<strong>Nd you want the Government to "know what's best for you" by making cigarrettes illegal. . . . persoally I like to be able to make up my mind about what I do.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You cannot possibly argue that point without noting that "what you want to do" conflicts with what others must endure. The issue is second-hand smoke, and it affects my health as well as yours. Even when one goes somewhere were one knows smoking will occur, one should not be limited to places without smoking.
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
This is part of the contemprorary loss of public and private space. What was once private is now the matter of legislation, what was once Public and governmental now takes the role of house keeping and mothering.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think it speaks of a responsible government, rather than one that tells its citizens to f*** off.
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
If you say that weed is as addictive as cigarrettes then you obviously have no experience with the substance.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This issue is unclear to me.
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
what clinches it for me is this: just picture all the people that you know who have smoked pot . . . now think of them in jail for smoking pot. Its absolutely absurd that people are getting jail time, with rapists, murderers and molesters, for smoking pot... or even distributing it.... its hardly believable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I rarely resort to mocking one's post, but "what clinches it for me" is that you have not read my posts. I have stated about five different times that I also think it's absurd to incarcerate drug users. Rehabilitate them instead!
Distributors should be incarcerated to the fullest extent of the law. Like I have said before, those who proliferate drug addiction deserve jail time.
I rarely resort to mocking one's post, but "what clinches it for me" is that you have not read my posts. I have stated about five different times that I also think it's absurd to incarcerate drug users. Rehabilitate them instead!
Distributors should be incarcerated to the fullest extent of the law. Like I have said before, those who proliferate drug addiction deserve jail time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What a smug prick... I wasn't talking to you, or about you when I said it clinches it for me . . I was regering to the issue of the legality of weed and what I feel.
Now I agree that smoking should be regulated when it can cause problems for non-smokers; I agree with the work place laws etc. That is not what I am talking about. I should still have the right to smoke if I want to . . . if you want to make it illegal to, I say don't watch out for me, bugger off.... your a priest in disguise...or a cop . . . your just watching out for all of us that might get addicted <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Distribution of weed should not be illegal because weed should not be illegal
its a stupid law and wastes an incredible amount of money and time and effort by people who could be doing important things.
Besides, as has been said to death, make it illegal and it creates a very profitable black market, providing lots of cash for people who are involved in other illegal activities . . . providing income to some dangerous people . . . not just pot heads.
its idiotic.
As for its addictiveness: from experience, and I have plenty of experience with all sorts of experiences . . . I have never had a problem with not smoking weed, I have gone for years upon years before I even realized that I hadn't had pot . . . and yet I once smoked it fairly often.
Some people smoke it very often and for them it is close to an addiction, but I think that if it wasn't pot for them, it would be something else.
And I, with my father's side of Guiness swillers, have many genes for addicton, at least with alchohol . . .
I apologize, of course. Your statement followed my quote so naturally I assumed it applied to me as well. However, I think making things clearer is always better than namecalling. After all, we do ultimately reside together on the same side of the political spectrum.
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
its a stupid law and wastes an incredible amount of money and time and effort by people who could be doing important things.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Laws should not be enforced according to available manpower, but according to their legality. It's a basic principle of law enforcement.
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
Besides, as has been said to death, make it illegal and it creates a very profitable black market, providing lots of cash for people who are involved in other illegal activities . . . providing income to some dangerous people . . . not just pot heads.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not sufficient reason to justify legalizing marijuana or outlawing tobacco products. Right now, there's an even more lucrative and legitimate tobacco industry that profits from people's deaths. I don't know how that's NOT illegal (as a matter of expression, of course).
[quote]That's not sufficient reason to justify legalizing marijuana or outlawing tobacco products. Right now, there's an even more lucrative and legitimate tobacco industry that profits from people's deaths. I don't know how that's NOT illegal (as a matter of expression, of course).<hr></blockquote>
There are substances and activities which are perfectly legal and kill people. If you feel that tobacco should be made illegal on those grounds, then why not alcohol, for example?
