Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    5:40 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Legalize Marijuana? Back to Topics
ldheinz

Champion Author
Chicago

Posts:21,757
Points:2,683,820
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2010 5:17:33 AM

This topic is for a discussion on whether or not Marijuana should be legalized.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,747
Points:2,534,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 2:04:00 PM

AFSNCO - "Guns by themselves are not dangerous but put them in the hands of a dangerous person and it becomes a tool. So why not treat this the same way?"

So are you saying that the ban on pot could be used as a precedent for banning guns? 7;-]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,142
Points:454,620
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 8:55:21 AM

"Liberals have suggested it with guns."

Only extreme Liberals want all guns banned... They are a vast minority.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,159
Points:53,650
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 8:35:46 AM

"with the Commerce clause being the most obvious justification."

Except the commerce clause applies to interstate (between states) commerce, not intrastate (within a state) commerce. If the pot is grown, sold and used in the same state, the commerce clause should not be used for justification, although the weasels in D.C. have found ways to regulate intrastate commerce before, mostly by blackmail using the threat of withholding federal funds for this or that.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:17,637
Points:1,582,715
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 8:16:51 PM

"So now we should ban things because they might, someday, become hazardous?"

Liberals have suggested it with guns. Guns by themselves are not dangerous but put them in the hands of a dangerous person and it becomes a tool. So why not treat this the same way?
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,600
Points:2,251,825
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 8:14:54 PM

gas_too_high - "One could even argue that non-enforcement of federal marijuana laws in unconstitutional,"

rjhenn: "Only if those laws are constitutional in the first place..."

Despite my reservations, that SCOUTS would overturn federal pot laws is something of an *if*, with the Commerce clause being the most obvious justification. Not to mention, that SCOTUS recently did a backflip to avoid overturning Obamacare, a more egregious unconstitutional law.

GTH
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:3,543
Points:475,250
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 2:50:57 PM

FU - "This is why cannabis should remain illegal."

rjhenn "So now we should ban things because they might, someday, become hazardous?"

I can say with conviction (because I've been involved with the research) that there is ALWAYS research going on to make ALL sorts of drugs more potent.

Eg. opium -> heroin -> morphine -> oxymorphone -> hydromorphone -> fentanyl -> sufentanyl -> etc., etc., etc. Each one of those drugs is more "hazardous" than the next to the point where just a tiny amount of the more recent ones can be immediately fatal.

Funny thing is though that all of those with the exception of the original natural substance is legal. And yet each one of them can kill you depending on how much you take. Yet marijuana is illegal, and so far there is no known dose of it that can kill a person.

IOW, your contention that marijuana should remain illegal because it's hazardous is specious.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,747
Points:2,534,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 1:09:46 PM

fueluser10 - "This is why cannabis should remain illegal."

So now we should ban things because they might, someday, become hazardous?
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,159
Points:53,650
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 11:40:57 AM

"Brainstorm: Who can say that there isn't a chemist somewhere who is already dabbling around in ways to make weed more potent then it is now?"

You call that a brainstorm? (I guess they come in all sizes) It has been done and is still being done, but since it's all done under the table, users have no way of knowing the potency of what they're getting. Having it legal allows for testing and regulation of the potency, so people know what they're getting.
Profile Pic
fueluser10
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:2,774
Points:65,725
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 2:59:20 AM

Brainstorm: Who can say that there isn't a chemist somewhere who is already dabbling around in ways to make weed more potent then it is now? I know one can go into some stores and there are "buffets" of weed available.
The talk about not having any overdosing on cannabis after playing with it's very genetics or adding chemicals to it like tobacco has being done to it now? I find it not much of a stretch to think it not impossible for man seems to be fairly good at manipulating some things for profit.
Legalizing or not, there is not right answer then. One will do as one does for that point has been made over and over again. For illegal chemicals do what to the human body? It manipulates the senses, the ability to reason and comprehend, not to mention make some paranoid.
And before anyone states the obvious retort, yes legal drugs can have the same effects (Maybe minus the paranoid feeling.) But getting a ride from a friend or family member or calling a cab is an obvious answer to that question.
Now put that person behind the wheel of a vehicle in say 5 o'clock traffic. Or is a road at say 80% sober capacity minus the 20% who might be high behind the wheel doing a favor for whom?
This is why cannabis should remain illegal.

