will marijuana ever be legal???

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply

will marijuana ever be legal???

Yes
84
76%
No
13
12%
Not sure
13
12%
 
Total votes: 110

User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by Kraken »

Terrified wrote:Up here in Canada, it is technically illegal, but really only if you are a seller.
The problem with "technically illegal" is that it can become actually illegal on the constabulary's whim. Officer Friendly can ruin your whole day if he doesn't like the way you looked at him. In the US an arrest can screw up your employability for years on down the line.

Canada's more laid back, but down here laws that can be used against you, will be used against you arbitrarily.
User avatar
Skeptic
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:59 pm
Location: Tacoma, WA.

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by Skeptic »

cheeba wrote:
Terrified wrote:I really don't understand why the one is legal while the other is not. *shrug*
You can drink a beer or a glass of wine or a shot and not get drunk... or heck even buzzed. You can't smoke a joint without getting high. Unless it's bad pot.
You can take a toke off a joint and not be high(anymore so than you would be 'buzzed' off a beer or glass of wine). But an even bigger problem I have with this argument is twofold:

1)It equates being 'stoned' with being 'drunk', as if the two were equally dangerous. I hate to point out that what evidence we have currently contradicts this. I can count on one hand the number of people who have been killed by a 'stoned driver' and I can count on NO FINGERS the number of people who got so high on marijuana that they grabbed a gun and shot someone or thought they should beat someone to death. The worst crime that one generally commits while stoned is 'killing' a bag of Cheetos.
No one has ever 'overdosed' on marijuana to my knowledge. Lung cancer and brain damage? Sure. it is not a harmless drug contrary to what many of my advocate friends think.

2)How does the amount needed of each(ignoring however you came to your conclusion for the moment) to achieve a desired effect make for a good argument for keeping one legal and the other illegal?! This seems to me like saying "I can beat myself in the head with a hammer and not necessarily need stitches but I cannot cut myself down the middle of my arm with a straight razor without needing stitches so razors should be illegal while hammers should not be."

In my mind NEITHER should be illegal because making either illegal does not prohibit stupid, destructive behavior or misuse of the items and also places unjust restrictions on our civil liberties.

Just my two cents...
Last edited by Skeptic on Sun Sep 05, 2010 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I am in a very peculiar business...I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James "The Amazing" Randi
User avatar
Crux
Posts: 4413
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:04 am

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by Crux »

RLMullen wrote:
Crux wrote:If thinking alcohol sucks is enough to make me an authoritarian then so be it.
This doesn't make you an authoritarian...
Crux wrote:I wish they would take teh alcoholz away too. And yes I'm serious.
THIS makes you an authoritarian.

That point was made earlier in the thread, why didn't you get it then?
So if you're against the legalization of any drug, you're authoritarian? Or just the ones you personally approve of? I just want to know where to draw the arbitrary line.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit - Mitch Hedberg
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by Kraken »

Crux wrote:
RLMullen wrote:
Crux wrote:If thinking alcohol sucks is enough to make me an authoritarian then so be it.
This doesn't make you an authoritarian...
Crux wrote:I wish they would take teh alcoholz away too. And yes I'm serious.
THIS makes you an authoritarian.

That point was made earlier in the thread, why didn't you get it then?
So if you're against the legalization of any drug, you're authoritarian? Or just the ones you personally approve of? I just want to know where to draw the arbitrary line.
It would be at the point where you want to criminalize a legal drug.
User avatar
cheeba
Posts: 8727
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:32 am

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by cheeba »

Skeptic wrote:The worst crime that one generally commits while stoned is 'killing' a bag of Cheetos.
Or killing 14 people.
2)How does the amount needed of each(ignoring however you came to your conclusion for the moment) to achieve a desired effect make for a good argument for keeping one legal and the other illegal?! This seems to me like saying "I can beat myself in the head with a hammer and not necessarily need stitches but I cannot cut myself down the middle of my arm with a straight razor without needing stitches so razors should be illegal while hammers should not be."
The "desired effect" is your problem here. Most people don't drink to get drunk. Hell lots of us don't even drink to get buzzed. I drink because I like me a good beer and I rarely get buzzed. No one ever smokes pot without the intention of getting high.
In my mind NEITHER should be illegal because making either illegal does not prohibit stupid, destructive behavior or misuse of the items and also places unjust restrictions on our civil liberties.
Not to get all slippery slope, but using that argument, why should we not also legalize cocaine and heroine?
User avatar
Crux
Posts: 4413
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:04 am

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by Crux »

Kraken wrote:
Crux wrote:
RLMullen wrote:
Crux wrote:If thinking alcohol sucks is enough to make me an authoritarian then so be it.
This doesn't make you an authoritarian...
Crux wrote:I wish they would take teh alcoholz away too. And yes I'm serious.
THIS makes you an authoritarian.

That point was made earlier in the thread, why didn't you get it then?
So if you're against the legalization of any drug, you're authoritarian? Or just the ones you personally approve of? I just want to know where to draw the arbitrary line.
It would be at the point where you want to criminalize a legal drug.
So basically just draw the arbitrary line whereever the hell we feel like it? Got it!
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit - Mitch Hedberg
User avatar
Skeptic
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:59 pm
Location: Tacoma, WA.

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by Skeptic »

cheeba wrote:
Skeptic wrote:The worst crime that one generally commits while stoned is 'killing' a bag of Cheetos.
Or killing 14 people.

I remember that. But let's say for the sake of argument that the engineer was ONLY smoking pot and not drinking or something(entirely believable, if not probable I admit). Then what we have here is a case where an idiot was operating trains while stoned. You won't find many marijuana advocates who support even driving CARS while stoned(regardless of how much less dangerous that is than drunk driving which is WAY more common) and much less operating trains where so many lives can be put in jeopardy because of inattentiveness. Engineering is a complex operation(not that cars are not but much more so for trains as far as I know) and saying that POT should be illegal because one guy thought it would be ok to get stoned and engineer a train which got 14 people killed, while NOT saying alcohol should be illegal when thousands die every year from alcohol and alcohol involved accidents...that strikes me as insane.


2)How does the amount needed of each(ignoring however you came to your conclusion for the moment) to achieve a desired effect make for a good argument for keeping one legal and the other illegal?! This seems to me like saying "I can beat myself in the head with a hammer and not necessarily need stitches but I cannot cut myself down the middle of my arm with a straight razor without needing stitches so razors should be illegal while hammers should not be."
The "desired effect" is your problem here. Most people don't drink to get drunk.
I would ask that you substantiate this claim.

Hell lots of us don't even drink to get buzzed. I drink because I like me a good beer and I rarely get buzzed.
I would agree with you on this. My friend is a master of the brewing arts and ever since I met him, I have been very into very good, very expensive beers(which I could not afford to drink for the purpose of getting drunk), just for the taste. I absolutely LOVE a good stout(not Guinness...Obsidian or Elysian's "Dragontooth" stout for example) or an I.P.A.. :D

But do note that the effects of alcohol do not depend on your intent and if even HALF the people drinking alcohol did not enjoy the 'buzz' then non-alcoholic beers would be much more popular than they are.

No one ever smokes pot without the intention of getting high.
Even if this WERE true(it's not but more on this below), it is irrelevant. You cannot police people's thoughts/intentions in this way. It comes off similar to "Everyone should be able to carry around dynamite but no one should have boxing gloves. Dynamite is mostly used for mining, construction, etc. but boxing gloves are ALWAYS used to punch people...".

Believe it or not there are MANY marijuana users who do not smoke to get high at all. Cancer patients for example. I am not saying there are not a lot of people with the new 'Green cards' who do not really have a medical need for marijuana, but there are a lot who DO have such need and DO benefit from the drug.


