Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    6:48 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:21,803
Points:2,692,495
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:25,844
Points:2,543,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 24, 2014 2:58:43 PM

fueluser10 - "HotRod: Your answer is priceless. And you characterize him as a 'blowhard?'"

Did he actually say anything that amounted to more than "I don't like pot"? Did he provide any reasons, based on actual facts, why he doesn't like pot?

"The law making cannabis illegal is a difference maker plain and simple."

Yes, it ruins peoples' lives, gets quite a few killed and makes a lot of really nasty people filthy rich.

How is any of that a good thing?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,671
Points:345,220
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 24, 2014 2:53:21 PM

Part of the reason drugs are illegal is that it gives law enforcement and the government a false sense of accomplishment, thinking they are solving a problem.

Actually, drug laws are creating a bigger problem than feel-good well-meaning officials think they are solving.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:3,591
Points:483,925
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Apr 24, 2014 1:45:10 PM

Aspirin is a drug too. Should it therefore be illegal?

For that matter, caffeine is legally considered a drug. Do you think coffee should be made a Schedule 1 then?
Profile Pic
2ovrpar
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:3,930
Points:1,018,105
Joined:Dec 2006
Message Posted: Apr 24, 2014 1:32:20 PM

Babe, they are both drugs as well. Another commonality.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:3,591
Points:483,925
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Apr 24, 2014 1:20:36 PM

The narcotics laws are all written in vague terms BuzzLOL. It gives DEA and other law enforcement more latitude to go after illegal drug dealing. If the laws were specific, then people could measure amounts to be just a fraction of a gram below the threshold and get away, but if the law is vague, they don't know if the law will come down on them or not.

Profile Pic
BuzzLOL
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:2,412
Points:42,185
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Apr 24, 2014 12:59:51 PM

. The Colorado law will prolly be struck down because it says OK to use "limited amounts of marijuana"... not specific enough to be a law...
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,671
Points:345,220
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 24, 2014 12:59:39 PM

I agree with LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) that heroine should be legal. All drugs should be legal.

Why?

Because even if they are dangerous making them legal allows government control and regulation of the market and takes profits away from gangs and drug lords. It also generates tax revenue which can be properly used to fund rehab centers.

The result is a healthier community which treats drug addiction as the illness that it is, instead of fooling itself into thinking that punishment is a deterrent (which it clearly is not).

It also frees up law enforcement, courts and prisons to be concentrating more on violent crime and crimes which involve victims; and saves all the money wasted trying to use failed punishment as a treatment for what is known to be an illness.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:3,591
Points:483,925
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Apr 24, 2014 12:02:53 PM

Driving 100 mpg and practicing medicine without a license are both illegal in NJ too, but that doesn't mean there's a commonality between them.

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it SHOULD be illegal. Or that it should always stay illegal.

There was a time that drinking alcohol was illegal in NJ. Is it still illegal to drink alcohol? It used to be illegal a long time ago to drive faster than 50 mph anywhere in the state of NJ. Is it still illegal everywhere?

Things change. New research. New technology. New social mores.

Your post is not any more insightful than somebody else who said that marijuana should be illegal because that's the law. But that makes no sense.
Profile Pic
2ovrpar
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:3,930
Points:1,018,105
Joined:Dec 2006
Message Posted: Apr 24, 2014 11:23:00 AM

Heroin and Marijuana are both illegal in NJ. That's the commonality.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:21,803
Points:2,692,495
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 24, 2014 10:53:59 AM

Or was it Guilt by Association? Both?
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:3,591
Points:483,925
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Apr 24, 2014 10:43:12 AM

2ovrpar - "Heroin is next "

Why would you think heroin would be next?

Heroin and marijuana have nothing in common with each other.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:21,803
Points:2,692,495
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 24, 2014 10:24:08 AM

2ovrpar - "Heroin is next "

So, Slippery Slope fallacy, then?
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,210
Points:54,170
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Apr 24, 2014 9:29:07 AM

"...who doesn't in matter of speaking say and persuade anyone now and days to get what they want?"

