Post by: C5Allroad on Fri, 07 November 2014, 21:57:10
To me this is kind of an eh thing to me. Don't really care if its legalized as long as people aren't under the influence while driving.
Post by: noisyturtle on Fri, 07 November 2014, 22:04:15
Post by: nubbinator on Fri, 07 November 2014, 22:05:24
I do agree about the driving under the influence. Don't toke and drive and you should be an adult before you use it.
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Fri, 07 November 2014, 22:14:49
I do agree about the driving under the influence. Don't toke and drive and you should be an adult before you use it.
I also agree with this. But I have to wonder: why can't we just have a law that says "don't drive like a ****ing moron", and then we don't need to discuss it whenever stuff like this comes up? Like, you could be totally high and still drive better than some people on the roads. Why can't we just make terrible driving illegal?
Post by: nubbinator on Fri, 07 November 2014, 22:17:38
Post by: hwood34 on Fri, 07 November 2014, 22:24:01
Post by: heedpantsnow on Fri, 07 November 2014, 22:29:14
Maybe I don't understand the issues around driving while high. Just don't do it.
Post by: demik on Fri, 07 November 2014, 22:34:21
I do agree about the driving under the influence. Don't toke and drive and you should be an adult before you use it.
I also agree with this. But I have to wonder: why can't we just have a law that says "don't drive like a ****ing moron", and then we don't need to discuss it whenever stuff like this comes up? Like, you could be totally high and still drive better than some people on the roads. Why can't we just make terrible driving illegal?
yes. like the whole no cell phone ****.
still have idiots eating, putting on make up, reading, HOLDING THEIR PHONE TALKING ON SPEAKER.
how about people just ****ing drive and not do multiple things? can we try that?
Post by: noisyturtle on Fri, 07 November 2014, 22:37:41
If there is full legalization, there must be a separation between recreational and medical legislation or a lot of sick people won't be able to afford their medicine.
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Fri, 07 November 2014, 22:39:27
Tax the heck out of it
Everybody says this, and I have to disagree. Why should we tax people extra for wanting to have fun in a way that's slightly different from how "everyone else" does it? Taxing behavior has never jumped out to me as the best solution. If something truly is bad, there has to be a better way to "convince" people to stop it (or, yknow, just let 'em make their own bad decisions). And if it's not an awful thing, then why should people be punished for doing it?
Post by: dorkvader on Fri, 07 November 2014, 22:41:15
It's less dangerous than alcohol,This is a poor argument for the legalization of marijuana and an excellent argument for bringing back the 18'th amendment.
Tax the heck out of it
Everybody says this, and I have to disagree. Why should we tax people extra for wanting to have fun in a way that's slightly different from how "everyone else" does it?
Agree. Sin tax makes as much sense as blue laws. I prefer my church and state separated tyvm.
Post by: heedpantsnow on Fri, 07 November 2014, 22:43:28
I would actually say I am more for restricted sale, rather than full legalization. Do you realize that since legalization in WA medical marijuana has become a taxable commodity, which means that patients that legitimately benefit from it who didn't pay any taxes on it now have to pay a 75% tax? Not only patients, but growers and medical dispensaries as well now are required to pay the same 75% tax as recreational stores while still keeping their prices affordable for long-term patients. And I'll let you in on something else, that's not sustainable for growers and medical dispensaries unless they increase their prices to match the tax and still walk away in the black.
If there is full legalization, there must be a separation between recreational and medical legislation or a lot of sick people won't be able to afford their medicine.
Well that sortof sucks for them but then again my healthcare prices have skyrocketed since Obamacare came on the scene, paired with a lower limit for how much I can reimburse. My point is not to cry but to say that rising prices on stuff is part of the game and in everything there is some portion (hopefully small) that is going to get screwed over.
Post by: nubbinator on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:10:33
It's less dangerous than alcohol,This is a poor argument for the legalization of marijuana and an excellent argument for bringing back the 18'th amendment.
I disagree, but if you're going to state that, you can also argue that it's less dangerous than many commonly prescribed medications and tobacco. It's also less addictive than tobacco. The legalization of any substance like that should be based upon the science. Marijuana was not made illegal because of any real science about it being bad, it was done so because of racism, a man's attempt to make a name for himself, and the "reefer madness" moral panic. Current studies show its side effects to be less harmful than tobacco while also having more positive effects. No science backs it up as being a scheduled drug, let alone a Schedule 1 drug. The fact that it's a Schedule 1 drug while meth and oxy are Schedule 2 is a joke.
That said, I think the other points I made are equally important and more likely to convince some people.
If you want to crack down on harmful drugs, crack down on legally prescribed pain pills and anti-anxiety meds. People don't need a doctor prescribing them what amounts to heroin for BS reasons and your suburban yuppie housewives (or many others for that matter) don't need that Xanax and red wine. Those two cause far more harm and problems to society than marijuana and they're legal.
Post by: demik on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:12:15
It's less dangerous than alcohol,
I disagree, but if you're going to state that, you can also argue that it's less dangerous than many commonly prescribed medications and tobacco. It's also less addictive than tobacco. The legalization of any substance like that should be based upon the science. Marijuana was not made illegal because of any real science about it being bad, it was done so because of racism, a man's attempt to make a name for himself, and the "reefer madness" moral panic. Current studies show it's side effects to be less harmful than tobacco while also having more positive effects. No science backs it up as being a scheduled drug, let alone a Schedule 1 drug. The fact that it's a Schedule 1 drug while meth and oxy are Schedule 2 is a joke.
That said, I think the other points I made are equally important and more likely to convince some people.
If you want to crack down on harmful drugs, crack down on legally prescribed pain pills and anti-anxiety meds. People don't need a doctor prescribing them what amounts to heroin for BS reasons and your suburban yuppie housewives (or many others for that matter) don't need that Xanax and red wine. Those two cause far more harm and problems to society than marijuana and they're legal.
nubs too high to quote and reply right.
checkmate, stoners.
Post by: demik on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:12:30
Post by: nubbinator on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:14:05
how the **** did i manage that?!
demik gonna mock nub's posting
(https://s-media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/originals/61/d0/e8/61d0e87a2d2fb8a383ab590f860977a0.jpg)
Post by: demik on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:15:09
Post by: ConscienceDrop on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:18:23
sometimes i wonder if i'm retarded
i don't
Post by: lightsout714 on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:18:35
All that said I live in Oregon we just voted it legal the other day.
Post by: demik on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:19:51
sometimes i wonder if i'm retarded
i don't
well nobody ****ing asked you, did they?
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:24:15
It commonly leads to other drugs
Ever wondered why? When every "drug" is punished the same amount, it's more tempting to go further. Weed being legal wouldn't make more people do hard stuff, it would keep people at the weed stage because it's legal.
(I'm using absolutes, but obviously that's not the case)
Post by: nubbinator on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:25:15
sometimes i wonder if i'm retarded
(http://99gifs.com/-img/5207d6e6afa96f072400350d.gif?w=499&h=385)
It commonly leads to other drugs
Only that's a total myth (http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-that-will-not-die/). Aside from that Times article, there are a plethora of studies showing the same thing. Calling marijuana a gateway drug is like calling cars suicide machines. A few people may end up doing something that kills them or gets them addicted to something else, but they're in the minority and there's no causal effect.
