NationStates Jolt Archive

I thnk if it was leagle alot less people would be doing it.... its not reallt that addictive and i dont think the govnments wont let its people have it..... its better than cigarettes.....

ntrion?

it should be legal.
the gov't could sell it and monitor it and it would keep people safer...thats why its legal in the netherlands

Move to Amsterdam.

Of course. There is no realistic reason why not to. Especially when you take into account that Tobacco and Alcohol are legal.

I am tempted to say no, if only because all the pot smokers I have met have been complete tossers.

Well you cannot blame the pot for that, they were probably tossers anyway.

I'd love an MP to say that in parliament :D

I'm sorry, but a lot of the pot-smokers I see are a drain on society. Not exactly a thing that's encouraging.

of course it should be legal i sell it anyone want to buy. here is the link http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=143940

I'm sorry, but a lot of the pot-smokers I see are a drain on society. Not exactly a thing that's encouraging.

I'm not a pot smoker, but I happen to know some who are very nice people. Besides, smoking pot makes more sense then smoking cigarettes. Cigarettes is just like breathing in cancer. It doesn't even get you high. At least you get the feeling with marijuana.

I'm sorry, but a lot of the pot-smokers I see are a drain on society. Not exactly a thing that's encouraging.

How so?

Surely if it is legalise it will be a boon for society? All that extra revenue going to the country rather than the barons.

I'm sorry, but a lot of the pot-smokers I see are a drain on society. Not exactly a thing that's encouraging.

How so?

Surely if it is legalise it will be a boon for society? All that extra revenue going to the country rather than the barons.

The amount of money they spend on the stuff, drives you into prostitution and other ways of making fast cash

People trying to clean themselves live off taxpayers money in places where they attempt to rid themselves of their addictiveness

Drain on society? complete tossers? its really none of your business what people do in the privacy of their own homes now is it? In my view, those that seek to prohibit majiuana are generally small-minded and ultra-conservative sheep. I recommend that you all allow people to choose their own past-times. You may be a closet control-freak but the truth of the matter is, you are not your bothers keeper.

Sure.

it should definitely be legal. plus then the gov't could tax it. the gov't always says they need more money for things. there ya go. and so many people smoke pot already. its definitely not anything new. if they made it legal, there might be less people who would want it. and then they could teach people not to smoke and drive and stuff. and they could always make it legal after a certain age. its not like its worse than drinking. i think it should be legal.

Drain on society? complete tossers? its really none of your business what people do in the privacy of their own homes now is it? In my view, those that seek to prohibit majiuana are generally small-minded and ultra-conservative sheep. I recommend that you all allow people to choose their own past-times. You may be a closet control-freak but the truth of the matter is, you are not your bothers keeper.

Umm....no...

it should definitely be legal. plus then the gov't could tax it. the gov't always says they need more money for things. there ya go. and so many people smoke pot already. its definitely not anything new. if they made it legal, there might be less people who would want it. and then they could teach people not to smoke and drive and stuff. and they could always make it legal after a certain age. its not like its worse than drinking. i think it should be legal.

Marijuana ought to be treated like any other mind-altering substance (which includes anti-depressants, pain killers, and alcohol): it should only be consumed in moderation. Pot in and of itself is not physically addictive, only psychologically so. It is logically impossible to actually O.D. on pot.

Plus, recent scientific studies have found that a certain neurotransmitter receptor in the human brain accepts THC as well as the neurotransmitter it was meant for. And, as we all know, receptors are EXTREMELY picky about which neurotransmitters they accept.

So, taking into account that there are other substances that do similar things (such as most anti-depressants block serotonin uptake so that more is in the synapse, therefore is recepted more often) to the brain, it seems as if marijuana is simply an outside source for this particular neurotransmitter.

Plus, smoking pot in moderation does pretty much the same thing to your motor skills as alcohol, and is infinitely less deadly. As long as additional laws are made against things such as driving under the influence, there isn't much of a reason why pot should continue to remain illegal while cigarettes are still legal and even taxed by the government.

"ummm...no": touche.

Broaden your mind. The links people draw between prostitution, crime and majiuarana are entirely ridiculous and misleading. Sheltered upbringings and narrow-minded conservatism are little excuse for the terrible harm that this sort of ignorant "father-knows-best" mentality inflicts upon the world more generally. As a rule of thumb I say, if it doesnt harm you DIRECTLY, let people do as they will.

"ummm...no": touche.

Broaden your mind. The links people draw between prostitution, crime and majiuarana are entirely ridiculous and misleading. Sheltered upbringings and narrow-minded conservatism are little excuse for the terrible harm that this sort of ignorant "father-knows-best" mentality inflicts upon the world more generally. As a rule of thumb I say, if it doesnt harm you DIRECTLY, let people do as they will.

"ummm...no": touche.

Broaden your mind. The links people draw between prostitution, crime and majiuarana are entirely ridiculous and misleading. Sheltered upbringings and narrow-minded conservatism are little excuse for the terrible harm that this sort of ignorant "father-knows-best" mentality inflicts upon the world more generally. As a rule of thumb I say, if it doesnt harm you DIRECTLY, let people do as they will.

:roll: So by your sayings, I have a right to say "no" to the legalization of marijuana?

only for medicinal purposes. we have enough corporate monsters feeding off the suffering of others (paticularly, tobacco)

Marijuana use is a victimless crime.

Alcohol is worse, and alcohol is legal.

The governments could make many tax dollars if it were legal, instead of a random drug dealer.

Marijuana related "drug busts" are a waste of police resources, if you legalize it, you would in turn eliminate pot dealing.

There was a study done that indicated a higher percentage of people in the USA smoked pot than in Holland, and I assume you all know the difference between the legal systems.

Marijuana is not physically addictive, it is mentally addictive. People can form mental addictions to anything.

I know morons who smoke pot, yes, but they would still be morons if they did not smoke it. I know a fair bit of intelligent folk who smoke it also, and the same applies.

Education is the key -- educate the population on the given substance. Don't just make up a whole load of lies saying it will kill you and ruin your life. Once the person tries the drug and discovers that it really isn't that bad, then mistrust is built up.

I could go on if you people want me to...

Oh, and wouldn't marijuana be also known as "the gateway drug"?

Oh, and wouldn't marijuana be also known as "the gateway drug"?

Well that's the theory. However, the only 'gateway' I've ever seen from my pot smoking friends is the gateway to having Domino's Pizza on speed dial.

What about alcohol? It is legal, completely socially acceptable, and glorified in the media. That is much more of a gateway drug.

What about alcohol? It is legal, completely socially acceptable, and glorified in the media. That is much more of a gateway drug.

After alchhol, there's no stronger substance as far as I know

Exception being non-American alcohol

"ummm...no": touche.

Broaden your mind. The links people draw between prostitution, crime and majiuarana are entirely ridiculous and misleading. Sheltered upbringings and narrow-minded conservatism are little excuse for the terrible harm that this sort of ignorant "father-knows-best" mentality inflicts upon the world more generally. As a rule of thumb I say, if it doesnt harm you DIRECTLY, let people do as they will.

:roll: So by your sayings, I have a right to say "no" to the legalization of marijuana?

I fail to see the logic there.

i dont see why cops should be risking their lives to stop marijuana smoking. its a drain on resources and putting the fuzz in unneccisary danger.

"ummm...no": touche.

Broaden your mind. The links people draw between prostitution, crime and majiuarana are entirely ridiculous and misleading. Sheltered upbringings and narrow-minded conservatism are little excuse for the terrible harm that this sort of ignorant "father-knows-best" mentality inflicts upon the world more generally. As a rule of thumb I say, if it doesnt harm you DIRECTLY, let people do as they will.

:roll: So by your sayings, I have a right to say "no" to the legalization of marijuana?

I fail to see the logic there.

I really don't want to explain it if there's an explanation in the first quote

But see it does affect us directly...there comes a time in a potheads life when they decide to clean up....They get in trouble and the tax payers pay to clean them up....Pot is a gateway drug. It leads to more, legalization i say no. Also it affects me when i walk down the street with my son/daughter or neice or newphew, and they are exposed to it. I am liberal to say the least but weed is just a stupid arguement. I feel the same way about cigarettes. Just my two cents

i dont see why cops should be risking their lives to stop marijuana smoking. its a drain on resources and putting the fuzz in unneccisary danger.
Pretty much where it's at: There is no instance of violence or the like from Marijuana smokers, and there are even indicators that is actually good for you in some ways (though not likely smoked). The money we spend making sure I don't get high while watching the Simpsons and eat some snacks is money wasted. That's the cash cow, freeing up that money, as I am not likely to start getting my weed from the government when I can just as easily get it through people I trust or grow it myself.

Prostitution and the lot, give me a break. What, are you still get your anti-drug education from Reefer Madness? No stoner has the energy to do all that crap...And it really doesn't cost that much. It's not heroin.

