News Do you support legalisation of marijuana?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kasse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Support
AI Thread Summary
Support for marijuana legalization is increasing, particularly among younger and more educated demographics. Many argue that older generations view cannabis negatively due to its association with counterculture, while younger individuals often see it as harmless. The debate highlights the distinction between casual use and habitual consumption, with some asserting that regular use can hinder ambition and professional development. However, others counter that many successful individuals use cannabis without it negatively impacting their achievements. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the need for a cultural shift regarding drug perceptions and the failures of prohibition.
  • #51
Astronuc said:
Cigarettes probably should be illegal given the adverse health effects and tremendous cost due to illness and lost time. Cigarettes are regulated.
Tobacco is another thing that should not be allowed. There is just no reason for it and there are no health benefits to smoking it. I can't think of anything positive you can say in it's defense.

Which is why I find people that try to give a credible reason for smoking pot so humorous. Like getting stoned is not the sole reason they do it. :-p
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Evo said:
Which is why I find people that try to give a credible reason for smoking pot so humorous. Like getting stoned is not the sole reason they do it. :-p
You don't think they do it because "it tastes great!" and is "less filling"?
 
  • #53
For those of us who support moving closer to legalization, these kind of opinions...

You need to learn the difference between opinion and fact. I expressed no opinion on the subject. My post was a factual description of how law works and an explanation of the definition of the words "innocent" and "guilty". The poster I was responding to misused the word "innocent". You and Martini seem to have a problem dealing with objective reality. Calling someone "innocent" doesn't make it so.

You're right Russ, the word "opinion" was the wrong word for me to use. It is certainly a fact that Cannabis is illegal. The point I was trying to make is that whenever someone points this out without calling for the prohibition to end, it is like rubbing in a bad situation that you are not willing to do anything about. It alienates people, it is not a neutral statement.

You can drink alcohol just for the taste and enjoyment without getting drunk.

I completely disagree. The threshold dose of ethanol for a particular person is determined partially by their attunement with their body. From the first sip of wine or beer I already begin to feel poisoned. My stream of speech is slowed tremendously before the end of the first beer (I don't drive anymore, but I am sure my driving safety level would decrease as well). And I am not even allergic to alcohol, but I have met many people who are, and they can become "drunk by the end of one beer."

That is how the majority of people drink.

That might be true in certain age groups, but I promise you that college students do not drink "for the taste and enjoyment without getting drunk." And if "that is how the majority of people drink" then why is the majority of the beer and booze in the store made of such cheap low quality ingredients? You can't tell me that Natural Ice Beer or Carlo Rossi wine have anything to do with anything other than people poisoning themselves to feel drunk, and judging by shelf space, these kind of bargain brands are the most popular.

Marijuana is smoked just to get stoned.

This is your biggest misunderstanding. Many people who support the legalization of cannabis dislike referring to it as a drug (this is why I avoid the term marijuana, which has become associated with drug culture) partly because of the connotation that drugs are used to "get wasted." Just as some people eat to the point of gluttony, and some people drink to the point of drunkness, some cannabis users smoke to the point of being stoned. But that is not the only reason to use cannabis, to get stoned. Many connoisseur's take a foremost interest in the taste of the plant, aesthetics of the plant, the enjoyment of the act of smoking, the art of cultivation --- these are not my opinions or personal experiences, these are all categories for the judges to consider at events like the Cannabis Cup in Amsterdam.

No one smokes with the intention of not getting stoned.

This is completely falsed, and based on your admittedly limited personal experiences. Notice that in genral, cannabis uses inhale the smoke more deeply than tobacco users do, and some people just enjoy the taste and activity of smoking (this explains tobacco pipe smoking, for example, where users do not inhale and the nicotine dose is low, they are doing it for the enjoyment of the act of smoking, the same thing is possible with cannabis). Sure, if cannabis is sold as an illegal street drug for outrageous prices than no one is going to puff away at it for fun like pipe tobacco, but in places where it is decriminalized and it grows in the ground for free, it can and is used as just another plant to generate smoke with.

I spent many years in the late 60's through the 70's around a bunch of pot smokers that would just lay around all day smoking and eating and not able to do anything else, they would be nodding off most of the time. I learned quickly that being drugged up all day was not appealing, was counter productive, and pretty stupid, IMO.