Alcohol is more highly correlated with heavy drug use.
Post by: lightsout714 on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:25:53
I don't personally agree with this. I think they just want to experiment with something different. Just like when a kid gets drunk and decides pot could be fun too.It commonly leads to other drugs
Ever wondered why? When every "drug" is punished the same amount, it's more tempting to go further. Weed being legal wouldn't make more people do hard stuff, it would keep people at the weed stage because it's legal.
(I'm using absolutes, but obviously that's not the case)
Post by: demik on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:26:29
It commonly leads to other drugs
Ever wondered why? When every "drug" is punished the same amount, it's more tempting to go further. Weed being legal wouldn't make more people do hard stuff, it would keep people at the weed stage because it's legal.
(I'm using absolutes, but obviously that's not the case)
well, weed does nothing for me. im afraid only harder drugs would work. or maybe i THINK it does nothing for me because im really high.
point is, can't do harder drugs as im terrified of becoming addicted.
Post by: noisyturtle on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:35:30
I would actually say I am more for restricted sale, rather than full legalization. Do you realize that since legalization in WA medical marijuana has become a taxable commodity, which means that patients that legitimately benefit from it who didn't pay any taxes on it now have to pay a 75% tax? Not only patients, but growers and medical dispensaries as well now are required to pay the same 75% tax as recreational stores while still keeping their prices affordable for long-term patients. And I'll let you in on something else, that's not sustainable for growers and medical dispensaries unless they increase their prices to match the tax and still walk away in the black.
If there is full legalization, there must be a separation between recreational and medical legislation or a lot of sick people won't be able to afford their medicine.
Well that sortof sucks for them but then again my healthcare prices have skyrocketed since Obamacare came on the scene, paired with a lower limit for how much I can reimburse. My point is not to cry but to say that rising prices on stuff is part of the game and in everything there is some portion (hopefully small) that is going to get screwed over.
So you are saying people who can't afford to pay for something they need for cancer treatment or seizures should be in the same category as people who just want to get baked on a Friday night legally?
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:39:44
I don't personally agree with this. I think they just want to experiment with something different. Just like when a kid gets drunk and decides pot could be fun too.It commonly leads to other drugs
Ever wondered why? When every "drug" is punished the same amount, it's more tempting to go further. Weed being legal wouldn't make more people do hard stuff, it would keep people at the weed stage because it's legal.
(I'm using absolutes, but obviously that's not the case)
Well I don't know what's in the minds of all the kids. But I'm pretty sure that if you're the kind of kid to smoke some pot because it's legal and then try something way more serious just for fun, you probably would have done the same thing if weed were illegal. There's obviously no way to prove that. But my point is that kids make dumb choices all the time and I don't think that making this legal would make that worse.
Post by: lightsout714 on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:40:09
I could care less about some study. I'm talking about what I saw with my own eyes. In my own life. I would bet that about 90% of people start with pot before they do any harder drugs. It's rare that someone would get high for the first time on meth or crack. Weed gets your foot in the door.sometimes i wonder if i'm retardedShow Image(http://99gifs.com/-img/5207d6e6afa96f072400350d.gif?w=499&h=385)It commonly leads to other drugs
Only that's a total myth (http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-that-will-not-die/). Aside from that Times article, there are a plethora of studies showing the same thing. Calling marijuana a gateway drug is like calling cars suicide machines. A few people may end up doing something that kills them or gets them addicted to something else, but they're in the minority and there's no causal effect.
Alcohol is more highly correlated with heavy drug use.
Of course everyone has an opinion I'm just stating mine from what I've seen in my own life and people around me.
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:42:04
I could care less about some study. I'm talking about what I saw with my own eyes. In my own life. I would bet that about 90% of people start with pot before they do any harder drugs. It's rare that someone would get high for the first time on meth or crack. Weed gets your foot in the door.sometimes i wonder if i'm retardedShow Image(http://99gifs.com/-img/5207d6e6afa96f072400350d.gif?w=499&h=385)It commonly leads to other drugs
Only that's a total myth (http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-that-will-not-die/). Aside from that Times article, there are a plethora of studies showing the same thing. Calling marijuana a gateway drug is like calling cars suicide machines. A few people may end up doing something that kills them or gets them addicted to something else, but they're in the minority and there's no causal effect.
Alcohol is more highly correlated with heavy drug use.
Of course everyone has an opinion I'm just stating mine from what I've seen in my own life and people around me.
A square is always a rectangle but a rectangle isn't necessary a square.
Correlation, causation, blah blah blah.
Post by: lightsout714 on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:42:58
OkI could care less about some study. I'm talking about what I saw with my own eyes. In my own life. I would bet that about 90% of people start with pot before they do any harder drugs. It's rare that someone would get high for the first time on meth or crack. Weed gets your foot in the door.sometimes i wonder if i'm retardedShow Image(http://99gifs.com/-img/5207d6e6afa96f072400350d.gif?w=499&h=385)It commonly leads to other drugs
Only that's a total myth (http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-that-will-not-die/). Aside from that Times article, there are a plethora of studies showing the same thing. Calling marijuana a gateway drug is like calling cars suicide machines. A few people may end up doing something that kills them or gets them addicted to something else, but they're in the minority and there's no causal effect.
Alcohol is more highly correlated with heavy drug use.
Of course everyone has an opinion I'm just stating mine from what I've seen in my own life and people around me.
A square is always a rectangle but a rectangle isn't necessary a square.
Correlation, causation, blah blah blah.
Post by: nubbinator on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:48:00
I could care less about some study. I'm talking about what I saw with my own eyes. In my own life. I would bet that about 90% of people start with pot before they do any harder drugs. It's rare that someone would get high for the first time on meth or crack. Weed gets your foot in the door.
Of course everyone has an opinion I'm just stating mine from what I've seen in my own life and people around me.
I mean, correlation=causation, amiright? And **** what scientific studies have shown, my own personal anecdotes are more relevant than what studies have shown. It's not like they have actual statistical significance in their studies and have controls to eliminate confounding variables or anything. My experience, as wrong as it may be, is right because I believe it, even though the science out there contradicts it.
Post by: lightsout714 on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:51:28
I feel like studies are not always accurate because people are not always honest. Things get skewed etc. Again I'm just going by life experience. I prefer that to what some suit wants to tell me in a university.I could care less about some study. I'm talking about what I saw with my own eyes. In my own life. I would bet that about 90% of people start with pot before they do any harder drugs. It's rare that someone would get high for the first time on meth or crack. Weed gets your foot in the door.
Of course everyone has an opinion I'm just stating mine from what I've seen in my own life and people around me.
I mean, correlation=causation, amiright? And **** what scientific studies have shown, my own personal anecdotes are more relevant than what studies have shown. It's not like they have actual statistical significance in their studies and have controls to eliminate confounding variables or anything. My experience, as wrong as it may be, is right because I believe it, even though the science out there contradicts it.
But I don't really think this can ever be proven either way because like stated above a person who is willing to try pot is already much more likely to try something else. So is it the weed or the person?