Spinning in place is a gateway drug. Once you realize that you can torque your brain you want more.

Stoners as tossers: Carl Sagan, such a drag on society, that guy. Louis Armstrong...you get the idea...Just cause the stoners you met are losers doesn't condemn the whole lot. Maybe you just atract losers.

No.

Heres some food for thought.....

Last year there were 750,000 people in american prisons for possession of small amounts of marijuana.
To keep them at an average cost of 30,000 dollars a year is:

$22,500,000,000

Thats right..Twenty two and a half billion dollars.

Thats one dollar for nearly half of the stars in the Milky Way.

Or...$80.30 for every american living in the United states.

Makes you think maybe?

Pot is not a gateway drug.

The next person to confuse a correlational relationship with a cause and effect relationship gets shot.

Pot does not cause people to use other drugs, as implied by the "gateway drug" crap, people usually try it first because it's the easiest to get, then move on to other drugs as they meet more people and gain more connections in the drug community.

If they didn't start with pot, they'd start with something else, so don't blame marijuana for your failure to keep your kids from smoking pot.

I think instead of pumping so much money into keeping potheads off the street, let's put money into the D.A.R.E. program.

Studies show the program is useless, free the people in jail for marijuana and put that money into creating a program that actually works.

I'm not so sure its a gateway drug I know more people and have seen more evidence that it is in fact not. I say we stop banning smoking (cough california,Idaho,alabama cough) and yes legalize pot just like smoking though we should have an age limit and like smoking its obviosly not a good choice, just say no to using but yes to legalizing.

I say, legalise. Can't cook conservative sheep without one.

Move to Amsterdam.

All drugs are apparently legal in Portugal, so if you fancy living the 'highhh' life, why not go fer a smoke on the coast?

*lies sun bathing on pearly white beaches, wild blue lagoon in one hand, the fattest chunky 6 tab reefer in the other.*
8)
Can anyone guess where this quote's from?( It's one of those films that promotes cannabis.)
"it's simple - free your mind, your ass will follow."

The rolling eyes emoticon looks well stoned when it freezes. (Just thought i'd fill everyone in.)

Pot is Legal in Western Australia.

Apart from it causing mental illness and being a gateway drug I have to say that most people who I knew who smoked it turned into losers.

So legalise it. Legalise all the drugs. Let the simpleminded idiots kill themselves off. Just as the those who smoke cigerattes are doing.

Evolution. Survival of the species etc. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Oh and bring back hanging so that when druggies break the law to finance their addiction we can hang them.

So who said that we Tories are progressive and caring? Not this Tory!

:twisted:

And no I am not just being inflamatory, the above is my real opinion!

Water is the gateway liquid to alcohol, ban the evil water.

Yes legalise, treat it as a health issue like it should be.

Apart from it causing mental illness and being a gateway drug I have to say that most people who I knew who smoked it turned into losers.

So legalise it. Legalise all the drugs. Let the simpleminded idiots kill themselves off. Just as the those who smoke cigerattes are doing.

Evolution. Survival of the species etc. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Oh and bring back hanging so that when druggies break the law to finance their addiction we can hang them.

So who said that we Tories are progressive and caring? Not this Tory!

:twisted:

And no I am not just being inflamatory, the above is my real opinion!
So why is pot a gateway drug and not tobacco? The only reason pot leads to other drug use is that it leads people to deal with criminals. Control it and make it legal, ban it and smoking in public and while you're on legalise prositution and let's get the tax rolling in.

Apart from it causing mental illness and being a gateway drug I have to say that most people who I knew who smoked it turned into losers.

So legalise it. Legalise all the drugs. Let the simpleminded idiots kill themselves off. Just as the those who smoke cigerattes are doing.

Evolution. Survival of the species etc. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Oh and bring back hanging so that when druggies break the law to finance their addiction we can hang them.

So who said that we Tories are progressive and caring? Not this Tory!

:twisted:

And no I am not just being inflamatory, the above is my real opinion!
So why is pot a gateway drug and not tobacco? The only reason pot leads to other drug use is that it leads people to deal with criminals. Control it and make it legal, ban it and smoking in public and while you're on legalise prositution and let's get the tax rolling in.

And the thing about "causing mental illness" is utter crap. I can't believe some people still believe that...but hey, Jeem also seems to still believe that marihuana is addictive, so I guess that's not too surprising. Is an informed opinion "progressive?"

And just why would "druggies" (nice ambiguous term, that) need to break the law to support their (hypothetically now legal) habit?

http://www.cybercombatclub.com/anime_mangas_divx_nohentai_repertoire/fr_kenshin_rurouni_anime_mangas_oav_divx_samourais_repertoire/images_kenshin_rurouni_pics_galleries_wallpapers/hellsing_hellsing_images_wallpapers1small.jpg
In the name of reason, illogical arguments of the ill-informed shall be banished into eternal refutation. Amen.

Quick, can anyone tell me why marijuana was first made illegal in the U.S.?

Quick, can anyone tell me why marijuana was first made illegal in the U.S.?

Moral lobbying, racism, Yellow Journalism, and the threat hemp posed to the textile and paper industries (in no particular order). I think that's it in a nutshell, but I am a little tired.

Quick, can anyone tell me why marijuana was first made illegal in the U.S.?

Hemp was a threat to the textile and paper industries, moral lobbying, racism, and Yellow Journalism. I think that's it in a nutshell, but I am a little tired.

Boom.

Specifically, and I may be wrong, I believe it was lobbying by a rope manufacturer. They didn't want hemp rope to hit the market because it was stronger and cheaper than their cotton rope.

yes, it should, people should have the choice.
Alcohol is a wiedly available, addictive drug, as is caffeine and nicotine, why not dope aswell?

yes, it should, people should have the choice.
Alcohol is a wiedly available, addictive drug, as is caffeine and nicotine, why not dope aswell?

Caffeine is one of the most addictive drugs in the world. It's up there with heroin.

Quick, can anyone tell me why marijuana was first made illegal in the U.S.?

Hemp was a threat to the textile and paper industries, moral lobbying, racism, and Yellow Journalism. I think that's it in a nutshell, but I am a little tired.

Boom.

Specifically, and I may be wrong, I believe it was lobbying by a rope manufacturer. They didn't want hemp rope to hit the market because it was stronger and cheaper than their cotton rope.

Indeed, hemp products have the potential to be superior to those made of other materials in many areas, and that made a lot of people nervous. I'm not sure if hemp oil figures into it, as I don't know if we had the technology at the time to do anything with that (and, consequently, affect the petroleum industry).

yes, it should, people should have the choice.
Alcohol is a wiedly available, addictive drug, as is caffeine and nicotine, why not dope aswell?

Caffeine is one of the most addictive drugs in the world. It's up there with heroin.

It's also the drug that people are most addicted to today, since most do not regard it as a drug and use it without a second thought.

I think the biggest obstacle to legalizing pot is the dealers themselves. None of them want it legalized because that would make their profits plummet. As for the drug itself, I think it causes a great deal less harm socially and physically than alcohol. Hell, I think cigarettes cause a great deal less social harm than alcohol. People don't, however, try to make alcohol illegal. They tried it once, but the drunks, like the addicts they are, found ways to get it anyway, and someone managed to find a way to make money out of it hand over fist. Sound familiar?

I know some alcoholics who are terminal cases, killing themselves, and they'd have been better off smoking pot than drinking. One killed someone drunk-driving, and I'm not proud to know him, and in fact avoid him if I can. I know of cases where a drunk-driver has killed someone and gotten a legal slap on the wrist. A suspended sentence and a fine of less than $1000. Charming, isn't it? What are YOU going to tell that three year old's parents about pot being worse than alcohol?

Aside from that, it's a draw on taxpayers. We have a huge proportion of people serving time in prison for pot-related offenses. Ironically, not many of the people in prison are there for charges directly connected to alcohol. Alcohol may have been a factor, but an unrecognised one.

We pay to keep those people there, to feed them and shelter them, and if you're so against it, stop paying for it. INSIST that we stop putting them there, and put them in some place that doesn't cost so much to the rest of us.

the thing about "causing mental illness" is utter crap.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,8150,1117959,00.html

But then I suppose "Professor Robin Murray, head of general psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, London" is making those figures up as well.

Ah, addicts and the head in the sand routine, "it won't happen to me", "I don't have a problem", "I can stop anytime I want to" and "its harmless fun".

I will leave you to chat amongst yourselves, as Professor Murray states "80% of new cases of schizophrenia involving a history of cannabis use."

:twisted:

That's like saying that 80% of heroin addicts smoke cigarettes. Or better yet, like saying that those new cases of schizophrenia, or even the lazy bastards didn't have the latent tendency to start with, before they even heard of marijuana. Perhaps if they had been examined sooner, they would have been diagnosed before they'd started smoking marijuana. There is also a tendency to find drug and alcohol abuse in about 80% of the bi-polar community, but you don't hear anyone saying that alcohol or drugs induced the condition.

the thing about "causing mental illness" is utter crap.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,8150,1117959,00.html

But then I suppose "Professor Robin Murray, head of general psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, London" is making those figures up as well.