In my mind NEITHER should be illegal because making either illegal does not prohibit stupid, destructive behavior or misuse of the items and also places unjust restrictions on our civil liberties.
Not to get all slippery slope, but using that argument, why should we not also legalize cocaine and heroine?
We should.
"I am in a very peculiar business...I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James "The Amazing" Randi
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by Kraken »

Crux wrote:
Kraken wrote:
Crux wrote:
RLMullen wrote:
Crux wrote:If thinking alcohol sucks is enough to make me an authoritarian then so be it.
This doesn't make you an authoritarian...
Crux wrote:I wish they would take teh alcoholz away too. And yes I'm serious.
THIS makes you an authoritarian.

That point was made earlier in the thread, why didn't you get it then?
So if you're against the legalization of any drug, you're authoritarian? Or just the ones you personally approve of? I just want to know where to draw the arbitrary line.
It would be at the point where you want to criminalize a legal drug.
So basically just draw the arbitrary line whereever the hell we feel like it? Got it!
Legalizing a prohibited drug is different than prohibiting a legal drug. Bestowing a new right is not the same as taking away an existing right. The former is libertarian; the latter is authoritarian.
User avatar
cheeba
Posts: 8727
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:32 am

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by cheeba »

Skeptic wrote:You won't find many marijuana advocates who support even driving CARS while stoned(regardless of how much less dangerous that is than drunk driving which is WAY more common) and much less operating trains where so many lives can be put in jeopardy because of inattentiveness.
Well yeah no one's going to support operating machinery while high/drunk, but it happens. Drunk driving may be way more common, but alcohol is way more common than marijuana. And I'm sure those 14 dead people in that train didn't care if it was alcohol or marijuana in that engineer's system.
Engineering is a complex operation(not that cars are not but much more so for trains as far as I know) and saying that POT should be illegal because one guy thought it would be ok to get stoned and engineer a train which got 14 people killed, while NOT saying alcohol should be illegal when thousands die every year from alcohol and alcohol involved accidents...that strikes me as insane.
Again, one substance is everywhere and legal, the other is not. Apples and oranges. The fact is people die because of others who get drunk and high. Marijuana is not some harmless drug as you have claimed.
The "desired effect" is your problem here. Most people don't drink to get drunk.
I would ask that you substantiate this claim.
I don't think there are numbers out there for the number of people who get drunk. It sure seems like common sense, though. Look at the rate of growth of the craft brewing industry. You think people are really paying more money for these craft brews just so they can get drunk?
Believe it or not there are MANY marijuana users who do not smoke to get high at all. Cancer patients for example. I am not saying there are not a lot of people with the new 'Green cards' who do not really have a medical need for marijuana, but there are a lot who DO have such need and DO benefit from the drug.
Doesn't really matter if they smoke to get high or not... smoking a joint = getting high. Let me rephrase my original statement: nobody out there smokes pot without the intention or understanding that they will get high.
Not to get all slippery slope, but using that argument, why should we not also legalize cocaine and heroine?
We should.
I'd agree that it'd be nice to give people such freedoms. But the reality is that people are dumb and need protection from themselves. If drunk driving is such a problem, what sense does it make to add to the problem by making a bunch of undetectable, mind-altering drugs legal?
User avatar
Combustible Lemur
Posts: 3961
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:17 pm
Location: houston, TX

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by Combustible Lemur »

For those using the beer /= drunk
Pot =high

Beer is an alcoholic beverage, its bitter, herby, expensive. The Alocohol in it and the culture around it is the reason people drink it. Flavor is just a benefit. If your microbrews had as little alcohol as the american lagers people wouldn't be leaving lager land hand and fist. Just because your not buzzed doesn't mean your body doesn't feel the effects of the alchohol. If you have consumed enough to be "buzzed" you've generally drank more than is healthy in the first place. But the small amount of alcohol consumption is healthy, but don't fool yourself into thinking people would drink yeasty compost if it didn't have alcohol. MMM delicious fermented herbs and yeast.

Pot on the other had isn't readily compared as it is a prohibited substance. Of course when then average cost is 80$for a 1/4oz. people are going to demand more from their drug. Just as in prohibition, the usage of moonshine and very hard liqours shot up. More contraband can be moced in less space. Less has to be purchased etc. Now, people use pot to feel the effects, but what would happen should prohibition end? Would companies make potweiser? a tasty beverage or snack with THC in it at a level that you must purchase 12 of them to really feel a buz. Sure you can have just one and feel that little hint of your muscles relaxing and improved mood. But hell it's sunday and footballs on.

Sure there will still be abuses on both sides but it's not a fair comparison between a substance who for sixty years artificial raced to the bottom of potency and a substance who for 90 years has grown in an environment that promotes and forces higher potency. :coffee:
Is Scott home? thump thump thump Crash ......No.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by Kraken »

cheeba wrote: I don't think there are numbers out there for the number of people who get drunk. It sure seems like common sense, though. Look at the rate of growth of the craft brewing industry. You think people are really paying more money for these craft brews just so they can get drunk?
Actually, >90% of the market is owned by flavorless factory beers. There is no reason to drink those other than for a cheap buzz. While most of those light beer drinkers will protest that they do enjoy the taste, I assure you that they are misguided, lying, or drunk. :wink:
User avatar
cheeba
Posts: 8727
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:32 am

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by cheeba »

Combustible Lemur wrote:Beer is an alcoholic beverage, its bitter, herby, expensive. The Alocohol in it and the culture around it is the reason people drink it. Flavor is just a benefit.
Huh. I drink it just because of the flavor. So do all of my friends. The alcohol is just a benefit.
If your microbrews had as little alcohol as the american lagers people wouldn't be leaving lager land hand and fist.
I'm not so sure you know what you're talking about. For one, a lager can be a microbrew. Two, microbrews often have as little or less alcohol content as the mass produced stuff.
MMM delicious fermented herbs and yeast.
Um, yes. Beer is delicious. Jesus look at all the beer snobs like Ironrod Kraken and their threads. They go on forever about the flavor of beer, such that it is inconceivable to them that people can actually enjoy the taste of an MGD on a hot summer day.
Would companies make potweiser?
Weird. Your argument is that people drink beer to get drunk but that if marijuana were legalized they'd start smoking pot not to get high?
User avatar
Skeptic
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:59 pm
Location: Tacoma, WA.

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by Skeptic »

cheeba wrote:
Skeptic wrote:You won't find many marijuana advocates who support even driving CARS while stoned(regardless of how much less dangerous that is than drunk driving which is WAY more common) and much less operating trains where so many lives can be put in jeopardy because of inattentiveness.
Well yeah no one's going to support operating machinery while high/drunk, but it happens.
Then by your reasoning, alcohol should be illegal, no?

Drunk driving may be way more common, but alcohol is way more common than marijuana. And I'm sure those 14 dead people in that train didn't care if it was alcohol or marijuana in that engineer's system.
Alcohol being currently more common than marijuana is due in large part to the fact that marijuana has remained under the yoke of antiquated prohibition laws whereas alcohol was freed from that burden in the early part of the 20th century. You do realize you are contradicting your own position here right?


Engineering is a complex operation(not that cars are not but much more so for trains as far as I know) and saying that POT should be illegal because one guy thought it would be ok to get stoned and engineer a train which got 14 people killed, while NOT saying alcohol should be illegal when thousands die every year from alcohol and alcohol involved accidents...that strikes me as insane.
Again, one substance is everywhere and legal, the other is not. Apples and oranges. The fact is people die because of others who get drunk and high. Marijuana is not some harmless drug as you have claimed.
People die because others who get drunk/high commit crimes under that influence and this is far more common with alcohol, not because it is legal but because the effects of being drunk lend to much more profound loss of judgment, violent mood swings, etc. Again, a stone guy will attack a bag of Cheetos. A drunk guy may attack his girlfriend, his mom, his children, innocent bystanders on the sidewalk, cops, doctors, priests, etc. A stone guy MAY try to drive his car(or in one case a train) to the store and will do so driving 15 mph UNDER the speed limit, spending 2-3 minutes doing head checks at intersections before making a right turn. A drunk guy will blaze down the freeway and through residential neighborhoods at triple digit speeds without checking much of anything well.

