The more serious problem is that the current drug laws prevent the production of hemp which is a commercial crop that could save many small to medium farms.
joe from chicgo seems like one of the all too common and powerful haters.
Im not saying that he is, but he was like, "Im not gonna waist my time with this," like its so valuable. Thats why he is here with all of us alturnative thinkers, I guess....
No, sorry. It just isnt a useless thing. It is like if I were to disregarde something that you love, like a car or someting. I dont like cars and I think that their use is self defeating, due to polution and all. But it wouldnt be to you.
This paper is not persuasive, but informative. Nothing more than stats.
I apologize if I offended you, but this is inportant.
It effects the whole world and everyone in it.
If you dont want to do anything than dont. If you want to keep on criminalizing than push for it. But dont do it in ignorance.
Look at the stats. You tell me that that isnt big.
Really, Joe? You dont pay taxes? You dont work?
You are paying to bust me...
...and on top of that you are putting up some sort of a front against the numbers. Are those numbers not significant? Are they not comparable to the numbers of other profitable crops? Would it not make many jobs?
Are these people a figment of our imaginations? Does anyone who does not think like really exist?
Yeah I get it, its not an important issue with you personally. How, in any way, can you not see all the trouble we go through with this? Is it not a waste of cops time trying to bust people for being a peaceful pot smoker, sure it theyre driving intoxicated, but thats besides the point?
Why not tap into the resources of it and watch the culture prosper? Are you afraid that people like me might, in due time, out number you? Are hundreds of thousands of people in prison just for pot?
What they arnt people who occupie space?
Are these people a figment of our imaginations? Does anyone who does not think like really exist?
What they arnt people who occupie space?
I dont assioate with those types of people, and I cannot do anything about the fact that my pot might be helping them. I try my hardest to stay domestic.
More like astablishments like the coffee shops in Europe. Marijuana is a requires a great detail to specialization. And on top of that joints suck ass, thats the worse possible way you could smoke weed....
How would a stoner hang out at 7-11 and smoke herb. Pot smokers have a taste for fine quality products, which by the way, are not located at the local convience store.
You are a product of propaganda, which I dont blame you for. Its not important, so why sould you try to get your facts straight?
You could not produce the desired environment in any available store. Marijuana is not a novelty item, but a fine product. You problally cannot grasp that given your current status of thought.
What have you been smoking? Inquiring minds would like to know.
What about all the people who hide form people like yourself. Some of which are probally many times more successfull than you(monetarily at least).
Well thats good, Id hate for you to be resentfull of it. Because people like me are getting those who sit on the couch off of their butts and over to the polls.
I meant to say that you act as if we arnt really there, again, what about the numbers. Organization is getting better, the norml movement has done alot of good for it. It is nothing more than a matter of time.
Why would anyone hide from me? I'm a pretty nice guy.
The report based its findings on Drug Enforcement Administration marijuana eradication statistics, a survey of state police eradication results, and marijuana price reports published in High Times Magazine. NORML published previous reports documenting marijuana's national market value between 1982 and 1992.
Time to pick on someone your own size Joe.
You are getting away with a boatload of simply idiotic statements because bongstar is not challenging them.
I will challenge them from here on out.
It's quite obvious that your statements denigrating those who smoke marijuana are intended to bother bongstar, you are saying you think your money spent to imprison him is well spent and needlessly insulting his lifestyle.
It reminds me of big kids who pick on smaller ones because they can.
Don't know about pretty but you don't seem nice.
So, let's start with the statements you made suggesting that the money spent to incarcerate marijuana users is well spent. I ask you to please provide some insight into that statement. This money is well spent fighting exactly what bane?
I'm quite happy to discuss these matters with people of all sizes -- even you, Craven.
Idiotic? Ouch, that hurts.
Feel free.
I admit that I was being a bit facetious there. Honestly, I don't think that we should be jailing recreational pot users. And as for needlessly insulting his lifestyle: can you point to some examples? I want to make sure that, in the future, when I insult someone's lifestyle I only do so on an as-needed basis.
You're a true humanitarian.
As I mentioned above, that statement was made somewhat in jest. I have no problem, however, in supporting government efforts both to eradicate marijuana production and to jail growers and dealers.
I am delighted. The enormous testicle I am developing is usually an intimidating factor.
Many have pointed out to bongstar that the copy and paste job from norml will get little play. But telling him that you think your money would be well spent to try to incarcerate him was a needless touch. As you just stated incarcerating recreational pot users is something you yourself think should not be done.
Whether you "needed" to do that is a matter that can be questioned but as you just stated you think we shouldn't be doing it.
When bongstar's slightly overeager "campaigning" was broached you went for ad hominem instead.
NORML is the very thing you ribbed bongstar to do. It is the democratic process through which laws are changed. It is a screed in a sea of screeds that aims to change the status quo.
The characterization of recreational marijuana users as lacking in motivation is kinda contradictory to the ridiculization of the very attempts made to change the status quo.
The characterization of marijuana users as having a reduced intellectual capacity is also an ad hominem that does not really address the issue.
I speak of the comment you made saying that pot heads can't understand irony.
I liked the comment, it has a nice defense if challenged (namely just calling the comment in itself irony that if challenged is also not being recognized, lots of opportunity for a lil' jab there) but at the same time I find it needless and false.
I know you are kidding with bongstar and truth be told he does miss irony a lot. But this is, in my opinion, something not related to the use of marijuana.
In the past characterizations of marijuana use has been glaringly fallacious. The pot head was supposed to be a violent rapist by some characterizations used to secure the prohibition of marijuana.
For that reason I think employing an ad hominem against the character of the person using pot is needless.
Just as I think lauding the "benefits" of pot are an irrelevant argument the NORML types posit.
Ok, but why? One easy way to eradicate the criminal dealers is through decriminalization.
If the use is not something that you find dangerous to our society what exactly are the laws protecting against?
I assure you that your enormous testicle gives me no cause for apprehension.
Needless? On the contrary. It served to make a point with a bit more humor than would otherwise have been the case. It certainly served my purposes. Or are you instead suggesting that I'm not allowed to make any kind of references to Bongstar's "lifestyle," unless those references are sufficiently positive?
Craven de Kere wrote:Whether you "needed" to do that is a matter that can be questioned but as you just stated you think we shouldn't be doing it.
If its "need" can be questioned, then it is quite possible that it wasn't "needless."
I most certainly did not. I have never attacked Bongstar rather than addressing his arguments. The problem has been that I have never really been able to discern any argument made by Bongstar. Perhaps you could help.
Craven de Kere wrote:NORML is the very thing you ribbed bongstar to do. It is the democratic process through which laws are changed. It is a screed in a sea of screeds that aims to change the status quo.
And I certainly acknowledged that. I just have a very different estimation of such a movement's chances of success.
Craven de Kere wrote:The characterization of recreational marijuana users as lacking in motivation is kinda contradictory to the ridiculization of the very attempts made to change the status quo.
Once they change the status quo I'll revisit my remarks. And I'm quite sure that I have never attempted to "ridiculize" anything.
Craven de Kere wrote:The characterization of marijuana users as having a reduced intellectual capacity is also an ad hominem that does not really address the issue.
I don't believe I have ever stated or implied that marijuana users have reduced intellectual capacity.
Craven de Kere wrote:I speak of the comment you made saying that pot heads can't understand irony.
I believe that most people cannot understand irony. It's one of our major failings as a nation.
Craven de Kere wrote:I liked the comment, it has a nice defense if challenged (namely just calling the comment in itself irony that if challenged is also not being recognized, lots of opportunity for a lil' jab there) but at the same time I find it needless and false.
What?
Craven de Kere wrote:I know you are kidding with bongstar and truth be told he does miss irony a lot. But this is, in my opinion, something not related to the use of marijuana.
I wish I were as optimistic as you.
Craven de Kere wrote:Just as I think lauding the "benefits" of pot are an irrelevant argument the NORML types posit.
Why? One would think that those types of argument would be the best they could offer.
Craven de Kere wrote:Ok, but why? One easy way to eradicate the criminal dealers is through decriminalization.
And one way to eliminate murder is to decriminalize it. That's a specious argument.
Craven de Kere wrote:If the use is not something that you find dangerous to our society what exactly are the laws protecting against?
Strawman argument. When did I say that I didn't find marijuana use to be dangerous to our society?
joefromchicago wrote:I assure you that your enormous testicle gives me no cause for apprehension.
It should. For it is the envy of my town.
I seem to be very unclear today. I spoke about ad hominems against the recreational user, not bongstar in particular.
I used "ad hominem" not to qualify an "attack" but yes to say that the stereotypes about pot heads were used more extensively than the merit of the proposed changes were.
I bet that decriminalization will happen in my lifetime. Do you really find it that unlikely?
In my opinion it's just a matter of a certain generation dying off.
I believe(yeah, I digress here) that it'd be nice to get a solid definition on what irony is. Each nation has such a different interpretation...
If someone had challenged your statement about the comprehension of irony all you have to do is claim it was a joke and that they are illustrating their irony by their failure to comprehend the situation.
Come now, I happen to know for a fact that many of the most intelligent people around here use pot to varying degrees. Pot is many things, I happen to think it is a few negatives as well.
Come now joe! Do you also think that when trying to change the status quo politicians use the best arguments or do they speak to the lowest common denominator?
Being a reasonable voice is not as motivational to social change in a democracy as is a more extreme position.
By the nature of the masses the most effective stance in a polarized climate is an extreme one.
The nuances of fallacy are lost on the majority.
I took measures to make it not a specious argument.
The downside of legalizing murder is apparent.
What is the downside of having criminal drug dealers be replaced by regulated distribution points?
Craven de Kere wrote:If the use is not something that you find dangerous to our society what exactly are the laws protecting against?
joefromchicago wrote:Strawman argument. When did I say that I didn't find marijuana use to be dangerous to our society?
You most certainly didn't. I never said you DID. I am making a case that you SHOULD HAVE.
Craven de Kere wrote:What danger to society does it present?
Marijuana's dangers are not fully understood. I refer you to this link page: it is, on the whole, sympathetic to the legalization side, yet maintains a far more balanced view than is commonly found in this debate. The conclusion to the WHO study, in particular, states:
"There are health risks of cannabis use, most particularly when it is used daily over a period of years or decades. Considerable uncertainty remains about whether these effects are attributable to cannabis use alone, and about what the quantitative relationship is between frequency, quantity and duration of cannabis use and the risk of experiencing these effects. Using analogies with the known effects of alcohol and tobacco, the most probable of the health risks of chronic heavy cannabis use over a period of years are; the development of a dependence syndrome; an increased risk of being involved in motor vehicle accidents; an increased risk of developing chronic bronchitis; an increased risk of respiratory cancers; an increased risk of giving birth to low birth weight babies when used during pregnancy; and perhaps, an increased risk of developing schizophrenia among those who are vulnerable. Many of these risks are shared with alcohol and tobacco, which is not surprising given that cannabis is an intoxicant like alcohol which is typically smoking like tobacco.
"On existing patterns of use, cannabis poses a much less serious public health problem than is currently posed by alcohol and tobacco in Western societies. This is no cause for complacency, however, as the public health significance of alcohol and tobacco are major, and the public health significance of cannabis could increase if the prevalence of its heavy daily use were to approach that of heavy alcohol use among young adults, or the prevalence of daily cigarette smoking among adults."
With this I concur. There are dangers associated with marijuana that, frankly, we still either don't fully understand or cannot fully appreciate. And legalization has the potential for making these problems worse, not better. I, for one, don't think it's wise to legalize yet another drug before we understand its full implications for its users and for society at large.