I call him a blowhard because he is pontificating on subject matter on which he is not an expert. His views on pot carry no more weight than any other uninformed pinhead who wants to express an opinion. Being an elected official means nothing, other than you can't really trust that the view he expresses is the view he actually holds, but rather what he believes will garner him more votes in the next election.
Profile Pic
2ovrpar
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:3,930
Points:1,018,105
Joined:Dec 2006
Message Posted: Apr 24, 2014 6:26:27 AM

Heroin is next
Profile Pic
goldseeker
Champion Author West Virginia

Posts:21,859
Points:3,055,875
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 24, 2014 3:43:47 AM

You had better get use to it, it is coming soon to your area.
Profile Pic
fueluser10
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:2,777
Points:65,785
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2014 9:22:18 PM

HotRod: Your answer is priceless. And you characterize him as a "blowhard?" (Did I get that 21st century inspired impression right?) And given that there are over 75,000 words in the average English dictionary to use as well in ones self describing choice of words to indulge in?
I guess that even when an elected political representative has his say and its not "pro cannabis in nature. He may get the same retorting treatment that some in here get.
Let me ask you a basic human question.. who doesn't in matter of speaking say and persuade anyone now and days to get what they want? Whether it's for votes, or maybe contract to guarantee sales for a profit margin? How many other occupations don't use the same kind of sch-peel in pretty much the same context minus a few differences depending on what the hopes will help sell a product might be?
The law making cannabis illegal is a difference maker plain and simple.

[Edited by: fueluser10 at 4/23/2014 9:28:42 PM EST]
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:3,591
Points:483,925
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2014 11:48:29 AM

HotRod10 "That would be like having to get approval from PETA to study the health benefits eating meat, and they supply the pork chops."

That's exactly the point I made several weeks ago when somebody had said that there didn't seem to much research going on in the US and the same person was rejecting any studies done in other countries. (Thinking that marijuana doesn't have the same effects on people outside of the US perhaps?)
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,210
Points:54,170
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2014 11:35:39 AM

"First, you have to get the marijuana for your study from one government-approved farm, and you have to get approval from the National Institute on Drug Abuse,"

That would be like having to get approval from PETA to study the health benefits eating meat, and they supply the pork chops.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:3,591
Points:483,925
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2014 11:22:02 AM

Several years ago Dr. Sanjay Gupta was well known for his opposition to marijuana. Recently however, he has completely reversed his stance.

Here's why.

"1.Marijuana laws are not based on science. Gupta wrote: "Not because of sound science, but because of its absence, marijuana was classified as a schedule 1 substance" at the urging of Assistant Secretary of Health, Roger Egeberg in 1970.

2.Gupta notes that marijuana doesn't have a "high potential for abuse" and it doesn't lead people to use other drugs. "We now know that while estimates vary, marijuana leads to dependence in around 9 to 10% of its adult users." Cocaine, classified as a (less addictive) schedule 2 substance, hooks 20% of those who use it. Around 25% of heroin users and 30% of tobacco users become addicted.

3.In some medical cases, marijuana is "the only thing that works." Gupta met with one woman in Colorado who used marijuana to cut the number of seizures she had from 300-per-week to two or three per month.

4.It's safer than a lot of prescription drugs: Someone dies from a prescription drug overdose every 19 minutes in the United States, but Gupta could not find a single person who died from a marijuana overdose.

5.Other doctors believe in it: Seventy-six percent of physicians surveyed would prescribe marijuana to ease the pain of women suffering from breast cancer.

6.While quitting marijuana can produce some withdrawal symptoms, like insomnia, anxiety and nausea, it is still nowhere near as bad at drugs like heroin or cocaine, or even booze. "I have seen the withdrawal from alcohol, and it can be life threatening," Gupta said. Not so with marijuana.

