<strong>Hey, genius. I did just give you the economist citation (twice!) where you can read why it should be legalized. They go into all of the angles.
So before you start with this "zip! zilch!" childish posting, why not actually research?</strong><hr></blockquote>
All of the angles? You're sure about that? So I won't be wasting my time reading how it will "help the economy" . I've heard that crap before.
None of my postings have been childish. You're just getting upset because I don't agree with anything you've had to say.
If you're so sure about what the economist has to say, why don't you give us a couple quotes? Give me the jist of it at least. Or were the arguments not strong enough that you can't even remember them?
this sort of thing (from your links post) has already been discussed on page 1 of this thread. Please read my post discussing this.
And if the argument about which ones are more reliable, go to your local library and ask the librarian. Thuhfreek's citations come from the most reliable journals in the industry.
In terms of legalization, please do some real, non-web research, like thuhfreek did. Ever since <a href="http://lawlibrary.ucdavis.edu/LAWLIB/July01/0428.html"; target="_blank">this incident</a>, you are in a bad situation getting medical info on the web.
Thuhfreek's citations are very reputable and show that he has done legitimate research.
<strong>Non of the sources give me a reason for it to be legalized for recreational use. Which accoring to thuhfreak, is why he really wants it legalized.
He even admits that medicinal legalization is the first set towards recreational lealization which is his goal.
I believe that is the goal of 90% of the people hiding behind medicinal legalization.
What are the benefits of it being legalized for recreational use? None. Zip. Zilch.
Get off the young liberal "its cool to want legalization of marijuana" bandwagon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
what benefits does tobacco have for being made available recreationally? tobacco has no legitimate uses outside of recreation. none zip zilch. but the companies who produce it ("Big Tobacco") are some of the largest corporations in the country (and world). one day, our marijuana can be sold at that scale, and the country will be more prosperous for it.
but, regardless of the recreational issue, marijuana has medical benefits. therefore it should be made legal medicinally, everywhere.
BTW....I am no supporter of the recreational use of drugs, be they legal, illegal or whatever, and my personal choice is to avoid them (cigs, alcohol and illegals). People usually behave like jerks and assholes when drunk, or stoned, or in withdrawal, or whatever terminology people care to use to describe their intoxicated or addicted state.
It is the choice of the individual if he/she wishes to indulge. Leave big intrusive government out of this! People should be responsible for their actions, and if they get hooked on heroin or get a heart attack from using ecstacy, or get lung cancer from smoking tobacco or cirrhosis of the liver from alcohol, then that should be their look out. The health information is out there and widely available.
In court, ignorance of the law is no defense. So should it be regarding the health risks of all intoxicating substances. I am not in favor of the government nannying us all and criminalizing people regarding what chemical junk they decide to shove into their systems, when the facts of drugs are wellknown.
I resent wholeheartedly the government using my tazpayer $$$ to keep hundreds of thousands of mostly young and naive people locked up, mixing with gangbangers and hardened violent criminals, learning the tools of the criminal trade in the Universities of Crime, aka the penal system.
In Rethinking Drug Prohibition Peter Webster also points out that there are multiple factors sustaining the Drug War:
1.It's a useful tool for politicians seeking to whip up the electorate.
2.It profits the prison industry and even the weapons industry.
3.Legalization would threaten the profits of the pharmaceutical industry.
4.Legalization would threaten the profits of the tobacco and alcohol industries.
5.Users of marijuana and psychedelics are less enamored of material consumption, so legalization would threaten the profits of those promoting consumerism.
6.Drug prohibition facilitates control of the population.
7.Enforcement agencies (police, DEA, customs, etc.) profit greatly from the civil asset forfeiture laws.
8.The illegality and high prices for heroin and cocaine allows the CIA to obtain secret funding for its activities.
9.The Drug War has lead to draconian "money laundering" laws, which are a way for the U.S. to pry into the details of everyone's financial transactions.
10.The Drug War provides an excuse for invasions of South and Central American countries.
11.Following the demise of the Red Threat another scapegoat is needed, and "drugs" (and drug users) are it.
12.The Drug War provides a distraction from the failure of the U.S. government to solve the real problems facing U.S. society (poverty, unemployment, poor health and educational systems, etc.).
13.The Drug War is a tool of racism, providing an excuse to disenfranchise the black population.