Why can you share negative personal experiences such as this one, but when I try to share positive experiences about brilliant and successful cannabis users you threaten to lock the thread? The people you describe sound like druggies, and I don't condone that lifestyle. It is just as unfair as hanging around people who drink liquor all day and saying that liquor should be illegal because everybody always uses it to get drunk.:rolleyes:

I guess I'd like to see people try to cope with life and not avoid it through drugs.

I would like people to cope through life and not avoid it with religion, illogical emotions, television, youtube, fiction stories, and I think they should take several years of mathematics and philosophy training so that they can face the world with enhanced clarity. I do not, however, think that the government should enforce my personal preferences on other people.

Coffee doesn't prevent someone from being productive and may actually be beneficial. So it should not be on the list.

There is a myth about such highs: the user has an illusion of great insight, but it does not survive scrutiny in the morning. I am convinced that this is an error, and that the devastating insights achieved when high are real insights; the main problem is putting these insights in a form acceptable to the quite different self that we are when we're down the next day. Some of the hardest work I've ever done has been to put such insights down on tape or in writing...

My high is always reflective, peaceable, intellectually exciting, and sociable, unlike most alcohol highs, and there is never a hangover. Through the years I find that slightly smaller amounts of cannabis suffice to produce the same degree of high, and in one movie theater recently I found I could get high just by inhaling the cannabis smoke which permeated the theater...

There is a very nice self-titering aspect to cannabis. Each puff is a very small dose; the time lag between inhaling a puff and sensing its effect is small; and there is no desire for more after the high is there...

I can understand why people who had bad experiences with cannabis, or saw immature people using it as a drug, might favor prohibition. But as soon as they see how strongly some responsible, successful members of society feel about using cannabis they should admit that these people are capable of using it responsibly and allow them to do so legally. Fortunately, medical marijuana initiatives already allows this to go on in practice, but the situation is not ideal because (1) doctors cannot supply their patients with cannabis and (2) not all states allow medical marijuana and (3) the federal government does not recognize medical marijuana laws and has cracked down on the retailers who sell cannabis to licensed medical patients in most states other than california.

Tobacco is another thing that should not be allowed. There is just no reason for it and there are no health benefits to smoking it. I can't think of anything positive you can say in it's defense.

Here is a simple thing you have failed to consider: some people find tobacco smoking to be fun and enjoyable. I don't know what moral system you use to justify your dictatorial pronouncements that item X which millions of people enjoy should be illegal. Seeing this kind of attitude makes me nauseated at the idea of democracy, and it makes me want forgo morality altogether. I am probably not allowed to condone misogyny on these forums, but for me their is no moral distinction between politically endorsed misogyny and the political prohibitions that Evo recommends.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
Civilized said:
I completely disagree. The threshold dose of ethanol for a particular person is determined partially by their attunement with their body. From the first sip of wine or beer I already begin to feel poisoned. My stream of speech is slowed tremendously before the end of the first beer (I don't drive anymore, but I am sure my driving safety level would decrease as well). And I am not even allergic to alcohol, but I have met many people who are, and they can become "drunk by the end of one beer."
That would be a very small percent of people, one glass of wine simply does not contain enough alcohol.

That might be true in certain age groups, but I promise you that college students do not drink "for the taste and enjoyment without getting drunk."
As someone earlier pointed out, that is the age group that tends to go crazy and use a lot of poor judgement due to college being the first time they are out of their parents control.

And if "that is how the majority of people drink" then why is the majority of the beer and booze in the store made of such cheap low quality ingredients?
Do you have anything to back this claim up? I seriously doubt that "the majority" of alcohol made is of low quality. Maybe that's what you find at the liquor store near a college campus. Where I shop, the cheap stuff is in the back of the store collecting dust.

You can't tell me that Natural Ice Beer or Carlo Rossi wine have anything to do with anything other than people poisoning themselves to feel drunk, and judging by shelf space, these kind of bargain brands are the most popular.
Of course there are people that drink just to get drunk. But you don't have to get drunk when you drink. Smoking a joint is about getting stoned.

This is your biggest misunderstanding. Many people who support the legalization of cannabis dislike referring to it as a drug (this is why I avoid the term marijuana, which has become associated with drug culture) partly because of the connotation that drugs are used to "get wasted." Just as some people eat to the point of gluttony, and some people drink to the point of drunkness, some cannabis users smoke to the point of being stoned. But that is not the only reason to use cannabis, to get stoned. Many connoisseur's take a foremost interest in the taste of the plant, aesthetics of the plant, the enjoyment of the act of smoking, the art of cultivation --- these are not my opinions or personal experiences, these are all categories for the judges to consider at events like the Cannabis Cup in Amsterdam.
So you would advocate pot bred to remove it's ability to get people stoned, so, let's say we legalize marijuana that is extremely weak but has a "fine flavor of burning hemp". :-p

This is completely falsed, and based on your admittedly limited personal experiences.
No, I said that I was surrounded by pot heads for 20 years. I've been around pot for more years than you've been alive, most likely.