If there is any validity in the concept "The Government knows whats best for us", (which, fwiw, I do not believe), then perhaps it should get its priorities in order, namely quit hassling and criminalizing individuals on account of their own chosen personal and private habits, which result in no victims apart from the individual.
........................
Why are drug dealers vilified by society as scumbags? Are not they are pursuing the 'American Dream' by pursuing entrepreneurialism in the true spirit of unfettered capitalism? It is an aspect of human nature that where there is a demand, then someone will always step in and create a supply. If a kid can make $400 an evening selling rocks of crack in a back alley, then is anyone going to expect him to get ripped off for $5-50 an hour in a Burger King or supermarket check-out?
Just because the material he sells happens to be illegal, does that make the drug dealer any less moral then for example R.J. Reynolds Inc., knowing that illegal drug abuse kills some 4000 Americans each year, but tobacco products kill 400000 a year?
There is little correlation between the danger of a substance and it's legality.
Human beings have always used intoxicants to feel good, to aid social interaction, to blot out trauma, or seek spiritual experience etc etc. I am firmly against the police being used to arrest and charge people according to what they put into their own systems. People *choose* as to whether they take drugs, or not. I find it hard to believe that anyone is unaware of the risks involved. Anyone with an addictive predisposition will become addicted to something, whether it be drink, cigarettes, illegal drugs, religion, gambling, even the internet.
No amount of money or arms poured into the War on Drugs will stop the trade in drugs. It's like squashing a balloon, flattening it someplace and it inflates up elsewhere. We are kidding ourselves. It is a naive feelgood phoney-moral crusade which will never end as long as humans populate this planet.
'Recreational' drugs are freely available despite their illegality. People who are attracted to getting intoxicated will seek out intoxicants, regardless, nothing is *ever* going to prevent that. Sensible education will help, unlike naive programs like "DARE", or "Just say No", which may have even exaggerated the problems by their complete lack of credibility from the viewpoint of kids. Throwing kids in jail because the intoxicant of their *choice* is not approved has never worked before and won't suddenly work in the future.
We keep on doing the same thing, over and over in pavlovian fashion. Although not referring specifically to the "War on Drugs", John Laroquette put it in a nutshell with this quote:
"The definition of insanity is the repetition of the same action expecting a different result"
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
There are substances and activities which are perfectly legal and kill people. If you feel that tobacco should be made illegal on those grounds, then why not alcohol, for example?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have previously articulated the point that alcohol when consumed in moderation poses no threat to the individual. Red wine actually benefits those who moderately drink it.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
If there is any validity in the concept "The Government knows whats best for us", (which, fwiw, I do not believe), then perhaps it should get its priorities in order, namely quit hassling and criminalizing individuals on account of their own chosen personal and private habits, which result in no victims apart from the individual.
It's a great read from 1982 (well balanced, excellently worded.) I did find one grammatical error:
[quote] The White House Strategy Council on Drug Abuse (1979) notes that more than 5.6 million pounds of marijuana was seized at the Mexican border <hr></blockquote>
Objects of the preposition remain null when deciding to make your verb singular or plural. That being said, "5.6 million pounds were seized."
Objects of the preposition remain null when deciding to make your verb singular or plural. That being said, "5.6 million pounds were seized."</strong><hr></blockquote>
What are you stoned?!?!?.... you looked for grammatical errors?!?!? that's mighty suspicious <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
As for harmless taken in moderation . . . even pot is reletively harmless when taken in moderation . . . smoked with a (water) pipe, or eaten . .
uhh er unnh.yeeyeeHAAA !!!. . . ( oooops . . ehem...just rememberin some GREAT old times in my past!!!!!!.... ah yes... truly wonderfull . . . )
It's weird arguing within our party affiliation. We're just a bunch of democrats arguing about policy. I'm sure the DLC would approve of my moderate yet progressive position.
You're all a bunch of selfish, well-educated, (upper) middleclass, white kids that want to be able to smoke your pot...