And how did you not notice that I said marijuana is NOT a harmless drug(contrary to what many of my fellow advocates claim)?! I will chalk this up to a reading comprehension error on your part...

I would ask that you substantiate this claim.
I don't think there are numbers out there for the number of people who get drunk. It sure seems like common sense, though. Look at the rate of growth of the craft brewing industry. You think people are really paying more money for these craft brews just so they can get drunk?
No but the craft brewing industry is to alcohol sales what 3D hologram alternate nude ed. covers are to comic book sales.

Believe it or not there are MANY marijuana users who do not smoke to get high at all. Cancer patients for example. I am not saying there are not a lot of people with the new 'Green cards' who do not really have a medical need for marijuana, but there are a lot who DO have such need and DO benefit from the drug.
Doesn't really matter if they smoke to get high or not... smoking a joint = getting high.
Except that was your whole point in the statement you made to which my above was offered in reply. I can also point out that 'drinking = getting buzzed/drunk' regardless of the fact that many of us are not drinking our micro-brews for that reason.

Let me rephrase my original statement: nobody out there smokes pot without the intention or understanding that they will get high.
Again, false and refuted in my previous reply which you seem to have missed or are ignoring. There are cancer patients I personally know of who do not even LIKE marijuana and the high associated with smoking it but they need the medicine for their appetites, pain etc.

We should.
I'd agree that it'd be nice to give people such freedoms. But the reality is that people are dumb and need protection from themselves. If drunk driving is such a problem, what sense does it make to add to the problem by making a bunch of undetectable, mind-altering drugs legal?
Because if we are going to prohibit things based on their potential or actual tendency to lead to impaired driving, but you are going to start off by making the most dangerous of those 'drugs'/intoxicants legal then it makes no sense to make the comparably LEAST harmful illegal. What you are doing then is akin to saying "Candy and fruit both lead to cavities...but I hate fruit so we should not contribute to poor dental health by allowing fruit to remain legal.".
"I am in a very peculiar business...I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James "The Amazing" Randi
User avatar
Skeptic
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:59 pm
Location: Tacoma, WA.

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by Skeptic »

cheeba wrote:
Combustible Lemur wrote:Beer is an alcoholic beverage, its bitter, herby, expensive. The Alocohol in it and the culture around it is the reason people drink it. Flavor is just a benefit.
Huh. I drink it just because of the flavor. So do all of my friends. The alcohol is just a benefit.
Alcohol is just a benefit...? Same with pot. I really just enjoy the flavor and medicinal effects I need for my health. The relaxing 'high' is just a benefit.

If your microbrews had as little alcohol as the american lagers people wouldn't be leaving lager land hand and fist.
I'm not so sure you know what you're talking about. For one, a lager can be a microbrew. Two, microbrews often have as little or less alcohol content as the mass produced stuff.
MMM delicious fermented herbs and yeast.
Um, yes. Beer is delicious. Jesus look at all the beer snobs like Ironrod Kraken and their threads. They go on forever about the flavor of beer, such that it is inconceivable to them that people can actually enjoy the taste of an MGD on a hot summer day.
I used to be able to enjoy MGD...until I got turned onto real beers. :D
"I am in a very peculiar business...I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James "The Amazing" Randi
User avatar
RuperT
Posts: 759
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:01 am
Location: Jacksonville, FL

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by RuperT »

Cheeba, I think you can buy beers in a budget pack of six now. You and your pals could chip in on one, like for a party or something.
Citrus flavored vodka also sounds pretty yummy, I've got to say.
That train accident is a sterling example of the evil of duct-tape, for sure! C'mon, google us up a pot crime that doesn't involve transportation for once!

Kraken, that is genuinely interesting about an executive power of drug classification. Could a president really do such a thing on his own? Would Obama ever do it? Who would?
Quest: MacDaddy0 - PSN: Rupyrt - Live: MooseFoe
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by Kraken »

RuperT wrote: Kraken, that is genuinely interesting about an executive power of drug classification. Could a president really do such a thing on his own? Would Obama ever do it? Who would?
Nixon set up the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 so that the DEA or FDA can reschedule drugs. Congress went along so that they would not be repeatedly tasked with fine-tuning US drug policy (although they still have a voice). Interesting footnote:
Part F of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 established the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse—known as the Shafer Commission after its chairman, Raymond P. Shafer—to study marijuana abuse in the United States. During his presentation of the commission's First Report to Congress, Shafer recommended the decriminalization of marijuana in small amounts,
A President cannot directly decree a schedule change -- see the Enforcement Authority section of the linked wiki for an explanation of how that works. Those agencies' directors are appointed by the president, though, giving him considerable influence.

As for "who would?"...Democrats usually take a harder line on drugs to counteract their reputation for being soft on drugs. Legalizing or rescheduling marijuana would likely require a Republican president with a strong law-and-order reputation (like Nixon or former CIA director Bush the Elder). Although Obama directed the DEA not to enforce federal marijuana possession laws, I'll be surprised if he takes it any farther than that. We might find out this November when CA votes to legalize.
User avatar
cheeba
Posts: 8727
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:32 am

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by cheeba »

Skeptic wrote:
Well yeah no one's going to support operating machinery while high/drunk, but it happens.
Then by your reasoning, alcohol should be illegal, no?
People drive while texting, drive while tired, etc, etc. You can only illegalize so much. It has to stop somewhere.
Alcohol being currently more common than marijuana is due in large part to the fact that marijuana has remained under the yoke of antiquated prohibition laws whereas alcohol was freed from that burden in the early part of the 20th century. You do realize you are contradicting your own position here right?
I know why marijuana is less common. I'm not contradicting anything. My argument is that pot can be as dangerous as alcohol.
Engineering is a complex operation(not that cars are not but much more so for trains as far as I know) and saying that POT should be illegal because one guy thought it would be ok to get stoned and engineer a train which got 14 people killed, while NOT saying alcohol should be illegal when thousands die every year from alcohol and alcohol involved accidents...that strikes me as insane.
Except I didn't say pot should be illegal because one dude killed 14 people. That's just an example of the dangers of pot, to contradict the common notion that stoners are harmless cheeto-loving hippies.
People die because others who get drunk/high commit crimes under that influence and this is far more common with alcohol, not because it is legal but because the effects of being drunk lend to much more profound loss of judgment, violent mood swings, etc. Again, a stone guy will attack a bag of Cheetos.
This is the argument I'm contradicting. Maybe marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol overall, but it's sure as hell still dangerous and cheetos aren't the only victims. Just do a google and you can see some horrific stuff committed while high. It may be hypocritical to have legal alcohol and illegal pot, but the reality of the situation is it's much harder to criminalize alcohol.
And how did you not notice that I said marijuana is NOT a harmless drug(contrary to what many of my fellow advocates claim)?! I will chalk this up to a reading comprehension error on your part...
Um, no. You've been saying all along, still, that the only thing that a stoner will do is attack cheetos. Whether or not it causes cancer or whatever, I don't think is really relevant to this conversation.
No but the craft brewing industry is to alcohol sales what 3D hologram alternate nude ed. covers are to comic book sales.
I have no idea what 3D hologram alternate nude ed. covers are to comic book sales, but the microbrew industry is pretty goddamn big, and growing at a rate of 40% per year. It may be small potatoes compared to the swill industry, but that rate of growth plus a look at the wine industry should give you a pretty clear understanding that there are lots of people out there who consume alcohol mostly for the flavor and not to get blotto.
Except that was your whole point in the statement you made to which my above was offered in reply. I can also point out that 'drinking = getting buzzed/drunk' regardless of the fact that many of us are not drinking our micro-brews for that reason.
Except you'd be completely wrong, drinking != getting buzzed/drunk. I can drink a beer and often do without feeling any effects from the alcohol. I'm sure if you tested me after one beer there would be no significant difference between my reactions while without beer vs. having 1 beer.
Let me rephrase my original statement: nobody out there smokes pot without the intention or understanding that they will get high.
Again, false and refuted in my previous reply which you seem to have missed or are ignoring. There are cancer patients I personally know of who do not even LIKE marijuana and the high associated with smoking it but they need the medicine for their appetites, pain etc.
Just because they don't LIKE the high doesn't mean they don't get high. It doesn't matter why they smoke it or what it does for them, it gets them high. That's the point. Joint = high. Just because you've got glaucoma doesn't mean the pot doesn't get you stoned.
Last edited by cheeba on Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
cheeba
Posts: 8727
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:32 am