[Edited by: fueluser10 at 4/16/2014 3:00:16 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,747
Points:2,534,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 5:53:53 PM

gas_too_high - "One could even argue that non-enforcement of federal marijuana laws in unconstitutional,"

Only if those laws are constitutional in the first place and the particular circumstances place the act under federal jurisdiction.

"in the same way that the Obama administration's non-enforcement of certain Obamacare mandates is unconstitutional -- a failure to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed (Article 2, Section 3)."

Of course, there's a court-recognized distinction between "non-enforcement" and a temporary delay in implementation.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:21,757
Points:2,683,820
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 4:49:39 PM

BuzzLOL - "Our society is being dragged down by too many addictions as it is... we don't need any more illegal drugs more readily available... "

You do realize that pot is available now, right? And that history says that making drugs illegal typically causes them to increase in usage? Well, the solution is simple. Just legalize pot and we will have fewer illegal drugs available...
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,600
Points:2,251,825
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 4:22:52 PM

Actually the trend on SCOTUS is to defer to the federal government in most cases. Witness Chief Justice Roberts construing the Obamacare penalties as "taxes" to avoid ruling Obamacare unconstitutional.

Somehow, I don't see SCOTUS striking down federal marijuana laws.

GTH
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,159
Points:53,650
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 4:14:26 PM

"A future administration could easily resume enforcement."

They can try, but that would likely end up at the SCOTUS to decide if the feds have the authority to enforce the federal law within a state when it conflicts with state law. After the contortions the Court went through with Obamacare, who knows how they might rule.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,600
Points:2,251,825
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 3:52:05 PM

GTH: "I'm not necessarily against medical use of marijuana. But there are a few caveats: First of all, federal laws have to be changed to allow it."

Hotrod10: "If the feds would follow the Constitution, there wouldn't be a federal law to begin with; it's not within the Constitutional powers of the federal government to regulate or ban substances within the states."

I'll give you kudos for mentioning something that the pot advocates have overlooked: that the federal marijuana laws have questionable Constitutionality. In fact, federal laws against pot were originally tax laws: you couldn't buy marijuana legally without a tax stamp that in practice was impossible to get. Taxation is of course squarely Constitutional.

Of course, the pot advocates here are too busy maintaining that "cannabis is harmless and non-toxic" to reach for the Constitutional argument.

"That's why the state laws allowing marijuana for medicinal, and even recreational, use have not been challenged by the feds - they don't have jurisdiction."

Actually, the Obama administration is pot-friendly, following many Obama supporters, so they have simply chosen not to enforce the laws in those states. (In addition, the Obama administration is not known for its fidelity to the Constitution). A future administration could easily resume enforcement.

One could even argue that non-enforcement of federal marijuana laws in unconstitutional, in the same way that the Obama administration's non-enforcement of certain Obamacare mandates is unconstitutional -- a failure to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed (Article 2, Section 3).

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 4/15/2014 3:54:05 PM EST]
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,159
Points:53,650
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 3:28:54 PM

You're cracking me up all over the place today, Buzz. That was funnier the other one.

Seriously, I agree with you Buzz, we don't need any more illegal drugs, there are too many drugs illegal as it is.
Profile Pic
BuzzLOL
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:2,356
Points:41,925
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 1:56:36 PM

. Our society is being dragged down by too many addictions as it is... we don't need any more illegal drugs more readily available...
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,159
Points:53,650
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 1:53:33 PM

"How else might society police after itself?"

Like we did for a couple hundred years before pot was made illegal. Like other societies have done for thousands of years and still do. Let people choose if they want to smoke it and bear the consequences of their actions.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,747
Points:2,534,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 1:20:32 PM

fueluser10 - "Yes it should remain illegal. How else might society police after itself? Good god, its not that hard to understand."