14.The DEA is a major bureaucracy and lives from the Drug War, so it's in the interests of the DEA to keep the "drug menace" on the front burner.
15.Puritanism is a major component of the American psyche, and the advocates of drug prohibition appeal to this. (my emphasis)
16.For the U.S. govt. to reverse its stance on drug prohibition would mean admitting it was wrong, which it will never do.
You don't read much, do you? You don't even know what the economist is <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
I wouldn't consider getting links from pro-pot websites as "research".
Once again you've proven your intelligence level with your comments. Way to fight for your cause. You'll never convince anyone of anything buy acting like an a-hole
[quote]I wouldn't consider getting links from pro-pot websites as "research".<hr></blockquote>
On the same grounds, "pro-prohibition" sites should never be judged as valid, scientific, or unbiased material.
Just look at the totally corrupt procedure and method by whish marijuana was made illegal in the first place: not a single medically or scientifically qualified person was involved in this medical/health decision. The laws against marijuana were put in place to protect corporate profits, the principle beneficiaries being the lumber, cotton, pharmaceutical and chemical industries.
Those folk bleating against marijuana using a public health stance, or 'saving America's young' are either missing the point or do not *want* to understand.
I thought I was pretty clear about research meaning @ a library. Or did you miss my above post?
When did the national academy of science, institute of medicine; the new england j of med, the u of cali, the government of connecticut, the national academy or the economist become pro-pot web sites? Who knew that the government of Connecticut was set up just to legalize marijuana? And what's with all that extra non-marijuana stuff in NEJM, one of the (if not the) most respected medical journals in the world, seeing as though you consider it a "pro-pot website?"
I thought I was pretty clear about research meaning @ a library. Or did you miss my above post?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You were saying that thuhfreak did his research well but I'm saying he just got all those links from pro-pot websites. They did the research, not him.
Your only basis for recreational legalization of pot is from The Economist.
I seem to recall you saying they wrote about "all angles". Does that mean they also argued reasons for it to stay illegal? If not, what were some of the reasons for recreational use? Also, how did they come to these conclusions? Scientific studies?
I'm not proposing any of these questions in a sarcastic matter. I'm just curious and I don't have the time to go to the library to pick up the issue.
<strong>ShawnPattyJoyce: You sir, are ignorant. Please think about the things that society and your local DARE program tell you before swallowing them and branding them true.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's baseless rhetoric.
[quote]Originally posted by zero:
<strong>
oh, so YOU drink red wine...? shame on you.
why don't you smoke some pot then ? it actually does more good than harm when consumed in moderation as well. and it's even less harmfull than alcohol.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's baseless garbage. And I'm 18 which is far too young to be drinking wine in this country.
[quote]Originally posted by MacRonin:
<strong>Uh, how about some of the more pervasive & addictive drugs out there like...
caffeine & sugar!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
They are both fine when consumed in moderation. Marijuana can harm you whether you smoke one joint or one hundred-thousand joints.
[quote]Originally posted by thuh Freak:
<strong>
what "legitimate benefits" does tobacco have? it is a legal drug, obviously (to you) that means it has legitimate benefits.
marijuana has been proven to help alleviate the pains of asthma. it also reduces the amount of nausea a patient can feel when on chemotherapy. it also has been proven to help glaucoma. marijuana has legitimate medical uses.</strong><hr></blockquote>
None, sir. Never did I say tobacco products have legitimate benefits. Yes, marijuana alleviates pain while causing cancer in the same breath (pardon my pun).
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
It is the choice of the individual if he/she wishes to indulge. Leave big intrusive government out of this! People should be responsible for their actions, and if they get hooked on heroin or get a heart attack from using ecstacy, or get lung cancer from smoking tobacco or cirrhosis of the liver from alcohol, then that should be their look out. The health information is out there and widely available.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, we are a compassionate society, not one that allows the use and abuse of purely cancer-causing drugs. This is why someone cannot rob your grandma, rape, or murder her.
