You're happy for other people to murder each other. Got it.
That is an incredibly tenuous argument... Smoking pot only affects the user. Individual rights end when they impact others individual rights, which is why murder is illegal.
You're happy for other people to murder each other. Got it.
That is an incredibly tenuous argument... Smoking pot only affects the user. Individual rights end when they impact others individual rights, which is why murder is illegal.
Tell that to the families who see the lives of their loved ones destroyed by addiction.
Tell that to the families who see the lives of their loved ones destroyed by addiction.
First of all, as someone who has personally experienced addiction and chemical dependency first-hand, I am well aware of the impacts that it has on families, friends, and colleagues of the affected individual.
Secondly, we are talking about Marijuana, not opiates, coke or meth. While there are people who take it too far and smoke weed every day, "marijuana addiction" is not the same as addiction to harder drugs. I'm sure it effects the individuals life and those around them, but it's not in the same league. How many people have robbed a liquor store or stabbed someone on the street to get money to buy a bag of weed? Zero.
Lastly, if society was going to judge whether a particular chemical/plant should be legal based on it's addiction potential, then alcohol should certainly be outlawed. Do you support that myopic idea as well?
While I don't use it myself, I'd much rather see people enjoy the occasional joint then get hammered on liquor at the local bar. Stoned people don't physically assault people, fall out of windows, burn down houses with lit cigarettes, beat their wives and children, choke on their own vomit, die of substance poisoning, get in cars and drive the wrong way on the freeway, etc. It is altogether a much more pleasant intoxicant for the people that have to be around those who do it.
How many people have robbed a liquor store or stabbed someone on the street to get money to buy a bag of weed? Zero.
Lastly, if society was going to judge whether a particular chemical/plant should be legal based on it's addiction potential, then alcohol should certainly be outlawed. Do you support that myopic idea as well?
Marijuana as currently produced in a lot of cases does involve criminal networks that are often also involved in significant criminal activity and harder drugs. The networks themselves engage in pretty hardcore criminal activity, including murder, bribery, etc.
Weed grown in commercial, non-criminal conditions is fine.
I agree with you that weed should be treated the same as alcohol. Probably other drugs should be treated the same way, too, though there are always likely to be drugs that are so damaging that we wouldn't be willing to license commercial production -- but that people would still want, so the criminal networks are likely to survive anyway.
Personally I think we'd better off without any of them, but I know I'm fighting a losing battle there -- and prohibition is unworkable.
Marijuana as currently produced in a lot of cases does involve criminal networks that are often also involved in significant criminal activity and harder drugs. The networks themselves engage in pretty hardcore criminal activity, including murder, bribery, etc.
Weed grown in commercial, non-criminal conditions is fine.
I agree with you that weed should be treated the same as alcohol. Probably other drugs should be treated the same way, too, though there are always likely to be drugs that are so damaging that we wouldn't be willing to license commercial production -- but that people would still want, so the criminal networks are likely to survive anyway.
Personally I think we'd better off without any of them, but I know I'm fighting a losing battle there -- and prohibition is unworkable.
Probably too obvious to point out, but the criminal networks you speak of were created by drug prohibition.
I am very conflicted on legalization of all drugs. As someone who has seen and experienced prescription addiction first hand, I wish that my children lived in a world where the temptations of heroin, OxyContin, meth, adderal, coke, etc didn't exist. However, that is not reality. Whether all substances are legalized and commercially produced or not, people who find themselves in the throes of addiction need psychological treatment... Turning them into criminals and putting them in jail for the victimless crime of drug possession only exacerbates their problems and doesn't help them clean up --- hence all the alternative drug courts and forced inpatient treatment. That is a good trend we are starting to see as the failed "drug war" is finally starting to crack.
Similarly, while the commercial sale of such dangerous substances seems fraught with problems for society, I'm not convinced it would be any worse than the dangerous criminal gangs that manufacture and distribute the substances today. Certainly prohibition itself is responsible for an untold amount of violence, murder, and criminal activity. Likewise, the high street value causes addicts to become thieves and commit fraud, forgery, robbery, burglary, etc to pay for the habit when the same drug would be many orders of Magnitude cheaper if sale was brought out of the shadows ...