Since there's little or no evidence that society needs to "police after itself" in regards to cannabis, or that attempts to do so do less harm than good, yes, it is hard to understand.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 4/15/2014 1:21:04 PM EST]
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,159
Points:53,650
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 9:28:17 AM

"I'm not necessarily against medical use of marijuana. But there are a few caveats:

First of all, federal laws have to be changed to allow it."

If the feds would follow the Constitution, there wouldn't be a federal law to begin with; it's not within the Constitutional powers of the federal government to regulate or ban substances within the states. That's why the state laws allowing marijuana for medicinal, and even recreational, use have not been challenged by the feds - they don't have jurisdiction. As long as it's grown in the state where it's sold, the interstate commerce clause, which has been the excuse they've used to interfere with state sovereignty in most cases, doesn't apply (Also the reason many gun manufacturers are moving to Texas, where they have a large in-state market out of reach of the feds).
Profile Pic
fueluser10
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:2,774
Points:65,725
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 9:01:58 AM

Yes it should remain illegal. How else might society police after itself? Good god, its not that hard to understand.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,600
Points:2,251,825
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 14, 2014 9:59:57 PM

gas_too_high - "And no one has yet addressed the way that a legal. non-intoxicating substance, seems to be stigmatized by some, more than an illegal, intoxicating substance."

ldheinz: "You mean that you compare a legal toxic substance to an illegal non-toxic substance?"

I could see some confusion by the similarities between the word "toxic" (referring to physical harm) and "intoxicating" (referring to mental impairment and impairment of one's ability to live a productive life).

But then you go and refer to an "illegal non-toxic substance." I referred to no such substance. Both marijuana and tobacco are toxic, although tobacco is arguably more so.

But tobacco does not impair a person mentally, just physically. And that physical impairment takes a long time.

"Doesn't that just show how wrong the law is?"

No, because I reject your flawed presumption that marijuana is completely "non-toxic".

"That stopping happiness is more important than saving lives?"

A double fallacy. Getting stoned is not being "happy", any more than being high on any other drug -- or being drunk.

And if someone is endangering his or her own life without harming others, why should government interfere? Government properly protects us from each other. But protecting us from ourselves is government overreach.

I'm surprised as one who wants to reduce the reach of government, you would even imply such a thing.

"I've mentioned a woman I know who became a productive member of society because of her marijuana use. She's both a heroin addict and an alcoholic, and being high on pot enables her to resist both of them and hold a job and live a productive life. Her main worry is about being arrested for using her cure."

I'm not necessarily against medical use of marijuana. But there are a few caveats:

First of all, federal laws have to be changed to allow it.

Second, state (and federal) laws that allow medial marijuana must provide for sufficient regulation to ensure that such "medical marijuana" is not simply a loophole for recreational use. (For example, regulations should ensure there is some assurance that "medical marijuana" is actually effective).

Sad to say, probably all the "medical marijuana" states fail the second test. And we all know that medical marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, and pot activists are making no serious effort to change that.

GTH
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:3,543
Points:475,250
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Apr 14, 2014 6:39:47 PM

ldheinz "since you don't support anything you say it would be rather hypocritical of you to complain about it."

Has that ever stopped him before?

gas_too_high - "Given that marijuana (your opinion notwithstanding) is an intoxicant that can waste lives and render its users less able to be productive members of society.."

I seem to remember a number of congressmen, senators and even a president or two saying that they'd used marijuana. I wonder if they could be guaranteed completely anonymous and safe from prosecution how many of today's executives would admit to using it.

gas_too_high - "Point being, one's opinion about pot being illegal, does not change the law."

rjhenn "Point being, we're not talking about whether or not pot IS illegal, but whether or not it SHOULD be."

That sounds like there's now another person who might still misunderstand the obvious topic in the OP.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,747
Points:2,534,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 14, 2014 4:51:32 PM

gas_too_high - "Point being, one's opinion about pot being illegal, does not change the law."