Ah, addicts and the head in the sand routine, "it won't happen to me", "I don't have a problem", "I can stop anytime I want to" and "its harmless fun".

I will leave you to chat amongst yourselves, as Professor Murray states "80% of new cases of schizophrenia involving a history of cannabis use."

:twisted:

I bet 80% of new cases of schizophrenia involve a history of alcohol use, microwave use, motor vehicle use, dihydrogen oxide use, and pornography use as well.

the thing about "causing mental illness" is utter crap.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,8150,1117959,00.html

But then I suppose "Professor Robin Murray, head of general psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, London" is making those figures up as well.

Ah, addicts and the head in the sand routine, "it won't happen to me", "I don't have a problem", "I can stop anytime I want to" and "its harmless fun".

I will leave you to chat amongst yourselves, as Professor Murray states "80% of new cases of schizophrenia involving a history of cannabis use."

:twisted:

Again, marihuana is not addictive at low or moderate levels of use, and if you must insist on spouting such drivel, at least post a source which supports it.

As for your other claim, the article is calling for A) education of young people on the risks, and B) more research into just what those risks are. There is no direct causal relationship claimed there. For one, there is a statement against teenagers using it, which makes sense, as drug use can affect a developing brain. This is irrelevant to your argument, since no one advocates legalization to minors. Strike one. Secondly, you make the common lay-error of confusing a causal relationship with mere correlation - those with schizophrenia and other Axis I mental disorders tend to have substance problems including-but-not-limited-to marihuana. Strike 2. Lastly, this came from another doctor in the article you cited:

"The evidence would seem to support a link between cannabis use and mental health problems, but what exactly the link is unclear. It seems more likely that cannabis use is a trigger rather than a direct cause of psychosis, but we need more research to establish that..."We should be looking to legally regulate and control the supply of drugs precisely because they are dangerous, not because they are relatively safe for the majority of users.""

Emphasis mine.

Thusly, the statement is that the mentally ill ought not to use marihuana, as it exacerbates their symptoms - no surprises there to those who know about mental health, nor is anything else in the article you cite. Strike 3, you and your high-horse attitude are out. Maybe you ought to learn something about mental health before you go and act like a condescending -ss.

It doesn't help you that the highlighted quote above confirms what many of us have been saying on this thread, either. :wink:

I know a lotta folks here are in different countries, but if you got satellite or a US import store: Penn & Teller: Bullshit! blows the whole drug war fiasco into orbit. Those guys are great. Now if only they would make a docu-movie to steal Michael Moore's upcoming Oscar.
Definitely agree with the Brit that said legalize'em even if it's just to get the idiots to O.D.
And a note on prohibition: It may have worked if it was over a long period of time (As it looks like tobacco use is going), but a kindly little woman named Carrie Nation turned out to be more violent than the drunkards she was blaspheming, running into bars with axes and crap. Hell a lot of'em did it that way. Of course you'd need an appropriate and less dangerous substitute. Otherwise paint sales will suddenly go up.
Besides anybody who's ever tried banning a naturally occuring or mind-altering substance has been a Christian retard anyway. What the hell's more unnatural and mind-altering than religion?

What the hell's more unnatural and mind-altering than religion?

:lol: Hah! As a psychology major with a religious studies minor, I got a good laugh out of this. You make a very good point.

1. Pot is less dangerous then cigarettes (addiction and all), and far less dangerous then alcohol. It is physically impossible to overdose on pot, you'd just fall asleep. Compare that to alcohol. Hell, it's far easier to drive while you're stoned then when you're drunk.

2. If pot was legalized and taxed, the U.S. could realistically pay off its entire tax deficit.

3. The entire premise of pot being illegalized in the first place was totally based off lies and propaganda, like the infamous Reefer Madness.

So hell yes, legalize it.

Edit: On a side note, Professor Murray is trying to draw causation from correlation. People with chronic schizophrenia often show symptoms earlier on in life such as social inadequacy, and quite possibly cope with that through pot. Saying that weed causes schizophrenia is truly an incredible stretch, if his statistics are even true.

Apart from it causing mental illness and being a gateway drug I have to say that most people who I knew who smoked it turned into losers.

So legalise it. Legalise all the drugs. Let the simpleminded idiots kill themselves off. Just as the those who smoke cigerattes are doing.

Evolution. Survival of the species etc. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Oh and bring back hanging so that when druggies break the law to finance their addiction we can hang them.

So who said that we Tories are progressive and caring? Not this Tory!

:twisted:

And no I am not just being inflamatory, the above is my real opinion!
So why is pot a gateway drug and not tobacco? The only reason pot leads to other drug use is that it leads people to deal with criminals. Control it and make it legal, ban it and smoking in public and while you're on legalise prositution and let's get the tax rolling in.

And the thing about "causing mental illness" is utter crap. I can't believe some people still believe that...but hey, Jeem also seems to still believe that marihuana is addictive, so I guess that's not too surprising. Is an informed opinion "progressive?"

And just why would "druggies" (nice ambiguous term, that) need to break the law to support their (hypothetically now legal) habit?

http://www.cybercombatclub.com/anime_mangas_divx_nohentai_repertoire/fr_kenshin_rurouni_anime_mangas_oav_divx_samourais_repertoire/images_kenshin_rurouni_pics_galleries_wallpapers/hellsing_hellsing_images_wallpapers1small.jpg
In the name of reason, illogical arguments of the ill-informed shall be banished into eternal refutation. Amen.

According to a recent study (can't remember who it was by, but it got some coverage by the BBC so I'd assume it was reasonably credible) found that people who use cannabis are seven times more likely to suffer from schizophrenia compared to a person who does not. Assuming that all drugs have a wide array of terrible consequences for consumption is not less ignorant a view than those who refuse to acknowledge that taking drugs have no risks whatsoever. Of course you have to balance the argument with other things such as choice, the benefits of using the drug, etc etc, but you have to acknowledge that there are some risks and be rational about them - even with a fairly soft drug like cannabis.

Whilst you cannot be chemically addicted to something like cannabis it is possible to become psychologically addicted to the high that comes as a result.

If a person "needed a fix" and had no money with wish to buy their drug of their choice, it is possible that they would break the law in order to gain the money necessary to fund their habit. Whether or not they actually purchase the drug from their local pharmacy or on a street corner makes no difference to this.

That said I'm yet to be persuaded one way or the other over the issue of legalisation, I just didn't agree with some of your points.

According to a recent study (can't remember who it was by, but it got some coverage by the BBC so I'd assume it was reasonably credible) found that people who use cannabis are seven times more likely to suffer from schizophrenia compared to a person who does not.

First off, I'd like to see a source for more specific info. Secondly, assuming it is true, have you taken into consideration the probability that a person will develop schizophrenia in the first place? It "has a lifetime prevalence of less than 1%" (Davison, Neale, & Kringe 2004), and an increased probability of 7x really doesn't amount to much in such a case. Essentially, it will exacerbate a predisposition to schizophrenia, not make cases manifest out of nowhere. So, again, the message here is that people with a history of mental illness should not be taking mind-altering substances.

Whilst you cannot be chemically addicted to something like cannabis it is possible to become psychologically addicted to the high that comes as a result.

That which is "psychologically addictive" is called "habit-forming," and the distinction between that and biological dependence is important clinically. Addiction has serious physical withdrawal symptoms, abstaining from a habit does not.

If a person "needed a fix" and had no money with wish to buy their drug of their choice, it is possible that they would break the law in order to gain the money necessary to fund their habit. Whether or not they actually purchase the drug from their local pharmacy or on a street corner makes no difference to this.

Yes, it really does. Drug prices are what they are due to current drug legislation. Furthermore, yeah, people do steal to buy cigarettes and alcohol now, and were marihuana legalized, someone could steal to buy it. That's why we have a functioning legal system, which keeps people from stealing the things that they feel they need. THC, alcohol, nicotine, or a VCR, theft is illegal due to its harm of others, and we do have a system in place to deal with that.

That said I'm yet to be persuaded one way or the other over the issue of legalisation, I just didn't agree with some of your points.

Then I hope I've cleared them up for you.

According to a recent study (can't remember who it was by, but it got some coverage by the BBC so I'd assume it was reasonably credible) found that people who use cannabis are seven times more likely to suffer from schizophrenia compared to a person who does not.

First off, I'd like to see a source for more specific info. Secondly, assuming it is true, have you taken into consideration the probability that a person will develop schizophrenia in the first place? It "has a lifetime prevalence of less than 1%" (Davison, Neale, & Kringe 2004), and an increased probability of 7x really doesn't amount to much in such a case. Essentially, it will exacerbate a predisposition to schizophrenia, not make cases manifest out of nowhere. So, again, the message here is that people with a history of mental illness should not be taking mind-altering substances.