Post by: heedpantsnow on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:54:34
I would actually say I am more for restricted sale, rather than full legalization. Do you realize that since legalization in WA medical marijuana has become a taxable commodity, which means that patients that legitimately benefit from it who didn't pay any taxes on it now have to pay a 75% tax? Not only patients, but growers and medical dispensaries as well now are required to pay the same 75% tax as recreational stores while still keeping their prices affordable for long-term patients. And I'll let you in on something else, that's not sustainable for growers and medical dispensaries unless they increase their prices to match the tax and still walk away in the black.
If there is full legalization, there must be a separation between recreational and medical legislation or a lot of sick people won't be able to afford their medicine.
Well that sortof sucks for them but then again my healthcare prices have skyrocketed since Obamacare came on the scene, paired with a lower limit for how much I can reimburse. My point is not to cry but to say that rising prices on stuff is part of the game and in everything there is some portion (hopefully small) that is going to get screwed over.
So you are saying people who can't afford to pay for something they need for cancer treatment or seizures should be in the same category as people who just want to get baked on a Friday night legally?
I've been on drugs for epilepsy. Not once did my doc ever say pot was required. I've known a lot of folks with cancer. Not one of them was ever prescribed pot. I'm not a doctor, but I think that the number of cases where a patient had to use pot, with no alternative, might be pretty low. So yes let's screw those people or make some special concession or tax exemption for them. Like I said I would try to minimize it but there's always someone who gets screwed in pretty much any new program/law/initiative.
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:55:25
OkI could care less about some study. I'm talking about what I saw with my own eyes. In my own life. I would bet that about 90% of people start with pot before they do any harder drugs. It's rare that someone would get high for the first time on meth or crack. Weed gets your foot in the door.sometimes i wonder if i'm retardedShow Image(http://99gifs.com/-img/5207d6e6afa96f072400350d.gif?w=499&h=385)It commonly leads to other drugs
Only that's a total myth (http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-that-will-not-die/). Aside from that Times article, there are a plethora of studies showing the same thing. Calling marijuana a gateway drug is like calling cars suicide machines. A few people may end up doing something that kills them or gets them addicted to something else, but they're in the minority and there's no causal effect.
Alcohol is more highly correlated with heavy drug use.
Of course everyone has an opinion I'm just stating mine from what I've seen in my own life and people around me.
A square is always a rectangle but a rectangle isn't necessary a square.
Correlation, causation, blah blah blah.
Do you even realize the logical fallacy?
Post by: heedpantsnow on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:56:56
I feel like studies are not always accurate because people are not always honest. Things get skewed etc. Again I'm just going by life experience. I prefer that to what some suit wants to tell me in a university.I could care less about some study. I'm talking about what I saw with my own eyes. In my own life. I would bet that about 90% of people start with pot before they do any harder drugs. It's rare that someone would get high for the first time on meth or crack. Weed gets your foot in the door.
Of course everyone has an opinion I'm just stating mine from what I've seen in my own life and people around me.
I mean, correlation=causation, amiright? And **** what scientific studies have shown, my own personal anecdotes are more relevant than what studies have shown. It's not like they have actual statistical significance in their studies and have controls to eliminate confounding variables or anything. My experience, as wrong as it may be, is right because I believe it, even though the science out there contradicts it.
But I don't really think this can ever be proven either way because like stated above a person who is willing to try pot is already much more likely to try something else. So is it the weed or the person?
I'm a bit pessimistic but it often seems like it's easy to design a research project that proves whatever theory you want, often depending on who is paying for it.
Post by: lightsout714 on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:56:59
Let's hear it.OkI could care less about some study. I'm talking about what I saw with my own eyes. In my own life. I would bet that about 90% of people start with pot before they do any harder drugs. It's rare that someone would get high for the first time on meth or crack. Weed gets your foot in the door.sometimes i wonder if i'm retardedShow Image(http://99gifs.com/-img/5207d6e6afa96f072400350d.gif?w=499&h=385)It commonly leads to other drugs
Only that's a total myth (http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-that-will-not-die/). Aside from that Times article, there are a plethora of studies showing the same thing. Calling marijuana a gateway drug is like calling cars suicide machines. A few people may end up doing something that kills them or gets them addicted to something else, but they're in the minority and there's no causal effect.
Alcohol is more highly correlated with heavy drug use.
Of course everyone has an opinion I'm just stating mine from what I've seen in my own life and people around me.
A square is always a rectangle but a rectangle isn't necessary a square.
Correlation, causation, blah blah blah.
Do you even realize the logical fallacy?
Post by: lightsout714 on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:57:40
I do agree with this. Not that I'm saying said study was biased.I feel like studies are not always accurate because people are not always honest. Things get skewed etc. Again I'm just going by life experience. I prefer that to what some suit wants to tell me in a university.I could care less about some study. I'm talking about what I saw with my own eyes. In my own life. I would bet that about 90% of people start with pot before they do any harder drugs. It's rare that someone would get high for the first time on meth or crack. Weed gets your foot in the door.
Of course everyone has an opinion I'm just stating mine from what I've seen in my own life and people around me.
I mean, correlation=causation, amiright? And **** what scientific studies have shown, my own personal anecdotes are more relevant than what studies have shown. It's not like they have actual statistical significance in their studies and have controls to eliminate confounding variables or anything. My experience, as wrong as it may be, is right because I believe it, even though the science out there contradicts it.
But I don't really think this can ever be proven either way because like stated above a person who is willing to try pot is already much more likely to try something else. So is it the weed or the person?
I'm a bit pessimistic but it often seems like it's easy to design a research project that proves whatever theory you want, often depending on who is paying for it.
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Fri, 07 November 2014, 23:58:44
Let's hear it.OkI could care less about some study. I'm talking about what I saw with my own eyes. In my own life. I would bet that about 90% of people start with pot before they do any harder drugs. It's rare that someone would get high for the first time on meth or crack. Weed gets your foot in the door.sometimes i wonder if i'm retardedShow Image(http://99gifs.com/-img/5207d6e6afa96f072400350d.gif?w=499&h=385)It commonly leads to other drugs
Only that's a total myth (http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-that-will-not-die/). Aside from that Times article, there are a plethora of studies showing the same thing. Calling marijuana a gateway drug is like calling cars suicide machines. A few people may end up doing something that kills them or gets them addicted to something else, but they're in the minority and there's no causal effect.
Alcohol is more highly correlated with heavy drug use.
Of course everyone has an opinion I'm just stating mine from what I've seen in my own life and people around me.
A square is always a rectangle but a rectangle isn't necessary a square.
Correlation, causation, blah blah blah.
Do you even realize the logical fallacy?
:blank: it's that correlation does not equal causation. Yet your entire argument depends on that being the case.
Post by: nubbinator on Sat, 08 November 2014, 00:01:23
I feel like studies are not always accurate because people are not always honest. Things get skewed etc. Again I'm just going by life experience. I prefer that to what some suit wants to tell me in a university.
But I don't really think this can ever be proven either way because like stated above a person who is willing to try pot is already much more likely to try something else. So is it the weed or the person?
I'm not even going to bother responding any more than this to you because it's obvious that you have let your own biases cloud your vision. When you cannot accept what replicated studies have said, you're deliberately choosing to remain ignorant. That's the number one problem in the US today, people refusing to accept the data and instead relying on their own life experiences. Guess what, your anecdotes are statistically worthless.