Drugs are addictive. We protect individuals from addiction through outlawing them.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
I resent wholeheartedly the government using my tazpayer $$$ to keep hundreds of thousands of mostly young and naive people locked up, mixing with gangbangers and hardened violent criminals, learning the tools of the criminal trade in the Universities of Crime, aka the penal system.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is exactly the problem. So instead of fixing it, you decide "the hell with it." We must not incarcerate drug users, only those responsible for the selling and trafficking of drugs. The solution lies in rehabilitating those addicted to drugs rather than incarcerating them.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
The laws against marijuana were put in place to protect corporate profits, the principle beneficiaries being the lumber, cotton, pharmaceutical and chemical industries.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Most importantly, "the laws against marijuana were put in place to protect: The People
If marijuana was legalized, it would create quite a windfall for the government. A whole new revenue stream could be created by taxing the sale of the product. Not to mention all the money that would be saved by the police, DEA, judicial, and prision system that is currently spent on penalizing people who smoke pot. Maybe, some of this new money could be spent on the rehabilitation of people who have hard core addictions (heroine, speed, crack, etc.). Or how about spending some of the money on Homeland security. I would much rather have more police looking out for terrorists than have the police busting the stoner down the street from me.
Your economic qualification stands out. Yes, that's true purely from an economic standpoint. But why not legalize murder? I'm sure the bounty-hunter industry needs a boost, and the government could surely profit from taxes collected on that.
Sugar & caffeine are ADDICTIVE substances, and are available to every single person in America, from babies to the elderly...
I am not going to go into citing references, because you (ShaunJoyceWhatever) are not going to listen anyway...
But, while I would NOt advocate anyone under the age of 21 smoking reefer, I feel it is an okay thing for adults to do...
I put an age limit on it, since kids need to finish their physical/mental development, and finish school, before they become burners...
And folks are FAR less likely to get in fights, become raving maniacs or any of the other behaviour exhibited by those who are drunk & disorderly, while high.
When was the last time anyone has seen somebody who was high get beligerent, due to the influence of the drug being used?!?
<strong>Uh, pot CANNOT hurt you if you smoke one joint...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Find me a medical study that proves that.
[quote]Originally posted by MacRonin:
<strong>
Sugar & caffeine are ADDICTIVE substances, and are available to every single person in America, from babies to the elderly...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see what you mean, but I think it's more complicated than that.
[quote]Originally posted by MacRonin:
<strong>
I am not going to go into citing references, because you (ShaunJoyceWhatever) are not going to listen anyway...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I find it horribly disrespectful of you to intentionally misspell and mock my name. As far as your claim of me "not listening," I find that baseless. I specifically replied to what several posters, including you, had to say. Subsequently disagreeing does not remove it from the fact that I listened.
<strong>Your economic qualification stands out. Yes, that's true purely from an economic standpoint. But why not legalize murder? I'm sure the bounty-hunter industry needs a boost, and the government could surely profit from taxes collected on that.
Obviously, I do not want a society like that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
smoking pot has little or no effect on anyone else (except the dealer who i buy it from, who gains a couple of extra benjamins every so often). if i smoke, it doesn't affect you or anyone else. murder has a direct and obvious effect on others. marijuana, taken responsibly, can be used for recreation, and not hurt anybody. that's why it should be distinguished, i think. i think people should be allowed to do anything they wish to themselves, as long as it doesn't hurt others.
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>None, sir. Never did I say tobacco products have legitimate benefits. Yes, marijuana alleviates pain while causing cancer in the same breath (pardon my pun).</strong><hr></blockquote>
so, would you agree that it should be legalized for medicinal purposes? Perhaps only for the terminally ill, so the supposed cancer causing agents won't affect them.
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>Drugs are addictive. We protect individuals from addiction through outlawing them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
acetominophen (the active ingredient in codeine, and tylenol) is an addictive drug. it is also legal. shouldn't (by your logic) government outlaw it? also, i'd like to bring up tobacco again. nicotene is an extremely addictive drug (around the same magnitude of heroin). it is legal.
You were saying that thuhfreak did his research well but I'm saying he just got all those links from pro-pot websites. They did the research, not him.
<hr></blockquote>
I know what you are saying. Go back and see what they are. "British Journal of Psychiatry 178: 123-128" No link, because it's a real citation. And most of his references were, probably found on paper, since the journals are large print journals, and only recently have any online content. Did you just drink all though college, or did you just not go?
The reason I'm so adamant about this is because he's probably the first person I've seen on AI giving such reputable sources, yet silly people like you want to argue against the points in them. Think about it: some guy with an uninformed opinion on a web forum arguing with the most respected reasearch publications in the country.
[quote]
Your only basis for recreational legalization of pot is from The Economist.