Point being, we're not talking about whether or not pot IS illegal, but whether or not it SHOULD be.

"Methinks you misunderstood my position previously. Given our conversations elsewhere, you might still misunderstand my position."

So you didn't post: "A heavy cigarette smoker can still lead a productive life. Not so a pot smoker."?

That would seem to be a pretty clear declaration that a pot smoker cannot lead a productive life.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:21,757
Points:2,683,820
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 14, 2014 3:25:18 PM

gas_too_high - "Given that marijuana (your opinion notwithstanding) is an intoxicant that can waste lives and render its users less able to be productive members of society, there is reason to make it illegal. "

I've mentioned a woman I know who became a productive member of society because of her marijuana use. She's both a heroin addict and an alcoholic, and being high on pot enables her to resist both of them and hold a job and live a productive life. Her main worry is about being arrested for using her cure.

Additionally, it has been statistically shown that marijuana users show up for work more regularly and get promoted more often than non-marijuana users. I'm looking for the link, and I'll provide it when I find it, but since you don't support anything you say it would be rather hypocritical of you to complain about it.

gas_too_high - "The issue (which you completely avoid addressing) is whether making pot illegal is worth the cost of enforcement and incarceration. That is an open question. Too bad you are utterly unable to engage it."

And I avoided addressing it by starting a topic to address it? How's that work again?
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,159
Points:53,650
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Apr 14, 2014 10:51:58 AM

"Given that marijuana (your opinion notwithstanding) is an intoxicant that can waste lives and render its users less able to be productive members of society, there is reason to make it illegal. The issue (which you completely avoid addressing) is whether making pot illegal is worth the cost of enforcement and incarceration. That is an open question. Too bad you are utterly unable to engage it."

The monetary costs of enforcing Marijuana laws are well documented, and they are huge. Trying to weigh that against the cost in productivity of the people who would use pot, or use it more, if it was legal, is futile because any numbers you put to it would be purely speculative. Suffices to say that the number of hard-core users would have to go up substantially to balance the enforcement costs.

The real question is what is morally right. Should the law protect people from making poor choices for themselves? If you say yes, then we are going to need a lot more laws and a lot of new prisons. Also, if you think religious people are pushy, wait until you're living under the "morality" of a government that can enforce that "morality" with all the weaponry at it's disposal. I've seen enough of that already; I don't wish to see more.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:21,757
Points:2,683,820
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 14, 2014 5:11:08 AM

gas_too_high - "As long as you hold to that erroneous opinion, you won't see a reason for pot to be illegal. But if you carry a lit joint into, say, your local FBI office, I don't think your arguments will prevent you from being arrested."

So you start by stating a completely baseless conclusion, and from that you produce that exact same conclusion, just stated differently,. Classic circular reasoning. And you follow it up with an appeal to fear. How pathetic. Let me demonstrate just how pathetic:

As long as you hold to that erroneous opinion, you won't see a reason for pot to be legal.

Did I just prove you wrong? Or did I just make a meaningless statement of faith?

gas_too_high - "Point being, one's opinion about pot being illegal, does not change the law."

But it's a irrelevant point, as the topic is "Legalize Marijuana?", about whether or not the law should be changed, and you have not presented any reason that the law should stay the same, just that we should be afraid of immoral authorities, even though we don't smoke pot. So we should be afraid to express an opinion? Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

gas_too_high - "And no one has yet addressed the way that a legal. non-intoxicating substance, seems to be stigmatized by some, more than an illegal, intoxicating substance."

You mean that you compare a legal toxic substance to an illegal non-toxic substance? Doesn't that just show how wrong the law is? That stopping happiness is more important than saving lives?
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,600
Points:2,251,825
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 12, 2014 9:39:17 PM

gas_too_high - "As long as you hold to that erroneous opinion, you won't see a reason for pot to be illegal. But if you carry a lit joint into, say, your local FBI office, I don't think your arguments will prevent you from being arrested."

rjhenn: "Completely specious, since pot is illegal, whether or not it should be."