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by cheeba »

RuperT wrote:Cheeba, I think you can buy beers in a budget pack of six now. You and your pals could chip in on one, like for a party or something.
Were you drunk when you wrote this?
User avatar
Skeptic
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:59 pm
Location: Tacoma, WA.

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by Skeptic »

Kraken wrote:
RuperT wrote: Kraken, that is genuinely interesting about an executive power of drug classification. Could a president really do such a thing on his own? Would Obama ever do it? Who would?
Nixon set up the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 so that the DEA or FDA can reschedule drugs. Congress went along so that they would not be repeatedly tasked with fine-tuning US drug policy (although they still have a voice). Interesting footnote:
Part F of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 established the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse—known as the Shafer Commission after its chairman, Raymond P. Shafer—to study marijuana abuse in the United States. During his presentation of the commission's First Report to Congress, Shafer recommended the decriminalization of marijuana in small amounts,
A President cannot directly decree a schedule change -- see the Enforcement Authority section of the linked wiki for an explanation of how that works. Those agencies' directors are appointed by the president, though, giving him considerable influence.

As for "who would?"...Democrats usually take a harder line on drugs to counteract their reputation for being soft on drugs. Legalizing or rescheduling marijuana would likely require a Republican president with a strong law-and-order reputation (like Nixon or former CIA director Bush the Elder). Although Obama directed the DEA not to enforce federal marijuana possession laws, I'll be surprised if he takes it any farther than that. We might find out this November when CA votes to legalize.

You may be right but I have a different take on this. You see, Obama needs some sort of economic miracle of sorts to shut up the lunatic fringe who are blaming HIM for Bush's recession. There is one way he could take America from where it is now to once again leading the world, economically:

Legalize pot.

Here in WA. state, where the current medical marijuana laws are poorly strung together(compared to CA)a t best, we probably have DOZENS of dispensaries and despite the fact that the police CAN (and here in Tacoma often DO) bust them at any time, they are making a killing that Casinos would envy! If pot were legalized(say as something he pushed through 6 months to a year) before the November 2012 or more likely a year or two before the 2016 election, if he lasts that long), all of a sudden the Republicans and tea baggers have nothing, even as far as empty rhetoric, to stand on.

I also disagree that republicans would be more likely to legalize. i understand the recent massive shift towards Libertarianism(Funny when you recall how Ron Paul was mocked and spat upon by them during the 2008 campaign) but historically they have to contend with Reagan's legacy(their patron saint) as well as Nixon's.
"I am in a very peculiar business...I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James "The Amazing" Randi
User avatar
RuperT
Posts: 759
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:01 am
Location: Jacksonville, FL

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by RuperT »

cheeba wrote:
RuperT wrote:Cheeba, I think you can buy beers in a budget pack of six now. You and your pals could chip in on one, like for a party or something.
Were you drunk when you wrote this?
No, I'm no deviant!! I collect custom shotglasses, and have a shot of Jaegermeister every night strictly to enjoy my glass menagerie! It's also just so goddamn delicious!
Quest: MacDaddy0 - PSN: Rupyrt - Live: MooseFoe
User avatar
Skeptic
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:59 pm
Location: Tacoma, WA.

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by Skeptic »

cheeba wrote:
Skeptic wrote:
Well yeah no one's going to support operating machinery while high/drunk, but it happens.
Then by your reasoning, alcohol should be illegal, no?
People drive while texting, drive while tired, etc, etc. You can only illegalize so much. It has to stop somewhere.
?!

Are you trolling me? Aren't you the one arguing that marijuana should remain illegal while alcohol should not?


Alcohol being currently more common than marijuana is due in large part to the fact that marijuana has remained under the yoke of antiquated prohibition laws whereas alcohol was freed from that burden in the early part of the 20th century. You do realize you are contradicting your own position here right?
I know why marijuana is less common. I'm not contradicting anything. My argument is that pot can be as dangerous as alcohol.
Even if that argument made any sense(it doesn't) how would that support your position here? And to support THAT argument you are going to have to come up with far more than 14 people killed in a single train wreck many years ago. You are going to have to show stoned pedestrians who have flown into a 'stoned rage' and killed their friends, spouses, strangers, etc.. Stoned drivers in the habit of driving at 100 mpg down the road swerving in and out of traffic, stoned people committing suicide because of a 'stoned argument' they had with friends or loved ones, etc.

These are all common enough amongst drunks but they simply do not happen with people smoking pot. A minority of pot smokers Do become excessively paranoid but this rarely results in anyone getting hurt.


Except I didn't say pot should be illegal because one dude killed 14 people. That's just an example of the dangers of pot, to contradict the common notion that stoners are harmless cheeto-loving hippies.
Then you will have to do a lot better because(ignoring why you are contesting that 'relatively irrelevant' notion) your case is not made by citing one stoned, Cheetos-loving hippy who crashed a train.

Also keep in mind that I have NEVER advocated that marijuana is harmless.

People die because others who get drunk/high commit crimes under that influence and this is far more common with alcohol, not because it is legal but because the effects of being drunk lend to much more profound loss of judgment, violent mood swings, etc. Again, a stone guy will attack a bag of Cheetos.
This is the argument I'm contradicting. Maybe marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol overall, but it's sure as hell still dangerous and cheetos aren't the only victims. Just do a google and you can see some horrific stuff committed while high.[/quote]

No no no...I am not doing your research for you guy. You will have to cite some of these alleged incidents themselves and then you have the much bigger task of explaining why the comparable infrequency is not of primary importance here? I mean people die sometimes because of Aspirin. Does that contradict the notion that heroin is more dangerous than Aspirin?

It may be hypocritical to have legal alcohol and illegal pot, but the reality of the situation is it's much harder to criminalize alcohol.
They did it back inn the 1920s without much trouble at all and it gave rise to organized crime on a level that had not previously been seen. The fact that it has been more difficult to do away with these archaic drug prohibitions does not in any way make a good case that we should not do so. That's almost a twist on the argumentum ad populum.
So your position here is that ALL drugs(including alcohol) SHOULD be illegal but you are afraid that alcohol is more difficult to pull off so you will be satisfied just keeping other drugs illegal? Do I have that about right?

And how did you not notice that I said marijuana is NOT a harmless drug(contrary to what many of my fellow advocates claim)?! I will chalk this up to a reading comprehension error on your part...
Um, no. You've been saying all along, still, that the only thing that a stoner will do is attack cheetos.[/quote]


Quote me saying "The ONLY thing a stoner will do...". Again, read what i WRITE but don't read INTO what I write. Marijuana causes brain damage and lung cancer, does not help Glaucoma at all, dulls the capacity for alertness and observation, reaction time etc. and can for some rare persons with certain conditions cause other problems.