Whilst you cannot be chemically addicted to something like cannabis it is possible to become psychologically addicted to the high that comes as a result.

That which is "psychologically addictive" is called "habit-forming," and the distinction between that and biological dependence is important clinically. Addiction has serious physical withdrawal symptoms, abstaining from a habit does not.

If a person "needed a fix" and had no money with wish to buy their drug of their choice, it is possible that they would break the law in order to gain the money necessary to fund their habit. Whether or not they actually purchase the drug from their local pharmacy or on a street corner makes no difference to this.

Yes, it really does. Drug prices are what they are due to current drug legislation. Furthermore, yeah, people do steal to buy cigarettes and alcohol now, and were marihuana legalized, someone could steal to buy it. That's why we have a functioning legal system, which keeps people from stealing the things that they feel they need. THC, alcohol, nicotine, or a VCR, theft is illegal due to its harm of others, and we do have a system in place to deal with that.

That said I'm yet to be persuaded one way or the other over the issue of legalisation, I just didn't agree with some of your points.

Then I hope I've cleared them up for you.

I'm fairly sure it was accurate, I can't source it though although just skimming over a few web pages it does state that cannabis should not be used (for medical purposes) if the person has a history of schizophrenia or mental illness. Of course its likely that the illness will not be created but merely activated as you said. However many potential sufferers will have no history of mental illness and so to argue that caution or restraint should only apply to them seems to be not entirely dealing with the whole issue.

I think to refer to it as "habit forming" is perhaps an understatement of the issue. By that reasoning you might refer to kleptomaniacs, agoraphobics and the like as having simply formed unhealthy habits. A psychological addiction or disorder can be every bit as serious as a chemical one.

I accept your point about prices but I was merely responding to your question as to why "druggies" would need to break the law to support their habit.

I'm going to end here, partly because I don't have much more to say and partly out of annoyance in that I sat my A2 psychology exams less than 1 year ago and I could snap off statistics concerning mental illnesses at an impressive rate and now can't seem to remember a single one in any significant detail.

I'm fairly sure it was accurate...

It's not so much your accuracy in reporting, but your accuracy in interpretation. When talking about psychological studies, the specifics are important, as I've mentioned. Lack of specificity kind of hamstrings any of this argument, because your interpretation of the results may be completely inaccurate. This is why it's important to cite a source.

However many potential sufferers will have no history of mental illness and so to argue that caution or restraint should only apply to them seems to be not entirely dealing with the whole issue.

Actually, it's got nothing to do with that. Again, as I said, it's only a very, very small percentage of people who ever develop schizophrenia, and when you're talking about less than one percent, 7x greater likelyhood is not much at all. Of If you happen to be at the frings of that >1% of the population, then you probably shouldn't become a habitual user of marihuana, because when you're high you may go into an active episode. Otherwise, these people are latent, and still a very small percentage.

I think to refer to it as "habit forming" is perhaps an understatement of the issue. By that reasoning you might refer to kleptomaniacs, agoraphobics and the like as having simply formed unhealthy habits. A psychological addiction or disorder can be every bit as serious as a chemical one.

No, it is not. There is a clinical distinction between "habit-forming" and "addictive." One denotes mental dependency, the other physical dependence, and they are quite different. These are the definitions in the psychological community, not flexible vocabulary.

I accept your point about prices but I was merely responding to your question as to why "druggies" would need to break the law to support their habit.

Well, that was the flaw in the argument I wanted to point out.

I'm going to end here, partly because I don't have much more to say and partly out of annoyance in that I sat my A2 psychology exams less than 1 year ago and I could snap off statistics concerning mental illnesses at an impressive rate and now can't seem to remember a single one in any significant detail.

You really may wish to reacquaint yourself with the terminology of the field, then (not to be harsh, take that in the most non-hostile way possible). I've assisted psychiatrists in a schizophrenia ward, and their greatest substance concerns are meth/speed, alcohol, and hallucinogens. Weed is not much of an issue.

I'm out for a while.

To tell the truth I'm not especially interested in psychology, or at least not the academic study of it. To me much of it seemed to be common sense with studies attached, but then that's probably because I wasn't studying it at a particularly advanced level. I got an A and have no wish to reacquaint myself with the subject (or any other science for that matter) at this stage, although incidentally mental disorders was one of the few subjects that I found interesting.

How will a person know what they are on the fringes of the 1% of the population?

7% is as relatively small figure yet I wasn't arguing against the legalisation of cannabis per se, just attempting to prove that there is some correlation between the use of the drug and the development (or activation) of a mental disorder.

Even if "habit forming" is a clinical term, I disapprove of the connotations behind such a word. It seems to me that such a phrase could be quite capable of trivialising a very serious mental disorder by referring to it as little more than a "habit". I accept the differences between chemical and psychological dependence, but would "psychological disorder" not be a better way of referring to a serious mental illness than "habit".

I think it's wrong that the school system focuses all it's attention on getting teens to not smoke marijuana. I mean, the schools focus more on pot than they do with cocaine and heroin, which are far more dangerous. I don't smoke weed myself, and I don't know this for a fact, but from friends of mine, through their experiences, weed is less addictive than cigarettes. This may be wrong, but to sum it all up, I think pot should be legal.

I think it's wrong that the school system focuses all it's attention on getting teens to not smoke marijuana. I mean, the schools focus more on pot than they do with cocaine and heroin, which are far more dangerous. I don't smoke weed myself, and I don't know this for a fact, but from friends of mine, through their experiences, weed is less addictive than cigarettes. This may be wrong, but to sum it all up, I think pot should be legal.

It is also the lies they use which are damaging. From my experience pot was put on the same level as heroin and all of them were "Drugs" (capital D), They were all physicall addictive (as well as psychologically addictive) all so expensive that anyone doing them had to resort to crime. All severely damaged your health, even if done in moderation, even if only done once. Upshot of this, we find out that pot is actually quite cheap (cheaper than enjoying yourself on that ok drug alcohol) and non of use had a craving for it after one spliff, made us think we were being lied to, and cheated.
Also the fact that we had an alcohlic teaching us and a police officer who we could run rings round after on reading one general book on recreational drugs didn't help.
I think that they should just accept that some teenagers are going to do pot anyway and educate them on how to do it safely.

I think it's wrong that the school system focuses all it's attention on getting teens to not smoke marijuana. I mean, the schools focus more on pot than they do with cocaine and heroin, which are far more dangerous. I don't smoke weed myself, and I don't know this for a fact, but from friends of mine, through their experiences, weed is less addictive than cigarettes. This may be wrong, but to sum it all up, I think pot should be legal.

It is also the lies they use which are damaging. From my experience pot was put on the same level as heroin and all of them were "Drugs" (capital D), They were all physicall addictive (as well as psychologically addictive) all so expensive that anyone doing them had to resort to crime. All severely damaged your health, even if done in moderation, even if only done once. Upshot of this, we find out that pot is actually quite cheap (cheaper than enjoying yourself on that ok drug alcohol) and non of use had a craving for it after one spliff, made us think we were being lied to, and cheated.
Also the fact that we had an alcohlic teaching us and a police officer who we could run rings round after on reading one general book on recreational drugs didn't help.
I think that they should just accept that some teenagers are going to do pot anyway and educate them on how to do it safely.

I agree with you 100% :D

I think it's wrong that the school system focuses all it's attention on getting teens to not smoke marijuana. I mean, the schools focus more on pot than they do with cocaine and heroin, which are far more dangerous. I don't smoke weed myself, and I don't know this for a fact, but from friends of mine, through their experiences, weed is less addictive than cigarettes. This may be wrong, but to sum it all up, I think pot should be legal.

It is also the lies they use which are damaging. From my experience pot was put on the same level as heroin and all of them were "Drugs" (capital D), They were all physicall addictive (as well as psychologically addictive) all so expensive that anyone doing them had to resort to crime. All severely damaged your health, even if done in moderation, even if only done once. Upshot of this, we find out that pot is actually quite cheap (cheaper than enjoying yourself on that ok drug alcohol) and non of use had a craving for it after one spliff, made us think we were being lied to, and cheated.
Also the fact that we had an alcohlic teaching us and a police officer who we could run rings round after on reading one general book on recreational drugs didn't help.
I think that they should just accept that some teenagers are going to do pot anyway and educate them on how to do it safely.

I agree with you 100% :D
:shock: Wow, that's the first time that has ever happened :lol:

I think it's wrong that the school system focuses all it's attention on getting teens to not smoke marijuana. I mean, the schools focus more on pot than they do with cocaine and heroin, which are far more dangerous. I don't smoke weed myself, and I don't know this for a fact, but from friends of mine, through their experiences, weed is less addictive than cigarettes. This may be wrong, but to sum it all up, I think pot should be legal.