Marijuana as currently produced in a lot of cases does involve criminal networks that are often also involved in significant criminal activity and harder drugs. The networks themselves engage in pretty hardcore criminal activity, including murder, bribery, etc.
Weed grown in commercial, non-criminal conditions is fine.
I agree with you that weed should be treated the same as alcohol. Probably other drugs should be treated the same way, too, though there are always likely to be drugs that are so damaging that we wouldn't be willing to license commercial production -- but that people would still want, so the criminal networks are likely to survive anyway.
Personally I think we'd better off without any of them, but I know I'm fighting a losing battle there -- and prohibition is unworkable.
Probably too obvious to point out, but the criminal networks you speak of were created by drug prohibition.
I am very conflicted on legalization of all drugs. As someone who has seen and experienced prescription addiction first hand, I wish that my children lived in a world where the temptations of heroin, OxyContin, meth, adderal, coke, etc didn't exist. However, that is not reality. Whether all substances are legalized and commercially produced or not, people who find themselves in the throes of addiction need psychological treatment... Turning them into criminals and putting them in jail for the victimless crime of drug possession only exacerbates their problems and doesn't help them clean up --- hence all the alternative drug courts and forced inpatient treatment. That is a good trend we are starting to see as the failed "drug war" is finally starting to crack.
Problem is, you can't put drugs on a pedestal. You're deluded if you think that all drugs-related crime will vanish if you legalise drugs. It won't. They are one part of the criminal ecosystem. What you will do if you legalise drugs is increase the rate of addiction. Alcohol has its dangers too, which is why there are controls and restrictions. However, it is not as addictive as illegal drugs, and is much less dangerous when consumed in moderation. There is no such thing as moderation with weed, never mind heroin.
Problem is, you can't put drugs on a pedestal. You're deluded if you think that all drugs-related crime will vanish if you legalise drugs. It won't. They are one part of the criminal ecosystem. What you will do if you legalise drugs is increase the rate of addiction. Alcohol has its dangers too, which is why there are controls and restrictions. However, it is not as addictive as illegal drugs, and is much less dangerous when consumed in moderation. There is no such thing as moderation with weed, never mind heroin.
Your post is full of misinformation, so please don't insult me.
First of all, If you comprehended the point of my post, you would see that I am not "putting drugs on a pedestal", I just recognize that the current strategy for dealing with them is a failure.
Secondly, no, of course I do not think "all" drug related crime would go away with legalization... However, it doesn't require a high IQ to recognize that removing the hundreds of billions of dollars in black market profits that are being funneled to criminals (while also vastly reducing the price of the substances themselves) will reduce criminal activity and crime to some degree. This has already been shown with alcohol prohibition. Prohibition literally created organized crime in this country, and after the repeal, crime rates surrounding alcohol plummeted. That's a fact.
Next, your suggestion that legalization creates more addiction is just plain false. I don't have the time to go find links to the studies I have in mind, but google is your friend. Other countries have had moderate success with decriminalizing and even legalizing certain drugs, and rates of use and addiction actually dropped by a marginal amount.
Finally, your "stated fact" that alcohol is less addictive and "much less dangerous" than all
Illegal drugs is laughable. How many people have died due solely to alcohol? How many people are killed by DUI drivers each year? How many individuals suffer domestic violence brought on by alcohol? How many people have died of overdose or liver failure? Alcohol is terrible if you are looking solely at how people are harmed by it. Sure, it's not nearly as bad as meth or heroin, but all drugs are not equal and is incredibly ignorant to lump them all together.
Marijuana is demonstratably a far safer intoxicant than alcohol based on health risks, risk of injury or death, etc. It's not entirely safe or healthy in any way, but that's not the argument.
Based on how this disastrous drug war always seems to continue despite the obvious failings, it's clear that there are a lot of people like yourself, with anachronistic attitudes about drugs and addiction. It's unfortunate, because while you think you know what is right, it's caused an incredibly amount of strife in society.
If you don't see a difference between drug use and drug abuse, you have a significant bias.
Abuse is using something to bad effect, or for a bad purpose, or misusing it (using the wrong way or for the wrong purpose).