I seem to recall you saying they wrote about "all angles". Does that mean they also argued reasons for it to stay illegal? If not, what were some of the reasons for recreational use? Also, how did they come to these conclusions? Scientific studies?
<hr></blockquote>
That's not my only basis, it's just the best contemporary summary. And you are going to have a damn hard time calling it "liberal." I said it's a good place to start, because you can read it and reasearch using thier references.
Yes they do give the pro arguments, but show how they are ultimately flawed.
For the rest, you are just going to have to read. You can purchase it online @ <a href="http://www.economist.com"; target="_blank">www.economist.com</a>
I know what you are saying. Go back and see what they are. "British Journal of Psychiatry 178: 123-128" No link, because it's a real citation. And most of his references were, probably found on paper, since the journals are large print journals, and only recently have any online content. Did you just drink all though college, or did you just not go?
<hr></blockquote>
That last comment proves what? Now you're just being an ass and just made me resort to your level of childish tactics. I have a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science, in case you were wondering.
You're not convincing me of anything. His articles are about the medical issue. I want evidence of its benefits for recreational use. You site one source, The Economist. I asked for some examples that they give and they only thing you can tell me is to read the article. You can't even remember what they said??? Wow, thats convincing.
You have an opinion and so do I. We just don't agree and it looks like we're not going to. But you can go ahead and keep responding to my posts with the name calling. Its getting you really far.
Do you actually think you're going to change my mind with your responses? If it wasn't for thuhfreak I'd think all pro-pot activists are as ignorant as you. At least he can have a rational and mature conversation. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Comments
<strong>Edit=forget it, willy.
thuhfreek has given you more than enough to chew on. It amazes me that you are still trying to argue with someone citing such reputable sources.
[ 08-15-2002: Message edited by: giant ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Non of the sources give me a reason for it to be legalized for recreational use. Which accoring to thuhfreak, is why he really wants it legalized.
He even admits that medicinal legalization is the first set towards recreational lealization which is his goal.
I believe that is the goal of 90% of the people hiding behind medicinal legalization.
What are the benefits of it being legalized for recreational use? None. Zip. Zilch.
Get off the young liberal "its cool to want legalization of marijuana" bandwagon.
So before you start with this "zip! zilch!" childish posting, why not actually research?
<a href="http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/Marijteenstxt.html"; target="_blank">http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/Marijteenstxt.html</a>;
Look I can search the web too
[ 08-15-2002: Message edited by: Willoughby ]</p>
<strong>Hey, genius. I did just give you the economist citation (twice!) where you can read why it should be legalized. They go into all of the angles.
So before you start with this "zip! zilch!" childish posting, why not actually research?</strong><hr></blockquote>
All of the angles? You're sure about that? So I won't be wasting my time reading how it will "help the economy" .
None of my postings have been childish. You're just getting upset because I don't agree with anything you've had to say.
If you're so sure about what the economist has to say, why don't you give us a couple quotes? Give me the jist of it at least. Or were the arguments not strong enough that you can't even remember them?
"Hey genius" - who's being childish? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
this sort of thing (from your links post) has already been discussed on page 1 of this thread. Please read my post discussing this.
And if the argument about which ones are more reliable, go to your local library and ask the librarian. Thuhfreek's citations come from the most reliable journals in the industry.
In terms of legalization, please do some real, non-web research, like thuhfreek did. Ever since <a href="http://lawlibrary.ucdavis.edu/LAWLIB/July01/0428.html"; target="_blank">this incident</a>, you are in a bad situation getting medical info on the web.
Thuhfreek's citations are very reputable and show that he has done legitimate research.
.
[ 08-15-2002: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
All of the angles? You're sure about that? So I won't be wasting my time reading how it will "help the economy" . I've heard that crap before.
<hr></blockquote>
You don't read much, do you? You don't even know what the economist is <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>Non of the sources give me a reason for it to be legalized for recreational use. Which accoring to thuhfreak, is why he really wants it legalized.
He even admits that medicinal legalization is the first set towards recreational lealization which is his goal.
I believe that is the goal of 90% of the people hiding behind medicinal legalization.
What are the benefits of it being legalized for recreational use? None. Zip. Zilch.