Post by: lightsout714 on Sat, 08 November 2014, 00:03:03
I had not originally read the link from Time which I just did. Can't say I disagree with their opinion.Let's hear it.OkI could care less about some study. I'm talking about what I saw with my own eyes. In my own life. I would bet that about 90% of people start with pot before they do any harder drugs. It's rare that someone would get high for the first time on meth or crack. Weed gets your foot in the door.sometimes i wonder if i'm retardedShow Image(http://99gifs.com/-img/5207d6e6afa96f072400350d.gif?w=499&h=385)It commonly leads to other drugs
Only that's a total myth (http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-that-will-not-die/). Aside from that Times article, there are a plethora of studies showing the same thing. Calling marijuana a gateway drug is like calling cars suicide machines. A few people may end up doing something that kills them or gets them addicted to something else, but they're in the minority and there's no causal effect.
Alcohol is more highly correlated with heavy drug use.
Of course everyone has an opinion I'm just stating mine from what I've seen in my own life and people around me.
A square is always a rectangle but a rectangle isn't necessary a square.
Correlation, causation, blah blah blah.
Do you even realize the logical fallacy?
:blank: it's that correlation does not equal causation. Yet your entire argument depends on that being the case.
But for me I do feel that is weed is legal. Young people may be more inclined to try it. Maybe some that would not have before. Now since they have already crossed that bridge something a little different may sound interesting.
Or maybe just weed use on its own. People that may not have messed with it while it was legal may become users now that it is more socially accepted.
Post by: lightsout714 on Sat, 08 November 2014, 00:09:07
Maybe your lack of life experience in this area means you have to rely on some study.I feel like studies are not always accurate because people are not always honest. Things get skewed etc. Again I'm just going by life experience. I prefer that to what some suit wants to tell me in a university.
But I don't really think this can ever be proven either way because like stated above a person who is willing to try pot is already much more likely to try something else. So is it the weed or the person?
I'm not even going to bother responding any more than this to you because it's obvious that you have let your own biases cloud your vision. When you cannot accept what replicated studies have said, you're deliberately choosing to remain ignorant. That's the number one problem in the US today, people refusing to accept the data and instead relying on their own life experiences. Guess what, your anecdotes are statistically worthless.
Anyways the study says there is a huge correlation between pot use and heavy drug use. They go hand in hand. No one can really prove that if a person had never smoked weed they would have never tried hard drugs. So can this even be answered?
My point that I originally was trying to make is that I feel that legalizing weed does not help the current drug epidemic in this country.
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Sat, 08 November 2014, 00:12:05
Maybe your lack of life experience in this area means you have to rely on some study.I feel like studies are not always accurate because people are not always honest. Things get skewed etc. Again I'm just going by life experience. I prefer that to what some suit wants to tell me in a university.
But I don't really think this can ever be proven either way because like stated above a person who is willing to try pot is already much more likely to try something else. So is it the weed or the person?
I'm not even going to bother responding any more than this to you because it's obvious that you have let your own biases cloud your vision. When you cannot accept what replicated studies have said, you're deliberately choosing to remain ignorant. That's the number one problem in the US today, people refusing to accept the data and instead relying on their own life experiences. Guess what, your anecdotes are statistically worthless.
:))
Dude. Science is not some crutch for the inexperienced.
Post by: nubbinator on Sat, 08 November 2014, 00:15:25
And since you say there is a huge correlation, prove it. The data will not back you up. Like Hoff said, science is not a crutch for lack of life experience, it is an aggregate that has controls and has a large enough data set to be statistically significant. Your life experiences, as important as they are in forming you, are not data.
Post by: IvanIvanovich on Sat, 08 November 2014, 01:14:54
Post by: singaporean123 on Sat, 08 November 2014, 01:18:21
I would be really happy if I could get high on some oregano
Post by: IvanIvanovich on Sat, 08 November 2014, 01:34:23
Post by: noisyturtle on Sat, 08 November 2014, 02:35:43
I'm planning to make a visit to America some day and enjoy a whole month of vacation then.
I would be really happy if I could get high on some oregano
That reminds me of when I was a young street tuft in Boston. There was this moss that grew on the back wall of the bodega near my dad's house that looked quite a lot like preground bud when you let it dry out. We used to put a pinch of actual dank into a bag of dry moss to make it smell like ganj and then sell it to the Harvard and MIT students. Best part is some of them actually came back to buy more :))
Post by: tp4tissue on Sat, 08 November 2014, 04:10:27
we're losing to every other nation in educational standards..
If we allow drug induced entertainment...
I am at a loss as to who's going to hold down the fort... I've seen pot heads fight.. most of them are not at capacity beyond graphics designer, musician, professional pothead, now send these guys into war... idk..
Post by: Findecanor on Sat, 08 November 2014, 04:28:42
It is the act of smoking among non-users that is immoral, because then you impose your drug upon others. You never see such a thing as a "considerate smoker" - because if they were then they would not smoke where you would be able to see them or smell their smoke, now would you ...
Yes, I based this opinion first on tobacco, which should be outlawed by the same reason.
E-cigs are OK because they do not expose others to vapour.. For some strange reason e-cigs are not entirely legal over where I live, which is something that needs to be changed.
Are there E-cigarettes with marijuana? I don't mind if you use them, lick "magic" lollipops and eat "magic" brownies as long as you don't give them to others without telling what they are.
Marijuana was not made illegal because of any real science about it being bad, it was done so because of racism, a man's attempt to make a name for himself, and the "reefer madness" moral panic.I believe it is a bit of both. It is not outlawed just in the USA, you know.
There is real science against marijuana that shows that some people suffer from psychotic episodes from the drug, while others don't.
If you want to crack down on harmful drugs, crack down on legally prescribed pain pills and anti-anxiety meds.I agree absolutely. Those are prescribed too liberally over here as well.
I have once been prescribed at the same time both pain killers and anti-anxiety meds that contained barbiturates ... I have also been prescribed two other different drugs that shouldn't be taken together - and those two from the same doctor.
You always need to read the documentation on the drugs yourself to figure out if and how to take them. You need to realize that your health is your own responsibility and that doctors are only ordinary infallible people like the rest of us.
People die from inappropriate medication. Just read up on Heath Ledger ...
I am at a loss as to who's going to hold down the fort... I've seen pot heads fight.. most of them are not at capacity beyond graphics designer, musician, professional pothead, now send these guys into war... idk..I'd bet that many laws and policies in the USA are based on the idea of being able to provide soldiers to the military.
Post by: paicrai on Sat, 08 November 2014, 09:05:27
Post by: saint_james on Sat, 08 November 2014, 11:22:04
Legalize everything. Let people darwin award themselves out of existence. Winning all around.
^^^this^^^
Post by: Lurch on Sat, 08 November 2014, 11:41:14
Legalize everything. Let people darwin award themselves out of existence. Winning all around.
Post by: Lurch on Sat, 08 November 2014, 11:41:32
Post by: nubbinator on Sat, 08 November 2014, 13:28:55
Marijuana was not made illegal because of any real science about it being bad, it was done so because of racism, a man's attempt to make a name for himself, and the "reefer madness" moral panic.I believe it is a bit of both. It is not outlawed just in the USA, you know.