Using cannabinoids to treat something like chronic seizures would, I think, be putting it to good use.
'Getting high' on pot is substance abuse.
So, I do see a difference. If you don't see a difference between treating a medical condition and getting high (viewing them as equally acceptable), then it may be you who, based on your comment, has the bias. I don't say that to be personally demeaning; rather, I think you're spot on in that in discussing a subject like this that it's important to be aware of bias. And who knows - perhaps I do have bias I haven't fully identified and come to terms with. I certainly try to be objective when considering such matters.
As for the 'bad purpose', 'wrong way', and 'wrong purpose' I think it doesn't take much googling to locate enough of what research has turned up on the negative effects of smoking pot to make a good case for identifying recreational use as abuse. I can say what impression and opinion I have based on what I've observed over the years, though I'm hardly the right person to lay out the details of said case well enough to convince all who may read my internet-forum-post-quality comments that I'm just So So Right TM. But I do think that sometimes people allow a 'just let people have fun as long as they don't hurt anyone else' attitude hinder their objectivity in considering the subject of drugs.
If you don't see a difference between drug use and drug abuse, you have a significant bias.
Abuse is using something to bad effect, or for a bad purpose, or misusing it (using the wrong way or for the wrong purpose).
Using cannabinoids to treat something like chronic seizures would, I think, be putting it to good use.
'Getting high' on pot is substance abuse.
So, I do see a difference. If you don't see a difference between treating a medical condition and getting high (viewing them as equally acceptable), then it may be you who, based on your comment, has the bias. I don't say that to be personally demeaning; rather, I think you're spot on in that in discussing a subject like this that it's important to be aware of bias. And who knows - perhaps I do have bias I haven't fully identified and come to terms with. I certainly try to be objective when considering such matters.
As for the 'bad purpose', 'wrong way', and 'wrong purpose' I think it doesn't take much googling to locate enough of what research has turned up on the negative effects of smoking pot to make a good case for identifying recreational use as abuse. I can say what impression and opinion I have based on what I've observed over the years, though I'm hardly the right person to lay out the details of said case well enough to convince all who may read my internet-forum-post-quality comments that I'm just So So Right TM. But I do think that sometimes people allow a 'just let people have fun as long as they don't hurt anyone else' attitude hinder their objectivity in considering the subject of drugs.
Your definition just doesn't leave any room for recreational use as it would be abuse. Your view seems to translate to all alcohol use as being abuse because it isn't medicinal in nature. It's your valid opinion, but we just disagree. No harm there. I have certainly seen both being abused and both being used.
Abuse is using something to bad effect, or for a bad purpose, or misusing it (using the wrong way or for the wrong purpose).
Using cannabinoids to treat something like chronic seizures would, I think, be putting it to good use.
'Getting high' on pot is substance abuse.
So, I do see a difference. If you don't see a difference between treating a medical condition and getting high (viewing them as equally acceptable), then it may be you who, based on your comment, has the bias. I don't say that to be personally demeaning; rather, I think you're spot on in that in discussing a subject like this that it's important to be aware of bias. And who knows - perhaps I do have bias I haven't fully identified and come to terms with. I certainly try to be objective when considering such matters.
As for the 'bad purpose', 'wrong way', and 'wrong purpose' I think it doesn't take much googling to locate enough of what research has turned up on the negative effects of smoking pot to make a good case for identifying recreational use as abuse. I can say what impression and opinion I have based on what I've observed over the years, though I'm hardly the right person to lay out the details of said case well enough to convince all who may read my internet-forum-post-quality comments that I'm just So So Right TM. But I do think that sometimes people allow a 'just let people have fun as long as they don't hurt anyone else' attitude hinder their objectivity in considering the subject of drugs.
"As for the 'bad purpose', 'wrong way', and 'wrong purpose' I think it doesn't take much googling to locate enough of what research has turned up on the negative effects of smoking pot to make a good case for identifying recreational use as abuse. "
Considering alcohol has many, many negative side effects (addictive, kills brain cells, causes dehydration, hard on your liver, poisonous is large amounts, leads people to injure or kill themselves accidentally) do you then consider drinkers to be "abusing" alcohol? Or is it just marijuana that fits your biased perspective?
