


I guess some people have more self control than others. Sadly, the people who don't, end up ruining their lives and in the process drag others down with them.


Edit: I forgot Heroin, heroin too!



Edit: I guess I was trying to say that it IS a gateway drug, legal or illegal I could care less, either way people will use it.


Cheers

[cdacda13]

For the gateway argument:
Buying Marijuana is illegal. It puts you in touch with dealers who mostly sell other controlled substances. If you don't feel guilty buying marijuana, then you wouldn't feel guilty buying hard controlled substances. It also puts you into a bad crowd of people.
Now, if you could go to the local wal-mart and buy, lets say a gram of marijuana, you wouldn't ever meet the dealers who could introduce you to harder controlled substances. You wouldn't feel into the bad crowd. (Theoretically speaking of course)
Counter Point:
Its still drugs. Some people will always be looking for something then gets them higher and you won't be able to get them to stop.

Steelrat is right. Getting someone to change their view-point on a subject over the internet is damn near impossible. But I must say, this debate (can we call it that?) has yet to lower itself into a name calling contest, which is nice.

[Hilltop Customs]

internet died last night or I would have posted this sooner:

yea you get the gist of my thoughts on the matter ...
just a few points to think on

i see the thoughts of legalisation of one drug whats to prevent the lobby of more

then all of the thoughts of keeping weed illegal still apply, and I doubt the supporters of those drugs those drugs will be able to formulate a logical opposition to the illegality of those drugs......but if they do, they should be heard and considered.



as to the decline : it would make weed easily accessible to the public which isnt a good idea( you know why)
when your party'in people like to try new things that are illegal or stupid that they usually wouldnt have tryed like : the driving thing, hookin up on other drugs, and the such that is far to much discussed on that matter

weed is already easily accessible by the general public....some people less than others, but I would think anyone who wanted to try smoking would have had the opportunity before high school ends. Anyone who wants to smoke as an adult and cant either just cant find a dealer, or are forced not to because of drug tests.

What your arguing here is decisions people might make....what they happen to be on at that time has little impact on the decision to conduct that activity. Smoking weed does not make you get high 24/7.....every person has a choice of when to smoke and when to do dangerous activities....if you choose to do both at the same time your stupid. Just like if you choose to drink and do dangerous activities at the same time...their stupid. Take sleeping pills and expect to function normally....yep you saw it coming, STUPID. Hooking up, yea its dangerous, doing it impaired???yea its stupid too.



they do have legal pot shops somewhere i forget ??? where they have a system that allows pot if you like it so much and America isnt good enough for you the way it is GO THERE

Amsterdam, I would move there but I dont have the money and I don’t know the language. Other than that, your telling someone to leave the country because of something they choose to believe is unjust......I hope you see a problem there, if not you forgot what freedom was. (I say the laws against pot are unjust because look at the way the laws were brought about, if was handeled similar to a court case against a person, pot would have been easily exonerated long ago)



and what would all the pot dealers do your putting 100000s of people out of buisiness ;)


So the huge industry supporting pot is the reason for keeping it illegal?? How about the 100000s of jobs created legally that would pay well and distribute the profits from weed more evenly amongst its workers(and back in turn to legitimate businesses) instead of siphoning money off to foreign drug lords and economies.

Hope that wink wasnt to me, I stay as far away as possible from the illegal transactions that are weed sales....that is what is dangerous about pot.



farmers making legal pot availible to the world ( yea the world gets alot of stuff from our farmers)


IDK where you were going with this? Illegal pot(as far as our government is concerned) is already available all around the world including in the US, the only thing that would change after it becomes legal would be the first 2 letters.....illegal->legal.



when the drinking age was dropped below 21 there were alot of kids drinking which = stupid things happening which equaled alot of deaths which is why its back up to 21 in most places


I agree, most kids are stupid. :cheers: allowing them to use drugs which impair them would just allow their stupidity to show through even more. There should be an age limit for weed too, just like alcohol. IMO it could be younger because I believe pot impairs the user less than alcohol, but thats just from what ive seen. Most of the time it just impairs me to Call of Duty 4....which I do better at when I'm high. :ninja: (game based highly on awareness and reaction time)



take all of the neg and stack them against the posititive and the neg outway the positives far to much i dont ever see it becoming legal here.... there are many more things of importance that we need to deal with than the legalities of weed LOL

The negative effects are unchanged whether the drug is legal or illegal(because it is already widely used) if there is a change it would be slight.....while on the other hand their are many positives of legalization including a huge number of taxable transactions, reduced expense on the "war on drugs" :tard: , less felons, less of our police and law system's time wasted on marijuana....just to name a few of the big ones.