Get off the young liberal "its cool to want legalization of marijuana" bandwagon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
what benefits does tobacco have for being made available recreationally? tobacco has no legitimate uses outside of recreation. none zip zilch. but the companies who produce it ("Big Tobacco") are some of the largest corporations in the country (and world). one day, our marijuana can be sold at that scale, and the country will be more prosperous for it.
but, regardless of the recreational issue, marijuana has medical benefits. therefore it should be made legal medicinally, everywhere.
It is the choice of the individual if he/she wishes to indulge. Leave big intrusive government out of this! People should be responsible for their actions, and if they get hooked on heroin or get a heart attack from using ecstacy, or get lung cancer from smoking tobacco or cirrhosis of the liver from alcohol, then that should be their look out. The health information is out there and widely available.
In court, ignorance of the law is no defense. So should it be regarding the health risks of all intoxicating substances. I am not in favor of the government nannying us all and criminalizing people regarding what chemical junk they decide to shove into their systems, when the facts of drugs are wellknown.
I resent wholeheartedly the government using my tazpayer $$$ to keep hundreds of thousands of mostly young and naive people locked up, mixing with gangbangers and hardened violent criminals, learning the tools of the criminal trade in the Universities of Crime, aka the penal system.
Some interesting reading re. the wat of drugs:
<a href="http://serendipity.magnet.ch/cia.html"; target="_blank">http://serendipity.magnet.ch/cia.html</a>;
and, extracted from a linked site:
In Rethinking Drug Prohibition Peter Webster also points out that there are multiple factors sustaining the Drug War:
1.It's a useful tool for politicians seeking to whip up the electorate.
2.It profits the prison industry and even the weapons industry.
3.Legalization would threaten the profits of the pharmaceutical industry.
4.Legalization would threaten the profits of the tobacco and alcohol industries.
5.Users of marijuana and psychedelics are less enamored of material consumption, so legalization would threaten the profits of those promoting consumerism.
6.Drug prohibition facilitates control of the population.
7.Enforcement agencies (police, DEA, customs, etc.) profit greatly from the civil asset forfeiture laws.
8.The illegality and high prices for heroin and cocaine allows the CIA to obtain secret funding for its activities.
9.The Drug War has lead to draconian "money laundering" laws, which are a way for the U.S. to pry into the details of everyone's financial transactions.
10.The Drug War provides an excuse for invasions of South and Central American countries.
11.Following the demise of the Red Threat another scapegoat is needed, and "drugs" (and drug users) are it.
12.The Drug War provides a distraction from the failure of the U.S. government to solve the real problems facing U.S. society (poverty, unemployment, poor health and educational systems, etc.).
13.The Drug War is a tool of racism, providing an excuse to disenfranchise the black population.
14.The DEA is a major bureaucracy and lives from the Drug War, so it's in the interests of the DEA to keep the "drug menace" on the front burner.
15.Puritanism is a major component of the American psyche, and the advocates of drug prohibition appeal to this. (my emphasis)
16.For the U.S. govt. to reverse its stance on drug prohibition would mean admitting it was wrong, which it will never do.
[ 08-15-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
<strong>
You don't read much, do you? You don't even know what the economist is <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
I wouldn't consider getting links from pro-pot websites as "research".
Once again you've proven your intelligence level with your comments. Way to fight for your cause. You'll never convince anyone of anything buy acting like an a-hole
[ 08-15-2002: Message edited by: Willoughby ]</p>
On the same grounds, "pro-prohibition" sites should never be judged as valid, scientific, or unbiased material.
Just look at the totally corrupt procedure and method by whish marijuana was made illegal in the first place: not a single medically or scientifically qualified person was involved in this medical/health decision. The laws against marijuana were put in place to protect corporate profits, the principle beneficiaries being the lumber, cotton, pharmaceutical and chemical industries.
Those folk bleating against marijuana using a public health stance, or 'saving America's young' are either missing the point or do not *want* to understand.
<strong>
I wouldn't consider getting links from pro-pot websites as "research".
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe we are reading different forums.
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
I thought I was pretty clear about research meaning @ a library. Or did you miss my above post?
When did the national academy of science, institute of medicine; the new england j of med, the u of cali, the government of connecticut, the national academy or the economist become pro-pot web sites? Who knew that the government of Connecticut was set up just to legalize marijuana? And what's with all that extra non-marijuana stuff in NEJM, one of the (if not the) most respected medical journals in the world, seeing as though you consider it a "pro-pot website?"