7.Medicinal plants (including marijuana specifically) aren't a new idea: The medical and scientific communities have been studying medical marijuana since the 19th Century, and marijuana was actually used to treat neuropathic pain until 1943.

8.Only 6% of research on marijuana published in the last year analyzed benefits. The other 93% are designed primarily to investigate harm. "That imbalance paints a highly distorted picture," Gupta said.

9.The system is biased against research into medical marijuana's benefits. First, you have to get the marijuana for your study from one government-approved farm, and you have to get approval from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which is tasked with studying and preventing drug abuse, not the medical benefits of drugs."


[Edited by: BabeTruth at 4/23/2014 11:22:25 AM EST]
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,210
Points:54,170
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2014 11:08:00 AM

"Um, no commentary on what Governor Chris Christie said about the legalizing of cannabis..."

Nobody cares what that blowhard has to say. He's a politician who's proven already that he says and does whatever is politically expedient for himself.
Profile Pic
fueluser10
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:2,777
Points:65,785
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2014 7:42:03 PM

Um, no commentary on what Governor Chris Christie said about the legalizing of cannabis and the taxation from it when it comes to the state of New Jersey?
He had some very compelling words on the subject and some of the side commentary was just as "telling" as well.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:21,803
Points:2,692,495
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2014 3:14:29 AM

Study: Enactment Of Medical Cannabis Laws Associated With Lower Rates Of Violent Crimes

Yes, stoned people just aren't violent.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:21,803
Points:2,692,495
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2014 12:38:17 PM

gas_too_high - "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. "

Yes, I agree that alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis should be legal. And clearly, the illegal one is the safest with the least harm caused.

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

What are you saying that I'm implying?

ldheinz - "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."

gas_too_high - "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."

So the first thing to be done is the hardest to accomplish? You're just creating artificial rules to impede justice.

gas_too_high - "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."

But why should this be done? Alcohol is legal, and its only purpose is to get drunk, so why should getting high be illegal at all? We should not be limited to only medical uses for cannabis.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:21,803
Points:2,692,495
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 19, 2014 11:59:26 AM

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?"

gas_too_high - "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)."

The only confusion is that which you placed there as a straw man to shield you from your absurd position. Clearly, I was making the point that tobacco kills people and cannabis does not, yet we allow a death-causing substance to be legal, while a perfectly safe one is illegal.

gas_too_high - "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."

Tobacco kills about 100,000 people per year in just the US, while I have shown dozens of times that cannabis has NEVER killed a SINGLE PERSON anywhere in the history of the world. It is completely non-toxic.

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

The entire purpose of both substances is their psychogenic effects, but only tobacco kills.

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

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

And I reject you bald-faced lie that it isn't. I've provided references proving that cannabis is completely safe. If you feel otherwise, please provide SOMETHING to back up your absurd claim.

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

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

But the entire purpose of both alcohol and cannabis is to feel good. It may be transient, but that doesn't make it wrong.



[Edited by: ldheinz at 4/19/2014 12:08:41 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,844
Points:2,543,130
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:13,251
Points:458,570
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:3,210
Points:54,170
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:17,721
Points:1,589,875
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:13,636
Points:2,260,315
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:3,591
Points:483,925
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:25,844
Points:2,543,130
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:3,210
Points:54,170
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:2,777
Points:65,785
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:25,844
Points:2,543,130
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:21,803
Points:2,692,495
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:13,636
Points:2,260,315
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:3,210
Points:54,170
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:13,636
Points:2,260,315
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:3,210
Points:54,170
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:2,412
Points:42,185
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:3,210
Points:54,170
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:25,844
Points:2,543,130
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:3,210
Points:54,170
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:2,777
Points:65,785
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:13,636
Points:2,260,315
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:3,591
Points:483,925
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:25,844
Points:2,543,130
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:21,803
Points:2,692,495
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:3,210
Points:54,170
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:21,803
Points:2,692,495
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?
Post a reply Back to Topics