ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,055
Points:2,361,795
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 25, 2013 1:03:05 PM
Pennsylvania: Medical Marijuana Legislation Introduced
Ohio: Legislation Introduced To Legalize Medical Use Of Marijuana
|
fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,420
Points:58,265
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: May 25, 2013 10:07:12 AM
BabeTruth: I have NO issue going into the psychology. Its almost as if the federal law making cannabis illegal exists on a "chalk board" instead of in copyrighted and printed books detailing the federal laws of the country.
And smearing the chalk away with passive anonymous fingers as some walk by the board. Obscuring the words of the law making them hard to read?
Where the finger in matter of speaking has replaced the chalk board erasure?
I have heard 3 conversations about cannabis AWAY from this topic forum, and the internet in the two years since coming to this topic forum. 3.. The majority of the people that I have talked to, enjoy life for what it is without pursuing cannabis or any other illegal drugs. (Reiterating from a little while ago that all illegal drugs should be legalized.)
They want a good life for their kids, their mortgages paid for, They want a vehicle of vehicles to get around in and food on the table.
What they don't look forward to is possibly having to pay for a lawyer when one of their kids possibly indulges in cannabis and then making a follow up appointment to see what they will do when their day in court arrives.
Its curious set of words in use.. 1) The federal law and what is states. 2) What parents express to their kids about messing with drugs. 3) And some of the words that I have read expressed in the topic forum.
[Edited by: fueluser10 at 5/25/2013 10:13:06 AM EST]
|
BabeTruth
Champion Author
New York
Posts:1,166
Points:154,560
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 25, 2013 8:40:11 AM
fueluser10 “I must be very under educated when it comes to speaking on cannabis..”
You're just figuring that out now?
“.. when its illegal to speak on such a topic when the federal law states what it does.”
Since when has it been illegal to speak in this country? Where do you get these ideas?
“Do we really want to go into the psychology of the words "inhibit rational discussion?"”
Well, YOU probably don't since if you read a few of the recent posts, perhaps you might get the idea that some people think that is what you might be doing.
“rjhenn: What's the purpose of ignoring a law? Because some say it's not working?
If someone runs a red light or a stop sign? Does that mean that neither really serve a purpose as a civilian runs them at their leisure?”
It would be quite simple for somebody to make a good argument that the red lights and stop signs ARE serving a purpose.
That's what we've asked you to do for the anti-marijuana laws but so far you've ignored the question every time that anybody has asked you.
So again, what do you think the purpose of the anti-marijuana laws are?
“Does a group or a single civilian individually repeal a law because they don't agree with it?”
Can you think of any other way to get a law repealed if it isn't a good law?
Just how do you think the Prohibition of Alcohol laws got repealed? Do you think the legislators just suddenly woke up and said to themselves “We made a bad law. We should repeal it.” or do you think that individuals, and then groups of individuals, got together and convinced the legislators to repeal the law?
“Its a simple questioning of an ideological philosophy. That's all that I'm asking. And I guess some do not see the question for what it is.”
We ask you simple questions all the time and you hardly ever answer any of them.
|
goldseeker
Champion Author
West Virginia
Posts:19,573
Points:2,721,740
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: May 25, 2013 2:11:49 AM
It has now passed in Illinois too.
|
fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,420
Points:58,265
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 11:33:57 PM
I must be very under educated when it comes to speaking on cannabis and the indulging of it when its illegal to speak on such a topic when the federal law states what it does.
But I see my name again highlighted and the very used words.. "red herring" or "straw man" along with my name?
Do we really want to go into the psychology of the words "inhibit rational discussion?"
rjhenn: What's the purpose of ignoring a law? Because some say it's not working?
If someone runs a red light or a stop sign? Does that mean that neither really serve a purpose as a civilian runs them at their leisure?
Does a group or a single civilian individually repeal a law because they don't agree with it?
Its a simple questioning of an ideological philosophy. That's all that I'm asking. And I guess some do not see the question for what it is.