<strong>
I thought I was pretty clear about research meaning @ a library. Or did you miss my above post?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You were saying that thuhfreak did his research well but I'm saying he just got all those links from pro-pot websites. They did the research, not him.
Your only basis for recreational legalization of pot is from The Economist.
I seem to recall you saying they wrote about "all angles". Does that mean they also argued reasons for it to stay illegal? If not, what were some of the reasons for recreational use? Also, how did they come to these conclusions? Scientific studies?
I'm not proposing any of these questions in a sarcastic matter. I'm just curious and I don't have the time to go to the library to pick up the issue.
<strong>ShawnPattyJoyce: You sir, are ignorant. Please think about the things that society and your local DARE program tell you before swallowing them and branding them true.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's baseless rhetoric.
[quote]Originally posted by zero:
<strong>
oh, so YOU drink red wine...? shame on you.
why don't you smoke some pot then ? it actually does more good than harm when consumed in moderation as well. and it's even less harmfull than alcohol.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's baseless garbage. And I'm 18 which is far too young to be drinking wine in this country.
[quote]Originally posted by MacRonin:
<strong>Uh, how about some of the more pervasive & addictive drugs out there like...
caffeine & sugar!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
They are both fine when consumed in moderation. Marijuana can harm you whether you smoke one joint or one hundred-thousand joints.
[quote]Originally posted by thuh Freak:
<strong>
what "legitimate benefits" does tobacco have? it is a legal drug, obviously (to you) that means it has legitimate benefits.
marijuana has been proven to help alleviate the pains of asthma. it also reduces the amount of nausea a patient can feel when on chemotherapy. it also has been proven to help glaucoma. marijuana has legitimate medical uses.</strong><hr></blockquote>
None, sir. Never did I say tobacco products have legitimate benefits. Yes, marijuana alleviates pain while causing cancer in the same breath (pardon my pun).
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
It is the choice of the individual if he/she wishes to indulge. Leave big intrusive government out of this! People should be responsible for their actions, and if they get hooked on heroin or get a heart attack from using ecstacy, or get lung cancer from smoking tobacco or cirrhosis of the liver from alcohol, then that should be their look out. The health information is out there and widely available.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, we are a compassionate society, not one that allows the use and abuse of purely cancer-causing drugs. This is why someone cannot rob your grandma, rape, or murder her.
Drugs are addictive. We protect individuals from addiction through outlawing them.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
I resent wholeheartedly the government using my tazpayer $$$ to keep hundreds of thousands of mostly young and naive people locked up, mixing with gangbangers and hardened violent criminals, learning the tools of the criminal trade in the Universities of Crime, aka the penal system.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is exactly the problem. So instead of fixing it, you decide "the hell with it." We must not incarcerate drug users, only those responsible for the selling and trafficking of drugs. The solution lies in rehabilitating those addicted to drugs rather than incarcerating them.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
The laws against marijuana were put in place to protect corporate profits, the principle beneficiaries being the lumber, cotton, pharmaceutical and chemical industries.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Most importantly, "the laws against marijuana were put in place to protect: The People
[ 08-15-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
If marijuana was legalized, it would create quite a windfall for the government. A whole new revenue stream could be created by taxing the sale of the product. Not to mention all the money that would be saved by the police, DEA, judicial, and prision system that is currently spent on penalizing people who smoke pot. Maybe, some of this new money could be spent on the rehabilitation of people who have hard core addictions (heroine, speed, crack, etc.). Or how about spending some of the money on Homeland security. I would much rather have more police looking out for terrorists than have the police busting the stoner down the street from me.
Obviously, I do not want a society like that.
Sugar & caffeine are ADDICTIVE substances, and are available to every single person in America, from babies to the elderly...
I am not going to go into citing references, because you (ShaunJoyceWhatever) are not going to listen anyway...
But, while I would NOt advocate anyone under the age of 21 smoking reefer, I feel it is an okay thing for adults to do...
I put an age limit on it, since kids need to finish their physical/mental development, and finish school, before they become burners...
And folks are FAR less likely to get in fights, become raving maniacs or any of the other behaviour exhibited by those who are drunk & disorderly, while high.
When was the last time anyone has seen somebody who was high get beligerent, due to the influence of the drug being used?!?