When I mentioned the "Cheetos" thing I was talking specifically about violent crime and to a lesser extent dangerous driving.

Whether or not it causes cancer or whatever, I don't think is really relevant to this conversation.
It is since THAT was the position I was contradicting when I said marijuana was NOT a harmless drug, to which you mistakenly made all these above assumptions.

No but the craft brewing industry is to alcohol sales what 3D hologram alternate nude ed. covers are to comic book sales.
I have no idea what 3D hologram alternate nude ed. covers are to comic book sales, but the microbrew industry is pretty goddamn big, and growing at a rate of 40% per year.[/quote]

the 'Alternate cover' was once a fairly unique thing done for certain special comics. Now every comic book printed comes with at least 2 and often 4-6 'alternate covers'(including nude covers for sexy female heroines and such). That the micro brew industry is growing bigger is hardly relevant to your case here. There have always been a minority(now a larger minority I admit) of beer drinkers who approached beer in the way culinary artists approach food. But beer is still mostly an inexpensive and easy to obtain intoxicant(which even the PBR/Busweiser/Miller crowd will prefer the beer they think tastes best of those they can afford). AS I said I am a lover of good beer, for the taste and not the effect so I certainly understand and to an extent probably agree with you on this but I fail to see how this makes the case you are trying to make?

It may be small potatoes compared to the swill industry, but that rate of growth plus a look at the wine industry should give you a pretty clear understanding that there are lots of people out there who consume alcohol mostly for the flavor and not to get blotto.
Correct. I am just saying let's not be silly about this. Your earlier posts made it sound as though drunks were a small, unfortunate side effect of the otherwise harmless alcohol industry. Even amongst the micro brew lovers alcoholism is a HUGE problem and drunk driving, violent crime, etc. persist. possibly even nearly as much as with the PBR crowd because micro brews have higher alcohol content(I am drinking a stout right now that has 7.9 % by volume).
Except that was your whole point in the statement you made to which my above was offered in reply. I can also point out that 'drinking = getting buzzed/drunk' regardless of the fact that many of us are not drinking our micro-brews for that reason.
Except you'd be completely wrong, drinking != getting buzzed/drunk. I can drink a beer and often do without feeling any effects from the alcohol.
I can smoke a bowl and often do without feeling stoned as well. Call it a combination of weaker pot plus tolerance...I don't know but in any case this is irrelevant to the discussion. A red herring of sorts. What matters is what the overall effect is in total, regardless of whether you intend to get drunk/high or how well able YOU happen to be in drinking responsibly. You drink two micro brews and unless you are a very large man with a ridiculous tolerance, you are probably not in good shape to drive.

But again I do not see the relevance of this to whether pot/alcohol should be legal or not.

I'm sure if you tested me after one beer there would be no significant difference between my reactions while without beer vs. having 1 beer.
Depends on teh beer and your own size and such but the point is that unfortunately many if not most do not drink just one beer. They drink and immediately feel more relaxed('buzzed') and then have another. Now they are relaxed and buzzed enough that judgment is more lax and so a third does not sound like such a bad idea...and so on.

Let me rephrase my original statement: nobody out there smokes pot without the intention or understanding that they will get high.
Again, false and refuted in my previous reply which you seem to have missed or are ignoring. There are cancer patients I personally know of who do not even LIKE marijuana and the high associated with smoking it but they need the medicine for their appetites, pain etc.
Just because they don't LIKE the high doesn't mean they don't get high.[/quote]

And...? Just because drinkers do not intend to get buzzed does not mean they do not get buzzed.

It doesn't matter why they smoke it or what it does for them, it gets them high. That's the point. Joint = high. Just because you've got glaucoma doesn't mean the pot doesn't get you stoned.
it does not help one iota with glaucoma and it is irrelevant that it gets you stoned. Even if we assume that everyone smoking pot gets REALLY high, the fact is that they tend to have MUCH better judgment and capacity for self control than the drunks. Drunks are more dangerous by far than stoners and you cannot arbitrarily like this. Cold medicines cause drowsiness and other effects, regardless of your intent behind taking them.
"I am in a very peculiar business...I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James "The Amazing" Randi
User avatar
cheeba
Posts: 8727
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:32 am

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by cheeba »

Skeptic wrote: So your position here is that ALL drugs(including alcohol) SHOULD be illegal but you are afraid that alcohol is more difficult to pull off so you will be satisfied just keeping other drugs illegal? Do I have that about right?
No, apparently you're having reading comprehension problems, as you call it. YOU say the only bad thing that happens from stoners is that they attack cheetos. You've said that many times. THAT IS FALSE.

My position is this:
1) Marijuana CAN BE (that means potential) just as dangerous as alcohol.
2) You can drink a beer with no effects - no buzz, no drunk. You cannot smoke a joint without getting high (again unless it's bad pot, I've had that happen).
Quote me saying "The ONLY thing a stoner will do...".
You've said multiple times now, "Again, a stone [sic] guy will attack a bag of Cheetos." You make this statement after stating all the evils that can happen while drunk. You don't say "a stone guy will attack a bag of Cheetos and sometimes kill people."
That the micro brew industry is growing bigger is hardly relevant to your case here.
False. You have made the argument that people don't drink alcohol for the flavor. A very rapidly growing craft brewing industry refutes that.
It may be small potatoes compared to the swill industry, but that rate of growth plus a look at the wine industry should give you a pretty clear understanding that there are lots of people out there who consume alcohol mostly for the flavor and not to get blotto.
Correct.
Good. We're agreed.
because micro brews have higher alcohol content(I am drinking a stout right now that has 7.9 % by volume).
Here's your problem with English. You need qualifiers. Just because SOME microbrews have a higher alcohol content... hell, even if a majority do, does not mean "micro brews have higher alcohol content." That's a blanket statement.
I can smoke a bowl and often do without feeling stoned as well. Call it a combination of weaker pot plus tolerance
Yeah that's some bad pot right there, which I've already addressed.
You drink two micro brews and unless you are a very large man with a ridiculous tolerance, you are probably not in good shape to drive.
Again, false. I can and do do that all the time. Of course I'm a large man, but when I go to the local brew pub I most often have 2 beers over the course of my time there, which is usually about an hour and a half. Unless I get one of their high alcohol content beers (one of which is high enough to get me buzzed on 1 beer), I feel no buzz when drinking 2 beers over that time.
And...? Just because drinkers do not intend to get buzzed does not mean they do not get buzzed.
I don't know why this point keeps eluding you. A beer drinker CAN drink beer and not get buzzed. It happens often. A pot smoker cannot do that. Have any person smoke some decent pot in 1 joint and another drink one microbrew. The person drinking the 1 beer is in better shape to drive than the stoner.
it does not help one iota with glaucoma and it is irrelevant that it gets you stoned. Even if we assume that everyone smoking pot gets REALLY high, the fact is that they tend to have MUCH better judgment and capacity for self control than the drunks.
Again, this ignores the fact that you can drink a beer or wine or whatever without getting drunk. A responsible drinker will be better off at driving than a responsible stoner, because the stoner will be stoned and in worse shape than the guy that had a reasonable amount of alcohol and is not buzzed or drunk.

Again, to make it simple:
1. You cannot smoke a joint without getting high, unless it's some bad weed.
2. You can drink a beer or even two without getting buzzed or drunk.
3. I would not get in a car with a driver who just smoked 1 joint.
4. I would have no problem getting in a car with a driver who just had 1 beer.
5. Crimes are committed by people who drink.
6. Crimes are committed by people who get high. It might be less frequent than drinkers, but it does happen. People who die from these crimes are just as dead as those who were killed by drunks.
User avatar
Skeptic
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:59 pm
Location: Tacoma, WA.