There is real science against marijuana that shows that some people suffer from psychotic episodes from the drug, while others don't.
I actually addressed that on the first page. The numbers are incredibly small in casual users, and mainly present in heavy users who make up a small percentage of the overall population who uses it, but I'm still waiting to see the data from Colorado and see if there's an uptick in mental illness due to legalization of marijuana and how significant it is. Of course, you're more likely to see meth induced psychosis that any kind of psychosis from marijuana; however, since there are small linkages, I would like to see a minimum age of 21, like with the drinking age.
Then there's the problem with causal linkages. Were these people smoking heavily as a means of self-medicating or was the heavy usage the causal factor for the psychosis. Many of the studies I've seen are uncertain in their directionality due to their design.
The other huge problem with a lot of the studies that show linkages is the comorbidity problem. Much of the population in the studies who use marijuana and develop a mental disorder are not only using marijuana, they are using other recreational drugs. When you control for the other drugs used, the significance of marijuana often is lost. So does that mean the marijuana is not the causal factor? No, it means that it can't be shown either way.
Post by: baldgye on Sat, 08 November 2014, 13:38:37
Post by: Lurch on Sat, 08 November 2014, 13:41:26
humans is strange
true
Post by: tp4tissue on Sat, 08 November 2014, 13:48:45
humans is strange
true
humans are not strange.. there's a pattern..
Post by: baldgye on Sat, 08 November 2014, 13:51:16
humans is strange
true
But if this was in a country that had welfare, taxation wouldn't even be an argument. That said how do you suppose to pay for the extra police training (given that US police training seems to be pretty bad anyway) and an increase in crimes related to weed abuse...
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Sat, 08 November 2014, 13:53:28
how do you suppose to pay for the extra police training (given that US police training seems to be pretty bad anyway) and an increase in crimes related to weed abuse...
Take any of the billions of dollars we won't be spending fighting the "war on drugs". Or any of the money we won't be spending keeping (morally) innocent people in jail. How much money do you think you'll need to train police?
Post by: noisyturtle on Sat, 08 November 2014, 13:56:06
humans is strange
true
That said how do you suppose to pay for the extra police training (given that US police training seems to be pretty bad anyway) and an increase in crimes related to weed abuse...
I honestly can't tell if you are being serious or not. If you're trolling then good job, you got me.
Post by: baldgye on Sat, 08 November 2014, 13:56:26
how do you suppose to pay for the extra police training (given that US police training seems to be pretty bad anyway) and an increase in crimes related to weed abuse...
Take any of the billions of dollars we won't be spending fighting the "war on drugs". Or any of the money we won't be spending keeping (morally) innocent people in jail. How much money do you think you'll need to train police?
A nationwide police force that's better equipped than most armies? How the **** should I know! hahaha but I don't think 'the war on drugs' would really change all that much... if anything it might increase, if (for example) you taxed weed or had it at a set price or something, existing drug deals would be able to sell that **** to you for free, like illegal importing of ***s etc or fake booze.
For everything you or change, there is a price.
Post by: baldgye on Sat, 08 November 2014, 14:08:28
humans is strange
true
That said how do you suppose to pay for the extra police training (given that US police training seems to be pretty bad anyway) and an increase in crimes related to weed abuse...
I honestly can't tell if you are being serious or not. If you're trolling then good job, you got me.
How is it trolling again?
Post by: noisyturtle on Sat, 08 November 2014, 14:10:07
how do you suppose to pay for the extra police training (given that US police training seems to be pretty bad anyway) and an increase in crimes related to weed abuse...
Take any of the billions of dollars we won't be spending fighting the "war on drugs". Or any of the money we won't be spending keeping (morally) innocent people in jail. How much money do you think you'll need to train police?
A nationwide police force that's better equipped than most armies? How the **** should I know! hahaha but I don't think 'the war on drugs' would really change all that much... if anything it might increase, if (for example) you taxed weed or had it at a set price or something, existing drug deals would be able to sell that **** to you for free, like illegal importing of ***s etc or fake booze.
For everything you or change, there is a price.
First off, the US has some of the most highly trained special task force branches in any countries law enforcement. The regular cops you see everyday are nothing (or maybe they are more dangerous since they all have guns and the right to use them whenever they feel threatened, which is completely subjective) but units like the US Marshals, DEA, whatever are highly trained and effective. Nevermind the endless special departments in the military. That's not what it's about though, you can't really ever win the war on drugs, only attempt to stem the tide.
But more importantly: every single country that has liberal drug laws or approved legalization has seen a significant drop in both drug related crimes, and addiction rates. You know what the biggest crime in Holland is? Bike theft. And they have prostitution, public sex, marijuana, peyote, and mushrooms all for legal purchase.
Post by: baldgye on Sat, 08 November 2014, 14:17:59
how do you suppose to pay for the extra police training (given that US police training seems to be pretty bad anyway) and an increase in crimes related to weed abuse...
Take any of the billions of dollars we won't be spending fighting the "war on drugs". Or any of the money we won't be spending keeping (morally) innocent people in jail. How much money do you think you'll need to train police?
A nationwide police force that's better equipped than most armies? How the **** should I know! hahaha but I don't think 'the war on drugs' would really change all that much... if anything it might increase, if (for example) you taxed weed or had it at a set price or something, existing drug deals would be able to sell that **** to you for free, like illegal importing of ***s etc or fake booze.
For everything you or change, there is a price.
First off, the US has some of the most highly trained special task force branches in any countries law enforcement. The regular cops you see everyday are nothing (or maybe they are more dangerous since they all have guns and the right to use them whenever they feel threatened, which is completely subjective) but units like the US Marshals, DEA, whatever are highly trained and effective. Nevermind the endless special departments in the military. That's not what it's about though, you can't really ever win the war on drugs, only attempt to stem the tide.
But more importantly: every single country that has liberal drug laws or approved legalization has seen a significant drop in both drug related crimes, and addiction rates. You know what the biggest crime in Holland is? Bike theft. And they have prostitution, public sex, marijuana, peyote, and mushrooms all for legal purchase.
Well, first off the highly trained special task force police officers are still employed and have to act lawfully and it would probably be a legal requirement that they go through a specific training scheme, so that in the event of an incident the police (or who ever) could prove that there officer was properly trained for the situation etc... this kind of thing is common for nearly everything and I would have thought (though I don't know) it would be more prevalent in the US due to the suing culture you have.
But really, those special units, are special, I was more referring to the average bobby on the street who now has to deal with drunks and people who are high, two pretty different situations (or can be).
And I don't know about the rates of crime in countries that have legalised drugs such as weed because it's not something I've looked too much into, I was more pointing it out as a possibility. That said I'm not sure you can really compare Holland to the US, given the gun laws and the pretty high murder rate compared to counties with similar gun laws.
I'm not really for or against and if this was a talk about the UK, becasue we have a welfare system taxation would be a must and not even really discussed. So I'm just pointing out things others might have missed when I think about why you might want to tax something like weed.
Post by: noisyturtle on Sat, 08 November 2014, 14:26:20
It's just not the same as drunks walking around, chances are you talk to someone high everyday and don't even realize it.