[Edited by: fueluser10 at 5/24/2013 11:35:56 PM EST]
|
BabeTruth
Champion Author
New York
Posts:1,166
Points:154,560
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 4:56:04 PM
ldhienz "..the posts appear to be a deliberate attempt to inhibit rational discussion of the topic."
I wondered about that too. Especially when they continue to recycle back again and again to things that have already been discussed in great detail, but start from scratch as if nothing has ever been said.
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,055
Points:2,361,795
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 2:20:01 PM
Actually, I think it's more of a Red Herring. fueluser10 is so consistently off topic that the posts appear to be a deliberate attempt to inhibit rational discussion of the topic.
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,460
Points:2,232,770
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 2:06:50 PM
tim, that's exactly the straw man he's building, instead of the actual arguments others are presenting.
A better analogy would be if the laws on murder caused more deaths, rather than fewer, or perhaps if swearing fell under the laws for murder.
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,055
Points:2,361,795
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 1:55:34 PM
fueluser10 - ""Insert link" tool. (I tried again to use the tool and it didn't work for me.) "
There are 2 lines. What did you put on the lower line?
|
teacher_tim
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:15,759
Points:745,635
Joined:May 2004
|
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 1:27:47 PM
By that reasoning, fueluser, there are thousands of murders every year. Should the law on murder be abolished because it serves no purpose?
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,460
Points:2,232,770
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 1:24:06 PM
fueluser10 - "If someone ignores a law, maybe then the law isn't serving a purpose? Is that the reasoning that circumvents the purpose of a law then?"
What purpose?
|
fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,420
Points:58,265
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 11:45:33 AM
If someone ignores a law, maybe then the law isn't serving a purpose? Is that the reasoning that circumvents the purpose of a law then?
Idheinz: "Insert link" tool. (I tried again to use the tool and it didn't work for me.)
You know what would be nice? If the insert link tool came with a pop up instruction bubble that explained how to use it?
[Edited by: fueluser10 at 5/24/2013 11:51:36 AM EST]
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,055
Points:2,361,795
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 9:30:03 AM
fueluser10 - "[L=http://www.statisticbrain.com/underage-smoking-statistics/[/L]"
That is an invalid link structure. You have to enter something on the lower line to have something to click on.
However, even if you did enter it correctly, I don't see what smoking statistics by age have to do with whether or not marijuana should be legalized. Were you trying to make some sort of a point?
fueluser10 - "Did anyone know that there are 1.5 million packs of illegally purchased cigarettes in the hands of minors each year? Are some turning their heads as kids smoke cigarettes nearby? "
Yes, I did know that. But what does that have to do with whether or not marijuana should be legalized?
|
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author
Miami
Posts:1,104
Points:172,335
Joined:Nov 2012
|
Message Posted: May 24, 2013 8:19:33 AM
<<Its called comparison making. Journalists use it often to bring multiple POV's together or to make a debate as forthright as possible. It alleviates water carrying or talking points reiterating.>> fueluser10
What are you talking about? You are not making comparisons to any thing. You just keep bringing up the same thing over and over that have been refuted all ready.
<<A law is a law and it does serve a purpose.>>
What is the purpose of the law against marijuana?
<<Is reasoning being used to circumvent laws?>>
I think it is law being used to circumvent reasoning.
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,460
Points:2,232,770
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 3:51:31 PM
fueluser10 - "A law is a law and it does serve a purpose."
No, it's supposed to serve a purpose. Obviously, the law on mj isn't serving its supposed purpose.
What purpose is it then serving?
|
fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,420
Points:58,265
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 1:13:17 PM
EGN: Its called comparison making. Journalists use it often to bring multiple POV's together or to make a debate as forthright as possible. It alleviates water carrying or talking points reiterating.
No matter how some may word things.. A law is a law and it does serve a purpose.
Here we have alcohol legalized and teenage drinking is an issue. (Are some turning their heads while teenagers drink a beer down before them?)
This is where the precedence about making cannabis legal is a bad idea. Sure there are laws about drunk driving and so forth. But its almost like what is being suggested is using the alcohol laws as a blue print for legalizing cannabis?
Did anyone know that there are 1.5 million packs of illegally purchased cigarettes in the hands of minors each year? Are some turning their heads as kids smoke cigarettes nearby?
And old question.. what does a child to have to "rebel against" by smoking a cigarette when they are under age?
Is reasoning being used to circumvent laws?
[L=http://www.statisticbrain.com/underage-smoking-statistics/[/L]
[Edited by: fueluser10 at 5/23/2013 1:17:58 PM EST]
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,055
Points:2,361,795
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 23, 2013 10:24:34 AM
Marijuana cannabinoids slow brain degradation and aging, reverse dementia: here's how
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,055
Points:2,361,795
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 22, 2013 1:03:04 PM
Illinois: Medical Marijuana Measure Awaits Action From Governor
|
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author
Miami
Posts:1,104
Points:172,335
Joined:Nov 2012
|
Message Posted: May 21, 2013 4:42:08 PM
I can not understand how some body can not understand the topic of this thread but keeps talking so much about some thing totally diffewrent.
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,460
Points:2,232,770
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 21, 2013 2:04:08 AM
fueluser10 - "You're 'bloviating.'"
BLOVIATE: to speak or write verbosely and windily.
OK, that would be you, more than anyone else here.
"If something like cannabis is illegal in the first place? Then where is the actual choice to be made per se?"
So you think that laws just come out of the blue, perfect in every way, and should never be questioned?
Of course, then you have to wonder why cannabis hasn't been illegal forever, instead of only since early last century. And, even then, was only illegal under state laws, because there was no constitutional basis for federal control.
"It falls under the guidance of yes or no, or right or wrong does it not? So when it comes to indulging in cannabis there are alternative definitions of right and wrong and yes and no possibly?"
If a law is wrong, then shouldn't it be changed?
Doesn't supporting a law that is wrong undermine the very idea of law and order?
|
BabeTruth
Champion Author
New York
Posts:1,166
Points:154,560
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 5:36:14 PM
fueluser10, if you're going to complain about it being noted that you're building a strawman, at least learn what the word means. As ldheinz seconded, you DID make a strawman argument.
And for somebody who can't even type complete sentences, or whose sentences don't even make sense when they are complete, and who can't even remember from one week to the next that his comments have already been shown to be incorrect or even pointless, then just about anything that anybody posts would seem like 'bloviating'.
Again, as ldheinz has pointed out, the topic is not "Is using marijuana right or wrong?" or "Is marijuana illegal?", which is what you seem to keep trying to argue. The topic is "Should marijuana be illegal?"
Please try to stay on topic.
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,055
Points:2,361,795
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 5:13:52 PM
fueluser10, you used the classic rhetorical fallacy of the Straw Man, and BabeTruth called you on it. No one ever said that you were not allowed to make meaningless statements, but you complained that we did. That's a straw man. "Bloviating" is an excellent description of essentially ALL of you posts. You talk, but you don't say anything. Most of the time we can't even figure out what you mean. Also, please learn what "per se" means. It's not just something you stuff into sentences at random.
fueluser10 - "If something like cannabis is illegal in the first place? "
This is not a sentence. If you want to communicate something, please use sentences.
fueluser10 - "Then where is the actual choice to be made per se? "
This is not a sentence either, but if you put it together with the one above, it makes a sentence. Not one that makes sense, of course, but a sentence. Regardless, I still have no idea what you are trying to say. Would you please try to say something that others can understand?
Please keep in mind that the topic is "Legalize Marijuana?", and we should be attempting to determine if legalizing marijuana is a good idea or a bad idea. Please try to discuss THIS topic, not others.
|
fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,420
Points:58,265
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 3:26:51 PM
Dang the straw man crap.. Let me describe your word usage. You're "bloviating."
If something like cannabis is illegal in the first place? Then where is the actual choice to be made per se?
It falls under the guidance of yes or no, or right or wrong does it not? So when it comes to indulging in cannabis there are alternative definitions of right and wrong and yes and no possibly?
[Edited by: fueluser10 at 5/20/2013 3:32:48 PM EST]
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,055
Points:2,361,795
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 9:33:19 AM
"the side effects of smoking pot outweighs any therapeutic benefits."
Shouldn't that be for the user to decide?
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,055
Points:2,361,795
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 19, 2013 10:00:41 PM
Study: Inhaled Cannabis Reduces Crohn's Symptoms
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,055
Points:2,361,795
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 19, 2013 9:58:42 PM
Study: No Association Between Cumulative Consumption Of Cannabis Smoke And Lung Cancer Risk
|
BabeTruth
Champion Author
New York
Posts:1,166
Points:154,560
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 19, 2013 8:07:09 AM
Goldseeker, that's a very good point about "who sponsored the research?". Drug companies that have their own product for an indication often sponsor research to show that their competitor's product has more side effects. I've been involved in some of that research.
|
BabeTruth
Champion Author
New York
Posts:1,166
Points:154,560
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 19, 2013 8:03:24 AM
"the side effects of smoking pot outweighs any therapeutic benefits."
The most common side effects are:
drowsiness
dry mouth
euphoria/giddiness
hunger
insomnia
red eyes
respiratory issues
short term memory loss
anxiety
If you look at the PDR, (Physician's Desk Reference) you'll see that the most common side effects of prescription drugs are drowsiness, nausea, vomiting and dry mouth in that order.
Personally, if I was losing my eyesight and there's something that can help, I think I'd risk all of those SE's. BTW, just because a side effect is listed doesn't mean you're going to get it. Many drugs list heart attacks as a possible side effect too, but how many people do you know take an Rx and drop dead from it?
Euphoria/giddiness means that you feel good and happy. John Choy has a problem with that?
Hunger is something I often get anyway around noon every day, and then later in the early evening. Doesn't seem to be a real problem.
There are other things that you can do to counter insomnia. Having sex with your wife is one of them. Again, not a big problem for most people to get as part of 'doctor's orders'.
As long as your eyes still work, having a bit of redness seems to be a good trade-off.
Respiratory issues are part of long term smoking. There are other ways to take marijuana if that's an issue. Frankly, at the age of most people who get glaucoma, if it takes 30-40 years to develop respiratory issues, it's not likely going to be a problem.
Ditto with short term memory loss for people in their 70's and 80's.
Anxiety is possibly created by worry that the DEA and ATF is going to break down your door because medical marijuana is just a state law, not a federal one. That can be easily solved by D.C.
If John Choy likes his glaucoma so much that he wants to go blind, that's his choice. But I'd bet there are thousands of other glaucoma sufferers out there who'd be happy to live with one or two of those side effects.
And medical marijuana is used for many more indications than just glaucoma. As an adjunct to cancer treatment is one very important one.
|
goldseeker
Champion Author
West Virginia
Posts:19,573
Points:2,721,740
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: May 19, 2013 5:48:44 AM
"In fact, research suggests that the side effects of smoking pot outweighs any therapeutic benefits." And who do you suppose sponsored this research?
Hurrah for common sense. Maryland passed medical marijuana by a wide margin in both houses.
|
malcm
Champion Author
Los Angeles
Posts:2,991
Points:1,276,140
Joined:Dec 2003
|
Message Posted: May 19, 2013 12:39:09 AM
Just for consideration, this letter from today's LA Times:
"Your editorial supporting Measure D mentions medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma patients. In my 25 years as a glaucoma sufferer, I have never been prescribed marijuana.
In fact, research suggests that the side effects of smoking pot outweighs any therapeutic benefits.
Medical marijuana should not be used as an excuse to pass Measure D."
John Choy
Torrance
[Edited by: malcm at 5/19/2013 12:40:44 AM EST]
|
BabeTruth
Champion Author
New York
Posts:1,166
Points:154,560
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 18, 2013 8:25:00 PM
Another strawman fueluser10? Who's ever said you don't have the right to express yourself?
And if you didn't know, "what if" is just another variation on "maybe", "suppose", "possible", "could it be", and so on.
|
fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,420
Points:58,265
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: May 18, 2013 2:08:54 PM
BabeTruth: According to the 1st Amendment, I'm within my rights to express myself as I see fit am I not? I don't think I'm being crude or out of line per se am I?