It is also the lies they use which are damaging. From my experience pot was put on the same level as heroin and all of them were "Drugs" (capital D), They were all physicall addictive (as well as psychologically addictive) all so expensive that anyone doing them had to resort to crime. All severely damaged your health, even if done in moderation, even if only done once. Upshot of this, we find out that pot is actually quite cheap (cheaper than enjoying yourself on that ok drug alcohol) and non of use had a craving for it after one spliff, made us think we were being lied to, and cheated.
Also the fact that we had an alcohlic teaching us and a police officer who we could run rings round after on reading one general book on recreational drugs didn't help.
I think that they should just accept that some teenagers are going to do pot anyway and educate them on how to do it safely.

I agree with you 100% :D
:shock: Wow, that's the first time that has ever happened :lol:

Well, like they say, there is a first for everything.

How will a person know what they are on the fringes of the 1% of the population?

Probably when they have a psychotic episode when high. They should then stop using THC. Pretty simple, really, much like when you're allergic to something. You don't know until you try it.

Even if "habit forming" is a clinical term, I disapprove of the connotations behind such a word. It seems to me that such a phrase could be quite capable of trivialising a very serious mental disorder by referring to it as little more than a "habit". I accept the differences between chemical and psychological dependence, but would "psychological disorder" not be a better way of referring to a serious mental illness than "habit".

No, that would be incorrect. Mental disorders do not include drug dependencies, so no, this would not be better. Habitually using marihuana is not a mental illness. You may dislike the terminology, but that's your impression of the wording - blame it on modern society's careless use of the words. There are specific definitions in use amongst professionals in the field, and since those professionals know these definitions and what they mean, they serve their purpose.

Legalise away, and go for prostitution while you're at it. It's your body and your choice, not something the state should have anything to do with. You do, in fact, have the right to do dangerous things. Otherwise shouldn't skydiving be illegal as well?

To my view, the real losses due to the 'war on drugs' can be stated in terms of lives lost and research that's been made impossible.
Has anyone checked the US murder rate statistics on a long time scale? (I'm assuming most of the people here are American, but the data should be relevant to any nationality.) They've been collected since 1900, with more or less all jurisdictions reporting by 1915. Graph them and you get an interesting picture: a rising slope during prohibition with its peak in 1933 at ~10 homocides per 100,000 citizens. It drops off much more quickly at the end of prohibition (to four or five murders/100k citizens), then jumps (over a period of a decade or so) to hover around the 1933 maximum during the present war on drugs.
Note: I'm aware that one can't actually prove anything with statistics, but they are useful for locating correlations. If you can show that such strongly correlated events have a common cause, more power to you. Until then, I'll stick with Occams' Razor. [Data courtesy of Historical Statistics of the U.S. plus annual supplements.]
The point on research should be obvious: Since marajuana and certain other substances are illegal, we don't actually know how they work. Thus it's more difficult by far to determine what damage (if any) is occouring to those presently using them, not to mention any other things that might be noticed during the course of a study.

Where am I? HAHAHA. That's what I would be saying if I was high.

(you can tell that i've obviously never been high)

Ignore this post.

Ignore this post.

Why should I? :wink:

pot is a healing herb that teaches people to question authority

Yes.

pot is a healing herb that teaches people to question authority

Er, the herb itself doesn't teach you anything. As to the healing part... well, it does have some medicinal uses, but smoking it is harmful to your lungs.

I I don't smoke weed myself, and I don't know this for a fact, but from friends of mine, through their experiences, weed is less addictive than cigarettes. This may be wrong, but to sum it all up, I think pot should be legal.

It's not at all physically addictive, but it can become psychologically addictive.

Should pot be legal ?

Frankly...NO :roll:

Yes, pot should be legalised for two reasons:

1) When anything that was once illegal becomes legal, the thrill of doing it disappears, so less people do it. The same would happen with pot smoking.

2) For those that still do want to smoke, it could be taxed like tobacco, thus turning more people off it.

Now tell me profiting off a victimless crime is worse than losing money on keeping pot smokers/dealers in prison.

it should definitely be legal. plus then the gov't could tax it. the gov't always says they need more money for things. there ya go. and so many people smoke pot already. its definitely not anything new. if they made it legal, there might be less people who would want it. and then they could teach people not to smoke and drive and stuff. and they could always make it legal after a certain age. its not like its worse than drinking. i think it should be legal.

Why not instead, tax gas? It makes the most sense, because people wouldn't be able to avoid the tax; it would encourage technological development of environmentally-friendly vehicular transportation, and in the meanwhile, cause people to drive less and stop adversely affecting the environment. Also, we wouldn't have to concern ourselves with the Middle East anymore after our hydrogen-cell power cars come out in 2015 (estimated date).

Instead, why not crack down on the users, instead of all these 'awareness' programs? These are just a drain on public resources, and they obviously aren't working from the numbers of 'yes, let's legalize it' on this board. Why not pass laws to raise the severity of punishment, and if push comes to shove, which it should, eventually, lace those drugs with lethal chemicals as a 'final solution'?

it should definitely be legal. plus then the gov't could tax it. the gov't always says they need more money for things. there ya go. and so many people smoke pot already. its definitely not anything new. if they made it legal, there might be less people who would want it. and then they could teach people not to smoke and drive and stuff. and they could always make it legal after a certain age. its not like its worse than drinking. i think it should be legal.

Why not instead, tax gas? It makes the most sense, because people wouldn't be able to avoid the tax; it would encourage technological development of environmentally-friendly vehicular transportation, and in the meanwhile, cause people to drive less and stop adversely affecting the environment. Also, we wouldn't have to concern ourselves with the Middle East anymore after our hydrogen-cell power cars come out in 2015 (estimated date).

Instead, why not crack down on the users, instead of all these 'awareness' programs? These are just a drain on public resources, and they obviously aren't working from the numbers of 'yes, let's legalize it' on this board. Why not pass laws to raise the severity of punishment, and if push comes to shove, which it should, eventually, lace those drugs with lethal chemicals as a 'final solution'?

After decades of draconian drug laws, the best you can come up with is "Let's make it even more harsh?" Why don't you try addressing the question of why it should be illegal in the first place before suggesting killing citizens to stop victimless crimes...

it should definitely be legal. plus then the gov't could tax it. the gov't always says they need more money for things. there ya go. and so many people smoke pot already. its definitely not anything new. if they made it legal, there might be less people who would want it. and then they could teach people not to smoke and drive and stuff. and they could always make it legal after a certain age. its not like its worse than drinking. i think it should be legal.

Why not instead, tax gas? It makes the most sense, because people wouldn't be able to avoid the tax; it would encourage technological development of environmentally-friendly vehicular transportation, and in the meanwhile, cause people to drive less and stop adversely affecting the environment. Also, we wouldn't have to concern ourselves with the Middle East anymore after our hydrogen-cell power cars come out in 2015 (estimated date).

Er...we do tax petrol here. Don't you do that in the US?

Instead, why not crack down on the users, instead of all these 'awareness' programs? These are just a drain on public resources, and they obviously aren't working from the numbers of 'yes, let's legalize it' on this board. Why not pass laws to raise the severity of punishment, and if push comes to shove, which it should, eventually, lace those drugs with lethal chemicals as a 'final solution'?

The 'War on Drugs' is a massive drain on public resources. If drugs were legalised, this would free up resources to catch real criminals, people who actually hurt other people, like murderers and rapists.

People can form mental addictions to anything.



Like carbonation, for instance - I don't want soda for the sugar, I'd be just as well on seltzer water...

MOM! WILL YOU PLEASE LOOK FOR THE SODA WATER THINGYMAJIGGER? LIKE NOW? I ASKED YOU ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO!

it should definitely be legal. plus then the gov't could tax it. the gov't always says they need more money for things. there ya go. and so many people smoke pot already. its definitely not anything new. if they made it legal, there might be less people who would want it. and then they could teach people not to smoke and drive and stuff. and they could always make it legal after a certain age. its not like its worse than drinking. i think it should be legal.

Why not instead, tax gas? It makes the most sense, because people wouldn't be able to avoid the tax; it would encourage technological development of environmentally-friendly vehicular transportation, and in the meanwhile, cause people to drive less and stop adversely affecting the environment. Also, we wouldn't have to concern ourselves with the Middle East anymore after our hydrogen-cell power cars come out in 2015 (estimated date).

Er...we do tax petrol here. Don't you do that in the US?

Instead, why not crack down on the users, instead of all these 'awareness' programs? These are just a drain on public resources, and they obviously aren't working from the numbers of 'yes, let's legalize it' on this board. Why not pass laws to raise the severity of punishment, and if push comes to shove, which it should, eventually, lace those drugs with lethal chemicals as a 'final solution'?