Notice that in genral, cannabis uses inhale the smoke more deeply than tobacco users do, and some people just enjoy the taste and activity of smoking
I have yet to meet a single person that fits this description, on the contrary, they are always looking for more and more potent weed.

Why can you share negative personal experiences such as this one, but when I try to share positive experiences about brilliant and successful cannabis users you threaten to lock the thread?
Because this is an educational forum and we don't promote the use of illegal drugs or harmful behavior.

I can understand why people who had bad experiences with cannabis, or saw immature people using it as a drug, might favor prohibition. But as soon as they see how strongly some responsible, successful members of society feel about using cannabis they should admit that these people are capable of using it responsibly and allow them to do so legally.
That's funny. I don't see that as an argument in favor of legalizing something like marijuana. I can drink 5 times more than most people wihout appearing drunk too. Doesn't mean it is a smart thing to do. I do need to stop drinking.

Here is a simple thing you have failed to consider: some people find tobacco smoking to be fun and enjoyable. I don't know what moral system you use to justify your dictatorial pronouncements that item X which millions of people enjoy should be illegal.
Of course it is reasonable to make certain harmful substances illegal. It has nothing to do with morality.
 
Last edited:
  • #55
For some conservative (not religious-right neo-con) views on the War on Drugs, legalization, related crime, etc, please review this symposium hosted by the National Review.

http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
So you would advocate pot bred to remove it's ability to get people stoned, so, let's say we legalize marijuana that is extremely weak but has a "fine flavor of burning hemp".

Absolutely, this would be much better than the current situation of prohibition. I know lots of people who would pay at least as much for de-THC-ed cannabis as they do for the premium pipe tobacco that they consider to be a poor substitute. And for the sake of consistency, you surely advocate removing the ethanol from beer , wine, and liquor, as long as it does not effect the taste?

No, I said that I was surrounded by pot heads for 20 years. I've been around pot for more years than you've been alive, most likely.

Imagine someone who wanted to ban books based on having hung around a trashy magazine rack all their life! This person could even argue that the majority of written works that get sold and consumed are trashy tabloids, etc. But by banning all books this person would be harming some of the most important members of society, just because the masses of stupid people make stupid decisions.

Alcohol is a scourge on the earth. It directly kills dozens of young people every year, and in the long-term it ruins millions of families, careers, and lives. Fact: ethanol is a poison, THC is not. I cannot participate in this illogical discussion in which THC is consider by some participants to be more harmful than ethanol. This goes against basic science and common sense. Calling something "illegal" is not a logical argument, at one point is was illegal for women or colored men to disobey white men. The prohibition against cannabis is just as grave an injustice as slavery and the subjagation of women. Many people at the time thought that controlling negroes and females was the logically correct thing to do. This is exactly how tragically mistaken the prohibitionist are.
 
  • #57
Illegal is not the same as criminal, even if the dictionary implies it is. An unlawful act means you broke a law. A criminal act means you victimized someone: hurt them, damaged their property, killed them, stole their property, etc. Just because a piece of paper was signed by someone we "elected" stating that wearing a blue shirt is illegal does not mean you are a criminal if you wear a blue shirt, you have simply broken a law.
 
  • #58
Evo said:
When I used the term drugs, I was using the word as it is commonly used when referring to the dictionary definition "3: often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness. If you didn't understand my use of the word, now you know.
Wether a drug is illegal or not is generally an accident. Tobacco is legal, cocaine isn't mainly because cocaine leaves didn't survive the long voyage to England. MDMA is ranked as a class A illegal drug while ritalin is handed out to every kid that speaks up in class. In most developed countries a large percentage of the rich (ie. access to doctors) population is on some form of 'lifestyle' medication (sleeping pills, anti-depressants etc).
These are legal because they are prescribed - in the same way that a Wall St version of stealing someone's wallet is legal.

Are you saying that most arts/humanities students are drug abusers?
No offence intended - I was making a joke about the picture of drug users lying around all day in their own little world contributing nothing to society. In contrast to say, philosophy graduates.
 
Last edited:
  • #59
mgb_phys said:
I was making a joke about the picture of drug users lying around all ay in their own little world contributing nothing to society. In contrast to say, philosophy graduates.
Someone sent me a hsyterical youtube video of a song about getting high, but it has an inappropriate part, that even bleeped, is too suggestive, so I can't post it here. Too bad, it's pretty good. :biggrin:
 
  • #60
Evo said:
Tobacco is another thing that should not be allowed. There is just no reason for it and there are no health benefits to smoking it. I can't think of anything positive you can say in it's defense.

Which is why I find people that try to give a credible reason for smoking pot so humorous. Like getting stoned is not the sole reason they do it. :-p

People don't need a good reason to do anything provided they don't infringe on the rights of others. I find it amazing that the notion of liberty is completely lost on some. Why do you think you have the right to take away the rights of others?

Alcohol has probably destroyed more lives than any other single drug, so I assume that you would support banning its use as well. It certainly has no redeeming qualities.

The same is true for soft drinks and junk food - no redeeming qualities. In fact I found it rather amusing this morning to see the soft drink companies running a commercial against taxing soft drinks to help support the health plan. The chickens are coming home to roost! Next, we will be going after salt and fat. Just watch. Maybe the government can issue a pamphlet of approved habbits.
 
Last edited:
  • #61
Exactly my point. Marijuana is not poisionous, not physically addictive, and is practically impossible to overdose on. Alchohol is all these things. Cigaretes fall into two of the catagories. Caffiene falls into two.

Society at large can not control an individuals private personal consuption of a substance, especially when it is almost entirely innocuous.
 
  • #63
Ivan Seeking said:
Why do you think you have the right to take away the rights of others?
Because some day I intend to rule the universe.

Alcohol has probably destroyed more lives than any other single drug, so I assume that you would support banning its use as well. It certainly has no redeeming qualities.
Except for flavoring food. Oh and there appear to be proven heart benefits for wine. Alcohol also thins the blood. But alcohol also destroys the liver, among other bad things. I'm thinking of cutting alcohol out for health reasons anyway. The Evo Child is against alcohol, she sees no reason to drink, and she's right. I keep asking her if she's ever seen me drunk, and she admitted she's never seen me drunk (I have a very high tolerance to alcohol), but she says that just because I am a "high functioning drinker", that it's still not good. I also will not drink and drive and I won't drink during the day. I believe in being as responsible as possible.

Maybe the government can issue a pamphlet of approved habbits.
What, you didn't get yours?

Oh, and I am against putting anything that is on fire into your mouth and breathing in. I grew up with a dad that smoked cigars and pipes . UGH.

I would support legalization of marijuana in pill or liquid form only. I just don't agree that we need yet another thing to be smoked when we are working on eliminating tobacco as a public nuisance.
 
Last edited:
  • #64
Evo said:
Except for flavoring food. Oh and there appear to be proven heart benefits for wine. Alcohol also thins the blood. But alcohol also destroys the liver, among other bad things. I'm thinking of cutting alcohol out for health reasons anyway. The Evo Child is against alcohol, she sees no reason to drink, and she's right. I keep asking her if she's ever seen me drunk, and she admitted she's never seen me drunk (I have a very high tolerance to alcohol), but she says that just because I am a "high functioning drinker", that it's still not good. I also will not drink and drive and I won't drink during the day. I believe in being as responsible as possible.

At least you are the one making the decision whether or not to drink, it is not being made for you by someone else for your own good. I think this is the whole point of this thread. Shouldn't people decide for themselves?
 
  • #65
the history channel did a series of shows on why drug laws were first enacted
common thread to all were racial discrimination

the drug laws are used by the white power structure to repress other groups
even their own kids in the case of current pot laws

social and religion based groups out side the christian church power base
are also a target of selective drug law enforcement
but that is no less then pure religious discremination

so in fact drug laws are far less about law or crime
and more a tool to repress certain groups deemed to be non main stream
chinese blacks mexicans hippies rock&rollers ravers and others have been victims
of the mis use of drug laws
 
  • #66
Evo said:
Tobacco is another thing that should not be allowed. There is just no reason for it and there are no health benefits to smoking it. I can't think of anything positive you can say in it's defense.

Which is why I find people that try to give a credible reason for smoking pot so humorous. Like getting stoned is not the sole reason they do it. :-p

Holy fascism batman.

Evo said:
It always kills me when people try to compare marijuana with alcohol. You can drink alcohol just for the taste and enjoyment without getting drunk. That is how the majority of people drink. If you drink to get drunk, then you have a problem. Marijuana is smoked just to get stoned. And the effect is immediate. No one smokes with the intention of not getting stoned.

I spent many years in the late 60's through the 70's around a bunch of pot smokers that would just lay around all day smoking and eating and not able to do anything else, they would be nodding off most of the time. I learned quickly that being drugged up all day was not appealing, was counter productive, and pretty stupid, IMO.

So I am not for legalization because it's something too many people would abuse just to get wasted and too many people would do just that if they could just pick some up at the store any time they want. I guess I'd like to see people try to cope with life and not avoid it through drugs.

Self-rightous police, pull over. Do you really think that everytime you get hungry, feel good after exercising or making "love" you're not riding some chemical high? In addition, people, in general are complex individuals, what you're presenting is a characiture from some 1960's mental hygiene video. I've talked about this in a previous post but what exactly is the criteria you're applying when dictating that smoking a joint is an unwholesome waste of time and curling up to a nice game of boggle is a wholesome waste of time? And for what reason do you think your oppressive inclinations should be heeded by the federal government?

Now it's certainly true that the notion that we live in a "free" society is a bit of a joke. In the immortal words of the Vandals "People talk about freedom, but if you think you're free, try walking into a deli, and urinating on the cheese". However, a society rests on a balance between freedom and legistlation and the western world likes to think it's more on the freedom side than most. And part of this is that it's not the government's job to enforce healthy living on its populace. We set up our governments this way, in part, because we knew they'd be absolutely terrible at it if they did. Now I'm on board with the argument that goods with direct negative externalities (good with externalities are good who have an effect on those outside the buyer/seller relationship, like second hand smoke) and to me that means stricter regulating of PUBLIC tobacco smoking (however, if you want to kill your lungs in the privacy of a properly ventilated room be my guest). And I also agree with the regulation of substances, such as pesticides and certain preservatives, that, quite simply, corporations would try to sneak into products unless there were direct regulations.

However, it is not the governments purvue (wow I sound like a liberitarian here when I'm REALLY not) to mandate leisure activities. You may find bad hollywood movies, porn, and american idol to be harmful to the average american intellect or disposition but the beauty of the system is your prejudices are just that, YOUR prejudices.

Now of course, this is the real world, and silly knee-jerk fascist mothers and corporate lobbyists have real pull in terms of regulation but let's recognize that for exactly what it is. A corruption of our governmental system. It may often be necessary for smooth operation (and to fill senator's war chest's) however let's not call it anything else.

P.S . And god help us if people who live the quiet family life and can't stand those damn teenagers and their drugs,sex and loud music become the moral center of our culture.
 
  • #67
Civilized said:
That might be true in certain age groups, but I promise you that college students do not drink "for the taste and enjoyment without getting drunk."
Obviously. Do you think that that might somehow be related to the reason drinking is illegal for people under 21 in the US...?
And if "that is how the majority of people drink" then why is the majority of the beer and booze in the store made of such cheap low quality ingredients? You can't tell me that Natural Ice Beer or Carlo Rossi wine have anything to do with anything other than people poisoning themselves to feel drunk, and judging by shelf space, these kind of bargain brands are the most popular.
You're just going to have to trust me on this one: the biggest, most important change you'll notice in your life when you get out of college and get a real job is you'll stop drinking Natural Ice.
 
  • #68
russ_watters said:
You're just going to have to trust me on this one: the biggest, most important change you'll notice in your life when you get out of college and get a real job is you'll stop drinking Natural Ice.

"Colt 45 and 3 zig-zag's, baby that's all we need..."
 
  • #69
Yes I think I've seen the in between stage of this (and obviously the after stage) when everyone in your research group becomes obsessed with bloody microbrews.
 
  • #70
maverick_starstrider said:
P.S . And god help us if people who live the quiet family life and can't stand those damn teenagers and their drugs,sex and loud music become the moral center of our culture.
Ahaha, if that's directed at me, you have no clue.

I had a radio show on Pacifica radio in the early 70's. (think hippy pacifist, drug users that shaped society and politics in the early 70's). Our radio station tower was bombed by the KKK and I was next to Arlo Guthrie in the PBS documentary about it. I dated the VP of the Students for a Democratic Society. I am the most non-mainstream, non-religious, immoral :-p, person that has more illegal drug experience than anyone here, except perhaps for Rayb. I also have a functioning brain and can make mature decisions.
Oh, and that's because I learned from each "test" of each drug that losing control is not something to be desired. I know people that died from drug overdoses, I have high school friends still in prison for dealing heroin, I've seen people murdered in front of me in bad neighborhoods. I've pretty much seen it all, and learned a lot from it.
 