Because if I am.. please report me to the moderator.
"Game?" I'm not into political filibustering but I do find your word usage interesting.
What if a person has siblings and those siblings have kids as well? Do they still not have a voice in regards to that issue as well?
[Edited by: fueluser10 at 5/18/2013 2:14:57 PM EST]
|
BabeTruth
Champion Author
New York
Posts:1,166
Points:154,560
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 18, 2013 8:11:36 AM
There are always lots of things that COULD be said fueluser10. Again, you COULD say that the moon is made of green cheese. But if you have no logic or evidence to support them with, then what's the point?
That seems to be your game here. You toss out all sorts of irrelevancies that COULD be said, but without any logic or evidence all you accomplish is to be argumentative for no point other than to be argumentative. You don't really try to present any coherent argument.
You just keep throwing out “maybe”, “could be”, “might”, “perhaps” even for things that have already been thoroughly refuted before. That's called speculative fiction. Maybe we should stick to things that there's some evidence for?
And then the thing about “maybe ... parents”. Again, you're not a parent. Therefore, you really have no business telling parents what they can and cannot say to their kids, or what they “maybe” might say or not say to their kids. Maybe you should let the people who have experience with kids speak for themselves?
You can play this game of “maybe”, and “could it maybe be viewed”, or “could it maybe not be viewed” or “could it maybe be said” or “could it maybe not be said”, or “possibly this” or “possibly that” forever. But if you don't have a REAL objection, with REAL points to make or REAL evidence to support it, then what's the point?
You could “maybe” say that a meteor is going to hit the Earth tomorrow and “maybe” all life will be destroyed, but without evidence, it's just playing fantasy games.
It's beginning to sound a lot like a politician filibustering and obfuscating to squander everybody's time in the hope that maybe you can run out some imaginary clock and maybe be able to stop something from happening. Is that maybe what you're trying to do?
|
fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,420
Points:58,265
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: May 16, 2013 11:21:02 AM
Could it maybe be said that cannabis per se has gained quite the platform?
And to briefly go outside of political correctness and maybe irking some over the use of the word "parents" in making a POV in mentioning that when a parent says to their child that maybe messing with cannabis is not a good idea because its illegal to do so?
Could it maybe not be viewed that possibly society today has become harder to be a parent per se?
Could it maybe not be said that legalizing cannabis for casual might equate to amnesty in a way per se?
[Edited by: fueluser10 at 5/16/2013 11:25:57 AM EST]
|
BabeTruth
Champion Author
New York
Posts:1,166
Points:154,560
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 15, 2013 10:46:32 AM
reb4 “I stated the facts from the university of Washington”
But those stats were actually sourced by funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy and if you look at YOUR link, with the logo of a marijuana leaf covered by a red circle with a diagonal line through it, there is no question that it is an anti-advocacy site.
Since it sources its information from elsewhere and is just consolidating the data, how is it any different than the NORML sites which you reject?
For you to present this site and yet reject links to NORML is an obvious double standard.
“The percentage of youth (aged 12 to 17) who use marijuana increased from 6.7% in 2007 to 7.4% in 2010”
There is no cause and effect listed in your link, just a stat. You're jumping to conclusions of WHY this is happening without enough information.
“The highest percentage of past-month marijuana users among youth occurs in states with medical marijuana laws...”
Thanks for proving yet once again that you ignore posts that refute you which you have no answer for.
To repeat, of course there will be more youth use in states with medical marijuana laws, because in those cases marijuana is effectively still illegal. All medical marijuana laws do is create another source for youth to get it from, but safer and of a higher quality. The pushers are still in business, but a person with a medical marijuana licence who needs money can make money selling it.
“Now my post stated: "Here is evidence that legalizing marijuana will INCREASE illegal use and make in MORE available! NOT LESS.”
Just because your post stated something doesn't make it true. You can state that the moon is made out of green cheese but that doesn't make it true.
You have to actually PROVE it, not just state it.
“The report referenced in the Forbes posting by bt is from a advocate group of the drug...