The 'War on Drugs' is a massive drain on public resources. If drugs were legalised, this would free up resources to catch real criminals, people who actually hurt other people, like murderers and rapists.

Perhaps the "real criminals" you're referring to are the drunk drivers that kill someone every 30 minutes? F*** legalization, it's time for prohibition of every drug. We've given them the rights, and they can't handle it, what makes anyone think that potheads will be more responsbile than alcoholics?

it should definitely be legal. plus then the gov't could tax it. the gov't always says they need more money for things. there ya go. and so many people smoke pot already. its definitely not anything new. if they made it legal, there might be less people who would want it. and then they could teach people not to smoke and drive and stuff. and they could always make it legal after a certain age. its not like its worse than drinking. i think it should be legal.

Why not instead, tax gas? It makes the most sense, because people wouldn't be able to avoid the tax; it would encourage technological development of environmentally-friendly vehicular transportation, and in the meanwhile, cause people to drive less and stop adversely affecting the environment. Also, we wouldn't have to concern ourselves with the Middle East anymore after our hydrogen-cell power cars come out in 2015 (estimated date).

Instead, why not crack down on the users, instead of all these 'awareness' programs? These are just a drain on public resources, and they obviously aren't working from the numbers of 'yes, let's legalize it' on this board. Why not pass laws to raise the severity of punishment, and if push comes to shove, which it should, eventually, lace those drugs with lethal chemicals as a 'final solution'?

In Cuba, drug users get the death penalty.

it should definitely be legal. plus then the gov't could tax it. the gov't always says they need more money for things. there ya go. and so many people smoke pot already. its definitely not anything new. if they made it legal, there might be less people who would want it. and then they could teach people not to smoke and drive and stuff. and they could always make it legal after a certain age. its not like its worse than drinking. i think it should be legal.

Why not instead, tax gas? It makes the most sense, because people wouldn't be able to avoid the tax; it would encourage technological development of environmentally-friendly vehicular transportation, and in the meanwhile, cause people to drive less and stop adversely affecting the environment. Also, we wouldn't have to concern ourselves with the Middle East anymore after our hydrogen-cell power cars come out in 2015 (estimated date).

Er...we do tax petrol here. Don't you do that in the US?

Instead, why not crack down on the users, instead of all these 'awareness' programs? These are just a drain on public resources, and they obviously aren't working from the numbers of 'yes, let's legalize it' on this board. Why not pass laws to raise the severity of punishment, and if push comes to shove, which it should, eventually, lace those drugs with lethal chemicals as a 'final solution'?

The 'War on Drugs' is a massive drain on public resources. If drugs were legalised, this would free up resources to catch real criminals, people who actually hurt other people, like murderers and rapists.

Perhaps the "real criminals" you're referring to are the drunk drivers that kill someone every 30 minutes? F*** legalization, it's time for prohibition of every drug. We've given them the rights, and they can't handle it, what makes anyone think that potheads will be more responsbile than alcoholics?

I agree. An argument can be made about "victemless crimes" and "It's my body" but people do stupid things when they're high = people who aren't on drugs get killed. Obviously, it's not just you you're affecting.

An argument can be made, but it will be shotdown by facts and statistics.

An argument can be made, but it will be shotdown by facts and statistics.

Well, you've got 5 pages to work with, get to it! :lol:

In fact, I'm a little bit lazy tonight, but I'll rattle off a few things...

The fact that it is impossible to do something without affecting another thing... butterly effect.
The fact that it's easier to get laid when chicks are drunk... Don Cheecheeo effect.
and some scientist said that you can't have a completely controlled (doing drugs only in a certain place/time/situation) experiment.

Pot should be legal for the following reasons.
No. 1: It would put illegal street dealers out of business.
No. 2: George W is probably on it now anyway
No. 3: People at the Winter Olympics won't get the strange idea that it's a performance enhancing drug*

*It enhances many things. Colours, tastes, sensations, but it certainly doesn't make you feel bloody empowered...

Hmm, those are pretty fallacious, let me point out why.

Those illegal pot dealers would go into the business of cocaine and other more hard drugs because now that pot is legalised the new "entrance" drug would be cocaine, or heroin. Legalising something illegal does not make it anymore right than it was before it was illegal....

What do the president's drug habits have to do with anything?

The winter olympics? What do they have to do with deciding social policy on drugs?

Hmm, those are pretty fallacious, let me point out why.

Those illegal pot dealers would go into the business of cocaine and other more hard drugs because now that pot is legalised the new "entrance" drug would be cocaine, or heroin. Legalising something illegal does not make it anymore right than it was before it was illegal....

What do the president's drug habits have to do with anything?

The winter olympics? What do they have to do with deciding social policy on drugs?

fine then legalise everything and get nanny state facism out of our lives

Hmm, those are pretty fallacious, let me point out why.

Those illegal pot dealers would go into the business of cocaine and other more hard drugs because now that pot is legalised the new "entrance" drug would be cocaine, or heroin. Legalising something illegal does not make it anymore right than it was before it was illegal....

What do the president's drug habits have to do with anything?

The winter olympics? What do they have to do with deciding social policy on drugs?

fine then legalise everything and get nanny state facism out of our lives

Mmm, anarchists and libertarians, what nice dream world. :D

Hmm, those are pretty fallacious, let me point out why.

Those illegal pot dealers would go into the business of cocaine and other more hard drugs because now that pot is legalised the new "entrance" drug would be cocaine, or heroin. Legalising something illegal does not make it anymore right than it was before it was illegal....

What do the president's drug habits have to do with anything?

The winter olympics? What do they have to do with deciding social policy on drugs?

fine then legalise everything and get nanny state facism out of our lives

Mmm, anarchists and libertarians, what nice dream world. :D

Hmm, I notice that you have nothing of substance to say on his comment...what a surprise. It's also funny that you don't actually point out why they're fallacious, save for your speculations on the first point. Speaking of which...

You don't know anything about the drug trade or the black market, do you? Do you think that everyone who sells is in it as a career? Many dealers sell marihuana because they know people, so they get stuff for other people. Those higher up, the ones providing and making headlines for violent crime, are already selling harder drugs, and that's where the money and violence comes from.

I'd also argue that making something illegal does not make it any less "right" than before it was made illegal. As such, why don't you try telling us when marihuana started being "wrong?" Then tell us where these little moral classifications you're attempting to assign come from. While you get that ready, I'll make some popcorn. :wink:

First, I used to be a dealer. I didn't do it because I wanted to be a middle man. I did it because I wanted a fairer drug market where I live. I wanted the people to be able to know and understand where the weed they were smoking came from. I stopped, but had marijuana been legalized my friends and I (dealers at the time) would have learned to produce market cocaine, heroin, or opium (although if marijuana was legalized I think opium would simultaneously be legalized). I feel that I did point out why they were fallacious.

if you want the actual logical fallacy here we go.
It would put street dealers out of business. There are no studies to support this. You may choose to look at Amsterdam. Street dealers of marijauna after legalization went through the roof. The marijuana trade wasn't streamlined to create corporations that grew marijuana because the market is so small. Street dealers have been and will always be the main distribution of drugs, in countries where it is legal, and illegal.

The second fallacy was an appeal to authority one of the oldest in the book. The user stated something to the nature of "well Bush does it anyways, so should we"

# Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
# Person A makes claim C about subject S.
# Therefore, C is true.

Fallacy

Lastly, the guy used another appeal to authority or possibly and appeal to spite (assuming he was hurt that the Olympics claimed that marijuana was a performance enhancing drug).

# Claim X is presented with the intent of generating spite.
# Therefore claim C is false (or true)

Fallacy

Violence comes from users just as often as it does from dealers. 2 examples of this are the people who both took PCP and the one asked the other to eat him. At which point he proceeded to kill him, skin him and begin cooking his muscle and eating his flesh. Another more personal example, although you probaby won't believe me is my friend who was on ecstasy and threw a kid off his bike, into a road full of traffic and stole the kids water bottle and started drinking. He's still in jail for that stunt. Lastly, every drunken brawl that's every happened in history can be related to drug use in one form or another.

Marijuana, IMO started being wrong when it was made illegal. The law is right, and unlawfulness is wrong. That's why I made that statement.

First, I used to be a dealer. I didn't do it because I wanted to be a middle man. I did it because I wanted a fairer drug market where I live. I wanted the people to be able to know and understand where the weed they were smoking came from. I stopped, but had marijuana been legalized my friends and I (dealers at the time) would have learned to produce market cocaine, heroin, or opium (although if marijuana was legalized I think opium would simultaneously be legalized).

Soiunds like a pretty unique case. Really, do you think that's the modus operandi for most dealers? A pretty decent portion are people moving the stuff, and do not have some kind of "Blow"-esque aspirations for becoming dealers.

I feel that I did point out why they were fallacious.