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by Skeptic »

cheeba wrote:
Skeptic wrote: So your position here is that ALL drugs(including alcohol) SHOULD be illegal but you are afraid that alcohol is more difficult to pull off so you will be satisfied just keeping other drugs illegal? Do I have that about right?
No, apparently you're having reading comprehension problems, as you call it. YOU say the only bad thing that happens from stoners is that they attack cheetos. You've said that many times. THAT IS FALSE.
I repeat for the SECOND TIME HERE: QUOTE WHERE I SAID THIS ONCE. if you are going to quote out of context at least have the decency to actually QUOTE the freaking thing!
My position is this:
1) Marijuana CAN BE (that means potential) just as dangerous as alcohol.
I guess your ambiguity here leaves you wiggle room but I am still going to ask you to substantiate this and I am afraid I am going to insist, until you can make a case to the contrary, that frequency, as well as degree, Is relevant here. One guy in a century who wrecks a train and contributes to 14 people getting killed is NOT = the countless tens of thousands...nay HUNDREDS of thousands killed by both intent and poor judgment because of alcohol. The comical statement about a stoner killing a bag of cheetos was in regards to the commonplace occurrence of drunks murdering or beating someone to death or raping someone.

2) You can drink a beer with no effects - no buzz, no drunk. You cannot smoke a joint without getting high (again unless it's bad pot, I've had that happen).
Still an irrelevant conclusion. A red herring fallacy.
Quote me saying "The ONLY thing a stoner will do...".
You've said multiple times now, "Again, a stone [sic] guy will attack a bag of Cheetos." You make this statement after stating all the evils that can happen while drunk. You don't say "a stone guy will attack a bag of Cheetos and sometimes kill people."
Again, I was leaving your lone citation of the train wreck guy to contend with the thousands of drunk driving deaths that occur every few years and pointing out the propensity for drunks to fly into violent acts that result in death or permanent injury by noting you do not see this with stoners. They tend to attack food. The reason for this is that while alcohol is a depressant, while marijuana is passivist...a relaxant(that is as close to any of the traditional categories(as per "depressants", "barbiturates" etc.) as they dare label marijuana).

Now whenever you are ready, feel free to show where I am wrong here.

That the micro brew industry is growing bigger is hardly relevant to your case here.
False. You have made the argument that people don't drink alcohol for the flavor.
WHAT?! Where did I make THAT argument?! I only ask since it is contrary to what I have said HERE and what I myself believe! Now if you want to say that SOME people(even a large number possibly) do not drink alcohol for the flavor, then I would have no problem with this but don't construct a dummy position here and knock it down while pinning MY name tag to it!

It may be small potatoes compared to the swill industry, but that rate of growth plus a look at the wine industry should give you a pretty clear understanding that there are lots of people out there who consume alcohol mostly for the flavor and not to get blotto.
Correct.
Good. We're agreed.
I am glad you now agree with me but I am wondering why you are arguing with me in the first place on this matter?! I believe it was my second or third post in this thread where I stated this very position and cited myself and my brewer friends as examples.
because micro brews have higher alcohol content(I am drinking a stout right now that has 7.9 % by volume).
Here's your problem with English. You need qualifiers. Just because SOME microbrews have a higher alcohol content... hell, even if a majority do, does not mean "micro brews have higher alcohol content." That's a blanket statement.
I truly meant to say "tend to..." of course. I would have thought that obvious but maybe I am used to being around other people who know beer and this is such common knowledge that I probably got lazy or was simply typing too fast here. In any case this is a rather irrelevant side issue so let's move on...
Yep, that's some bad pot right there...
Yeah...like that bad beer you drink?

You drink two micro brews and unless you are a very large man with a ridiculous tolerance, you are probably not in good shape to drive.
Again, false. I can and do do that all the time.
Something I constantly here from drunks just before they are arrested for DUI...but I will take you at your word here, especially since this has no real bearing on my position.


I don't know why this point keeps eluding you. A beer drinker CAN drink beer and not get buzzed. It happens often. A pot smoker cannot do that.
OKAY guy. I have better things to do than argue over things that bear little relevance via some sort of "is not!/is too!" nonsense. Let's get back to the actual debate here shall we? You don't get drunk. lots of people don't get drunk. Non-alcoholic beers are ready to take over the industry...whatever.

You were trying to make the case that marijuana should be illegal while alcohol should not be or something like that....


it does not help one iota with glaucoma and it is irrelevant that it gets you stoned. Even if we assume that everyone smoking pot gets REALLY high, the fact is that they tend to have MUCH better judgment and capacity for self control than the drunks.
Again, this ignores the fact that you can drink a beer or wine or whatever without getting drunk.

Yes, I am ignoring this..."fact" as you claim it, because it is not relevant. Now can we get back to the debate we are supposed to be having here? or can you somehow make the case that this alleged "fact" substantiates your position?
A responsible drinker will be better off at driving than a responsible stoner,
Okay, again we are in agreement that people should not be allowed to drive while under the influence of ANY drugs, alcohol included. Since you are almost never under such influence(as you state above) I am not worried about your driving. Since I do not drive and would not drive under the influence when I DID drive(save for some times when I was younger), this is not relevant to the debate about whether marijuana should be legalized or not.

because the stoner will be stoned and in worse shape than the guy that had a reasonable amount of alcohol and is not buzzed or drunk.
To call that questionable would be generous. Recent studies on the matter suggest you are way wrong on this. I have to go dig up the links again but the most recent one I am aware of found that people driving under the influence of marijuana were negligibly worse off than sober people. And since mixing alcohol and driving is NEVER good and the effects thus far have been disastrous...
Again, to make it simple:
1. You cannot smoke a joint without getting high, unless it's some bad weed.
2. You can drink a beer or even two without getting buzzed or drunk.
I will ignore the first one since we seem to be spinning our wheels here with that.

the second one is dubious because not only is every person different in their tolerance and ability to handle alcohol, every drunk(including dangerous drunk drivers) says the exact same thing. In fact when cops pull over a suspected drunk driver and ask "how much have you had to drink?" the most common answer is "two beers". I suspect that this is because while most FEEL deep down that 2 beers is a good limit and they can drive safely under that amount, few of them actually stick to this and of those that do, many of them being pulled over were obviously wrong.

And also there is the fact that this STILL does NOT support your case here!

3. I would not get in a car with a driver who just smoked 1 joint.
4. I would have no problem getting in a car with a driver who just had 1 beer.
Sneaky use of language but I have caught you sir. Your arbitrary equating of one joint and one beer is downright ninja-like! One joint of WHICH type of marijuana is equivalent to one beer of which type of brew and WHY?! I can smoke one joint and be a safer driver than anyone you have ever met(honestly I would bet my house in this. I drove for nearly 20 years without a license without ever getting pulled over or wrecking or even scaring anyone in the cars I drove and some of those times(when I was younger I admit) I was stoned.

But the more important point is why you arbitrarily chose the one-to-one conversion here? Why not compare smoking one full joint(which is a HELL of a lot of pot for one person to smoke by himself even here in the stoner capital of the U.S.!) with drinking one Six pack or one pint of whiskey?