  • #71
Evo said:
Ahaha, if that's directed at me, you have no clue.

No, just a generalization of the average anti-marijuana proponent. Helluva story though (not sarcasm).
 
  • #72
Evo said:
Ahaha, if that's directed at me, you have no clue.

I had a radio show on Pacifica radio in the early 70's. (think hippy pacifist, drug users that shaped society and politics in the early 70's). Our radio station tower was bombed by the KKK and I was next to Arlo Guthrie in the PBS documentary about it. I dated the VP of the Students for a Democratic Society. I am the most non-mainstream, non-religious, immoral :-p, person that has more illegal drug experience than anyone here, except perhaps for Rayb. I also have a functioning brain and can make mature decisions.
Oh, and that's because I learned from each "test" of each drug that losing control is not something to be desired. I know people that died from drug overdoses, I have high school friends still in prison for dealing heroin, I've seen people murdered in front of me in bad neighborhoods. I've pretty much seen it all, and learned a lot from it.
Most of the really bad results (killings, prison sentences, accidental overdose, etc) could be mitigated or eliminated by legalizing and controlling drugs, much as prescription drugs are controlled. Prohibition creates an organized criminal class that uses obscene profits on otherwise-cheap drugs to fuel violence, eliminate rivals and control territory. The price of prohibiting and criminalizing recreational drugs is huge, both in economic and social damages. The DEA and the drug-dealers agree - "keep drugs illegal".
 
  • #73
Ya, I was reading an article the other day that an obscene percentage (I can't actually remember the number) of the american penal system is filled with people who have commited what the article called "consentual crimes" including dealing and possession of drugs. Consensual crimes are ones in which every one involved was a willing participant (so not violent or theft or the like). That seems rather silly to me. Like making suicide illegal
 
  • #74
maverick_starstrider said:
called "consentual crimes" including dealing and possession of drugs. ... That seems rather silly to me.
By the rather odd logic of macro-economics this is the argument for making drugs illegal.
All the costs of policing, imprisonment, the proceeds of crimes and the costs of replacing stolen goods all add to the GDP.
 
  • #75
mgb_phys said:
By the rather odd logic of macro-economics this is the argument for making drugs illegal.
All the costs of policing, imprisonment, the proceeds of crimes and the costs of replacing stolen goods all add to the GDP.

That's a kin to the silly argument that in a green economy people are wealthier. We have the exact same size pie, we're just cutting it up differently.
 
  • #76
Ivan Seeking said:
People don't need a good reason to do anything provided they don't infringe on the rights of others. I find it amazing that the notion of liberty is completely lost on some. Why do you think you have the right to take away the rights of others?

Alcohol has probably destroyed more lives than any other single drug, so I assume that you would support banning its use as well. It certainly has no redeeming qualities.

The same is true for soft drinks and junk food - no redeeming qualities. In fact I found it rather amusing this morning to see the soft drink companies running a commercial against taxing soft drinks to help support the health plan. The chickens are coming home to roost! Next, we will be going after salt and fat. Just watch. Maybe the government can issue a pamphlet of approved habbits.
Ivan, I'm shocked to read one of your posts that I agree with entirely! Too many people believe that the legitimate role of government is to control or change society, instead of being a necessary evil for the purpose of protecting liberty from criminals/invaders.
 
  • #77
Evo said:
Which is why I find people that try to give a credible reason for smoking pot so humorous. Like getting stoned is not the sole reason they do it. :-p
It seems to me that most here are not trying to give a credible reason to smoke pot, they're trying to give a credible reason not to use force against and imprison people for smoking pot.

Although, if you really don't know other reasons to smoke pot than to get stoned, I'd suggest a little research. It clearly relieves pain, anxiety, nausea, lack of appetite, etc. Sure there are other drugs that have similar effects, but they are usually a lot harder to get.
 
  • #78
IMP said:
Illegal is not the same as criminal, even if the dictionary implies it is. An unlawful act means you broke a law. A criminal act means you victimized someone: hurt them, damaged their property, killed them, stole their property, etc. Just because a piece of paper was signed by someone we "elected" stating that wearing a blue shirt is illegal does not mean you are a criminal if you wear a blue shirt, you have simply broken a law.
This is a very good point, and the converse is true as well, making and enforcing a law can be a criminal act by that definition.
 