Since the University of Washington's report clearly shows that where marijuana is legal, the use by under age increases, it is likely that the 42 Billion will not be saved... It might need to be increased.... "
Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it any more true. As Goebbels knew, it just makes the gullible believe it more.
“Obviously, allowing any legal use of the drug is going to allow for MORE abuse of the use illegally...”
Obvious only to people who don't think it through and only take the most simplistic overview of it.
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,055
Points:2,361,795
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 15, 2013 10:31:15 AM
reb4 - "I stated the facts from the university of Washington:"
Yes, as pointed out by BabeTruth, you quoted from a report that is LEGALLY REQUIRED TO BE BIASED AGAINST MARIJUANA. That clearly disqualifies it from any discussion that intends to arrive at the truth.
reb4 - "If you read and comprehended it, the facts included this point: 'The percentage of youth (aged 12 to 17) who use marijuana increased from 6.7% in 2007 to 7.4% in 2010'"
And your point is what? You haven't said WHY it increased, and you haven't indicated that this is bad.
reb4 - "The highest percentage of past-month marijuana users among youth occurs in states with medical marijuana laws..."
Which means that people that use marijuana are more likely to vote for legalization, right? Wow, what a surprise! Again, what's your point? You are assuming your conclusion again, because you are confusing cause and effect. Also, you fail to indicate that there is any problem. Why should we care?
reb4 - ""Here is evidence that legalizing marijuana will INCREASE illegal use and make in MORE available! NOT LESS."
No it isn't. First, your source is LEGALLY REQUIRED to lie, and even if it's true, it doesn't mean anything of the kind. All that you've shown is that marijuana users are more likely to vote for legalization. Was this in question? Is it surprising that people don't like to go to jail for not harming anyone?
reb4 - "Obviously, allowing any legal use of the drug is going to allow for MORE abuse of the use illegally..."
But all the facts show the reverse. Alcohol use increased when it was made illegal and decreased when it was made legal. Why should marijuana be any different?
BabeTruth listed example after example of you confusing cause and effect. Can you see your error in reasoning? Please read my link from my last post so that you can learn to reason better.
|
reb4
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,144
Points:1,824,300
Joined:Sep 2004
|
Message Posted: May 15, 2013 9:31:18 AM
ld heinz,
I stated the facts from the university of Washington:
If you read and comprehended it, the facts included this point:
'The percentage of youth (aged 12 to 17) who use marijuana increased from 6.7% in 2007 to 7.4% in 2010'
'The highest percentage of past-month marijuana users among youth occurs in states with medical marijuana laws...'
Now my post stated:
"Here is evidence that legalizing marijuana will INCREASE illegal use and make in MORE available! NOT LESS.
The report referenced in the Forbes posting by bt is from a advocate group of the drug...
Since the University of Washington's report clearly shows that where marijuana is legal, the use by under age increases, it is likely that the 42 Billion will not be saved... It might need to be increased.... "
Obviously, allowing any legal use of the drug is going to allow for MORE abuse of the use illegally... Especially for the law in Washington which is oulined specifically in the link provided.
|
BabeTruth
Champion Author
New York
Posts:1,166
Points:154,560
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 15, 2013 9:23:15 AM
reb4 “I found this consolidation of Facts in direct contrast to the slanted evidence provided by the drugs advocates here.”
No you didn't. You just THOUGHT you found them in contradiction because you have a preconceived belief as evidenced by your use of the word “slanted”.
So let's actually try to understand the parts you selected instead of just posting them without any thought.
“*** 9% of Washington State 8th graders, 20% of 10th graders and 26% of 12th graders report current marijuana use.”
And what are the stats for 8th, 10th and 12th graders in other states? Without those numbers to compare with, you can't make any such statement (as you try to later on) that legalization increases use. All you have is a snapshot in one location at one point in time.
“*** 23% of Washington State students who do not use marijuana received mostly C’s, D’s and F’s on grade reports; 51% of those who use marijuana received mostly C’s, D’s and F’s.”