Post by: Booper on Sat, 08 November 2014, 14:28:58
how do you suppose to pay for the extra police training (given that US police training seems to be pretty bad anyway) and an increase in crimes related to weed abuse...
Take any of the billions of dollars we won't be spending fighting the "war on drugs". Or any of the money we won't be spending keeping (morally) innocent people in jail. How much money do you think you'll need to train police?
A nationwide police force that's better equipped than most armies? How the **** should I know! hahaha but I don't think 'the war on drugs' would really change all that much... if anything it might increase, if (for example) you taxed weed or had it at a set price or something, existing drug deals would be able to sell that **** to you for free, like illegal importing of ***s etc or fake booze.
For everything you or change, there is a price.
I have a hard time believing illegal weed sales would thrive in a world where the plant could be sold legally and risk free at a corner store. Why would someone put themselves in the position of dealing with drug dealers if they didn't have to? And how would drug dealers really stay in the game when they have to set their prices so low to compete?
Also, I think legalization would actually cut down on a lot of crime and addiction. First, it's well known that our prisons do not rehabilitate, but rather set people on the road to a life of crime and drugs. If a perfectly nice young man likes to get a little high on the weekends, he can get thrown in prison for pot where his whole life goes down the drain.
Secondly, I believe it is most common for people to experiment with other drugs when they are easily available. I don't think I've ever met a drug dealer who did not have, and offer to sell me, other drugs. If you were to go down to the store and buy legal pot, you would not have a sleazy drug dealer trying to push you molly, x, shrooms, coke, etc. which I do believe leads to a lot of experimentation and addiction.
As for your fake booze analogy, it actually plays more to my points because it's not like fake booze sales are abundant and rampant in our country. We don't have gangsta moonshiners selling alcohol to kids or anything.
So my vote is for legalize it! As well as other victimless crimes like prostitution. Adults should be allowed to be in charge of their own bodies and minds.
Quote
That said how do you suppose to pay for the extra police training (given that US police training seems to be pretty bad anyway) and an increase in crimes related to weed abuse...
I don't see how additional police force would be needed at all since a) potheads aren't likely to be crazy criminals and b) we have a huge police force already that spends a lot of it's resources on throwing innocent, young recreational plant smokers in jail. If they are no longer focusing energy in frivolous ways, the officers can focus on the 'protect and serve' bit.
Post by: Booper on Sat, 08 November 2014, 14:29:40
It just irks me when people put marijuana in the same category as class A drugs, or even alcohol. The plant has real benefits, both medically and as a sustainable agriculture crop and if it is taxed there needs to be a distinct separation between recreational sales and production and medical/agricultural sales.
It's just not the same as drunks walking around, chances are you talk to someone high everyday and don't even realize it.
This!
Post by: baldgye on Sat, 08 November 2014, 14:31:47
chances are you talk to someone high everyday and don't even realize it.
doubtful.
I'm aware of weed's benefits but I'm also someone who has used weed a lot... actually at uni I used weed all the ****ing time. I've actually done class-a drugs too, so I'm aware of what it is and how dangerous it is or isn't.
It's just nice sometimes to be a bit more open minded about these things and being open minded dsnt simply mean agree'ing too all kinds of dumb **** either lol
I'm pro weed so I don't agree with any of your points.
There u go bro, I fixed your post.
Post by: tp4tissue on Sat, 08 November 2014, 14:40:43
It just irks me when people put marijuana in the same category as class A drugs, or even alcohol. The plant has real benefits, both medically and as a sustainable agriculture crop and if it is taxed there needs to be a distinct separation between recreational sales and production and medical/agricultural sales.
It's just not the same as drunks walking around, chances are you talk to someone high everyday and don't even realize it.
This!
There is a DISTINCT slow down of everyone I know that has "taken" to baking..
This happened my junior year of college when my entire group of dota buddies (wc3 days) took to weed..
Their play styles completely changed.. and they were lethargic nearly ALL THE TIME..
Post by: ferociousfingerings on Sat, 08 November 2014, 14:45:45
I want to attempt to understand how anyone thinks it's acceptable to impose extreme punishment on anyone, over their relatively harmless and primarily private, cannabis related activities.
I want to understand how cannabis prohibition was ever believed to be justifiable, both at a fundamental level, and also versus the verbiage of the constitution (which one of our bill of rights says no law shall made to disparage). Surely it doesn't take a genius, or even a scholar, to figure out that imposing harsh penalties should be reserved for instances of endangerment and/or unjust deprivation of another... but never arbitrarily so, and never upon anyone who is neither endangering nor depriving any other, in any way.
Ruining lives arbitrarily, is utterly Foul, Vile, Reprehensible, and should immediately cease. The fact that cannabis prohibition exists at all, or was ever allowed to occur in the first place, is an affront to humanity.
But yes, we certainly should base laws on "stupid behavior," or malicious intent. A person who wants to grow a plant that makes them more happy, or less unhappy, while not harming or endangering or depriving anyone else, in any way, should not be persecuted, or prosecuted, or have any penalty imposed upon them, at all. The fact that wealthy people are still paying violent people to oppress, deprive, and even Kill nonviolent and considerate cannabis users... just continues to blow my mind. I and many others, do not wish to continue living in a world where this is not just "allowed" to happen, but is fiercely endorsed and perpetuated by those who participate in those systems (which is quite a lot of people, actually).
Anyone who willingly participates in the perpetuation of these blatant injustices, is just as guilty as the people who started it all.
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Sat, 08 November 2014, 14:54:59
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how threatening and instigating potentially lethal violence, if forcible confinement and asset forfeiture is evaded or resisted, against someone who is neither endangering nor depriving another, in any way, is "justified."
I want to attempt to understand how anyone thinks it's acceptable to impose extreme punishment on anyone, over their relatively harmless and primarily private, cannabis related activities.
I want to understand how cannabis prohibition was ever believed to be justifiable, both at a fundamental level, and also versus the verbiage of the constitution (which one of our bill of rights says no law shall made to disparage). Surely it doesn't take a genius, or even a scholar, to figure out that imposing harsh penalties should be reserved for instances of endangerment and/or unjust deprivation of another... but never arbitrarily so, and never upon anyone who is neither endangering nor depriving any other, in any way.
Ruining lives arbitrarily, is utterly Foul, Vile, Reprehensible, and should immediately cease. The fact that cannabis prohibition exists at all, or was ever allowed to occur in the first place, is an affront to humanity.
But yes, we certainly should base laws on "stupid behavior," or malicious intent. A person who wants to grow a plant that makes them more happy, or less unhappy, while not harming or endangering or depriving anyone else, in any way, should not be persecuted, or prosecuted, or have any penalty imposed upon them, at all. The fact that wealthy people are still paying violent people to oppress, deprive, and even Kill nonviolent and considerate cannabis users... just continues to blow my mind. I and many others, do not wish to continue living in a world where this is not just "allowed" to happen, but is fiercely endorsed and perpetuated by those who participate in those systems (which is quite a lot of people, actually).
Anyone who willingly participates in the perpetuation of these blatant injustices, is just as guilty as the people who started it all.
+ all of the numbers
It's like making it illegal to sleep 5 hours a day, because it might make your life a little worse. Who cares?? If I want to deprive myself of sleep, let me!