Point being, one's opinion about pot being illegal, does not change the law.

GTH: "Given that marijuana (your opinion notwithstanding) is an intoxicant that can waste lives and render its users less able to be productive members of society, there is reason to make it illegal."

rjhenn: "So now you're backing off from your previous position that pot smokers could not lead productive lives?"

Methinks you misunderstood my position previously. Given our conversations elsewhere, you might still misunderstand my position.

And no one has yet addressed the way that a legal. non-intoxicating substance, seems to be stigmatized by some, more than an illegal, intoxicating substance.

GTH
Profile Pic
fueluser10
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:2,774
Points:65,725
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Apr 12, 2014 6:48:38 PM

EGN: Excuse me if I have this wrong. But isn't "enforcement" part of the job description that goes along with maybe being a police officer? I believe that they are defending the law in matter of speaking are they not?
But from a slightly off topic observation (But go ahead an berate it as some might.. but it's the same difference.) Those whom serve in the US Military and defend the US Constitution against foreign and domestic situations. (I'm paraphrasing here.)
Now ask some whom might hear some words outside of their uniforms as they wear them if their time is being wasted?
Taxation again? The tax coffers are flush with funds as long as they aren't wasted. Or are some OK with the notion that more taxes are being spent then are being taken in? That's an acceptable concept to go forth with?
GTH: Quite the learning experience this conversation has become huh?

[Edited by: fueluser10 at 4/12/2014 6:49:36 PM EST]
Profile Pic
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:2,791
Points:496,230
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Apr 12, 2014 7:09:36 AM

<<The issue (which you completely avoid addressing) is whether making pot illegal is worth the cost of enforcement and incarceration. That is an open question. Too bad you are utterly unable to engage it.>> gas_tpp_high

Has this not been discussed several times in the last year-and-a-half with figures presented as to how much the enforecement and the courts and the prisons cost per year? I am sure I have seen that here before.

It was also balanced against the potential revenue from sales taxes and income taxes on the buyers and the sellers that are not being collected now.

But one person kept rejecting the argument because it would not solve the whole deficit by its self so he would change the subject to avoid.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,747
Points:2,534,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 12, 2014 2:12:40 AM

gas_too_high - "As long as you hold to that erroneous opinion, you won't see a reason for pot to be illegal. But if you carry a lit joint into, say, your local FBI office, I don't think your arguments will prevent you from being arrested."

Completely specious, since pot is illegal, whether or not it should be.

"Given that marijuana (your opinion notwithstanding) is an intoxicant that can waste lives and render its users less able to be productive members of society, there is reason to make it illegal."

So now you're backing off from your previous position that pot smokers could not lead productive lives?

And if that's your argument, then you should be arguing for making both alcohol and tobacco illegal. Both of them actually kill people, which kind of makes their users less able to be productive members of society.

"The issue (which you completely avoid addressing) is whether making pot illegal is worth the cost of enforcement and incarceration. That is an open question."

So far, there's doesn't seem to be any evidence that making pot illegal is doing any good at all.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,600
Points:2,251,825
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2014 10:04:12 PM

ldheinz: "And cannabis does not interfere with productivity or create problems for everyone, so there is no reason for it to be illegal."

As long as you hold to that erroneous opinion, you won't see a reason for pot to be illegal. But if you carry a lit joint into, say, your local FBI office, I don't think your arguments will prevent you from being arrested.

Given that marijuana (your opinion notwithstanding) is an intoxicant that can waste lives and render its users less able to be productive members of society, there is reason to make it illegal. The issue (which you completely avoid addressing) is whether making pot illegal is worth the cost of enforcement and incarceration. That is an open question. Too bad you are utterly unable to engage it.

In the meantime, tobacco users are in some ways, treated with more disdain that pot users. that was what I raised, and which you completely avoided even discussing.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 4/11/2014 10:04:51 PM EST]
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:3,543
Points:475,250
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2014 7:16:59 AM

FU "No.. what I'm saying is that maybe some are ignoring some laws maybe for self convenience."

