posted
It is interesting that a nation who imprisons millions, kills thousands and finances trillions in the drug war would elect a president who used illegal drugs for over a decade.
If the war on drugs is REALLY likened to the war on Terror, would we elect a president who was in al-queda for a decade?
No.
As a nation we have a habit of talking out both sides of our ass.
mariuana is less harmful and altering than alcohol, but alcohol is rules free.
Funny how Cigarettes Corporations are the leading contributors to our politicians, and cigarette are much more physically harmful than marijuana.
no, wait, it is not funny.
it's America.
A corporate, christian, capitalistic, democracy.
Did Jesus say it's illegal to smoke marijuana?
Nope.
Did George Washington say it was illegal to smoke marijuana?
Nope.
Did Abraham Lincoln say it was illegal to smoke marijuana?
Nope.
Marijuana was made illegal entirely by a group of white men, in a time the black man couldn't vote.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did Jesus say it's illegal to smoke marijuana?
Nope.
Did George Washington say it was illegal to smoke marijuana?
Nope.
Did Abraham Lincoln say it was illegal to smoke marijuana?
Nope.
But, during the time of Washington and Lincoln, Cocaine was regularly used in whatever form a person could fit it in. It was even used as a pain-reliever for teething babies. Using your logic Cocaine should be legal too.
I'm not going to go into your white vs. black comment. I've obviously got some things to learn about that.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
scottneb, I think HRE was saying that working and working out were not chemically addictive, only psychologically so.
I understand alcohol can be chemically addictive for people who get to the seriously toxic state, where attempting to detox on their own can be fatal. But is alcohol chemically addictive in the more moderate levels in which it is consumed by most people? I would find this surprising, if so.
Thor, I don't know that I can agree with the claims that marijuana is less damaging or altering than alcohol. Everybody who claims this always compares to rather extreme alcohol abuse. Moderately low use of alcohol seems much more benign and less "altering" than moderately low use of marijuana, from everything I've read. Heck, moderately low quantities of alcohol, notably red wine, have repeatedly been found to be good for you. I'm not aware of marijuana being actively good for you except insofar as it reduces pain for people who already have serious illnesses or painful conditions. (And if we're going to compare only extreme abuses like alcoholism--and comparing full-blown alcoholism to recreational pot use, as most who make this comparison seem to, is a bit disengenious, no?--then you can argue that pot is less dangerous than sugar, because extreme indulgence in sugar is certainly more harmful than smoking a joint or two a week. (eek! Diagram THAT sentence!)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Icarus that it's hard to compare quantity of usage and impairment. How much does an average drinker drink? How much does an average pot smoker smoke? No idea.
However, drinking alcohol is legal for adults regardless of the quantity of alcohol consumed. I think quantity is up to an individual's responsibility to manage in either case, ie are you using whichever recreationally or do you have a major habit? My basic opinion on legalization for most drugs (without getting into very lengthy details) is if its something that can be used in the home without harming other people, there shouldn't be a law against it. Sell it with warning labels so people know what they're getting into.
posted
Well part of what society is about is protecting you from bad decisions others might make.
I'm really only playing Devil's advocate here but consider this: Do you really think more mentally impaired people (from use of drugs or alcohol) is what you need out there?
Everyone takes into account the cases where the drugs are used by level-headed, responsible people who know better than to go out driving while drunk/high, but how many people account for the people who abuse the subtances?
I agree that people should be free to do as they want with their body, however, I think it's a little naive to think that these same people won't ever affect others with their actions. If this were true there wouldn't be people killed or maimed in drunk driving accidents because everyone would know better than to drive under the influence.
Posts: 459 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, is it the common consensus that it should be a medicinal thing and not a recreational thing?
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see that consensus. I see a lot of people saying that you should be able to do it in your own home without hurting anybody.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well part of what society is about is protecting you from bad decisions others might make.
I'm really only playing Devil's advocate here but consider this: Do you really think more mentally impaired people (from use of drugs or alcohol) is what you need out there?
Everyone takes into account the cases where the drugs are used by level-headed, responsible people who know better than to go out driving while drunk/high, but how many people account for the people who abuse the subtances?
I agree that people should be free to do as they want with their body, however, I think it's a little naive to think that these same people won't ever affect others with their actions. If this were true there wouldn't be people killed or maimed in drunk driving accidents because everyone would know better than to drive under the influence.