So what's your point? Nobody has said that marijuana makes you smarter. Could it be that dumb people are more likely to use marijuana?
“*** 26 % of Washington State students who do not use marijuana report symptoms of depression; 43% of those who use marijuana report symptoms of depression.”
So perhaps this shows that people who are depressed are more likely to decide to use marijuana. It's even possible that marijuana may be a treatment for depression. You can't tell from this stat.
“*** Youth who initiate marijuana use by age 13 usually do not go to college.”
Can you draw a cause and effect from this? Or is it again that people who don't have the brains to go to college are more likely to use marijuana?
“*** Marijuana use rates among youth 12 to 17 are higher in states with medical marijuana laws (8.6%) than in states without such laws (6.9%).”
That's logical. When there are medical marijuana laws, marijuana is in effect, still illegal. So without complete legalization, you're just creating another way for kids to get it.
“*** Marijuana dependence accounted for 62% of the youth admissions to Washington State treatment programs.”
That is such a loaded stat that I could write an entire page debunking it as useless.
“Here is evidence that legalizing marijuana will INCREASE illegal use and make in MORE available! NOT LESS.”
And now, the OTHER side of the story.
Marijuana use by state
The state with the least marijuana use in the entire country is Mississippi, which has decriminalized marijuana. New Hampshire still prohibits all marijuana use and yet it has the 4th highest use in the country.
Hmmmmm, looks like perhaps you better rethink your last statement. It doesn't stand up to reality.
“The report referenced in the Forbes posting by bt is from a advocate group of the drug...”
The report referenced by reb4 is funded by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which by law MUST be against marijuana and only show research against legalization. IOW, it is legally required to be an anti-advocacy group regardless of what the facts are.
“Since the University of Washington's report clearly shows that where marijuana is legal, the use by under age increases..”
No, it doesn't, as evidenced by Mississippi and New Hampshire. The issue is much more complex than the simplistic overview you presented.
“.. it is likely that the 42 Billion will not be saved... It might need to be increased....”
Another conclusion not supported by the facts. It is inarguable that if you don't have officers out hunting marijuana users then you're not paying money to have them hunt marijuana users. So, money saved. And it is also inarguable that if you're taxing marijuana sales that you have money coming in.
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,055
Points:2,361,795
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 15, 2013 9:05:04 AM
reb4, your last post was an excellent example of the classic rhetorical fallacy of Confusing Cause and Effect. Does drug usage cause problems, or do problems cause drug use? Are states with higher drug usage more likely to support legalization? There is nothing there to prove, or even indicate, any causation.
Also, the US experience on alcohol prohibition shows that illegalization causes more usage, and this causes more crime. Why do you feel that this is NOT the case for cannabis?
|
reb4
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,144
Points:1,824,300
Joined:Sep 2004
|
Message Posted: May 15, 2013 7:52:19 AM
Here is a site from University of Washington that has provided a facts section on Marijuana. I found this consolidation of Facts in direct contrast to the slanted evidence provided by the drugs advocates here.
Facts Sheet from University of Washington
from this report:
Youth
*** 9% of Washington State 8th graders, 20% of 10th graders and 26% of 12th graders report current marijuana use.
*** 23% of Washington State students who do not use marijuana received mostly C’s, D’s and F’s on grade reports; 51% of those who use marijuana received mostly C’s, D’s and F’s.
*** 26 % of Washington State students who do not use marijuana report symptoms of depression; 43% of those who use marijuana report symptoms of depression.*** Youth who initiate marijuana use by age 13 usually do not go to college.
*** Marijuana use rates among youth 12 to 17 are higher in states with medical marijuana laws (8.6%) than in states without such laws (6.9%).
*** Marijuana dependence accounted for 62% of the youth admissions to Washington State treatment programs.
Here is evidence that legalizing marijuana will INCREASE illegal use and make in MORE available! NOT LESS.
The report referenced in the Forbes posting by bt is from a advocate group of the drug...