If you had any idea on how legalization would effect the lower classes of society, people who are already in a difficult situation... The last thing we need is a more liberal drug policy. (Since i'm european, i'd have to take a broad "western civilisation" aproach here.)
Sure you guys could probably "control" your "moderate" marihuana use. You could probably function fine in society as a cocain-user as well. Even as alcoholics, its always helps beeing well-of you know...
But a lot of people won't. A lot of people are struggling more than enough with drugs as it is. on a personal level, or in their community. There is a direct link between availability and consumption for any drug.
If you lower the price on alcohol, people drink more. If you let rohypnol be perscribed as sleeping drug, people will abuse it. If you sell cigarets to kids, a lot of them will end up smoking. Marihuana and hasjis are no different.
There is a large legalization lobby, this is not a bunch of idealistis. Thier funding comes from capital interest, just like most powerful lobbying groups. The tobacco industry is right in there.
I wonder what the people who traffic drugs on a large scale think about this. He're is a clue; most of the pot and hasjis sold "leagaly" in the Netherlands comes from other countries, yet there is no legal import of these goods.
<strong>That's a fine intuition; however, one must show why exactly medicinal marijuana should not be used. You think it's an excuse, but what makes you say that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Who says it shouldn't be used? Scott was just saying the lobbyists shouldn't hide behind that front. They should just come out and say, yeah, we want to get high. You can't stop us anyway, just legalize it already. There's nothing wrong with pot, except the stupid medical marijuana excuse.
1) Legalize weed.
2) Limit marijuana smokers more than cigarette smokers, or limit both to the same degree. No smoking ANYWHERE public.
3) Tax the hell out of cigarettes and weed. Pot smokers win, the government wins. The end.
<strong>You're all a bunch of selfish, well-educated, (upper) middleclass, white kids that want to be able to smoke your pot...</strong><hr></blockquote>
i am white, and upper middle class (pretty hard to peg that demographic seeing as the majority of the u.s. is). i'm still going through college, so i wouldn't yet say well-educated, but instead sufficiently-educated for the time being. but the point of medicinal marijuana is that i'm trying to not be selfish. marijuana has legitmate medical uses. it should be used in some situations to benefit those medical needs. i want it to be legalized in both recreational and medicinal forms.
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>If you had any idea on how legalization would effect the lower classes of society, people who are already in a difficult situation... The last thing we need is a more liberal drug policy. (Since i'm european, i'd have to take a broad "western civilisation" aproach here.)
Sure you guys could probably "control" your "moderate" marihuana use. You could probably function fine in society as a cocain-user as well. Even as alcoholics, its always helps beeing well-of you know...
But a lot of people won't. A lot of people are struggling more than enough with drugs as it is. on a personal level, or in their community. There is a direct link between availability and consumption for any drug.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i, a responsible user, should be given the opportunity to responsibly use the drugs. (and in a side note, presently i do responsibly use all the drugs you've mentioned: marij, hash, coke, and alcohol) I think people can do drugs and still function responsibly, morally and (someday) legally in society. I think I should be given that chance.
And people who can't, people who abuse drugs and/or alcohol, they need help. They require some guidance as to how much drug they can do, or perhaps need to quit entirely. There are lot's of treatment centers throughout America (and probably plenty in Europe too). There are already places to help them, and they already have the problem. Legalization will NOT lead to an increase of use (for links, go through the thread, and look at my previous posts). Once its legalized people won't suddenly decide to use. I agree that this might be an intuitive response. It makes sense and is a logical theory. But, there is actual statistic data disproving it. Legalization does not lead to an increase of use.
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>And yes, I have smoked a lot...</strong><hr></blockquote>
glad to hear it. keep on tokin'.
