Legalization of Marijuana

joefromchicago wrote: The harm or potential harm to others I assume to be similar or identical to the harm or potential harm to others that is posed by alcohol. I base that on the assumptions of marijuana advocates who say that marijuana and alcohol are comparable, albeit not identical, in their effects. The harmful and potentially harmful effects of alcohol are well-known. I don't plan on doing any research on them.

All this from your assumptions???
Don't you remember the adage: When you ASSUME you make an ASS out of U and ME.

Yes, the rest of us are asses too because some people are just stubborn and close-minded. Yes, Archie Bunker lives.

0 Replies

Joe:

Quote:

The harm or potential harm to others I assume to be similar or identical to the harm or potential harm to others that is posed by alcohol. I base that on the assumptions of marijuana advocates who say that marijuana and alcohol are comparable, albeit not identical, in their effects. The harmful and potentially harmful effects of alcohol are well-known. I don't plan on doing any research on them.

First, I think that this is a poor assumption for you to make. Extremely poor assumption. Alcohol is known to cause belligerent behavior in a large percentage of its' users. Marijuana is not known to do this, nor is it known to kill people from its' immediate usage, nor is it implicated in a large number of automobile accidents.

Second, which advocates have given you this idea? Specifically.

Third, if you assume that marijuana is in fact comparable to alcohol, then your position should be that we treat it the same way as alcohol is treated, that is, to regulate its' use. I think you will find that there are many great arguments for the regulation of the use of marijuana, and few good ones for the prohibition.

I would point out to you that there has been a long-standing tradition of marijuana usage in America, since its' inception - and before, if you count the American Indian.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
If you're interested in actually discussing the issue, then give us some real evidence of the harms of marijuana. Otherwise, one might say you're just blowing smoke.

You can cut that bullshit right now. I have no more patience for you saying that than I have with Sandy Vagina (aka Kuvasz). If you want to have a discussion, then we'll discuss. But don't try to score any debating points by claiming that I'm not in earnest.

So you have some real evidence of the harms of marijuana?

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
If you're interested in actually discussing the issue, then give us some real evidence of the harms of marijuana. Otherwise, one might say you're just blowing smoke.

You can cut that bullshit right now. I have no more patience for you saying that than I have with Sandy Vagina (aka Kuvasz). If you want to have a discussion, then we'll discuss. But don't try to score any debating points by claiming that I'm not in earnest.

So you have some real evidence of the harms of marijuana?

He has assumptions.

0 Replies

Yup!

0 Replies

happycat wrote:

Don't you remember the adage: When you ASSUME you make an ASS out of U and ME.

Mostly you, I imagine.

0 Replies

As some of you may know, at least in North America, there is huge money riding on the continued prohibition of marijuana. From law enforcement agencies, to the penal system, to politicians riding the coat tails of "Reefer Madness" hysteria. The vested interests run deep.

This multi-billion dollar house of cards would come tumbling down with legalization.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

happycat wrote:
Don't you remember the adage: When you ASSUME you make an ASS out of U and ME.

Mostly you, I imagine.

Goodness me! Now you claim to have an imagination.... Laughing

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Joe:

Quote:

The harm or potential harm to others I assume to be similar or identical to the harm or potential harm to others that is posed by alcohol. I base that on the assumptions of marijuana advocates who say that marijuana and alcohol are comparable, albeit not identical, in their effects. The harmful and potentially harmful effects of alcohol are well-known. I don't plan on doing any research on them.

First, I think that this is a poor assumption for you to make. Extremely poor assumption. Alcohol is known to cause belligerent behavior in a large percentage of its' users. Marijuana is not known to do this, nor is it known to kill people from its' immediate usage, nor is it implicated in a large number of automobile accidents.

Second, which advocates have given you this idea? Specifically.

You can't seriously contend that marijuana advocates don't compare marijuana and alcohol all the time, do you? For someone who has been studying this issue for years, you certainly haven't kept up with the debate.

A Google search of the term "marijuana no worse than alcohol" comes up with 1,300,000 hits. Among them:

[url=http://www.hightimes.com/ht/news/content.php?bid=1077&aid=10]It's always amazed me that alcohol and tobacco, two of the most insidious drugs available, are accepted by the government, while a relatively benign drug like marijuana is illegal.[/url] [url=http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/03/23/alcohol-tobacco.html]"The current drug system is ill thought-out and arbitrary," said Nutt, referring to the United Kingdom's practice of assigning drugs to three distinct divisions, ostensibly based on the drugs' potential for harm. "The exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from the Misuse of Drugs Act is, from a scientific perspective, arbitrary," write Nutt and his colleagues in The Lancet.[/url] [url=http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/norml/compare.html]Marijuana is illegal because of it's effects on the mind and body. Marijuana's effects on the mind are no worse than alcohol, and it's effects on the body are no worse than alcohol and tobacco.[/url]
I could post more -- lots, lots more -- but then I'd be accused of repeating myself and being tedious and dull.

Oh, what the hell, one more:

Refined sugar, caffeine, alcohol, tobacco. All drugs as much as marijuana is, but they aren't counted as such for social reasons. There's no logical difference between them and other drugs.
You may know the author of that quotation. He goes by the name of Cycloptichorn.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Third, if you assume that marijuana is in fact comparable to alcohol, then your position should be that we treat it the same way as alcohol is treated, that is, to regulate its' use. I think you will find that there are many great arguments for the regulation of the use of marijuana, and few good ones for the prohibition.

Only if you believe that marijuana and alcohol are alike in all respects. I don't. I think there is a very real, very important difference. Alcohol usage is simply too widespread, too ingrained in the culture, to be controlled in the same fashion as marijuana. That's enough for me to make a distinction between the way society should treat alcohol and the way it should treat marijuana.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I would point out to you that there has been a long-standing tradition of marijuana usage in America, since its' inception - and before, if you count the American Indian.

Yeah, I've heard that fairy tale from the High Times crowd too. But even if our forefather took an occasional toke, marijuana usage still never rose to the same levels as alcohol usage at any time in our nation's history.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

So you have some real evidence of the harms of marijuana?

The studies are readily available on the web, and I've linked to some of them in a previous post. But why should I bother? You'll simply dismiss any study that points out the dangers of marijuana as being politically motivated, just as I have little faith in the objectivity of the studies that you post. Indeed, I'm dubious of all the research on marijuana, since both sides have a vested interest in the results of the studies. That's why I rely on the assumptions made by the advocates of marijuana legalization: I don't need to sort through all of the competing scientific claims to understand what the political debate is really all about.

0 Replies

Hey Joe,
Let me ask you a direct question or two.

Do you contend that the present legal status of marijuana in the USA should be maintained? If not, what would you change? If yes, why do you feel this is the appropriate route?

Have you found a way to quality and quantify the overall harm done in the present circumstances versus circumstances in which marijuana was legal?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Hey Joe,Do you contend that the present legal status of marijuana in the USA should be maintained?

I would, at most, favor a decriminalization of marijuana usage. I offer no opinions on particular policies.

Chumly wrote:

If yes, why do you feel this is the appropriate route?

Re-read this thread. If that doesn't answer your question, ask me a more specific question.

Chumly wrote:

Have you found a way to quality and quantify the overall harm done in the present circumstances versus circumstances in which marijuana was legal?

No, of course not. And I can't imagine that anyone else could either.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Joe:

Quote:

The harm or potential harm to others I assume to be similar or identical to the harm or potential harm to others that is posed by alcohol. I base that on the assumptions of marijuana advocates who say that marijuana and alcohol are comparable, albeit not identical, in their effects. The harmful and potentially harmful effects of alcohol are well-known. I don't plan on doing any research on them.

First, I think that this is a poor assumption for you to make. Extremely poor assumption. Alcohol is known to cause belligerent behavior in a large percentage of its' users. Marijuana is not known to do this, nor is it known to kill people from its' immediate usage, nor is it implicated in a large number of automobile accidents.

Second, which advocates have given you this idea? Specifically.

You can't seriously contend that marijuana advocates don't compare marijuana and alcohol all the time, do you? For someone who has been studying this issue for years, you certainly haven't kept up with the debate.

A Google search of the term "marijuana no worse than alcohol" comes up with 1,300,000 hits. Among them:
[url=http://www.hightimes.com/ht/news/content.php?bid=1077&aid=10]It's always amazed me that alcohol and tobacco, two of the most insidious drugs available, are accepted by the government, while a relatively benign drug like marijuana is illegal.[/url] [url=http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/03/23/alcohol-tobacco.html]"The current drug system is ill thought-out and arbitrary," said Nutt, referring to the United Kingdom's practice of assigning drugs to three distinct divisions, ostensibly based on the drugs' potential for harm. "The exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from the Misuse of Drugs Act is, from a scientific perspective, arbitrary," write Nutt and his colleagues in The Lancet.[/url] [url=http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/norml/compare.html]Marijuana is illegal because of it's effects on the mind and body. Marijuana's effects on the mind are no worse than alcohol, and it's effects on the body are no worse than alcohol and tobacco.[/url]

I could post more -- lots, lots more -- but then I'd be accused of repeating myself and being tedious and dull.

Oh, what the hell, one more:
Refined sugar, caffeine, alcohol, tobacco. All drugs as much as marijuana is, but they aren't counted as such for social reasons. There's no logical difference between them and other drugs.

You may know the author of that quotation. He goes by the name of Cycloptichorn.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Third, if you assume that marijuana is in fact comparable to alcohol, then your position should be that we treat it the same way as alcohol is treated, that is, to regulate its' use. I think you will find that there are many great arguments for the regulation of the use of marijuana, and few good ones for the prohibition.

Only if you believe that marijuana and alcohol are alike in all respects. I don't. I think there is a very real, very important difference. Alcohol usage is simply too widespread, too ingrained in the culture, to be controlled in the same fashion as marijuana. That's enough for me to make a distinction between the way society should treat alcohol and the way it should treat marijuana.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I would point out to you that there has been a long-standing tradition of marijuana usage in America, since its' inception - and before, if you count the American Indian.