No one is equating using marijuana for medical use and using it to get high as equivalent. But I am arguing that using marijuana recreationally to relax, is no more or less an "abuse" as the millions of people who use alcohol for the very same purpose at the end of the day.
The fact that you attribute any recreational use of marijuana as "the wrong way/bad purpose" shows your bias..
But we can agree to disagree
Comments
That is an incredibly tenuous argument... Smoking pot only affects the user. Individual rights end when they impact others individual rights, which is why murder is illegal.
Tell that to the families who see the lives of their loved ones destroyed by addiction.
First of all, as someone who has personally experienced addiction and chemical dependency first-hand, I am well aware of the impacts that it has on families, friends, and colleagues of the affected individual.
Secondly, we are talking about Marijuana, not opiates, coke or meth. While there are people who take it too far and smoke weed every day, "marijuana addiction" is not the same as addiction to harder drugs. I'm sure it effects the individuals life and those around them, but it's not in the same league. How many people have robbed a liquor store or stabbed someone on the street to get money to buy a bag of weed? Zero.
Lastly, if society was going to judge whether a particular chemical/plant should be legal based on it's addiction potential, then alcohol should certainly be outlawed. Do you support that myopic idea as well?
While I don't use it myself, I'd much rather see people enjoy the occasional joint then get hammered on liquor at the local bar. Stoned people don't physically assault people, fall out of windows, burn down houses with lit cigarettes, beat their wives and children, choke on their own vomit, die of substance poisoning, get in cars and drive the wrong way on the freeway, etc. It is altogether a much more pleasant intoxicant for the people that have to be around those who do it.
How many people have robbed a liquor store or stabbed someone on the street to get money to buy a bag of weed? Zero.
Lastly, if society was going to judge whether a particular chemical/plant should be legal based on it's addiction potential, then alcohol should certainly be outlawed. Do you support that myopic idea as well?
Marijuana as currently produced in a lot of cases does involve criminal networks that are often also involved in significant criminal activity and harder drugs. The networks themselves engage in pretty hardcore criminal activity, including murder, bribery, etc.
Weed grown in commercial, non-criminal conditions is fine.
I agree with you that weed should be treated the same as alcohol. Probably other drugs should be treated the same way, too, though there are always likely to be drugs that are so damaging that we wouldn't be willing to license commercial production -- but that people would still want, so the criminal networks are likely to survive anyway.
Personally I think we'd better off without any of them, but I know I'm fighting a losing battle there -- and prohibition is unworkable.
Probably too obvious to point out, but the criminal networks you speak of were created by drug prohibition.
I am very conflicted on legalization of all drugs. As someone who has seen and experienced prescription addiction first hand, I wish that my children lived in a world where the temptations of heroin, OxyContin, meth, adderal, coke, etc didn't exist. However, that is not reality. Whether all substances are legalized and commercially produced or not, people who find themselves in the throes of addiction need psychological treatment... Turning them into criminals and putting them in jail for the victimless crime of drug possession only exacerbates their problems and doesn't help them clean up --- hence all the alternative drug courts and forced inpatient treatment. That is a good trend we are starting to see as the failed "drug war" is finally starting to crack.
Similarly, while the commercial sale of such dangerous substances seems fraught with problems for society, I'm not convinced it would be any worse than the dangerous criminal gangs that manufacture and distribute the substances today. Certainly prohibition itself is responsible for an untold amount of violence, murder, and criminal activity. Likewise, the high street value causes addicts to become thieves and commit fraud, forgery, robbery, burglary, etc to pay for the habit when the same drug would be many orders of Magnitude cheaper if sale was brought out of the shadows ...
Problem is, you can't put drugs on a pedestal. You're deluded if you think that all drugs-related crime will vanish if you legalise drugs. It won't. They are one part of the criminal ecosystem. What you will do if you legalise drugs is increase the rate of addiction. Alcohol has its dangers too, which is why there are controls and restrictions. However, it is not as addictive as illegal drugs, and is much less dangerous when consumed in moderation. There is no such thing as moderation with weed, never mind heroin.