But if we follow what you're saying Rico, then not only should alcohol be illegal, but also everything that people do that "may" be harmful to themselves or others if abused. Heck TV and internet should be outlawed by that logic, because there are those that abuse those things in abundance and that's not healthy. Driving any sort of motor vehicle would also have to be illegal.
quote:On the other hand, Liz, I can have a drink without getting high. Can you say the same about a joint?
Ic, HRE already sort of addressed this, but I'll have a crack anyway. If you can only have one drink, why can't a smoker only have half a joint? or 1/4 of a joint? or just a few puffs? And the same way you have one drink because you enjoy it and to relax a bit, someone can smoke less than a joint just to relax. People don't smoke cigarettes to get high, but for whatever reason that cigarette break makes them feel better.
And the same way you can have too much drink, someone else can have too much to smoke. It's all about personal responsibility. Though, to be fair, it's a lot easier to smoke too much than it is to drink too much, given the nature of how the different drugs are taken. Similar to how you can get more drunk doing shots rather than drinking beers.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally I've never tried marijuana, and probably never will, regardless of it's legality.
But I do think it should be legalized, for many reasons.
There's your average taxation, hurt the drug lords argument, which I think is very valid, and is half my reason for wanting it legalized.
But moreoever it comes down to personal responsibility. If we trust people with alcohol and cigarettes, they can be trusted with marijuana. Make the punishment for doing certain acts (driving, operating heavy machinery, whatever) extremely harsh, and I think that will deter most people.
I also think, to a certain degree, that the number of people who use marijuana for recreational use will not go up that much if it were legalized. It's ridiculously easy to get illegal marijuana, everyone who wants some can already get it. Legalizing it won't change that so much. It might even lower deaths. Buying it from a regulated vendor will eliminate the risk of it being laced with a more deadly drug. Quality control saves lives.
The benefits of legalization to me outweigh the opposing arguments of keeping it illegal. I don't think cigarettes should be illegal, but I do find them incredibly destructive. So long as no one smokes around me, they are free to poison themselves with it all they want. They have the right to choose.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: But if we follow what you're saying Rico, then not only should alcohol be illegal, but also everything that people do that "may" be harmful to themselves or others if abused. Heck TV and internet should be outlawed by that logic, because there are those that abuse those things in abundance and that's not healthy. Driving any sort of motor vehicle would also have to be illegal.
Well I know it usually boils down to this sort of thing which I was trying to avoid but when you deal with extremes there's always an opposite to match it. Why isn't everything legal then? Why have society control anything at all?
My point was that while I agree that marijuana should be legalized I think it could add to the problems that already afflict our society. I see it as a faucet of sorts, right now it's about halfway open and the water's pouring out but legalizing more and more physically/mentally impairing drugs will surely increase the amount of "water" being let out of the faucet.
I think it should be legalized but not for the reasons you list. The whole "Alcohol is just as bad and that's legal so therefore drugs should be legal too" just doesn't strike me as the right argument to make when dealing with potentially dangerous substances (note I say potentially, I know that they can be used in moderation and am not against that at all).
Posts: 459 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Perhaps the popularity of marijuana has increased in the past 14 years. Or perhaps it is just my area.
quote: Why have society control anything at all?
I don't think that quote completely applies. If you change it to "Why have society control anything regarding consensual adults' behavior that doesn't hurt others?", then I'd say I have no idea. Sounds ludicrous to me.
I don't understand what the water symbolizes in your analogy.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the water symbolizes the amount of trouble caused by people's decisions regarding potentially harmful things. Cigarette use and alcohol are potentially dangerous, but more so than something like cars, or knives, or whatever.
Many things that are controlled now that are made illegal are because they are more inherently harmful than say, a fountain pen or a pillowcase. Both of which can be deadly, if used wrongly.
Legalizing weed just means the chances for more destruction go up, putting more potential danger out there, and thereby increasing the amount of water, or potential danger, out there.
Is that close to what you meant Rico?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry I guess I'm not very good at coming up with analogies at 2 AM I guess that sort of came to mind since I was thirsty and wanted some water.
I was sort of aiming to imply that by adding yet another substance to control might mean increased usage and with increased usage there comes increased fools who go out driving while they're high/drunk.