No, what you're doing is as your usual, totally ignoring what's said when it shows you to be wrong and going on to something different to hide your folly.

You said that "abuse is going to happen". Abuse could not happen if the laws were working, because people wouldn't be able to get marijuana if the laws worked. Therefore, the laws are pointless.

FU " Where does it say in the "Civil Rights" (A paragraph a code anything that specifically mentions it. I read the rights and didn't see it mentioned anywhere.) that an individual is granted the right to casually indulge in cannabis? Is it maybe mentioned in the US Constitution about the freedom to indulge in cannabis in the same context?"

Now you're demonstrating a profound ignorance of how the laws work.

Nowhere does it say in the law that people are granted the right to casually indulge in caffeine (the drug found in coffee). And yet most Americans drink coffee on a regular basis. The way that a law works is that something is permitted unless specifically prohibited, not the other way around as you're implying.

Go look through the Constitution or the Civil Rights and find me anywhere in either of those that say that cannabis is prohibited. They don't.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,747
Points:2,534,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2014 3:48:37 AM

fueluser10 - "I also asked this before. Where does it say in the "Civil Rights" (A paragraph a code anything that specifically mentions it. I read the rights and didn't see it mentioned anywhere.) that an individual is granted the right to casually indulge in cannabis?
Is it maybe mentioned in the US Constitution about the freedom to indulge in cannabis in the same context?"

And, again, you're completely off-topic. There's no question that pot is illegal. The question is, should it stay illegal.

Or even, should it have been made illegal in the first place.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,747
Points:2,534,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2014 3:46:10 AM

gas_too_high - "I did not say that a pot smoker could *never* hold a job."

No, what you said was that a pot smoker could never ("not so") lead a productive life.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:21,757
Points:2,683,820
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 11, 2014 2:40:58 AM

gas_too_high - "A heavy cigarette smoker can still lead a productive life. Not so a pot smoker."

ldheinz - "That's completely ridiculous. Nearly all pot smokers lead productive lives. That's like saying that anyone who drinks an occasional beer could never hold a job"

gas_too_high - "Interesting that the Master of Logical Fallacies just committed the Strawman fallacy. I did not say that a pot smoker could *never* hold a job. "

Yes, you did not say that a pot smoker could never hold a job. That's why I didn't say that you did. What I said was that your statement was LIKE saying that anyone who drinks an occasional BEER could never hold a job. So what I said was correct and NOT a Straw Man, while your accusation against me WAS a Straw Man. Please try to be more careful about making distinctions and you should be able to avoid making errors like this in the future.

So lets get by your error there and get back to your earlier downright ridiculous statement about pot smokers not being able to lead a productive life. Virtually ALL pot smokers lead productive lives, as nothing about pot prevents that. My earlier statement was that your claim was absurd because pot is LESS of an impediment to productivity than beer. Most pot smokers do not use it to excess. Most use it for occasional moderate use. However I know of one person who smokes pot to very high levels, and that is what enables her to lead a productive life.

StArrow68 - "Productive people don't create problems for other folks. Impaired people are a problem for everyone. "

And cannabis does not interfere with productivity or create problems for everyone, so there is no reason for it to be illegal. The laws against cannabis, OTOH, DO cause productivity problems and other problems for everyone. Someone sitting in jail is not productive, and the cost of incarcerating them is a problem for everyone. So by your argument cannabis should be legalized.

Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,600
Points:2,251,825
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2014 9:31:25 PM

gas_too_high - "A heavy cigarette smoker can still lead a productive life. Not so a pot smoker."

ldheinz: "That's completely ridiculous. Nearly all pot smokers lead productive lives. That's like saying that anyone who drinks an occasional beer could never hold a job"

Interesting that the Master of Logical Fallacies just committed the Strawman fallacy. I did not say that a pot smoker could *never* hold a job. But pot smoking, much like excessive alcohol drinking, impairs a person's ability to lead a normal productive life, raising the likelihood of having problems in the workplace, or maintaining family or social relationships. (That is, "higher likelihood" is not "never." I see you are still not careful at making distinctions).