[quote]Originally posted by Willoughby:
<strong>Thousands more people die in auto accidents due to stoned drivers. We all lose.</strong><hr></blockquote>
legalization doesn't lead to an increase of use. pot smokers who are going to drive inibriated already do, and they are already part of the statistics. legalizing won't increase this figure.
legalization doesn't lead to an increase of use. pot smokers who are going to drive inibriated already do, and they are already part of the statistics. legalizing won't increase this figure.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well obviously this is the main point on which we disagree. I feel that there isn't a proof positive way to know the affects on the entire country if pot was legalized. So we'll never know for sure unless it is legalized. That is a risk I don't want to take. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>No, I feel they're just as irresponsible and definitely not more responsible.
So I feel that the already high death toll from intoxicated drivers will increase with pots legalization.</strong><hr></blockquote>
what can i possibly do to convince you? The State of Connecticutt did a study in 1997. They gathered statistics from several states where marijuana penalties had been significantly reduced (practically gone). The statistics showed that in states where marijuana had been decriminalized the increase in usage was less than the increase in states where it was still a crime. Therefore, decriminalization does NOT lead to an increase of use.
Also, I think its fallicious to find that pot users can't be more responsible than alcohol drinkers.
what can i possibly do to convince you? The State of Connecticutt did a study in 1997. They gathered statistics from several states where marijuana penalties had been significantly reduced (practically gone). The statistics showed that in states where marijuana had been decriminalized the increase in usage was less than the increase in states where it was still a crime. Therefore, decriminalization does NOT lead to an increase of use.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't believe that those studies prove anything. You're talking about a few states where penalties were "reduced". The rest of the country still has laws against it. The government still has this stigma of pot being "evil".
If you decriminalized it everywhere you're talking about an entirely different thing. Suddenly everywhere in the country its ok to use it for whatever purpose. Suddenly the government is ok with it.
Even your statement "glad to hear it. keep on tokin'" makes me worry. Once it would be decriminalized more people will advocate its use. Bars would suddenly allow pot smoking and my bet is that there would be "pot-only" bars!
[quote]
Also, I think its fallicious to find that pot users can't be more responsible than alcohol drinkers.
Well obviously this is the main point on which we disagree. I feel that there isn't a proof positive way to know the affects on the entire country if pot was legalized. So we'll never know for sure unless it is legalized. That is a risk I don't want to take. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you really think that the states of Oregon, Maine, Ohio, New York, Nebraska, California, North Carolina, Colorado, Minnesota, and Mississippi are that different from the rest of the country. I can understand that certain regions of the country are more liberal than others. Some areas tend to certain political affiliations. But, those ten states span from coast to coast, north south, and central America. (These states supplied the statistics that Connecticutt used in its <a href="http://www.cga.state.ct.us/lrc/drugpolicy/drugpolicyrpt2.htm#SecD7"; target="_blank">study in 1997</a>.)
<strong>Even your statement "glad to hear it. keep on tokin'" makes me worry. Once it would be decriminalized more people will advocate its use. Bars would suddenly allow pot smoking and my bet is that there would be "pot-only" bars!</strong><hr></blockquote>
The comment was made at someone who admitted to having used. So, even if (s)he took it to heart, it wouldn't be an increase of pot users. There probably will be more advertisement. Large corporations will eventually grab a hold of everything. There most definitely would be pot-centered bars, much like the tobacco-centered hookha bars.
These are merely places for users to go though. I think, with legalization, there should be an increase in public service announcements telling the truth about marijuana. Not propaganda like we have now. But things citing evidence of potential issues that may arise with use. That way when a person tries pot, they are well aware of the risks and willing to accept them.
[quote]Originally posted by Willoughby:
<strong>Why?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Many factors play into how responsible a person is. I know a kid who smokes infrequently and maintains a job, a chick and life better than another kid I know who drinks, doesn't have a job or a girlfriend. The drugs they use, while it affects them while intoxicated, doesn't really play into their life off the drug. And, while on the drug of choice, they act very similarly. The present mayor of New York is a responsible person; he has smoked pot. Generalities are always wrong.
Comments
<strong>Nd you want the Government to "know what's best for you" by making cigarrettes illegal. . . . persoally I like to be able to make up my mind about what I do.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You cannot possibly argue that point without noting that "what you want to do" conflicts with what others must endure. The issue is second-hand smoke, and it affects my health as well as yours. Even when one goes somewhere were one knows smoking will occur, one should not be limited to places without smoking.