Post by: baldgye on Sat, 08 November 2014, 14:59:09
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Sat, 08 November 2014, 15:00:08
Americans are strange
Okay, second time you've said this so I'll ask.
What?
Post by: baldgye on Sat, 08 November 2014, 15:07:31
Americans are strange
Okay, second time you've said this so I'll ask.
What?
The post you quoted, is, insane.
Vox wrote a piece about gamergate, well really it was actually about how American politics have gotten more and more extreme when before both parties where fairly down the middle with elements of one side or the other. It also showed and talked about how (in this case) gamergate was being used as a political rallying point for one extreme point of view or another, and the "your with us or against us" mentality, which the post you quoted above essentially was.
I don't understand how posts like that are helpful or meaningful and when ever anyone has an opposing view or just a different opinion (me in this case but I've seen it with a bunch of other posts on here and other forums recently) people ignore your points, say your wrong with zero logic or reasoning (other than, your wrong) and then some sort of insane political rallying cry.
6-7 Years ago I used to look at America like a country slowly moving towards a more enlightened, and honestly more European political country. But if anything, it's gotten more and more alien to me as the years have gone on. Maybe it's just me, maybe it isn't I don't know... but all I know is what I reading makes me thing... America(ns) are strange lol
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Sat, 08 November 2014, 15:10:56
Americans are strange
Okay, second time you've said this so I'll ask.
What?
The post you quoted, is, insane.
Vox wrote a piece about gamergate, well really it was actually about how American politics have gotten more and more extreme when before both parties where fairly down the middle with elements of one side or the other. It also showed and talked about how (in this case) gamergate was being used as a political rallying point for one extreme point of view or another, and the "your with us or against us" mentality, which the post you quoted above essentially was.
I don't understand how posts like that are helpful or meaningful and when ever anyone has an opposing view or just a different opinion (me in this case but I've seen it with a bunch of other posts on here and other forums recently) people ignore your points, say your wrong with zero logic or reasoning (other than, your wrong) and then some sort of insane political rallying cry.
6-7 Years ago I used to look at America like a country slowly moving towards a more enlightened, and honestly more European political country. But if anything, it's gotten more and more alien to me as the years have gone on. Maybe it's just me, maybe it isn't I don't know... but all I know is what I reading makes me thing... America(ns) are strange lol
I'm confused. What about the opinion of "if you don't hurt anyone but yourself, I don't care what you do" do you disagree with? Shouldn't we be free to make our own mistakes and successes as we please? I mean, if we're talking about children I totally agree with you, but...we're adults here. If someone wants to hit himself in the face with his frying pan, what the hell do I care?
Post by: noisyturtle on Sat, 08 November 2014, 15:13:51
Post by: baldgye on Sat, 08 November 2014, 15:15:22
Americans are strange
Okay, second time you've said this so I'll ask.
What?
The post you quoted, is, insane.
Vox wrote a piece about gamergate, well really it was actually about how American politics have gotten more and more extreme when before both parties where fairly down the middle with elements of one side or the other. It also showed and talked about how (in this case) gamergate was being used as a political rallying point for one extreme point of view or another, and the "your with us or against us" mentality, which the post you quoted above essentially was.
I don't understand how posts like that are helpful or meaningful and when ever anyone has an opposing view or just a different opinion (me in this case but I've seen it with a bunch of other posts on here and other forums recently) people ignore your points, say your wrong with zero logic or reasoning (other than, your wrong) and then some sort of insane political rallying cry.
6-7 Years ago I used to look at America like a country slowly moving towards a more enlightened, and honestly more European political country. But if anything, it's gotten more and more alien to me as the years have gone on. Maybe it's just me, maybe it isn't I don't know... but all I know is what I reading makes me thing... America(ns) are strange lol
I'm confused. What about the opinion of "if you don't hurt anyone but yourself, I don't care what you do" do you disagree with? Shouldn't we be free to make our own mistakes and successes as we please? I mean, if we're talking about children I totally agree with you, but...we're adults here. If someone wants to hit himself in the face with his frying pan, what the hell do I care?
The law is the law, I'm not here to defend police being overly aggressive... hell I pointed out the fact that they would need more training if it got legalised becasue the US police force in general is known to have issues with training (pointed out in the post).
But I don't see the point in dragging something like that up, something no one can now do anything about and saying that "well this wouldn't have happened if everyone was free to do as they like"... like what the **** kind of argument is that?!
What you should be saying is, "****, we have to do something about the way our police operates and enforces the law"
Post by: ferociousfingerings on Sat, 08 November 2014, 15:31:28
Americans are strange
Okay, second time you've said this so I'll ask.
What?
The post you quoted, is, insane.
Vox wrote a piece about gamergate, well really it was actually about how American politics have gotten more and more extreme when before both parties where fairly down the middle with elements of one side or the other. It also showed and talked about how (in this case) gamergate was being used as a political rallying point for one extreme point of view or another, and the "your with us or against us" mentality, which the post you quoted above essentially was.
I don't understand how posts like that are helpful or meaningful and when ever anyone has an opposing view or just a different opinion (me in this case but I've seen it with a bunch of other posts on here and other forums recently) people ignore your points, say your wrong with zero logic or reasoning (other than, your wrong) and then some sort of insane political rallying cry.
6-7 Years ago I used to look at America like a country slowly moving towards a more enlightened, and honestly more European political country. But if anything, it's gotten more and more alien to me as the years have gone on. Maybe it's just me, maybe it isn't I don't know... but all I know is what I reading makes me thing... America(ns) are strange lol
As much as i hate to admit it (which is admittedly less than i hate to be physically surrounded by it), America is full of dangerously insane, misguided, and/or malicious, "herd minded" ..."individuals."
But let's be real here: the issue is not whether or not cannabis is good or bad for a person, but whether a militarized government entity, who also threatens violence and asset seizure for those who refuse to pay taxes, which contribute to perpetuating systems and agencies which 1) are abusing their power, or claiming degrees of authority to which they are not intended to have, and, 2) are arbitrarily imposing violence upon people who are not doing anything to justify intervention.
The issue is: people are being unjustly and significantly deprived, for insufficient reason, and by other individuals participating in the violent oppression, due to either sheer idiocy, or due to lifelong indoctrination, based on unsubstantiated, false, irrational and untenable beliefs. They are essentially basing their "law" on a prejudice which is, itself, based on prejudice. The whole thing is so disgusting because it's circular reasoning: they simply arbitrarily decided it was "bad," and then that somehow made it okay to enact unjustifiable violence upon any and everyone who may interact with cannabis.
It's completely ridiculous, if not maniacally sinister. I don't think it's possible for people capable of attending such high positions, to be unaware of their own crimes, including accepting compensation for unjustly depriving another, who has been arbitrarily deemed "criminal," just because that person enjoys the company of a particular plant.
If a person is doing something to endanger others, sure, intervene.
But when a person is doing nothing to endanger or harm or deprive another, and is not *significantly harming themselves, in pursuit of what they find enjoyable and/or medicinally useful, and/or therapeutic... It's their body, and their choice, and not anyone's place to intervene or interfere, with that person's quest for personal fulfillment, BECAUSE, they are consciously considerate of the potential for their own actions to impact others, and duly maintain sufficient control of themselves, to not cause anyone else any problems, in the process of pursuing their own happiness.