No, you did not. You said you were going to, then asked questions about it. Perhaps you were trying to make a point with those questions, but it's certainly not pointing anything out.

if you want the actual logical fallacy here we go.
It would put street dealers out of business. There are no studies to support this. You may choose to look at Amsterdam. Street dealers of marijauna after legalization went through the roof. The marijuana trade wasn't streamlined to create corporations that grew marijuana because the market is so small. Street dealers have been and will always be the main distribution of drugs, in countries where it is legal, and illegal.

Simply because they do not exist does not mean that they support your viewpoint, unless you have some to the contrary. It is only logical that once the market is gone, the vendors leave. Maybe some will find new wares to sell, but that would go pretty much on a case-by-case basis.

So, your example here works because corporations didn't pick it up? I don't buy it, for one thing because corporations get their claws into anything even remotely marketable in the US, and because you don't see any black market for nicotine or alcohol. It's pointless to do so, and became pointless when, in alcohol's case, prohibition ended.

The second fallacy was...

I think the 2nd point was sarcasm, and the third I have no idea about the circumstances, but I would assume that a claim could be true regardless of the intent of the person making the claim.

Violence comes from users just as often as it does from dealers. 2 examples of this are the people who both took PCP and the one asked the other to eat him. At which point he proceeded to kill him, skin him and begin cooking his muscle and eating his flesh.

I don't support PCP legalization.

Another more personal example, although you probaby won't believe me is my friend who was on ecstasy and threw a kid off his bike, into a road full of traffic and stole the kids water bottle and started drinking. He's still in jail for that stunt.

Hmm, your friend is an idiot who belongs where he is. Why should otherwise law-abiding users of variuos substances be judged by his low standard of behavior?

Lastly, every drunken brawl that's every happened in history can be related to drug use in one form or another.

Heh, it wouldn't be much of a drunken brawl if everyone was sober. I think that goes without saying, regardless of the time period.

Marijuana, IMO started being wrong when it was made illegal. The law is right, and unlawfulness is wrong. That's why I made that statement.

I'm sorry, legality does not affect my sense of morality - I prefer to do my own thinking. That which harms others is wrong. A responsible user of mind-altering substances does not harm anyone else, hence, there is nothing wrong with it.

I'm sorry, legality does not affect my sense of morality - I prefer to do my own thinking. That which harms others is wrong. A responsible user of mind-altering substances does not harm anyone else, hence, there is nothing wrong with it.

We've already established that is impossible.

I'm sorry, legality does not affect my sense of morality - I prefer to do my own thinking. That which harms others is wrong. A responsible user of mind-altering substances does not harm anyone else, hence, there is nothing wrong with it.

We've already established that is impossible.

Excuse me?

No, I'm sorry, we have not. Your telling of little sob stories does no such thing, it only proves that you know idiots. If you're trying to say that morality is not subjective, that's even more asinine. Now, why don't you go back and actually address some of my points, rather than posting cute little one liners?

Scroll up ^

Yeah, there's that same cute little one-liner. Now, how about the other 90% of it?

In fact, I'm a little bit lazy tonight, but I'll rattle off a few things...

The fact that it is impossible to do something without affecting another thing... butterly effect.
The fact that it's easier to get laid when chicks are drunk... Don Cheecheeo effect.
and some scientist said that you can't have a completely controlled (doing drugs only in a certain place/time/situation) experiment.

Scroll up ^... Would you care to refute these?

Scroll up ^
To be fair, all you established is a case for entropy. (everything effects everything, in order to make your case we have to assume that effects are bad, thus we should do nothing, which would effect things.) The ill effects derive primarily as a result of the prohibition, so your case works better for legalization.

And those weren't really fallacies. It looked like some kind of amolgamation of Logic and fallacies, but didn't really outline the disfunction of the argument.

postopolis

In fact, I'm a little bit lazy tonight, but I'll rattle off a few things...

The fact that it is impossible to do something without affecting another thing... butterly effect.
The fact that it's easier to get laid when chicks are drunk... Don Cheecheeo effect.
and some scientist said that you can't have a completely controlled (doing drugs only in a certain place/time/situation) experiment.

Scroll up ^... Would you care to refute these?

Pretty simple, really - those are the everyday conditions of life. By your first point, we should not be driving, using power tools, or doing anything which could feasibly have a negative consequence later. That, of course, does not wash for an argument. I have no idea what point you're trying to make with your second "fact," and the third says nothing at all. Once again, you cite a potential for negative consequences which we live with daily, and nothing more.

Now, I ask again, how about addressing the rest of it (once you're satisfied in trying to prove whatever it is you're trying to prove currently, that is)?

postoligastion

My example works because the market for marijuana wasn't streamlined. I disagree with your assertion however that corporations will claw into anything remotely marketable in the US. For example, there is a very large effective demand for books to be converted into audio and digital form at printing but corporations will not do this because they are afraid of change. They like the markets how they are and they don't want them to change. There is a _massive_ black market for nicotine and alcohol (underage drinkers and smokers?)

What's pointless again?

Adressing you're concern about idiocy... Someday, hopefully the US government will be able to grant liberties to people who are responsible to use them wisely, but currently the government is not that effecient, and if the government were to grant liberties then it technically wouldn't be a right, and the US isn't ready for priveleges yet. So, currently we have to make blanket laws concerning legalization or illegalization of certain things. Now, sure my friend was an idiot... but lets say everyone is flying high and happy that they can smoke (and not hurt anyone else, althought extermely unlikely) if 1 person gets hurt... that means 1 idiot gets his hand on some weed, and messes someone else up, then thats 1 too many (in my opinion) and those rights should summarily confiscated.

So, your example here works because corporations didn't pick it up? I don't buy it, for one thing because corporations get their claws into anything even remotely marketable in the US, and because you don't see any black market for nicotine or alcohol. It's pointless to do so, and became pointless when, in alcohol's case, prohibition ended.

My example works because the market for marijuana wasn't streamlined.
I had to go back and look up what you all where talking about. I tend not to agree that the street dealers will go away, but I'm fine with that, they are some of the nicest people I know. Usually pretty civic minded as well. Anbar dealt with where the violence came from, and it more or less stands unrefuted.

But the trade in Amsterdam, though not corparatized, was streamlined. Using them as an example, which you've brought up, illustrates Anbar's point-the street dealers-as you point out-are still there, but the violence isn't.

Interestingly enough, to refute an argument that you felt was an appeal to authority, you constructed your argument the same way.

I disagree with your assertion however that corporations will claw into anything remotely marketable in the US. For example, there is a very large effective demand for books to be converted into audio and digital form at printing but corporations will not do this because they are afraid of change. They like the markets how they are and they don't want them to change.

It's more about not wanting to subject themselves to the same problems of film, music and software, piracy. It's currently a lot more work to pirate a novel than it is to download a track. And since piracy has had an massive impact on those industries, the print industry isn't falling all over themselves to jump into the shark tank.

There is a _massive_ black market for nicotine and alcohol (underage drinkers and smokers?)
If movies and tv shows about gangsters are anything to go by, then mobsters are stealing cigarettes all the damn time. But I'm just getting that from tv.


What's pointless again?

Adressing you're concern about idiocy... Someday, hopefully the US government will be able to grant liberties to people who are responsible to use them wisely, but currently the government is not that effecient, and if the government were to grant liberties then it technically wouldn't be a right, and the US isn't ready for priveleges yet. So, currently we have to make blanket laws concerning legalization or illegalization of certain things. Now, sure my friend was an idiot... but lets say everyone is flying high and happy that they can smoke (and not hurt anyone else, althought extermely unlikely) if 1 person gets hurt... that means 1 idiot gets his hand on some weed, and messes someone else up, then thats 1 too many (in my opinion) and those rights should summarily confiscated.

Back the entropy argument. And still, more harm and downsides are related to the prohibition, so the greater good is still in question.

Back the entropy argument. And still, more harm and downsides are related to the prohibition, so the greater good is still in question.

Yeah, but with a very _strong_ police force the downsides related to prohibition could be avoided. But yeah, nice assertions 8)

The comment about converting books to digital form...

Actually, there isn't a demand for digital books. Most of us would rather carry around a book than use a PDA or something to squint at it. They tried to market digital books and still do to a point (you can see how far that's gone - virtually 0 market).

And about the PCP - try arguing against legalization of marijuana by citing marijuana incidents, not PCP incidents.

My example works because the market for marijuana wasn't streamlined. I disagree with your assertion however that corporations will claw into anything remotely marketable in the US. For example, there is a very large effective demand for books to be converted into audio and digital form at printing but corporations will not do this because they are afraid of change. They like the markets how they are and they don't want them to change. There is a _massive_ black market for nicotine and alcohol (underage drinkers and smokers?)

I'm sorry, I do not buy your assertion that interest for books-on-tape is greater than that for provision of a mind-altering substance. Cigarrette companies would pounce on it to keep a hold of the smokable market.