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
This is part of the contemprorary loss of public and private space. What was once private is now the matter of legislation, what was once Public and governmental now takes the role of house keeping and mothering.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think it speaks of a responsible government, rather than one that tells its citizens to f*** off.
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
If you say that weed is as addictive as cigarrettes then you obviously have no experience with the substance.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This issue is unclear to me.
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
what clinches it for me is this: just picture all the people that you know who have smoked pot . . . now think of them in jail for smoking pot. Its absolutely absurd that people are getting jail time, with rapists, murderers and molesters, for smoking pot... or even distributing it.... its hardly believable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I rarely resort to mocking one's post, but "what clinches it for me" is that you have not read my posts. I have stated about five different times that I also think it's absurd to incarcerate drug users. Rehabilitate them instead!
Distributors should be incarcerated to the fullest extent of the law. Like I have said before, those who proliferate drug addiction deserve jail time.
<strong>
I rarely resort to mocking one's post, but "what clinches it for me" is that you have not read my posts. I have stated about five different times that I also think it's absurd to incarcerate drug users. Rehabilitate them instead!
Distributors should be incarcerated to the fullest extent of the law. Like I have said before, those who proliferate drug addiction deserve jail time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What a smug prick... I wasn't talking to you, or about you when I said it clinches it for me . . I was regering to the issue of the legality of weed and what I feel.
Now I agree that smoking should be regulated when it can cause problems for non-smokers; I agree with the work place laws etc. That is not what I am talking about. I should still have the right to smoke if I want to . . . if you want to make it illegal to, I say don't watch out for me, bugger off.... your a priest in disguise...or a cop . . . your just watching out for all of us that might get addicted <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Distribution of weed should not be illegal because weed should not be illegal
its a stupid law and wastes an incredible amount of money and time and effort by people who could be doing important things.
Besides, as has been said to death, make it illegal and it creates a very profitable black market, providing lots of cash for people who are involved in other illegal activities . . . providing income to some dangerous people . . . not just pot heads.
its idiotic.
As for its addictiveness: from experience, and I have plenty of experience with all sorts of experiences . . . I have never had a problem with not smoking weed, I have gone for years upon years before I even realized that I hadn't had pot . . . and yet I once smoked it fairly often.
Some people smoke it very often and for them it is close to an addiction, but I think that if it wasn't pot for them, it would be something else.
And I, with my father's side of Guiness swillers, have many genes for addicton, at least with alchohol . . .
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
its a stupid law and wastes an incredible amount of money and time and effort by people who could be doing important things.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Laws should not be enforced according to available manpower, but according to their legality. It's a basic principle of law enforcement.
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
Besides, as has been said to death, make it illegal and it creates a very profitable black market, providing lots of cash for people who are involved in other illegal activities . . . providing income to some dangerous people . . . not just pot heads.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not sufficient reason to justify legalizing marijuana or outlawing tobacco products. Right now, there's an even more lucrative and legitimate tobacco industry that profits from people's deaths. I don't know how that's NOT illegal (as a matter of expression, of course).
There are substances and activities which are perfectly legal and kill people. If you feel that tobacco should be made illegal on those grounds, then why not alcohol, for example?
If there is any validity in the concept "The Government knows whats best for us", (which, fwiw, I do not believe), then perhaps it should get its priorities in order, namely quit hassling and criminalizing individuals on account of their own chosen personal and private habits, which result in no victims apart from the individual.
........................
Why are drug dealers vilified by society as scumbags? Are not they are pursuing the 'American Dream' by pursuing entrepreneurialism in the true spirit of unfettered capitalism? It is an aspect of human nature that where there is a demand, then someone will always step in and create a supply. If a kid can make $400 an evening selling rocks of crack in a back alley, then is anyone going to expect him to get ripped off for $5-50 an hour in a Burger King or supermarket check-out?
Just because the material he sells happens to be illegal, does that make the drug dealer any less moral then for example R.J. Reynolds Inc., knowing that illegal drug abuse kills some 4000 Americans each year, but tobacco products kill 400000 a year?
There is little correlation between the danger of a substance and it's legality.
Human beings have always used intoxicants to feel good, to aid social interaction, to blot out trauma, or seek spiritual experience etc etc. I am firmly against the police being used to arrest and charge people according to what they put into their own systems. People *choose* as to whether they take drugs, or not. I find it hard to believe that anyone is unaware of the risks involved. Anyone with an addictive predisposition will become addicted to something, whether it be drink, cigarettes, illegal drugs, religion, gambling, even the internet.
No amount of money or arms poured into the War on Drugs will stop the trade in drugs. It's like squashing a balloon, flattening it someplace and it inflates up elsewhere. We are kidding ourselves. It is a naive feelgood phoney-moral crusade which will never end as long as humans populate this planet.
'Recreational' drugs are freely available despite their illegality. People who are attracted to getting intoxicated will seek out intoxicants, regardless, nothing is *ever* going to prevent that. Sensible education will help, unlike naive programs like "DARE", or "Just say No", which may have even exaggerated the problems by their complete lack of credibility from the viewpoint of kids. Throwing kids in jail because the intoxicant of their *choice* is not approved has never worked before and won't suddenly work in the future.
We keep on doing the same thing, over and over in pavlovian fashion. Although not referring specifically to the "War on Drugs", John Laroquette put it in a nutshell with this quote:
"The definition of insanity is the repetition of the same action expecting a different result"
[ 08-18-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
<strong>
There are substances and activities which are perfectly legal and kill people. If you feel that tobacco should be made illegal on those grounds, then why not alcohol, for example?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have previously articulated the point that alcohol when consumed in moderation poses no threat to the individual. Red wine actually benefits those who moderately drink it.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
If there is any validity in the concept "The Government knows whats best for us", (which, fwiw, I do not believe), then perhaps it should get its priorities in order, namely quit hassling and criminalizing individuals on account of their own chosen personal and private habits, which result in no victims apart from the individual.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's just the thing. It affects everyone.
<a href="http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nas/markets.htm"; target="_blank">An Analysis of Marijuana Policy</a>
It's a great read from 1982 (well balanced, excellently worded.) I did find one grammatical error:
[quote] The White House Strategy Council on Drug Abuse (1979) notes that more than 5.6 million pounds of marijuana was seized at the Mexican border <hr></blockquote>
Objects of the preposition remain null when deciding to make your verb singular or plural. That being said, "5.6 million pounds were seized."
<strong>
Objects of the preposition remain null when deciding to make your verb singular or plural. That being said, "5.6 million pounds were seized."</strong><hr></blockquote>
What are you stoned?!?!?.... you looked for grammatical errors?!?!? that's mighty suspicious <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
As for harmless taken in moderation . . . even pot is reletively harmless when taken in moderation . . . smoked with a (water) pipe, or eaten . .
uhh er unnh.yeeyeeHAAA !!!. . . ( oooops . . ehem...just rememberin some GREAT old times in my past!!!!!!.... ah yes... truly wonderfull . . . )
It was not so much that I looked for them, it was that it was so glaringly obvious. So "found" should mean "stumbled over" instead.
Don't I sound stoned now?
If you had any idea on how legalization would effect the lower classes of society, people who are already in a difficult situation... The last thing we need is a more liberal drug policy. (Since i'm european, i'd have to take a broad "western civilisation" aproach here.)
Sure you guys could probably "control" your "moderate" marihuana use. You could probably function fine in society as a cocain-user as well. Even as alcoholics, its always helps beeing well-of you know...
But a lot of people won't. A lot of people are struggling more than enough with drugs as it is. on a personal level, or in their community. There is a direct link between availability and consumption for any drug.
If you lower the price on alcohol, people drink more. If you let rohypnol be perscribed as sleeping drug, people will abuse it. If you sell cigarets to kids, a lot of them will end up smoking. Marihuana and hasjis are no different.