I agree there are many things that need to be dealt with, but that doesn’t mean this issue doesn’t need consideration either.




I'm going to have to catch up on the rest later, gotto go camping and play some paintball in the morning :shooting: :shooting:

[Sumthinwicked]

thankx for the entertainment while at work guys i know im not great at debates TEK SKOL student here but i do enjoy these

[ThePixelGuru]

Oh, I understand it is highly unlikely the argument is going to change anything. And in the case of weed I really don't care as I truley beleive those making the argument that it is harmless are being idiotic and have no intention of ever messing with it.

That being said I still beleive the argument is right, even if being right doesn't matter.
I haven't seen anyone make the argument that it's harmless. I've several people including myself said it's less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, but I don't think anyone here is going to say it's harmless.

[kosmo]

Lets say person A gets high every day after work, and person B eats at Hardees getting a thickburger for every meal, smokes a pack a day, and gets drunk every night. Which one is worse?

[billybob_81067]

Lets say person A gets high every day after work, and person B eats at Hardees getting a thickburger for every meal, smokes a pack a day, and gets drunk every night. Which one is worse?

They both suck! Next question... :D

[Lohman446]

I haven't seen anyone make the argument that it's harmless. I've several people including myself said it's less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, but I don't think anyone here is going to say it's harmless.


I think that people downgrade the long term effect of pot. As with most things its pretty hard to study without it being in a vacuum. We know nicotine is deadly, and we know in quantity it can be SEVERELY deadly. However, noone ever dies (noone might be a bad term) from nicotine poisoning, they die from the side effects of smoking. Personally I wonder if this is not simply from the effects of drawing smoke into ones lungs. Does the composition really matter? I'm sure to some degree but not to what.

In the end I think if pot was readily available, and smoked in the quantities cigarettes are you would find that it (and most anything else you can smoke) is just as deadly and likely has very similiar long term consequences.

Addictiveness is a hard thing to rate. I doubt anyone would argue that gambling can be addictive, and it in fact has very similiar physical withdrawal symptoms for those addicted as the "classic" addictions. Obviously there are not any foreign chemicals being introduced into the body by gambling. Most people who light up one or two cigarettes do not become addicted. Most people can responsibly handle alchohol. I would, from unprofessional, unscientific observation place weed into the same category. The vast majority of adults can probably handle it without dependency. Then again, I know for a fact that there are a lot of adults out there who can handle use of far harder drugs and seemingly stop cold turkey. I'm sure the anti-drug crowd does not want to hear that.

I'll support the idea that the federal government banning weed is a bad idea. Though I don't like a lot of the "logic" and "facts" thrown out by a lot of the pro-weed community.

[skife]

I think that people downgrade the long term effect of pot. As with most things its pretty hard to study without it being in a vacuum. We know nicotine is deadly, and we know in quantity it can be SEVERELY deadly. However, noone ever dies (noone might be a bad term) from nicotine poisoning, they die from the side effects of smoking. Personally I wonder if this is not simply from the effects of drawing smoke into ones lungs. Does the composition really matter? I'm sure to some degree but not to what.

In the end I think if pot was readily available, and smoked in the quantities cigarettes are you would find that it (and most anything else you can smoke) is just as deadly and likely has very similiar long term consequences.

Addictiveness is a hard thing to rate. I doubt anyone would argue that gambling can be addictive, and it in fact has very similiar physical withdrawal symptoms for those addicted as the "classic" addictions. Obviously there are not any foreign chemicals being introduced into the body by gambling. Most people who light up one or two cigarettes do not become addicted. Most people can responsibly handle alchohol. I would, from unprofessional, unscientific observation place weed into the same category. The vast majority of adults can probably handle it without dependency. Then again, I know for a fact that there are a lot of adults out there who can handle use of far harder drugs and seemingly stop cold turkey. I'm sure the anti-drug crowd does not want to hear that.

I'll support the idea that the federal government banning weed is a bad idea. Though I don't like a lot of the "logic" and "facts" thrown out by a lot of the pro-weed community.


i really like your argument.

I'm pro-weed, Its a social thing for me, but its always done responsibly and that is as far as i will take my drug experimenting.

not saying i'm the majority or anything, its just something i enjoy from time to time.

but none the less, i hate big brother telling me i can't do something.