Just one ex-hippies perspective...!
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>Uh, pot CANNOT hurt you if you smoke one joint...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Find me a medical study that proves that.
[quote]Originally posted by MacRonin:
<strong>
Sugar & caffeine are ADDICTIVE substances, and are available to every single person in America, from babies to the elderly...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see what you mean, but I think it's more complicated than that.
[quote]Originally posted by MacRonin:
<strong>
I am not going to go into citing references, because you (ShaunJoyceWhatever) are not going to listen anyway...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I find it horribly disrespectful of you to intentionally misspell and mock my name. As far as your claim of me "not listening," I find that baseless. I specifically replied to what several posters, including you, had to say. Subsequently disagreeing does not remove it from the fact that I listened.
[ 08-15-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
<strong>Your economic qualification stands out. Yes, that's true purely from an economic standpoint. But why not legalize murder? I'm sure the bounty-hunter industry needs a boost, and the government could surely profit from taxes collected on that.
Obviously, I do not want a society like that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
smoking pot has little or no effect on anyone else (except the dealer who i buy it from, who gains a couple of extra benjamins every so often). if i smoke, it doesn't affect you or anyone else. murder has a direct and obvious effect on others. marijuana, taken responsibly, can be used for recreation, and not hurt anybody. that's why it should be distinguished, i think. i think people should be allowed to do anything they wish to themselves, as long as it doesn't hurt others.
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>None, sir. Never did I say tobacco products have legitimate benefits. Yes, marijuana alleviates pain while causing cancer in the same breath (pardon my pun).</strong><hr></blockquote>
so, would you agree that it should be legalized for medicinal purposes? Perhaps only for the terminally ill, so the supposed cancer causing agents won't affect them.
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>Drugs are addictive. We protect individuals from addiction through outlawing them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
acetominophen (the active ingredient in codeine, and tylenol) is an addictive drug. it is also legal. shouldn't (by your logic) government outlaw it? also, i'd like to bring up tobacco again. nicotene is an extremely addictive drug (around the same magnitude of heroin). it is legal.
You were saying that thuhfreak did his research well but I'm saying he just got all those links from pro-pot websites. They did the research, not him.
<hr></blockquote>
I know what you are saying. Go back and see what they are. "British Journal of Psychiatry 178: 123-128" No link, because it's a real citation. And most of his references were, probably found on paper, since the journals are large print journals, and only recently have any online content. Did you just drink all though college, or did you just not go?
The reason I'm so adamant about this is because he's probably the first person I've seen on AI giving such reputable sources, yet silly people like you want to argue against the points in them. Think about it: some guy with an uninformed opinion on a web forum arguing with the most respected reasearch publications in the country.
[quote]
Your only basis for recreational legalization of pot is from The Economist.
I seem to recall you saying they wrote about "all angles". Does that mean they also argued reasons for it to stay illegal? If not, what were some of the reasons for recreational use? Also, how did they come to these conclusions? Scientific studies?
<hr></blockquote>
That's not my only basis, it's just the best contemporary summary. And you are going to have a damn hard time calling it "liberal." I said it's a good place to start, because you can read it and reasearch using thier references.
Yes they do give the pro arguments, but show how they are ultimately flawed.
For the rest, you are just going to have to read. You can purchase it online @ <a href="http://www.economist.com"; target="_blank">www.economist.com</a>
.
[ 08-16-2002: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
I know what you are saying. Go back and see what they are. "British Journal of Psychiatry 178: 123-128" No link, because it's a real citation. And most of his references were, probably found on paper, since the journals are large print journals, and only recently have any online content. Did you just drink all though college, or did you just not go?
<hr></blockquote>
That last comment proves what? Now you're just being an ass and just made me resort to your level of childish tactics. I have a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science, in case you were wondering.
You're not convincing me of anything. His articles are about the medical issue. I want evidence of its benefits for recreational use. You site one source, The Economist. I asked for some examples that they give and they only thing you can tell me is to read the article. You can't even remember what they said??? Wow, thats convincing.
You have an opinion and so do I. We just don't agree and it looks like we're not going to. But you can go ahead and keep responding to my posts with the name calling. Its getting you really far.
Do you actually think you're going to change my mind with your responses? If it wasn't for thuhfreak I'd think all pro-pot activists are as ignorant as you. At least he can have a rational and mature conversation. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />