Legalization of Marijuana

joefromchicago wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
1. Are you satisfied with the legality of alchohol, or do you believe it should be made illegal?

I am satisfied with its legality.

DrewDad wrote:
2. If you are satisfied with the legality of alchohol, and if pot and alchohol are equally dangerous, then you would be satisfied with making alchohol illegal and pot legal, n'est pas?

Only if marijuana held the same place in society and culture as alcohol does. But it doesn't.

I think you are being culturally biased here. What you describe is not a good reason to be making laws, or keeping them.

Do you truly feel that Marijuana should remain illegal, or is this a little game you are playing? I can't tell.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
2. If you are satisfied with the legality of alchohol, and if pot and alchohol are equally dangerous, then you would be satisfied with making alchohol illegal and pot legal, n'est pas?

Only if marijuana held the same place in society and culture as alcohol does. But it doesn't.

It doesn't hold the same place in culture because it was outlawed when it was a part of the culture for latin americans. I'd say your reasoning is severely flawed.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think you are being culturally biased here.

Of course I am. Why shouldn't I be?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What you describe is not a good reason to be making laws, or keeping them.

Why do you think that?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Do you truly feel that Marijuana should remain illegal, or is this a little game you are playing?

No game. I believe that marijuana should remain illegal.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Depends on what you mean by "worse." But I never said that drugs and alcohol are more likely to kill than bacon and eggs. The important distinction is that bacon and eggs don't pose the same kind of societal risk as do drugs and alcohol.

Worse. That's easy in this case - higher actuarial risk factor.

The bacon and egg death (heart and liver disease) is likely to be slower - and incur more medical costs.

~~~

Death by marijuana v death by alcohol (with and without the drunk driving factor). There are some decent stats on these as well.

~~~

Societal risk of marijuana. What would that be? ChicagoJoe won't come over any more?

0 Replies

Coolwhip wrote:

It doesn't hold the same place in culture because it was outlawed when it was a part of the culture for latin americans. I'd say your reasoning is severely flawed.

When was it part of the culture for Latin Americans? What role did it play in that culture? How extensive was its use in that culture? And why should we in the United States care that marijuana may have played some role in some other culture?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

The former is obviously preferable to the latter, but in a democratic society we have already made the decision that we'll accept the results, regardless of the extent of the fact-finding.

I disagree. There is no compelling reason for me to assume that the legislature got its fact-finding right. Because I don't assume this, in my view your argument still reduces to "it's dangerous because it's illegal."

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Societal risk of marijuana. What would that be? ChicagoJoe won't come over any more?

That's a risk that most people would be willing to take.

A social risk is a risk to society at large. In the case of marijuana, for instance, it is the risk that the person using pot will engage in behavior that would harm others.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I think you are being culturally biased here.

Of course I am. Why shouldn't I be?

Cycloptichorn wrote:
What you describe is not a good reason to be making laws, or keeping them.

Why do you think that?

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Do you truly feel that Marijuana should remain illegal, or is this a little game you are playing?

No game. I believe that marijuana should remain illegal.

I think that, because the test of legality should be 'does it harm others?' not 'does it conform to our cultural mores?'

As an above poster wrote, my culture has used marijuana for time immemorial as a recreational and sacred tool. We are now a part of America, and deserve to enjoy the same culturally historic substances that other cultures do; as there has never been any proof of material harm to society from the drug (and the illegality of industrial hemp is frankly extremely damaging to our nation), there is no reason it should be illegal.

Look at it in the same way as recent gay marriage decisions; if you can't show how others are materially harmed by something, it shouldn't be illegal. The number of confirmed deaths due to overuse of marijuana is statistically equivalent to zero, if not zero itself. This makes it less pernicious than practically each and every other drug known to mankind, including aspirin and other 'over-the-counter' medications.

At any point, one should be able to examine a law or rule and ask the questions: is this fair? Is there evidence that this is a good law, that it improves society? And the law should be able to stand on its' own merits at any time. There is no merit to anti-marijuana laws that one can point to.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
The former is obviously preferable to the latter, but in a democratic society we have already made the decision that we'll accept the results, regardless of the extent of the fact-finding.

I disagree. There is no compelling reason for me to assume that the legislature got its fact-finding right. Because I don't assume this, in my view your argument still reduces to "it's dangerous because it's illegal."

You may disagree, but you're not disagreeing with me. I didn't say that the legislature always gets its fact-finding right. Rather, I said that, in a democratic society, we have already decided that the legislature will make those fact-finding decisions and that we will abide by the laws that it passes as a result of those decisions. If the legislature is wrong that doesn't mean that the law isn't binding, it just means that there's a good reason to change the law.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

ehBeth wrote:
Societal risk of marijuana. What would that be? ChicagoJoe won't come over any more?

That's a risk that most people would be willing to take.

A social risk is a risk to society at large. In the case of marijuana, for instance, it is the risk that the person using pot will engage in behavior that would harm others.

Is there any actual data showing that this is a real risk?

Also,

Quote:

When was it part of the culture for Latin Americans? What role did it play in that culture? How extensive was its use in that culture? And why should we in the United States care that marijuana may have played some role in some other culture?

Um, Latin Americans are just as American as anyone else. It isn't 'some other culture.' It's our culture. American culture. Because we are a synthesis of the many cultures which have populated our country.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Political rather than medical reasons keep pot illegal.

How long has this alcohol/pot debate been going on? At least as long as I've been smoking, and that's .... let's see.....approximately 38 years.

Among my friends (some of whom I've known since childhood) are a doctor, school teacher, upper-management salespeople, a speech pathologist, artists, CPA's, business owners, musicians, and.... a cop.
We are all parents that have raised, or are raising happy, well-adjusted kids that are turning out pretty damned well.
We are members of PTA's and community groups. We have homes (the doctor has 2) and cars and boats and we're all doing rather well.

When we get together, no one gets sloppy drunk. No one pisses off the deck. No one is doing jello shots and being obnoxious.
What you will see at our parties, are people having intelligent conversations about current events, kids, politics or home improvements.

None of us are alcoholics - although several had parents that, by today's standards, may have been alcoholics.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that far more people than you'd think go home after work and smoke a joint, instead of stopping at the bar and having a scotch. Some may even light one before they get out of the office parking lot, like I used to. It made me calmer and more focused for the long rush hour drive and I wasn't so quick to flip someone off for driving like an ass.

We're out there. We pot smokers are the ones acting normal in this crazy, alcohol driven society. Unfortunately though, if we were in a stadium parking lot at a tailgate party smoking a joint, next to a half-naked 21 yr old wearing a beer bong hat and puking his guts out on the asphalt, we'd be the ones to get arrested.

Makes no sense to me....at all. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think that, because the test of legality should be 'does it harm others?' not 'does it conform to our cultural mores?'

But your test -- "does it harm others" -- is itself part of our cultural mores. Likewise, your argument that we should respect cultural differences is part of our cultural mores. Indeed, every "should" or "ought" that you bring up is based on the legacy of Western culture.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As an above poster wrote, my culture has used marijuana for time immemorial as a recreational and sacred tool. We are now a part of America, and deserve to enjoy the same culturally historic substances that other cultures do;

Why?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...as there has never been any proof of material harm to society from the drug (and the illegality of industrial hemp is frankly extremely damaging to our nation), there is no reason it should be illegal.

You're mixing up three arguments here. Proof of material harm is not the criterion for passing laws prohibiting certain behaviors. We don't need to have someone blow up a nuclear device in one of our cities in order to ban the possession of nuclear weapons.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Look at it in the same way as recent gay marriage decisions; if you can't show how others are materially harmed by something, it shouldn't be illegal. The number of confirmed deaths due to overuse of marijuana is statistically equivalent to zero, if not zero itself.

Depends on how you define "deaths due to overuse of marijuana."

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This makes it less pernicious than practically each and every other drug known to mankind, including aspirin and other 'over-the-counter' medications.

Or it could just mean that marijuana hasn't been as lethal as other drugs because its use has been outlawed.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

At any point, one should be able to examine a law or rule and ask the questions: is this fair? Is there evidence that this is a good law, that it improves society? And the law should be able to stand on its' own merits at any time.

I quite agree.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Is there any actual data showing that this is a real risk?

What sort of data are you looking for? And what sort of data would convince you that marijuana usage posed a risk to society?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Um, Latin Americans are just as American as anyone else.

Latin Americans, as in citizens of Latin America? No they aren't, no more so than Canadians are Americans* or Germans are Americans.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It isn't 'some other culture.' It's our culture. American culture. Because we are a synthesis of the many cultures which have populated our country.

Then you and I have vastly different definitions of "culture."

*except in the broadest sense of being natives of the Americas, but I assume that we are talking of "Americans" here as being citizens of the USA.

0 Replies

Re: Legalization of Marijuana

dreagen wrote:

I have been trying to decide if I am for Legalization of Marijuana or against it. I will be honest if it was just me I would be, "Hey smoke it, Eat it, drink it... Who Care's" But I am now a parent since I was a "Pot Head" and although I don't see anything that should make it illegal I was wondering if someone could explain that side of the argument. I know all the arguments from NORML, MPP and other groups but have not heard to many arguments to keep it illegal. I did some research to find sites that had the "Bad" things of Marijuana but that was everything that I learned in school 20 years ago. And I know most of it is exagerated to scare kids.

Anyway, What are the arguments to keep Marijuana illegal?

The problem is leveraged cost, i.e. the idea of the druggie having to commit $5000 worth of crime to get (at a 10% fence) the $500 to buy what would be $5 worth of drugs in a rational world, i.e. the idea that you are magnifying $5 worth of chemicals into $5000 worth of crime times the number of those idiots out there times 365, through the magic of stupid laws. No nation including ours can afford that.

A totally rational set of drug laws would

Legalize marijuana and anything else demonstrably no more harmful than booze on the same basis as booze.
Make highly addictive substances available to addicts at cost of production at govt. sites.
Keep Jeckyl/Hyde formulae illegal.
Keep selling drugs to kids illegal.

But we'd be better off to legalize it all than to go on doing what we are. A hundred and fifty years ago there were no drug laws in America and no significant drug problems. Nobody should need to be Albert Einstein to figure it out.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I think that, because the test of legality should be 'does it harm others?' not 'does it conform to our cultural mores?'

But your test -- "does it harm others" -- is itself part of our cultural mores. Likewise, your argument that we should respect cultural differences is part of our cultural mores. Indeed, every "should" or "ought" that you bring up is based on the legacy of Western culture.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
As an above poster wrote, my culture has used marijuana for time immemorial as a recreational and sacred tool. We are now a part of America, and deserve to enjoy the same culturally historic substances that other cultures do;

Why?

Cycloptichorn wrote:
...as there has never been any proof of material harm to society from the drug (and the illegality of industrial hemp is frankly extremely damaging to our nation), there is no reason it should be illegal.

You're mixing up three arguments here. Proof of material harm is not the criterion for passing laws prohibiting certain behaviors. We don't need to have someone blow up a nuclear device in one of our cities in order to ban the possession of nuclear weapons.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Look at it in the same way as recent gay marriage decisions; if you can't show how others are materially harmed by something, it shouldn't be illegal. The number of confirmed deaths due to overuse of marijuana is statistically equivalent to zero, if not zero itself.

Depends on how you define "deaths due to overuse of marijuana."

Cycloptichorn wrote:
This makes it less pernicious than practically each and every other drug known to mankind, including aspirin and other 'over-the-counter' medications.

Or it could just mean that marijuana hasn't been as lethal as other drugs because its use has been outlawed.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
At any point, one should be able to examine a law or rule and ask the questions: is this fair? Is there evidence that this is a good law, that it improves society? And the law should be able to stand on its' own merits at any time.

I quite agree.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
As an above poster wrote, my culture has used marijuana for time immemorial as a recreational and sacred tool. We are now a part of America, and deserve to enjoy the same culturally historic substances that other cultures do;

Why?

There's no reason that Alcohol should enjoy a special legal status, and ignore the pernicious side effects of its' use, because of a specific cultural legacy. The fact that the Western cultures have used alcohol for a long time is frankly immaterial to the question of whether or not it should be legal. And the reverse goes for Marijuana; the history of cultural usage should play no part whatsoever in the question of whether or not it should be legalized. Yet you seem to imply that it should.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
...as there has never been any proof of material harm to society from the drug (and the illegality of industrial hemp is frankly extremely damaging to our nation), there is no reason it should be illegal.

You're mixing up three arguments here. Proof of material harm is not the criterion for passing laws prohibiting certain behaviors. We don't need to have someone blow up a nuclear device in one of our cities in order to ban the possession of nuclear weapons.

Bad example; we already know that a nuclear device is capable of causing mass damage without any further testing. We did have to have the tests before this was known.

I believe that proof of material harm is the criteria for passing laws prohibiting certain behaviors. Otherwise, what is the criteria? Personal preference? Proof of harm is the only objective criteria.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Look at it in the same way as recent gay marriage decisions; if you can't show how others are materially harmed by something, it shouldn't be illegal. The number of confirmed deaths due to overuse of marijuana is statistically equivalent to zero, if not zero itself.

Depends on how you define "deaths due to overuse of marijuana."

Imminent death resulting from use of the substance. Long-term deaths don't really count; we don't outlaw trans fats or bacon or cigarettes even though they will all kill your ass sooner or later.

Alcohol can kill you. Not in thirty years, it can kill you in 3 hours. You can OD on alcohol easily. You cannot OD on marijuana easily. It simply does not have the same effect on the body as other drugs do.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
This makes it less pernicious than practically each and every other drug known to mankind, including aspirin and other 'over-the-counter' medications.

Or it could just mean that marijuana hasn't been as lethal as other drugs because its use has been outlawed.

[/quote]

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. There's no question that the legality of drugs is immaterial to the lethality of drugs. I'm sure I don't need to point out that heroin and crack cocaine are inimical to one's future existence, and they are illegal.

I would challenge you to find one example of someone who has smoked too much weed and died as a result of the overdose. I have been unable to do so.

I'm sorry to say that you are not really making much sense with your arguments. Let me ask; if we were to re-examine marijuana laws today, upon what basis do you believe they should be allowed to stand? What medical studies or evidence shows that it is a substance that is inimical to society in any way? Are you arguing from personal experience, or from a solid foundation of fact and logic?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Is there any actual data showing that this is a real risk?

What sort of data are you looking for? And what sort of data would convince you that marijuana usage posed a risk to society?

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Um, Latin Americans are just as American as anyone else.

Latin Americans, as in citizens of Latin America? No they aren't, no more so than Canadians are Americans* or Germans are Americans.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
It isn't 'some other culture.' It's our culture. American culture. Because we are a synthesis of the many cultures which have populated our country.

Then you and I have vastly different definitions of "culture."

*except in the broadest sense of being natives of the Americas, but I assume that we are talking of "Americans" here as being citizens of the USA.

Data which showed direct and material harm to users. Data which showed direct and material harm to those who are around the users. I have been unable to locate said data.

Latin Americans, as in 'citizens of the US who come from Latin descent. Latin Americans make up a hefty percentage of the American population. They brought their culture with them. It is now a part of our culture. And their traditions deserved to be treated with the same amount of cultural respect as anglo-saxon ones.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Funny thing....

Even as late as 1953 or thereabouts the United States still retained many of the trappings of a free country. Freely available to the public (free other than for the cost of purchase) were class C fireworks, firearms of every sort, lawnmowers with no 1984-type devices to protect the user from himself, pools of leftover tar from making roads to roll other kids in....

But in general, today's Americans have no real conception of how free this country was in 1880. In those days, a doctor was basically a consultant.

In those days, a man might walk into the doctor's office and describe symtoms including polka dots and hair turning green and the doctor might write down the names of four or five concoctions HE might try for such symptions. The man might then take that little list to the store and buy a few of each of the medicines (the written list serving only as an aid to his own memory), along with some whiskey, some cocaine, some marijuana, some dynamite for blasting stumps, some 22 ammo for rabbits and some 45/70 ammo for bison, and nobody would ask any questions other than how he was feeling and if he planned on being at the baseball game on Friday.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Depends on how you define "deaths due to overuse of marijuana."

well, let's take a look at a reasonably recent government study

SAMSHA study - p.31

marijuana only - deaths - total - 0

Quote:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Mortality Data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2001 (PDF), January 2003.

If anyone had the stats - these guys woulda published them

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/marijuana/index.html (their links lead to the link that leads to the 0 total)

~~~

I'm not a proponent of any kind of inhaling, but the numbers just don't back up the 'dangers' argument.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There's no reason that Alcohol should enjoy a special legal status, and ignore the pernicious side effects of its' use, because of a specific cultural legacy. The fact that the Western cultures have used alcohol for a long time is frankly immaterial to the question of whether or not it should be legal. And the reverse goes for Marijuana; the history of cultural usage should play no part whatsoever in the question of whether or not it should be legalized. Yet you seem to imply that it should.

Did I imply that? I'm sorry. I meant to say it explicitly. The fact that alcohol is widely used, and has been widely used for thousands of years, entitles it to special consideration. Marijuana hasn't, so it doesn't.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bad example; we already know that a nuclear device is capable of causing mass damage without any further testing. We did have to have the tests before this was known.

I believe that proof of material harm is the criteria for passing laws prohibiting certain behaviors. Otherwise, what is the criteria? Personal preference? Proof of harm is the only objective criteria.

So now you're willing to accept "proof of potential harm" as "proof of harm." I agree.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Depends on how you define "deaths due to overuse of marijuana."

Imminent death resulting from use of the substance. Long-term deaths don't really count; we don't outlaw trans fats or bacon or cigarettes even though they will all kill your ass sooner or later.

Alcohol can kill you. Not in thirty years, it can kill you in 3 hours. You can OD on alcohol easily. You cannot OD on marijuana easily. It simply does not have the same effect on the body as other drugs do.

If you limit "harm" to include only the harm to the user, then I would agree with you: according to that logic, there's no reason to outlaw marijuana. Using the same reasoning, there would also be no reason to outlaw heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, LSD, amphetamines, barbiturates, and any number of other substances that are currently banned. Let the idiots kill themselves off, I say!

It would be a grand world indeed if the users of harmful substances would just stop interacting with the rest of society. But that's not our world. The harm, then, that is of most concern is harm to others, not to the users themselves.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I would challenge you to find one example of someone who has smoked too much weed and died as a result of the overdose. I have been unable to do so.

One of the disagreeable things about participating in these marijuana threads is that people keep asking me to do research on marijuana. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do your homework. I will accept, for argument's sake, that no one in recorded history has ever died from a marijuana overdose.

So what?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm sorry to say that you are not really making much sense with your arguments.

I accept your apology.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Let me ask; if we were to re-examine marijuana laws today, upon what basis do you believe they should be allowed to stand? What medical studies or evidence shows that it is a substance that is inimical to society in any way? Are you arguing from personal experience, or from a solid foundation of fact and logic?

I accept as true the claims of marijuana advocates that marijuana is as dangerous, but no more so, than alcohol. On that basis, I believe that anti-marijuana laws should remain in place.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Data which showed direct and material harm to users. Data which showed direct and material harm to those who are around the users. I have been unable to locate said data.

Well, maybe it's because you haven't been looking hard enough.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Latin Americans, as in 'citizens of the US who come from Latin descent. Latin Americans make up a hefty percentage of the American population. They brought their culture with them. It is now a part of our culture. And their traditions deserved to be treated with the same amount of cultural respect as anglo-saxon ones.

If you believe that everyone who comes to the United States automatically qualifies his or her own cultural background as "American culture" due to some sort of "melting pot exception," then you're right: Latin American culture is now part of our culture. Of course, the Egyptian immigrant whose cultural heritage includes female genital mutilation would also be following "American culture" when he mutilated his daughter, just as the Pakistani immigrant whose cultural heritage includes honor killings would also be following "American culture" when he killed his daughter. For my part, I don't agree with that definition of "culture," and I'm certainly glad that I don't have to try to defend it with a straight face.

0 Replies

Legalization of Marijuana

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know