Your post is full of misinformation, so please don't insult me.
First of all, If you comprehended the point of my post, you would see that I am not "putting drugs on a pedestal", I just recognize that the current strategy for dealing with them is a failure.
Secondly, no, of course I do not think "all" drug related crime would go away with legalization... However, it doesn't require a high IQ to recognize that removing the hundreds of billions of dollars in black market profits that are being funneled to criminals (while also vastly reducing the price of the substances themselves) will reduce criminal activity and crime to some degree. This has already been shown with alcohol prohibition. Prohibition literally created organized crime in this country, and after the repeal, crime rates surrounding alcohol plummeted. That's a fact.
Next, your suggestion that legalization creates more addiction is just plain false. I don't have the time to go find links to the studies I have in mind, but google is your friend. Other countries have had moderate success with decriminalizing and even legalizing certain drugs, and rates of use and addiction actually dropped by a marginal amount.
Finally, your "stated fact" that alcohol is less addictive and "much less dangerous" than all
Illegal drugs is laughable. How many people have died due solely to alcohol? How many people are killed by DUI drivers each year? How many individuals suffer domestic violence brought on by alcohol? How many people have died of overdose or liver failure? Alcohol is terrible if you are looking solely at how people are harmed by it. Sure, it's not nearly as bad as meth or heroin, but all drugs are not equal and is incredibly ignorant to lump them all together.
Marijuana is demonstratably a far safer intoxicant than alcohol based on health risks, risk of injury or death, etc. It's not entirely safe or healthy in any way, but that's not the argument.
Based on how this disastrous drug war always seems to continue despite the obvious failings, it's clear that there are a lot of people like yourself, with anachronistic attitudes about drugs and addiction. It's unfortunate, because while you think you know what is right, it's caused an incredibly amount of strife in society.
If you don't see a difference between drug use and drug abuse, you have a significant bias.
Abuse is using something to bad effect, or for a bad purpose, or misusing it (using the wrong way or for the wrong purpose).
Using cannabinoids to treat something like chronic seizures would, I think, be putting it to good use.
'Getting high' on pot is substance abuse.
So, I do see a difference. If you don't see a difference between treating a medical condition and getting high (viewing them as equally acceptable), then it may be you who, based on your comment, has the bias. I don't say that to be personally demeaning; rather, I think you're spot on in that in discussing a subject like this that it's important to be aware of bias. And who knows - perhaps I do have bias I haven't fully identified and come to terms with. I certainly try to be objective when considering such matters.
As for the 'bad purpose', 'wrong way', and 'wrong purpose' I think it doesn't take much googling to locate enough of what research has turned up on the negative effects of smoking pot to make a good case for identifying recreational use as abuse. I can say what impression and opinion I have based on what I've observed over the years, though I'm hardly the right person to lay out the details of said case well enough to convince all who may read my internet-forum-post-quality comments that I'm just So So Right TM. But I do think that sometimes people allow a 'just let people have fun as long as they don't hurt anyone else' attitude hinder their objectivity in considering the subject of drugs.
Your definition just doesn't leave any room for recreational use as it would be abuse. Your view seems to translate to all alcohol use as being abuse because it isn't medicinal in nature. It's your valid opinion, but we just disagree. No harm there. I have certainly seen both being abused and both being used.
"As for the 'bad purpose', 'wrong way', and 'wrong purpose' I think it doesn't take much googling to locate enough of what research has turned up on the negative effects of smoking pot to make a good case for identifying recreational use as abuse. "
Considering alcohol has many, many negative side effects (addictive, kills brain cells, causes dehydration, hard on your liver, poisonous is large amounts, leads people to injure or kill themselves accidentally) do you then consider drinkers to be "abusing" alcohol? Or is it just marijuana that fits your biased perspective?
No one is equating using marijuana for medical use and using it to get high as equivalent. But I am arguing that using marijuana recreationally to relax, is no more or less an "abuse" as the millions of people who use alcohol for the very same purpose at the end of the day.
The fact that you attribute any recreational use of marijuana as "the wrong way/bad purpose" shows your bias..
But we can agree to disagree