Since the University of Washington's report clearly shows that where marijuana is legal, the use by under age increases, it is likely that the 42 Billion will not be saved... It might need to be increased....
|
BabeTruth
Champion Author
New York
Posts:1,166
Points:154,560
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 15, 2013 12:00:26 AM
Why do you have to guess what the gains of legalization would be? We've gone over them several times in the past.
But here you go again.
Forbes estimates $42 BILLION per year! A far cry from your typical low-ball. Perhaps that's part of the problem, that you can't seem to to understand that it's not a minimal figure?
Most of the rest of your post is a variation of your standard "if it doesn't solve the entire problem all by itself then it's not worth doing" nonsense. It's getting more than a little old.
"The National Debt is in the shape that's in in why? Maybe it has something to do with spending more then is being taken in taxation wise?"
You mean like spending more billions of $ on enforcement (not to mention court costs and imprisonment and lost workers and lost income taxes) going after marijuana than is taken in by taxing it?
You keep on saying the same thing even though it's so easy to show that it supports legalization, not prohibition.
|
fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,420
Points:58,265
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: May 14, 2013 10:10:35 PM
Say that legalizing cannabis gains (100 million a year in taxation, just a guesstimate.)
When the national debt is at nearly 17 trillion? Could that not possibly be looked at as using the present and the future to catch up with the past per se?
If you look at the National Debt Clock, the numbers to the far right in grey and red may explain some things in regards to the shape of the debt.
The conversation of legalizing cannabis is almost like in a way of paying more attention to the forest and negating the trees not seen behind the obvious treeline that is engulfing the trees.
The National Debt is in the shape that's in in why? Maybe it has something to do with spending more then is being taken in taxation wise?
[Edited by: fueluser10 at 5/14/2013 10:13:17 PM EST]
|
BabeTruth
Champion Author
New York
Posts:1,166
Points:154,560
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 12, 2013 7:32:10 AM
I;m certain medical marijuana will be legally nationwide within our lifetime, probably within the net decade and possibly before the next presidential election.
There's a lesser likelihood that it will legal in the same way as alcohol in that time.
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,055
Points:2,361,795
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 12, 2013 6:37:08 AM
Ohio: Legislation Introduced To Legalize Medical Use Of Marijuana
Illinois: Medical Marijuana Pilot Program Measure Goes To Senate Floor
Oregon: Senate Committee Approves Two Measures to Reduce Marijuana Penalties
Poll: Nationwide Support For Medical Marijuana Legalization At All Time High
|
BabeTruth
Champion Author
New York
Posts:1,166
Points:154,560
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 11, 2013 9:37:16 AM
What does SSI or pork barrel spending have to do with legalizing marijuana? Absolutely nothing! You're just trying to distract from the issue.
And as has been pointed out to several times before, legalizing marijuana will REDUCE the national debt in several ways. Keeping marijuana illegal makes the national debt worse.
So in effect what you are telling us is that you want to continue to build the national debt?
[Edited by: BabeTruth at 5/11/2013 9:38:10 AM EST]
|
fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,420
Points:58,265
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: May 11, 2013 9:22:06 AM
Sure there are, I believe maybe SSI needs some fixing doesn't it? Or balancing the national debt. And maybe get rid of pork barrel spending.
|
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author
Miami
Posts:1,104
Points:172,335
Joined:Nov 2012
|
Message Posted: May 11, 2013 9:09:15 AM
Yes, the non-legalizing answers have been staring us in the face for about 80 years now. And in all that time they have not worked.
Why do you think they will suddenly work now?
Since you can not tax some thing that is illegal there are no taxation answers with non-legalizing.
|
fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,420
Points:58,265
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: May 11, 2013 9:02:07 AM
The non legalizing answers, have they not been staring us in the face for some time now?
Fixing some of the taxation issues for one possibly?
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,460
Points:2,232,770
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 10, 2013 7:28:02 PM
Again, taxing "the hell out of it" will only perpetuate the black market that is much of the current problem.
Tax it, but reasonably.
|
kiatoindos
Veteran Author
Chicago
Posts:453
Points:84,055
Joined:Dec 2012
|
Message Posted: May 10, 2013 7:17:24 PM
Don't smoke it but legalize it tax the hell out of it
|