[ThePixelGuru]

I think that people downgrade the long term effect of pot. As with most things its pretty hard to study without it being in a vacuum. We know nicotine is deadly, and we know in quantity it can be SEVERELY deadly. However, noone ever dies (noone might be a bad term) from nicotine poisoning, they die from the side effects of smoking. Personally I wonder if this is not simply from the effects of drawing smoke into ones lungs. Does the composition really matter? I'm sure to some degree but not to what.

In the end I think if pot was readily available, and smoked in the quantities cigarettes are you would find that it (and most anything else you can smoke) is just as deadly and likely has very similiar long term consequences.
Actually, tobacco has a couple drugs in it that specifically attack cells and cause cancer - while weed has about five times the amount of tar in it per puff, it's actually less harmful because it won't give you cancer. Granted you're not going to go out and run a marathon after smoking a couple joints, though...


Addictiveness is a hard thing to rate. I doubt anyone would argue that gambling can be addictive, and it in fact has very similiar physical withdrawal symptoms for those addicted as the "classic" addictions. Obviously there are not any foreign chemicals being introduced into the body by gambling. Most people who light up one or two cigarettes do not become addicted. Most people can responsibly handle alchohol. I would, from unprofessional, unscientific observation place weed into the same category. The vast majority of adults can probably handle it without dependency. Then again, I know for a fact that there are a lot of adults out there who can handle use of far harder drugs and seemingly stop cold turkey. I'm sure the anti-drug crowd does not want to hear that.
Very true. I'd wager it depends a lot on not just the drug or the person but the interaction between the two. Still, physical withdrawal from weed is extremely limited. Not nearly as bad as nicotine withdrawal, certainly, and pretty much negligible compared to withdrawals that can kill you, like alcohol. Even meth and heroin won't do that.


I'll support the idea that the federal government banning weed is a bad idea. Though I don't like a lot of the "logic" and "facts" thrown out by a lot of the pro-weed community.
There's not much logic to the situation at all. Either the government bans everything that's bad for people, or they just let people do as they please and hurt themselves if they want. I think you and I are in favor of the latter, but it seems like it would be difficult for anyone to really be in favor of the former. Though there are people out there who want to ban fast food, soda, et cetera...

[SpecialBlend2786]

Addictiveness is a hard thing to rate. I doubt anyone would argue that gambling can be addictive, and it in fact has very similiar physical withdrawal symptoms for those addicted as the "classic" addictions. Obviously there are not any foreign chemicals being introduced into the body by gambling. Most people who light up one or two cigarettes do not become addicted. Most people can responsibly handle alchohol. I would, from unprofessional, unscientific observation place weed into the same category. The vast majority of adults can probably handle it without dependency. Then again, I know for a fact that there are a lot of adults out there who can handle use of far harder drugs and seemingly stop cold turkey. I'm sure the anti-drug crowd does not want to hear that.


This comparison is golden. I still think it's just as easy to get addicted to a certain lifestyle or action as it is to get addicted to a substance that is enjoyable. I remember friends who had stopped smoking being so bored that they just had to light up again.

[Hilltop Customs]

This comparison is golden. I still think it's just as easy to get addicted to a certain lifestyle or action as it is to get addicted to a substance that is enjoyable. I remember friends who had stopped smoking being so bored that they just had to light up again.

Thats true, but its easier to stop any addiction when the chemicals you are ingesting dont create physical dependence. When someone first starts smoking cigarettes they dont keep smoking because they are addicted, the keep doing it because they like it....only after(insert time here) does the body become accustom to having nicotine, and to stop smoking causes withdrawal. Someone whos addicted to paintball(or just and adrenaline junkie) they can love the experience and the rush, but stopping does not cause them any pains other than the feeling "wow Id really want to go play, too bad its raining". Now compare that to cig withdrawal and you will realize there is really no comparison between being "addicted" to something(paintball) and being physically dependent on cigarettes .


If that friend is smoking out of boredom then they really didnt stop smoking then did they? Going through nicotine withdrawal can cause mental time distortions which can make cravings seem to last for hours, which is only amplified by boredom. I have a friend whos quitting right now. I should mention he recently quit smoking pot, he smoked(pot and cigs) daily for over 12 years now. He compared quitting the 2....he said his addiction to weed was like stopping a hot wheels car from running him over, while quitting tobacco has been like a freight train he just cant stop and only has managed to slow down.