  • #79
Evo:
I would support legalization of marijuana in pill or liquid form only. I just don't agree that we need yet another thing to be smoked when we are working on eliminating tobacco as a public nuisance.

I guess you didn't read my earlier post, Check the link.

Vaporization of cannabis material effectively cuts out all carcinogens without any appreciable effect on the delivery of THC. I'm surprised you are not aware of this technique with all your past experience.

In any case, you can't ruin peoples lives and throw them in jail for something that is considered a 'public nuisance'. And how is it 'public' if the consumption is done in private?
 
  • #80
Quick question: what are people's opinions of seat belt laws? Mandatory health/car insurance?
 
  • #81
There is currently a fairly big movement pushing legalization here in California. The rationale that they are putting up is that pot smokers want to have their habit legalized so they can pay taxes on it and help out the economy. I think that there is some rather significant support for it at the moment particularly with the current economic situation and our budget shortfall.

Just a few monthes ago there was a story about marijuana sales supposedly accounting for approximately two third's of Mendocino County's local economy (That's where Humboldt is for those that don't know).
 
  • #82
russ_watters said:
Quick question: what are people's opinions of seat belt laws?
As a cyclist, not only should seal belts be banned, but all SUVs should have a 6inch spike sticking out of the middle of the steering wheel.
 
  • #83
russ_watters said:
Quick question: what are people's opinions of seat belt laws? Mandatory health/car insurance?

By law all manufacturers should have to put them in. I don't know if I'm really on the same page when the law mandates that you MUST wear them. If you want to get yourself killed be my guest. I don't get extreme sports but I wouldn't suggest banning them. However, it seems to mainly be a ticketable offence so maybe it's just a cash grab.
 
  • #84
This thread is so sad. Yes, what the world needs is better access to recreational drugs, because it is so important that everyone gets stoned on the drug of their choice. How about fighting for quicker approval of new drugs that help with serious illness or geting research funded for orphan illnesses? No. We need to get up in arms about being able to get stoned. Unreal.
 
  • #85
Evo said:
This thread is so sad. Yes, what the world needs is better access to recreational drugs, because it is so important that everyone gets stoned on the drug of their choice. How about fighting for quicker approval of new drugs that help with serious illness or geting research funded for orphan illnesses? No. We need to get up in arms about being able to get stoned. Unreal.

That's one of the worst arguments ever. Is that what you say when you see a bunch of people having fun? "You people are so sad, you're here having fun and wasting time while millions of people are starving and dying, why don't you go and do something to help them?"
 
  • #86
dx said:
That's one of the worst arguments ever. Is that what you say when you see a bunch of people having fun? "You people are so sad, you're here having fun and wasting time while millions of people are starving and dying, why don't you go and do something to help them?"
Equating getting drugged to having normal fun, I don't know what to say to that. :bugeye: That's even sadder.
 
  • #87
Evo said:
Equating getting drugged to having normal fun, I don't know what to say to that. :bugeye: That's even sadder.

Well who's to say that getting drugged up isn't "normal fun"? I know I said earlier that I don't think marijuana shouldn't be legalized because that makes it socially acceptable... but that doesn't mean I think it's immoral. It's more about protecting young people from getting hooked before they're old enough to understand the consequences of their actions.

You seem to think recreational drug use is immoral, Evo. Why?
 
  • #88
tchitt said:
Well who's to say that getting drugged up isn't "normal fun"? I know I said earlier that I don't think marijuana shouldn't be legalized because that makes it socially acceptable... but that doesn't mean I think it's immoral. It's more about protecting young people from getting hooked before they're old enough to understand the consequences of their actions.

You seem to think recreational drug use is immoral, Evo. Why?

I think legalization would help prevent young people from smoking pot.
The "just say no" policy is completely ineffective.
We should be giving facts to people my age, not scare tactics.
 
  • #89
Evo said:
Equating getting drugged to having normal fun, I don't know what to say to that. :bugeye: That's even sadder.

So by that right drinking alcohol should be in that same boat for you. After all, it IS a drug that was legalized.. Correct? Am I right?

If not why do you differentiate between the two? Marijuana is PROVEN in COUNTLESS studies to be effectively harmless to your body, including the second-hand smoke from it, while alcohol is known to destroy your body.

Drinking alcohol is getting druged, but that is considered having normal fun, by pretty much all accounts.
 