There is a large legalization lobby, this is not a bunch of idealistis. Thier funding comes from capital interest, just like most powerful lobbying groups. The tobacco industry is right in there.
I wonder what the people who traffic drugs on a large scale think about this. He're is a clue; most of the pot and hasjis sold "leagaly" in the Netherlands comes from other countries, yet there is no legal import of these goods.
And yes, I have smoked a lot...
<strong>That's a fine intuition; however, one must show why exactly medicinal marijuana should not be used. You think it's an excuse, but what makes you say that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Who says it shouldn't be used? Scott was just saying the lobbyists shouldn't hide behind that front. They should just come out and say, yeah, we want to get high. You can't stop us anyway, just legalize it already. There's nothing wrong with pot, except the stupid medical marijuana excuse.
1) Legalize weed.
2) Limit marijuana smokers more than cigarette smokers, or limit both to the same degree. No smoking ANYWHERE public.
3) Tax the hell out of cigarettes and weed. Pot smokers win, the government wins. The end.
Pot smokers win, the government wins. The end.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Thousands more people die in auto accidents due to stoned drivers. We all lose.
<strong>
Thousands more people die in auto accidents due to stoned drivers. We all lose.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because pot smokers are less responsible than alcohol drinkers?
<strong>
Thousands more people die in auto accidents due to stoned drivers. We all lose.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i'm not saying it hasn't happened, but i can't recall a single car wreck that was caused by driver under the influence solely of pot.
<strong>You're all a bunch of selfish, well-educated, (upper) middleclass, white kids that want to be able to smoke your pot...</strong><hr></blockquote>
i am white, and upper middle class (pretty hard to peg that demographic seeing as the majority of the u.s. is). i'm still going through college, so i wouldn't yet say well-educated, but instead sufficiently-educated for the time being. but the point of medicinal marijuana is that i'm trying to not be selfish. marijuana has legitmate medical uses. it should be used in some situations to benefit those medical needs. i want it to be legalized in both recreational and medicinal forms.
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>If you had any idea on how legalization would effect the lower classes of society, people who are already in a difficult situation... The last thing we need is a more liberal drug policy. (Since i'm european, i'd have to take a broad "western civilisation" aproach here.)
Sure you guys could probably "control" your "moderate" marihuana use. You could probably function fine in society as a cocain-user as well. Even as alcoholics, its always helps beeing well-of you know...
But a lot of people won't. A lot of people are struggling more than enough with drugs as it is. on a personal level, or in their community. There is a direct link between availability and consumption for any drug.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i, a responsible user, should be given the opportunity to responsibly use the drugs. (and in a side note, presently i do responsibly use all the drugs you've mentioned: marij, hash, coke, and alcohol) I think people can do drugs and still function responsibly, morally and (someday) legally in society. I think I should be given that chance.
And people who can't, people who abuse drugs and/or alcohol, they need help. They require some guidance as to how much drug they can do, or perhaps need to quit entirely. There are lot's of treatment centers throughout America (and probably plenty in Europe too). There are already places to help them, and they already have the problem. Legalization will NOT lead to an increase of use (for links, go through the thread, and look at my previous posts). Once its legalized people won't suddenly decide to use. I agree that this might be an intuitive response. It makes sense and is a logical theory. But, there is actual statistic data disproving it. Legalization does not lead to an increase of use.
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>And yes, I have smoked a lot...</strong><hr></blockquote>
glad to hear it. keep on tokin'.
[quote]Originally posted by Willoughby:
<strong>Thousands more people die in auto accidents due to stoned drivers. We all lose.</strong><hr></blockquote>
legalization doesn't lead to an increase of use. pot smokers who are going to drive inibriated already do, and they are already part of the statistics. legalizing won't increase this figure.
<strong>
Because pot smokers are less responsible than alcohol drinkers?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I feel they're just as irresponsible and definitely not more responsible.