...if 1 person gets hurt... that means 1 idiot gets his hand on some weed, and messes someone else up, then thats 1 too many (in my opinion) and those rights should summarily confiscated.

No, everyone should not be stripped of their rights because the actions of a few. America does not work that way - every citizen has rights and responsibilities. When you violate them, you lose them, not everyone else. America is not, at this time, a nanny state.

Well, at least I got a couple more answers out of you. I assume you concede the rest.

Back the entropy argument. And still, more harm and downsides are related to the prohibition, so the greater good is still in question.

Yeah, but with a very _strong_ police force the downsides related to prohibition could be avoided. But yeah, nice assertions 8)

Fascism, here we come. :roll:

America is not, at this time, a nanny state.

Nah, it's just a nation full of people that abuse the rights that the state has given them. So let's not give them anymore to screw up with.

Fascism, here we come. :roll:

I'm _all_ about the Communist Police State man. Fascism, but with public ownership of everything :)

Fascism, here we come. :roll:

I'm _all_ about the Communist Police State man. Fascism, but with public ownership of everything :)

I see. And what's to keep a system like that honest? You seem to believe that humans are too flawed to be trusted, yet you would implement a government with the strength to deny citizens their rights. Everyone owns everything, so no one owns anything, and rights are set by the government's whim. I think this system would take about 5 years to become corrupt.

But might makes right!

Just kidding, yeah, it has a possibility of corruption but I see it being more resistant to corruption than the current government in the United States.

But might makes right!

Just kidding, yeah, it has a possibility of corruption but I see it being more resistant to corruption than the current government in the United States.

Hmm, I tend to think that a smaller, weaker government is less prone to corruption. Within that system, you need to worry about abuses of rights more, but then you prosecute the individual. Within your system, there is much greater potential for corruption in the larger, stronger government, not to mention the collossal black market that banning of intoxicating substances would create.

But might makes right!

Just kidding, yeah, it has a possibility of corruption but I see it being more resistant to corruption than the current government in the United States.

Hmm, I tend to think that a smaller, weaker government is less prone to corruption. Within that system, you need to worry about abuses of rights more, but then you prosecute the individual. Within your system, there is much greater potential for corruption in the larger, stronger government, not to mention the collossal black market that banning of intoxicating substances would create.

In return there would be a collossal police force constantly raiding places. Kinda like prison inspection, or the lack of our 4th amendment. But I'm out for now, have a nice day/night/whatever.

But might makes right!

Just kidding, yeah, it has a possibility of corruption but I see it being more resistant to corruption than the current government in the United States.

Hmm, I tend to think that a smaller, weaker government is less prone to corruption. Within that system, you need to worry about abuses of rights more, but then you prosecute the individual. Within your system, there is much greater potential for corruption in the larger, stronger government, not to mention the collossal black market that banning of intoxicating substances would create.

In return there would be a collossal police force constantly raiding places. Kinda like prison inspection, or the lack of our 4th amendment. But I'm out for now, have a nice day/night/whatever.

There will always be a better mousetrap. A lot of funding would end up going into that police force, and in turn the dealers would use their money to fund actions against them/buy people off. A vicious cycle, that. Not to mention the arbitrary nature of rights dehumanizing pretty much everyone. Moral would be pretty low...

Have a good night.

...it has a possibility of corruption but I see it being more resistant to corruption than the current government in the United States.

..Really. Do this thread a favour and look up some of the history of the USSR and its client states, particularly under Brezhnev. Then I'd appreciate a description of how this proposed (and apparently very similar) government would avoid internal corruption.
As government power increases, so does the amount of same in the hands of its component individuals, which in turn increases the potential for misuse. (Power corrupts, etc, etc.)

That said, have a nice duration.

...it has a possibility of corruption but I see it being more resistant to corruption than the current government in the United States.

..Really. Do this thread a favour and look up some of the history of the USSR and its client states, particularly under Brezhnev. Then I'd appreciate a description of how this proposed (and apparently very similar) government would avoid internal corruption.
As government power increases, so does the amount of same in the hands of its component individuals, which in turn increases the potential for misuse. (Power corrupts, etc, etc.)

That said, have a nice duration.

Immitating a politician, I choose to sidestep that request and tell you about the corruption in the current government. In our society today, money=power. That power is concentrated in the hands of a few individuals (walmart, monsanto, exxonmobil, nike, phillip morris, etc). It is well known that Bill Clinton at the time.. our highest ranking official lied flagrantly to some of his supporters (union members specifically) and through his wife recieved over 1m USD for his campaign in 1996. Once he was in office he immediately pushed for the ratification of NAFTA, something that most unions including the AFL CIO were against. Orrin Hatch is another example of government corruption he's been bought by interest groups specifically the RIAA. Their money, given to him, him doing their bidding = corruption. Assuming of course that you think 'buying' lawmakers is a form of corruption. There are _hundreds_ of more examples of such corruption in our current government but I assume that with a couple hours of research you would be able to see that our government is in fact prone to corruption through money from special interest groups. That said, have a nice duration.

Assuming of course that you think 'buying' lawmakers is a form of corruption. There are _hundreds_ of more examples of such corruption in our current government but I assume that with a couple hours of research you would be able to see that our government is in fact prone to corruption through money from special interest groups.

I'm not arguing that the present US government isn't corrupt, I'm arguing that the setup you're suggesting would be worse. Particularly since in a police state, a citizens' life is essentially in the hands of the government at all times. I'm aware that it's not impossible to manufacture evidence and charges, but with the present limited government & review system in place, it's much more difficult than it would be.

I'm not arguing that the present US government isn't corrupt, I'm arguing that the setup you're suggesting would be worse. Particularly since in a police state, a citizens' life is essentially in the hands of the government at all times. I'm aware that it's not impossible to manufacture evidence and charges, but with the present limited government & review system in place, it's much more difficult than it would be.

Admittedly, but the police state-like government I'm thinking of is a government in which a benevolent entity (dictator, congress/parliamen, populus) decides the laws and the "all pervasive police force" is constantly around to enforce those rules. The culpability and resistance to corruption would then be in the hands of that benevolent entity and since they're benevolent they can't be corrupt. If corruption were to happen however the benevolent entity would be overthrown and a new more benevolent entity would be in power.

Yes!
I've been reading this a lot, and don't really have much to post, since Anbar has already said it all, basically.
The one thing I do want to say is something that people didn't mention when whoever it was was on here babbling about 80% of schizophrenics having tried pot at one point.
They said that the schizophrenia could've already been present, driving them to smoke pot- they said that correlation does not prove causation- but they did not point out (and I think this makes the most sense) that people become schizophrenic from a mix between genetics and environment. Think a minute about the environment most schizophrenics come from- now think about the environment the stereotypical pot smoker comes from (I'm talking like childhood homes- not a 40 yr old homeless man)- how similar on the two?
It makes a lot of sense to me that the "nurture" aspect that drives someone to schizophrenia could also very possibly drive them to smoke pot...don't you agree?

Admittedly, but the police state-like government I'm thinking of is a government in which a benevolent entity (dictator, congress/parliamen, populus) decides the laws and the "all pervasive police force" is constantly around to enforce those rules. The culpability and resistance to corruption would then be in the hands of that benevolent entity and since they're benevolent they can't be corrupt. If corruption were to happen however the benevolent entity would be overthrown and a new more benevolent entity would be in power.

It seems from here that one of the first things any police state does is cement its grasp on power (benevolent or not, there will always be someone attempting to overthrow them due to the 'police' aspect of things) such that there's as little in the way of resources available to insurgents as possible. That tendency would largely counteract your suggestion of rebellion, since the corrupt officials would by definition look after their own interests first, leading to an increasingly opressive government as each did their individual best to remain in power.

The eternal question of 'who watches the watchers' eventually tends towards an answer of 'no-one' in a system without checks. The most effective appear to be of the sort generally present in the governments of democratic nations, since one doesn't hear about anything else.

Now, it's late and I'm going to sleep. Enjoy your duration.

Yes!
I've been reading this a lot, and don't really have much to post, since Anbar has already said it all, basically.
The one thing I do want to say is something that people didn't mention when whoever it was was on here babbling about 80% of schizophrenics having tried pot at one point.
They said that the schizophrenia could've already been present, driving them to smoke pot- they said that correlation does not prove causation- but they did not point out (and I think this makes the most sense) that people become schizophrenic from a mix between genetics and environment. Think a minute about the environment most schizophrenics come from- now think about the environment the stereotypical pot smoker comes from (I'm talking like childhood homes- not a 40 yr old homeless man)- how similar on the two?
It makes a lot of sense to me that the "nurture" aspect that drives someone to schizophrenia could also very possibly drive them to smoke pot...don't you agree?

Hmm, hardship leading to smoking as the main idea, with schizophrenia being a subtype of that hardship...that is really good thinking! So, this is even more confounded.