I think I might butt out of this thread for a while now though, I didn't want to get too involved in the first place because I've had this discussion way too many times
You guys go on though, have a fun!
Edit: Yup Lyrhawn you got it Posts: 459 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
(Why is this a better alternative to a handful of anti-depressants and other pills? Fewer side effects and the ability to continue functioning. I'm talking about serious problems, not depressed soccor moms. Have you ever seen someone get mental "treatment" and come out with handfuls of pills to take everyday and be more crazy than when they went in? The cure is worse than the disease.)
For SOME people, Marijuana:
Becomes all they ever do. Lessens productivity. Makes them stupid. Makes them depressed.
---
Many drug treatments for pain, depression, and other ailments have differing effects on different people. If you have ADD, Ritalin will help you concentrate and calm down. If you don't have ADD, Ritalin affects you like speed.
Legalize it--but regulate it. The quality goes UP, and the control of who gets it goes UP. (Quality is important because impure substances are risky.) Educate people on its real effects--not on government propoganda. Some people shouldn't use it. Some people should.
People who would drive high are already driving high or drunk. If they have so little respect for our driving laws and safety, what makes you think they're respecting the drug laws?
Some people like to get drunk. Some people like to get high. Let them stay home and do that. The drunks won't lose their job after a drug test. The others will, even though they are not impaired on the job. How is that fair?
Too many people are in prisons for smoking.
Too much money is spent fighting this "problem," and with little effect.
posted
I once heard a police officer at our university tell us that the only reason pot was illegal was because there were no immediate tests to see if it was in the system.
His contention was as follows: “If driver, pilot, doctor or anyone else is drunk/impaired, you can pull them over and give them a breathalyser test. The immediate result can be used to intervene and stop them from putting themselves/others at risk.
Altho pot is probably less harmful then alcohol, every test we have takes hours to give and get results. Urine tests take too long to be processed to stop potentially dangerous behavior. If a method comes out that lets cops immediately test for pot in the system, you will see it made legal.”
I don't know if that is true, but it was the first time I heard that argument. It seemed to make sense to me.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Altho pot is probably less harmful then alcohol,
Why does this keep popping up? I've never heard this arguement before this thread. I'm really interested in seeing some research that actually says this.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do know from experience that with AIDS patients that pot is smoked to gain an appetite. Many of the drug cocktails used to treat advanced stages of AIDS cause nausea and/or lack of appetite. In order to get nutrients, the patients have to eat. Pot helps them. Now, this information I got firsthand from a few focus groups, so that's all the basis I have.
But listening to someone who's stick thin and saying that it was her last resort and it's how she can even eat, you start to wonder about the role of marijuana.
I'm not in either camp. I just wanted to share that experience I had.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, to throw in something on the other side from what I've been mostly arguing.
A friend of mine went through a few years of doing a lot of drugs. Pretty much everything under the sun. I was talking to him once after he'd quit everything except pot and cigarettes and mentioned something about legalization. He, a frequent marijuana user, did NOT want it legalized.
His reasoning went something like this: "Right now I have a dealer that I trust and he gets me good stuff from 2 or 3 growers he personally knows. If it's legalized sellers are going to need licenses and stuff just like cigarettes, big business is going to take over and they'll put additives in it to make their brand more popular and probably more addictive. I don't want tobacco companies taking over marijuana."
I thought that was interesting. And of course, he still smoked tobacco too. I think he was more interested in quitting that habit than the pot.
Scott: the "pot's not as bad as alcohol" is an old arguement that I'm surprised you haven't heard before (unless you haven't talked to anyone else who's pro-legalization). I don't have any sort of research to point to, but I agree with it based on my own extensive experience of being around people who are really drunk and around people who are really high. I can't make a long term health comparison, but in terms of impairment and likelihood of doing something stupid or dangerous under the influence, I think alcohol is worse.
posted
The problem is that Americans think that if it is "legal" than it is "condoned" by the state. I am in favor of the legalization of ALL victimless crimes.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It's not a habit, it's cool. I feel alive. If you don't have it, you're on the other side. I'm not an addict. Maybe, that's a lie."
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, marijuana is illegal whether smoked or not. It's illegal to possess, not just to use.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was under the impression it was only illegal to possess, but not illegal to use. Technically... although I'm not sure how you'd use without possessing.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I guess that sort of came to mind since I was thirsty and wanted some water. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