So I feel that the already high death toll from intoxicated drivers will increase with pots legalization.
<strong>
legalization doesn't lead to an increase of use. pot smokers who are going to drive inibriated already do, and they are already part of the statistics. legalizing won't increase this figure.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well obviously this is the main point on which we disagree. I feel that there isn't a proof positive way to know the affects on the entire country if pot was legalized. So we'll never know for sure unless it is legalized. That is a risk I don't want to take. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>No, I feel they're just as irresponsible and definitely not more responsible.
So I feel that the already high death toll from intoxicated drivers will increase with pots legalization.</strong><hr></blockquote>
what can i possibly do to convince you? The State of Connecticutt did a study in 1997. They gathered statistics from several states where marijuana penalties had been significantly reduced (practically gone). The statistics showed that in states where marijuana had been decriminalized the increase in usage was less than the increase in states where it was still a crime. Therefore, decriminalization does NOT lead to an increase of use.
Also, I think its fallicious to find that pot users can't be more responsible than alcohol drinkers.
<strong>
what can i possibly do to convince you? The State of Connecticutt did a study in 1997. They gathered statistics from several states where marijuana penalties had been significantly reduced (practically gone). The statistics showed that in states where marijuana had been decriminalized the increase in usage was less than the increase in states where it was still a crime. Therefore, decriminalization does NOT lead to an increase of use.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't believe that those studies prove anything. You're talking about a few states where penalties were "reduced". The rest of the country still has laws against it. The government still has this stigma of pot being "evil".
If you decriminalized it everywhere you're talking about an entirely different thing. Suddenly everywhere in the country its ok to use it for whatever purpose. Suddenly the government is ok with it.
Even your statement "glad to hear it. keep on tokin'" makes me worry. Once it would be decriminalized more people will advocate its use. Bars would suddenly allow pot smoking and my bet is that there would be "pot-only" bars!
[quote]
Also, I think its fallicious to find that pot users can't be more responsible than alcohol drinkers.
<hr></blockquote>
Why?
<strong>
Well obviously this is the main point on which we disagree. I feel that there isn't a proof positive way to know the affects on the entire country if pot was legalized. So we'll never know for sure unless it is legalized. That is a risk I don't want to take. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you really think that the states of Oregon, Maine, Ohio, New York, Nebraska, California, North Carolina, Colorado, Minnesota, and Mississippi are that different from the rest of the country. I can understand that certain regions of the country are more liberal than others. Some areas tend to certain political affiliations. But, those ten states span from coast to coast, north south, and central America. (These states supplied the statistics that Connecticutt used in its <a href="http://www.cga.state.ct.us/lrc/drugpolicy/drugpolicyrpt2.htm#SecD7"; target="_blank">study in 1997</a>.)
<strong>Even your statement "glad to hear it. keep on tokin'" makes me worry. Once it would be decriminalized more people will advocate its use. Bars would suddenly allow pot smoking and my bet is that there would be "pot-only" bars!</strong><hr></blockquote>
The comment was made at someone who admitted to having used. So, even if (s)he took it to heart, it wouldn't be an increase of pot users. There probably will be more advertisement. Large corporations will eventually grab a hold of everything. There most definitely would be pot-centered bars, much like the tobacco-centered hookha bars.
These are merely places for users to go though. I think, with legalization, there should be an increase in public service announcements telling the truth about marijuana. Not propaganda like we have now. But things citing evidence of potential issues that may arise with use. That way when a person tries pot, they are well aware of the risks and willing to accept them.
[quote]Originally posted by Willoughby:
<strong>Why?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Many factors play into how responsible a person is. I know a kid who smokes infrequently and maintains a job, a chick and life better than another kid I know who drinks, doesn't have a job or a girlfriend. The drugs they use, while it affects them while intoxicated, doesn't really play into their life off the drug. And, while on the drug of choice, they act very similarly. The present mayor of New York is a responsible person; he has smoked pot. Generalities are always wrong.
[ 08-19-2002: Message edited by: thuh Freak ]</p>