  • #90
Martini said:
I think legalization would help prevent young people from smoking pot.
The "just say no" policy is completely ineffective.
We should be giving facts to people my age, not scare tactics.

Agreed, and that's a very good point.
 
  • #91
maaaan this thread is incredible...

and its often that religious people criminalize marijuana, as if God somehow "****ed up" when he created pot. And yes, God indeed did create pot.

So their version of Genesis goes like this:

"And God said let there be light, and all was light."

"And then God said let there be pot, and society crashed and burned."
 
  • #92
Kronos5253 said:
So by that right drinking alcohol should be in that same boat for you. After all, it IS a drug that was legalized.. Correct? Am I right?

If not why do you differentiate between the two?
I have not differentiated between the two. I pointed out the good and bad of drinking alcohol. Mainly alcohol abuse, as alcohol in small amounts, can actually be beneficial. I suggest that you read my posts before making false claims of what I said.

Drinking alcohol is getting druged, but that is considered having normal fun, by pretty much all accounts.
Someone sipping a glass of wine over the period of an hour, might not even be enough to be felt. If they abuse it and drink to get drunk, then I am against it. I'm not for getting stoned or drunk. I think I've been pretty clear that I don't see a valid reason that anyone "needs" to do either.

Are we going to go around in circles now?
 
  • #93
camilus said:
maaaan this thread is incredible...

and its often that religious people criminalize marijuana, as if God somehow "****ed up" when he created pot. And yes, God indeed did create pot.

So their version of Genesis goes like this:

"And God said let there be light, and all was light."

"And then God said let there be pot, and society crashed and burned."
What religious person here is against it for religious reasons?

Or did you just make this up?
 
  • #94
The point is that a lot of people think getting drunk is fun (it causes feelings of euphoria and happiness), and I think that's why most people drink. You said earlier you think most people drink alcohol to enjoy the taste but I don't see that... why is so much high proof liquor bought and sold in this country if that's the case?

I'm just curious as to why you're so "against" people getting intoxicated for fun. Not that it matters... it's not even on topic. There's just a difference in everyone's respective philosophies and we're at the point where it's time to agree to disagree.
 
  • #95
Evo said:
Equating getting drugged to having normal fun, I don't know what to say to that. :bugeye: That's even sadder.

Lol. Again with the 'normal' fun. That reminds me of the Dursley's from Harry Potter. I'd expect a physics board is a bad place to expect arguments based around expectations of normalcy to take hold.
 
  • #96
"This is happy harry hard-on saying eat your cereal with a fork... and do your homework in the dark"
 
  • #97
camilus said:
maaaan this thread is incredible...

and its often that religious people criminalize marijuana, as if God somehow "****ed up" when he created pot. And yes, God indeed did create pot.

So their version of Genesis goes like this:

"And God said let there be light, and all was light."

"And then God said let there be pot, and society crashed and burned."

If you toke, don't post.
 
  • #98
Evo said:
What religious person here is against it for religious reasons?

Or did you just make this up?

follow the money as D T said in water gate

in the Alaska vote on recrimalising pot
the churchies were the major cash supporters

the whole prohibition movement was church based and funded
most dry county's are/were in the bible belt

same ideals are behind the war on drugs
with the sex and rock&roll added in
 
  • #99
lisab said:
If you toke, don't post.

more like if you get caught with pot in the south
you can't vote
 
  • #100
ray b said:
the whole prohibition movement was church based and funded
most dry county's are/were in the bible belt
This is the church of the carpenter guy with the beard?
The one who turned water into wine and hands out free wine every sunday ?

Have they perhaps been smoking something?
 

Similar threads

News Why do liberals support immigration so much?
Replies
28
Views
12K
News Will the New Internet Sales Tax Affect Online Shopping?
Replies
26
Views
5K
News Do You Know Why Trump is Popular?
7
Replies
340
Views
31K
News Support for American/Nato forces in Afghanistan
Replies
19
Views
4K
News Does 'pack journalism' shape the science news we read?
Replies
15
Views
3K
News BREXIT - more good than bad or more bad than good?
8
Replies
364
Views
26K
News Why do USA people vote on republicans?
Replies
7
Views
4K
How many steel profiles do I need to support a workshop roof in Santiago, Chile?
Replies
3
Views
2K
News Is Net Neutrality Really Necessary?
3
Replies
114
Views
14K
News Smurf's Views on State Welfare Support
Replies
26
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top