5. Crimes are committed by people who drink.
6. Crimes are committed by people who get high. It might be less frequent than drinkers, but it does happen. People who die from these crimes are just as dead as those who were killed by drunks.
The important point here is both the nature of the crimes committed and the frequency in which they occur. Alcohol leads to violence, driving while DRUNK, rape, vandalism etc. and these things are so common that they take up most of the Highway Patrol's time and resources and probably most of regular street cops' time and resources as well. Watch "COPS" sometime and take not of how often you see cops arrive at someone's door asking "What's the problem ma'am?" and here "He just got stoned and LOST it...started beating me and threw the microwave through a window. I don't know what to do!?". Doesn't happen, like it or not. Alcohol? Sure...all the time. Pot? not so much.
"I am in a very peculiar business...I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James "The Amazing" Randi
User avatar
cheeba
Posts: 8727
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:32 am

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by cheeba »

Skeptic wrote:
My position is this:
1) Marijuana CAN BE (that means potential) just as dangerous as alcohol.
I guess your ambiguity here leaves you wiggle room but I am still going to ask you to substantiate this and I am afraid I am going to insist, until you can make a case to the contrary, that frequency, as well as degree,
All right we're getting way too far into the quotes here and I'm not going to keep spinning my wheels.

A large part of your problem is with blanket statements which you have mostly corrected. If you want numbers, I'll refer you to this article:

"in a nationally representative roadside survey, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that 8% of nighttime weekend drivers tested positive for marijuana"

"A 2004 meta-analysis published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Review of studies conducted in several localities showed that between 4% and 14% of drivers who sustained injuries or died in traffic accidents tested positive for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the active ingredient in marijuana."
User avatar
Terrified
Posts: 1606
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:26 pm
Location: Canada

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by Terrified »

cheeba wrote:My position is this:
2) You can drink a beer with no effects - no buzz, no drunk. You cannot smoke a joint without getting high (again unless it's bad pot, I've had that happen).
I had my say on this thread and was done... Until I saw this. Incorrect beliefs like this, cheeba, are why so many people are killed by drunk drivers. You CANNOT drink a beer with no effects. You might not be 'legally drunk' after one beer, but plenty of evidence exists that even that one beer impairs your judgement, reflexes and can be the difference between life and death when you are behind the wheel of a vehicle. Period. Maybe the impairment is slight, but it exists nevertheless.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by noxiousdog »

Terrified wrote:
cheeba wrote:My position is this:
2) You can drink a beer with no effects - no buzz, no drunk. You cannot smoke a joint without getting high (again unless it's bad pot, I've had that happen).
I had my say on this thread and was done... Until I saw this. Incorrect beliefs like this, cheeba, are why so many people are killed by drunk drivers. You CANNOT drink a beer with no effects. You might not be 'legally drunk' after one beer, but plenty of evidence exists that even that one beer impairs your judgement, reflexes and can be the difference between life and death when you are behind the wheel of a vehicle. Period. Maybe the impairment is slight, but it exists nevertheless.
He clarified by saying "no buzz, no drunk." While saying 'no effects' is technically incorrect, theres no evidence to suggest that it impairs your judgment any more or less than other factors such as sleep, medication, or distractions.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
cheeba
Posts: 8727
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:32 am

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by cheeba »

Terrified wrote:You might not be 'legally drunk' after one beer, but plenty of evidence exists that even that one beer impairs your judgement, reflexes and can be the difference between life and death when you are behind the wheel of a vehicle. Period.
Depends on the person, type of beer, whether the person has had food, male/female, sleep deprivation, race, etc. The difference between life and death being 1 single beer? Yeah that's bullshit. "So many people" are not killed by drunk drivers because of those drivers blowing .01-.02%. That was a total drama queen statement.
Last edited by cheeba on Wed Sep 08, 2010 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by Rip »

cheeba wrote:
Skeptic wrote:
My position is this:
1) Marijuana CAN BE (that means potential) just as dangerous as alcohol.
I guess your ambiguity here leaves you wiggle room but I am still going to ask you to substantiate this and I am afraid I am going to insist, until you can make a case to the contrary, that frequency, as well as degree,
All right we're getting way too far into the quotes here and I'm not going to keep spinning my wheels.

A large part of your problem is with blanket statements which you have mostly corrected. If you want numbers, I'll refer you to this article:

"in a nationally representative roadside survey, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that 8% of nighttime weekend drivers tested positive for marijuana"

"A 2004 meta-analysis published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Review of studies conducted in several localities showed that between 4% and 14% of drivers who sustained injuries or died in traffic accidents tested positive for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the active ingredient in marijuana."
and what percent had consumed alcohol? If you are saying that more accident involved pot than drinking I call bullshit.
User avatar
cheeba
Posts: 8727
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:32 am

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by cheeba »

Rip wrote:If you are saying that more accident involved pot than drinking I call bullshit.
How in the world could you possibly infer that from my post?
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by Rip »

cheeba wrote:
Terrified wrote:You might not be 'legally drunk' after one beer, but plenty of evidence exists that even that one beer impairs your judgement, reflexes and can be the difference between life and death when you are behind the wheel of a vehicle. Period.
Depends on the person, type of beer, whether the person has had food, male/female, sleep deprivation, race, etc. The difference between life and death being 1 single beer? Yeah that's bullshit.
No actually it isn't just as sleep, cell phone, texting that can be the difference between life and death. It may not cause an accident but could lead to not avoiding one that may have been avoided otherwise.

Instead of doing one to one although I disagree with the one joint = one beer analogy to see the difference you have to take it to like 6 beers -vs- 6 joints. I'd bet a ton of money that a six pack would impair a driver MUCH more than smoking six joints. I hereby volunteer to be the test subject to prove it.

Rip
User avatar
cheeba
Posts: 8727
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:32 am

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by cheeba »

Rip wrote:Instead of doing one to one although I disagree with the one joint = one beer analogy to see the difference you have to take it to like 6 beers -vs- 6 joints. I'd bet a ton of money that a six pack would impair a driver MUCH more than smoking six joints.
I don't understand that analogy. Yes, I'd agree that 6 beers would be worse than 6 joints (though jesus, puff puff give already). The point of the 1 beer and 1 joint analogy is that you CAN (and I often do) drink beer without getting buzzed/drunk, while you cannot (or would not) smoke pot without getting high (unless it's the bad stuff).
User avatar
silverjon
Posts: 10781
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: Western Canuckistan

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by silverjon »

cheeba wrote:I'd agree that it'd be nice to give people such freedoms. But the reality is that people are dumb and need protection from themselves. If drunk driving is such a problem, what sense does it make to add to the problem by making a bunch of undetectable, mind-altering drugs legal?
Serious question: what are your views on gun control?

(I'm sure you've stated them before, but hell if I can keep stuff like that straight.)
wot?

To be fair, adolescent power fantasy tripe is way easier to write than absurd existential horror, and every community has got to start somewhere... right?

Unless one loses a precious thing, he will never know its true value. A little light finally scratches the darkness; it lets the exhausted one face his shattered dream and realize his path cannot be walked. Can man live happily without embracing his wounded heart?
User avatar
silverjon
Posts: 10781
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: Western Canuckistan

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by silverjon »

Skeptic wrote:the 'Alternate cover' was once a fairly unique thing done for certain special comics. Now every comic book printed comes with at least 2 and often 4-6 'alternate covers'(including nude covers for sexy female heroines and such).
Hmmm... perhaps only true if you're stoned every time you're in the comic store?
wot?

To be fair, adolescent power fantasy tripe is way easier to write than absurd existential horror, and every community has got to start somewhere... right?

Unless one loses a precious thing, he will never know its true value. A little light finally scratches the darkness; it lets the exhausted one face his shattered dream and realize his path cannot be walked. Can man live happily without embracing his wounded heart?
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70100
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by LordMortis »

while you cannot (or would not) smoke pot without getting high
While I am in a small minority, I love the smell and taste of pot but hate the high. I love to be in a room with pot smokers and having the sweet aroma hanging in the air without having to get pot buzz. On the other hand, I drank Select 55 for a while for the less calories. While I don't drink for a good buzz, I found that Select 55 had so little alcohol in it that I switched back to Mic Ultra. Select 55 may as well be NA beer, which you don't really see anyone drinking so they can drink beer so they cannot (or would not) get a buzz.
User avatar
cheeba
Posts: 8727
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:32 am

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by cheeba »

silverjon wrote:Serious question: what are your views on gun control?