So, surely, their counter-argument must be something related to "...everyone is incapable of sufficient self-governance, so they need a 'state' to save them from not only each other, but even from themselves!" Which i find absurd... yet is at least partially justified, because hey, lots of people do lots of stupid things, and i think it's usually good to stop as many of those things from happening, as possible... but i don't think cannabis is one of those things, and i don't think anyone but the most intellectually dishonest, would ever have any motivation to attempt to show correlation between cannabis and stupid people doing stupid things. And you know what? Even if stupid people do more stupid things "on weed..." that doesn't mean everyone else does.
i'd rather live in fear of an accident with a stupid person, than in fear of the _intent_ of groups of violent persons being paid to deprive me, arbitrarily, and without remorse.
I can usually avoid unwanted encounters with "stupid persons," by simply not doing stupid things myself, and/or not being in places where i think stupid people would be doing stupid things (or where violent people will do violent things, etc). But at least that stupid person isn't "out to get me," crazed by "bust lust," frothing at the mouth, hoping to unjustly deprive yet another person, to get that bonus, and all that recognition... to get some "title..." to be "respected."
Anyway, TL;DR: crazy, stupid, and/or malicious people, need to cease and desist, and relax, and stop doing things to ruin other people's lives.
Post by: ferociousfingerings on Sat, 08 November 2014, 15:48:18
What you should be saying is, "****, we have to do something about the way our police operates and enforces the law"
Well, that's kinda the point: fundamentally changing the way "the law" operates, even the ways it's built, necessarily includes both the method of enforcement, as well as an "integrity check" on what is being enforced, and why. With sufficient scrutiny, it is self-evident that imposing violent deprivation upon peaceful people who just want to smoke a plant and feel better, is absolutely wrong. So, why isn't it changing? And why was that egregious error allowed to occur in the first place? And why has it remained established for so long, despite so much readily available information which is directly contrary to the so-called "facts" the government claims, such as it being "so dangerous it has to be schedule 1" (which has recently received some publicity, but seems to have conveniently dissipated...).
Before we address the method, we need to address the purpose. If there is to be an enforcement action, it must be derived from adequate purpose, or there should be no action. The purpose they claim is adequate, isn't, and isn't even accurate enough to be passed off as "truthful."
So, without a purpose to intervene and deprive someone of their... well, everything... why is any action ever initiated?
Because some rich people lobbied for a law, which only "got passed" because those holding those positions, disregarded any information beyond what their benefactors deemed relevant?
There needs to be an end to the unnecessary violence against people who don't deserve or require it. People smoking plants and otherwise minding their own business, not causing trouble, not hurting anyone, not taking outrageous risks, not damaging anyone's property, not stealing from or depriving anyone, in any way... should be left alone.
It is clearly and demonstrably, quite possible, and very easy, to consume cannabis safely, regarding any external impact.
If someone is being considerate, being safe, not causing problems for others... how can any violent imposition, ever be legitimately justified?
And further, how can any organization insisting on imposing unnecessary detriment on innocent people (neither harming nor depriving anyone else), ever be recognized as a legitimate authority? Especially while they knowingly and deliberately violate not just our inherent human rights, but even the specified rights, in the very document whose sole purpose was to make it plainly clear what the government shall NOT do, and shall not be entitled to claim the power to do. They knowingly, even mockingly, violate the very rights they're supposed to be upholding and protecting.
Anyway... i don't expect much to change; people are just that terrible.
Post by: baldgye on Sat, 08 November 2014, 15:56:10
What you should be saying is, "****, we have to do something about the way our police operates and enforces the law"
Well, that's kinda the point: fundamentally changing the way "the law" operates, even the ways it's built, necessarily includes both the method of enforcement, as well as an "integrity check" on what is being enforced, and why.
No it's not. How law is enforced and what the laws are are two different things. You don't have to fundamentally change the way the law operates, simply better train your officers to be better police officers. It's pretty simple and many other law enforcement agencies around the world have to and do do this all the time.
Sorry to cut your post short but you do seem to waffle on a little.
Post by: paicrai on Sat, 08 November 2014, 16:00:46
drama has been spilled
Post by: demik on Sat, 08 November 2014, 17:14:45
has baldgye started attacking the US yet?
Post by: baldgye on Sat, 08 November 2014, 17:15:34
without having to read everything... just one question..
has baldgye started attacking the US yet?
Post by: demik on Sat, 08 November 2014, 17:16:33
Post by: baldgye on Sat, 08 November 2014, 17:17:53
Post by: heedpantsnow on Sat, 08 November 2014, 17:29:37
Post by: iri on Sat, 08 November 2014, 17:43:03
I could care less about some study.then do care less.
Post by: heedpantsnow on Sat, 08 November 2014, 17:48:45
Post by: nubbinator on Sat, 08 November 2014, 17:49:36
Post by: tjcaustin on Sat, 08 November 2014, 17:53:00
Let's all take a break and watch some football and smoke a blunt
I can't, it's not legal to.
Post by: iri on Sat, 08 November 2014, 18:00:38
don't worry. homicides are illegal too.Let's all take a break and watch some football and smoke a blunt
I can't, it's not legal to.
Post by: heedpantsnow on Sat, 08 November 2014, 18:09:02
Show Image(http://i.imgur.com/fcsjC98.jpg)
Lolololololol
Post by: lightsout714 on Sat, 08 November 2014, 18:31:40
I wish I could be as blissfully ignorant as you lightsout. And, just for the record, I have no horse in this race, I just like to make informed decisions based upon available data. Anecdote ≠ data.I made this huge correlation statement agreeing with what the article from time said that was linked in this thread. I will say this. It's a fact that the majority of hard drug users started with alcohol and pot. I don't need any article to know that.
And since you say there is a huge correlation, prove it. The data will not back you up. Like Hoff said, science is not a crutch for lack of life experience, it is an aggregate that has controls and has a large enough data set to be statistically significant. Your life experiences, as important as they are in forming you, are not data.
I'm definitely not ignorant on this topic sadly. Honestly I wish I could say that I was. Funny how your getting an attitude over this though like I'm not inclined to my own opinion.
I'll just leave this alone so it doesn't go any further.
Post by: tufty on Sun, 09 November 2014, 07:53:51
It surprises me that the US, of all nations, are amongst the first to take baby steps towards this, but it's the only rational and humane thing to do.
Amendment 18 was brought up earlier - if that should have taught us anything it's that you can't improve a substance abuse problem by putting control of the supply and distribution chain into the hands of criminals.
Post by: Signature on Sun, 09 November 2014, 08:49:45
Post by: Input Nirvana on Sun, 09 November 2014, 10:05:09
We need to decriminalize, which will save huge amounts of revenue to benefit the entire state, not punish EVERYONE by locking up pothead/dealers. Also decriminalizing will cause much lower prices, which takes away some crime aspects if it's freely available and cheaper.
As far as under the influence issues, education/penalties should be ramped WAY UP, similar to drunk driving laws, and perhaps even more stringent.
Post by: heedpantsnow on Mon, 10 November 2014, 10:32:11