StArrow68: 'Productive people don't create problems for other folks. Impaired people are a problem for everyone. "

Bingo.

Which is to say, pot smokers -- not tobacco smokers -- frequently create problems for other people. Tobacco smokers create problems only for themselves, and then usually only after years of smoking.

GTH



[Edited by: gas_too_high at 4/10/2014 9:32:42 PM EST]
Profile Pic
StArrow68
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:4,953
Points:1,688,215
Joined:Apr 2003
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2014 7:51:17 PM

Productive people don't create problems for other folks. Impaired people are a problem for everyone.
Profile Pic
fueluser10
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:2,774
Points:65,725
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2014 4:31:42 PM

BT: No.. what I'm saying is that maybe some are ignoring some laws maybe for self convenience.
A side bar note: In regards to a law and fudging around with it. People in traffic with a cell phone dang near glued to their lips (3 out of 5 people do this silliness on a near daily basis) and are driving like the conversations they are having must be grand in nature because they are doing a great job in gnarling up traffic.
I'm surprised that some aren't claiming that their cell phone usage isn't safe and demanding that some states reappeal the laws via each state that has them on the books for not allowing them to utilize their cell phones as they see fit to.
I also asked this before. Where does it say in the "Civil Rights" (A paragraph a code anything that specifically mentions it. I read the rights and didn't see it mentioned anywhere.) that an individual is granted the right to casually indulge in cannabis?
Is it maybe mentioned in the US Constitution about the freedom to indulge in cannabis in the same context?

[Edited by: fueluser10 at 4/10/2014 4:35:14 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,579
Points:342,520
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2014 8:15:06 AM

gas_too_high - "A heavy cigarette smoker can still lead a productive life. Not so a pot smoker."

idh: "That's completely ridiculous. Nearly all pot smokers lead productive lives. That's like saying that anyone who drinks an occasional beer could never hold a job"

I concur with you, idh. GTH has no proof of that myth. Nothing but wild conjecture. Millions of people lead productive lives and are contributing members of society who work hard and pay taxes and enjoy cannabis just as they would having a beer in the evening.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:3,543
Points:475,250
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2014 7:03:15 AM

FU "Abuse is going to happen, no matter how some want to maybe verbally reinvent the definition."

So you are acknowledging that the law isn't working?
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:21,757
Points:2,683,820
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2014 1:10:57 AM

gas_too_high - "A heavy cigarette smoker can still lead a productive life. Not so a pot smoker."

That's completely ridiculous. Nearly all pot smokers lead productive lives. That's like saying that anyone who drinks an occasional beer could never hold a job.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,747
Points:2,534,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2014 11:36:31 PM

gas_too_high - "Of course, the health risks of tobacco are well known, and tobacco eventually kills many of its users. But one thing that tobacco does not do, is waste a life, A heavy cigarette smoker can still lead a productive life. Not so a pot smoker."

So someone dying from lung cancer or another respiratory problem is not a wasted life, but a productive life (despite your dogmatic opinion) lived by a "pot smoker" is wasted?
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,600
Points:2,251,825
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2014 10:08:31 PM

I posed this question in another topic but it's more relevant here.

While it isn't illegal -- yet -- tobacco smoking is being pushed out of more public places and carries an ever increasing stigma. In fact, tobacco smoking is stigmatized more than marijuana smoking. Why is that?

Of course, the health risks of tobacco are well known, and tobacco eventually kills many of its users. But one thing that tobacco does not do, is waste a life, A heavy cigarette smoker can still lead a productive life. Not so a pot smoker.

GTH
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,579
Points:342,520
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 9, 2014 4:53:03 PM

If it is a free nation then people should have the freedom to decide for themselves.

We should immediately legalize it, tax it, regulate the production and sales so that people know what they are getting.

There should be public education about it so that everyone knows the truth.