(I'm sure you've stated them before, but hell if I can keep stuff like that straight.)
I'm not sure if I have stated them before. I think that the 2nd amendment is one of the unique cultural aspects of the US and I respect that. When a gun crime is committed the media or people in general too often blame the gun or the manufacturer or the store that sold it or whatever and not enough emphasis is placed on the criminal. However, I don't see the problem in a 7 day waiting period and mandatory background checks for guns. I also don't see a need for AR15's or AK's or Tech 9's to be sold. Frankly, I wouldn't mind it so much if all clips were a maximum of 3 rounds. So I'm open to a pretty good amount of gun control, even though I'm supposedly a bit of a rightie :).
User avatar
cheeba
Posts: 8727
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:32 am

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by cheeba »

LordMortis wrote:While I am in a small minority
I'm pretty sure you're an outlier on many issues ;).
User avatar
Skeptic
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:59 pm
Location: Tacoma, WA.

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by Skeptic »

silverjon wrote:
Skeptic wrote:the 'Alternate cover' was once a fairly unique thing done for certain special comics. Now every comic book printed comes with at least 2 and often 4-6 'alternate covers'(including nude covers for sexy female heroines and such).
Hmmm... perhaps only true if you're stoned every time you're in the comic store?
Nope. Check it out yourself. Even a small press independent book like Jim Balent's awful "Tarot" usually has 2 alternate covers(one of which being nude). Any company that can afford printing alternate covers will do it because they rake in cash.
"I am in a very peculiar business...I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James "The Amazing" Randi
User avatar
Skeptic
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:59 pm
Location: Tacoma, WA.

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by Skeptic »

cheeba wrote:
Rip wrote:Instead of doing one to one although I disagree with the one joint = one beer analogy to see the difference you have to take it to like 6 beers -vs- 6 joints. I'd bet a ton of money that a six pack would impair a driver MUCH more than smoking six joints.
I don't understand that analogy. Yes, I'd agree that 6 beers would be worse than 6 joints (though jesus, puff puff give already). The point of the 1 beer and 1 joint analogy is that you CAN (and I often do) drink beer without getting buzzed/drunk, while you cannot (or would not) smoke pot without getting high (unless it's the bad stuff).
I still have to contest this repeated assertion that you can and do drink beer without getting a buzz vs. the assertion that you cannot smoke pot and not get a buzz and also the relevance of this argument to the issue at hand(which you still have not explained to us). You see, whether this is somehow in some sense true or not, it is not a valid argument for the case you are trying to make. I can just as easily assert that you cannot drink alcohol without feeling the effects and that almost no one drinks beer not to get buzzed/drunk and have the same substantiation. You cite micro-brews' popularity, I cite expensive strains of marijuana, you say "No that's just because of the potency!" and I say the same about micro-brews.

And the comparison of 'one beer=one joint' is still a bunch of bullshit. I can take one HIT off a joint without getting high just as some people can drink one beer and not get sloshed.

Your whole case thus far is a mess of red herrings, bald assertions, selective 'mining' of information(re: not citing how many drivers who tested positive for THC also were drunk or on meth etc.).

Bottom line is this:

Marijuana is by all statistical and relevant data, about the least harmful or dangerous recreational drug. Auto-accidents are few and far between(at best) and usually happen UNDER the speed limit. Violence doesn't happen because one is stoned. And while both alcohol and marijuana impair judgment and reaction, even being just over the legal limit for alcohol is far more dangerous than being mega-stoned off the best weed you can find.
Last edited by Skeptic on Wed Sep 08, 2010 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I am in a very peculiar business...I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James "The Amazing" Randi
User avatar
Skeptic
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:59 pm
Location: Tacoma, WA.

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by Skeptic »

Holy crap that article Cheeba linked to was bad! I mean if you want to be a journalist, rather than a political pundit, you have to do better than that.

One small example of how bad:

Regarding the supposed economic benefits of taxing marijuana, some comparison with two drugs that are already regulated and taxed — alcohol and tobacco — is worth considering. People don't typically grow their own tobacco or distill their own spirits, so consumers accept high taxes on them as retail products. Marijuana, though, is easy and cheap to cultivate, indoors or out, and Proposition 19 would allow individuals to grow as much as 25 square feet of marijuana for "personal consumption."

Why would people volunteer to pay high taxes on marijuana if it were legalized? The answer is that many would not, and the underground market, adapting to undercut any new taxes, would barely diminish at all.

First off, no...marijuana is not easy or cheap to cultivate at all. Trust me, I am part of a grow-op and just to get even 20-30 plants going in one bedroom(as opposed to renting a better facility like a house or something) has cost several thousand dollars. You got lighting, pesticides, special fertilizers, cloning machine(or buying the clones themselves which is much more expensive in the long run), pots, tools(for clipping etc.), seeds/plants, dealing with 'root rot' etc.

And if this guy read his own writing he answers some of his own questions/points. If you got one guy growing a lot of marijuana, he will have to have the proper licenses(business etc.) and WILL be paying taxes on it because he is not smoking all of that himself. And there are a LOT of people brewing their own beer now and they still buy other beers from bars, stores etc., paying taxes on it. If you think there will not be a tax revenue the likes of which this country has never seen from pot then you are bullshitting yourself worse than the most delusional cultist out there.

Stoner: "Hey man how much money you got?"

Stoner buddy: "$20."

Stoner: "I got $50. Let's go get a quarter.

Stoner buddy: "Wait shouldn't we just save our money so we can invest in growing our own pot and not pay sales tax?"

Stoner: "No. Why don't we just not buy food today so we can invest in our own farm, moron?! I want to smoke now...not in 3 years."

...would be the direction of most pot smokers.
"I am in a very peculiar business...I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James "The Amazing" Randi
User avatar
silverjon
Posts: 10781
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: Western Canuckistan

Re: will marijuana ever be legal???

Post by silverjon »

Skeptic wrote:
silverjon wrote:
Skeptic wrote:the 'Alternate cover' was once a fairly unique thing done for certain special comics. Now every comic book printed comes with at least 2 and often 4-6 'alternate covers'(including nude covers for sexy female heroines and such).
Hmmm... perhaps only true if you're stoned every time you're in the comic store?
Nope. Check it out yourself. Even a small press independent book like Jim Balent's awful "Tarot" usually has 2 alternate covers(one of which being nude). Any company that can afford printing alternate covers will do it because they rake in cash.
Every issue of every title for sale? Call me skeptical. There is apparently something of a resurgence of variant covers going on now, but I still think you're overstating. As for the effectiveness on sales, that seems to depend, according to people who buy comics (as opposed to publishers, who may or may not be successful with their money grab).

http://insidepulse.com/2010/08/01/fando ... nt-covers/" target="_blank
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/sh ... p?t=292593" target="_blank

As for this Tarot thingamabob, it appears to exist only as an excuse for pictures of boobs, therefore collectible alternate picture of boobs (semi-clothed or nude) seem like they'd be obvious.

Actual nudity still won't fly with Marvel or DC, I don't think.
wot?

To be fair, adolescent power fantasy tripe is way easier to write than absurd existential horror, and every community has got to start somewhere... right?

Unless one loses a precious thing, he will never know its true value. A little light finally scratches the darkness; it lets the exhausted one face his shattered dream and realize his path cannot be walked. Can man live happily without embracing his wounded heart?
Post Reply