Yeah, I've heard that fairy tale from the High Times crowd too. But even if our forefather took an occasional toke, marijuana usage still never rose to the same levels as alcohol usage at any time in our nation's history.

I'm honestly surprised at the level of argument you are presenting here, Joe.

First of all, a million hits on google is nothing. Practically any search term will number you a million hits.

Second, this phrase -

Quote:

The harm or potential harm to others I assume to be similar or identical to the harm or potential harm to others that is posed by alcohol.

Is not countered in any fashion by saying 'marijuana is no worse then alcohol.' That sentence does not imply equivalence, but in fact points out that much more inimical substances are legally regulated, so why not this one? To build your argument off such a weak point is not recommended.

Joe, should all new drugs which are discovered from this point forward be illegal? Certainly given modern medical technology and the exploration of the remote areas of the world, we will discover plants and substances which have drug-like effects upon the body. None of these substances will have a 'cultural history' with the Western world. Should they be illegal? Why do you believe this is true?

I have a real problem with your standard of legality relying upon cultural history. Also, this line -

Quote:

Only if you believe that marijuana and alcohol are alike in all respects.

Is patently ridiculous. No two things are alike in all respects, yet many things are treated alike. Tobacco and Alcohol are not alike in all respects, yet both are treated essentially the same by our society - legal, but limited in certain ways.

Your 'alcohol is too widespread' argument is bullsh*t. Laws deserve to stand or fall upon their own merits, not upon cultural history. You haven't shown in any way that marijuana should be illegal.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Tobacco is a huge killer, and it is not being criminalized.

But the effects of drugs on the body is not the issue, I think. The issue is the horrific damage to individuals and our society by the criminalization.

A friend, a lawyer, was caught at the airport with some pot in a film container. Yes, he was stupid. But the damage done to him by the law was incredible, despite his being an extremely upstanding person. Does this make any sense?

0 Replies

What really blows my mind is that all kinds of poison is allowed to go into our food. Poisons that are know to cause cancer!
Doctors are allowed to push all kinds of drugs, which destroy our internal organs. I don't mean the drugs that people actually need to survive, just the ones we don't.

These drugs kill people on a daily basis, yet pot is an issue!

I just don't get it.

Prescription pills are what killed my father and my sons father, but that's ok, I guess, because a doctor prescribed them, yet pot is an issue!

Still not getting it!

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Tobacco is a huge killer, and it is not being criminalized.

But the effects of drugs on the body is not the issue, I think. The issue is the horrific damage to individuals and our society by the criminalization.

A friend, a lawyer, was caught at the airport with some pot in a film container. Yes, he was stupid. But the damage done to him by the law was incredible, despite his being an extremely upstanding person. Does this make any sense?

Nope, makes no sense what so ever!

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Hey Joe,Do you contend that the present legal status of marijuana in the USA should be maintained?
I would, at most, favor a decriminalization of marijuana usage. I offer no opinions on particular policies.
Chumly wrote:
If yes, why do you feel this is the appropriate route?
Re-read this thread. If that doesn't answer your question, ask me a more specific question.

Chumly wrote:
Have you found a way to quality and quantify the overall harm done in the present circumstances versus circumstances in which marijuana was legal?
No, of course not. And I can't imagine that anyone else could either.

On what pragmatic rationale do you base your view of at most favoring a decriminalization of marijuana usage if you are unable to quality and quantify the overall harm done in the present circumstances versus circumstances in which marijuana was legal?

If you cannot quality and quantify in a pragmatic rational manner, the overall harm done in the present circumstances versus circumstances in which marijuana was legal , then it would be logical to err on the side of freedom of choice, unless or until pragmatically obtained and assessed evidence strongly suggested otherwise, no?

I might add however that there are countries in which marijuana is either legal or less frowned upon, and as such I am not wholly convinced that some comparisons cannot be made between the overall harm done in the present circumstances versus circumstances in which marijuana is legal or less frowned upon.

Legality of cannabis

0 Replies

I realize that the following is relatively anecdotal, however, it is very telling.

I live in a relatively poor county near Charlotte, NC. Notwithstanding this, it spends a lot of money chasing down pot growers, dealers, and users, and then jailing them. It even uses a helicopter, at big expense, to see if anyone is growing pot.

Pot has been studied since about 1840, when the Brits studied its widespread use in India. There ain't much that is not known. We do need more data on the human and capital expense of criminalization. I wager it is huge, with little beneficial return.

0 Replies

Although it's generally more fun to have a dialogue with differing viewpoints and I rarely simply say "me too" I'll say it here.

I also have a sizeable amount of relatively anecdotal information that large sums of money are being spent to curtail British Columbian grow-ops and a proportionate number of people are being processed through the judicial / penal system. Said proportionate number of people have lost certain rights and freedoms that would otherwise be accorded to them. All to questionable avail in the big picture.

0 Replies

Chum, I wager your area is rife with pot cultivation. In fact, I imagine that is it the number one money crop.

0 Replies

Legalization of Marijuana

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know