It is safer than many legal things!
Profile Pic
fueluser10
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:2,774
Points:65,725
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2014 8:29:56 PM

Abuse is going to happen, no matter how some want to maybe verbally reinvent the definition. Again if abuse of intoxicating substances wasn't happening on a recurrent basis. Then maybe the using of the word would be used in that exact context. (But evidently it is..)
I had no idea that some POVS in here would possibly become taboo in discussing them. IE like would maybe not the legalizing of cannabis in a way amount to some sort of amnesty?
A sober driver is the best driver being both cannabis and alcohol free.

[Edited by: fueluser10 at 4/8/2014 8:30:56 PM EST]
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,159
Points:53,650
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2014 3:32:21 PM

"Users of both tend to think they are extremely clever and smart while under the influence. Only the non-user observes how stupid BOTH speak and act."

There have been several studies (one is linked earlier in this thread) that show that under the influence of alcohol, people tend to underestimate their speed and level of impairment, while those under the influence of pot tend to overestimate both. Therefore, pot users generally far drive more cautiously than drunks.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,579
Points:342,520
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2014 3:31:03 PM

"we have examples where legalizing weed has not only not resulted in increased abuse of pot, but has reduced abuse of other, far more harmful, drugs. "

--Which will fall upon deaf ears. When one side is motivated by emotion there is no amount of logic which they will listen to.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,747
Points:2,534,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2014 3:09:24 PM

fueluser10 - "rjhenn: If someone were to hypothetically indulge in weed and alcohol in a close proximity of time and got into their car and drove it on the public roads.. could they not possibly be endangering others?"

Certainly. But, as has been posted previously, that'll be just as likely to happen if they only use alcohol, while, if they only use weed, they're less likely to endanger others.

"Legalizing weed will not diminish the abuse of it because is it not maybe humanities nature to abuse certain things?"

Except that we have examples where legalizing weed has not only not resulted in increased abuse of pot, but has reduced abuse of other, far more harmful, drugs.
Profile Pic
fueluser10
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:2,774
Points:65,725
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2014 1:42:05 PM

Common sense just like back in the day worked as simple as this notion suggests.. You either use the "tool" of the very meaning of the words or ignore the simple tool that it is.
And then come up with reasons/excuses IE the other notion of good ole reasoning in why someone didn't use common sense when they got into trouble.
BT: Revealing myself.. If you think that you are teaching some something different from the very common place and usual language that is used in this topic forum.. I'm sorry but you're wrong.
What seems to be going on is that the pro cannabis crown in here is in matter of speaking having a near 4 year conversation among-st themselves.
Did anyone happen to checkout the Discovery channels show "Pot Cops?" It's on the internet to and not just cable TV.


[Edited by: fueluser10 at 4/8/2014 1:44:27 PM EST]
Profile Pic
fueluser10
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:2,774
Points:65,725
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Apr 8, 2014 1:15:40 PM

How does one jump to a conclusions when people who have smoked weed outwardly act after they are high from the stuff? Like a 17 year old teenager getting upset because you won't take a drag off the joint between his fingers wanting you to take it from his fingers after you've told him twice that you don't want the mess? And that's a "reason" to get irked because another doesn't want to share in his weed?
Or another teenager hoping not to be seen by the police as he runs into a gas station to grab a Gatorade as stealthily as possible while his car is wreaking from cannabis smoke after the cloud that was billowing (his car looked like it might have been on fire from the inside) from his car was luckily disbursed by the winds that happened to get rid of this curiously low flying cloud at 1230 in the morning.
Can sometimes people not be defined by their actions?
rjhenn: If someone were to hypothetically indulge in weed and alcohol in a close proximity of time and got into their car and drove it on the public roads.. could they not possibly be endangering others?
Legalizing weed will not diminish the abuse of it because is it not maybe humanities nature to abuse certain things?
Heck, some people abuse basic traffic laws.
I guess in some cases is it not just easier for some to ignore a simple law then to acknowledge it?
Post a reply Back to Topics