If you realize how hypocritical the situation is, then why do you somewhat defend the ban?Dilbert_X wrote:
If they were invented today they would be illegal tomorrow, its that simple.Turquoise wrote:
Don't you find it odd then that tobacco and alcohol are legal while pot isn't? Both of them are listed as much more harmful and addictive than pot?
x2Turquoise wrote:
If you realize how hypocritical the situation is, then why do you somewhat defend the ban?Dilbert_X wrote:
If they were invented today they would be illegal tomorrow, its that simple.Turquoise wrote:
Don't you find it odd then that tobacco and alcohol are legal while pot isn't? Both of them are listed as much more harmful and addictive than pot?
I personally think cannabis is harmful, more so than alcohol and tobacco, in mental health terms.If you realize how hypocritical the situation is, then why do you somewhat defend the ban?
I've not seen alcohol or tobacco change peoples personalities and thinking permanently, I have with cannabis.
I don't think legalising it would be a good thing for society, but if society votes that way then so be it, there would be some positives like taking money out of gangsters pockets.
It would be an interesting experiment to decriminalise it and see what happened, doesn't seem to help where it is legal.
There are many things which are legal today but which would not be allowed if they were invented tomorrow.x2
I very much doubt the USA would allow every citizen to own a military level assault weapon, for example, if it hadn't crept through in the last 200 years. Muskets maybe, AK47s and .50s probably not.
Given the vote tomorrow on Stinger missiles and landmines pretty sure I know which way they would vote.
Gasoline powered cars - You want to put 100kg of flammable and explosive material in a flimsy metal box, along with four people and a 10,000V electrical system and send it whizzing down the road at 90mph under the control of someone with average eyesight and 10 hours training? I think not buddy.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
You've obviously never met an alcoholic then. You've also obviously never met someone hopelessly addicted to cigarettes either.Dilbert_X wrote:
I personally think cannabis is harmful, more so than alcohol and tobacco, in mental health terms.If you realize how hypocritical the situation is, then why do you somewhat defend the ban?
I've not seen alcohol or tobacco change peoples personalities and thinking permanently, I have with cannabis.
I don't think legalising it would be a good thing for society, but if society votes that way then so be it, there would be some positives like taking money out of gangsters pockets.
It would be an interesting experiment to decriminalise it and see what happened, doesn't seem to help where it is legal.
Your comparison of guns to military munitions is ridiculous. Most explosives are illegal today except for individuals with special permits. Armored vehicles have been around for quite some time, and they aren't legal either.Dilbert_X wrote:
There are many things which are legal today but which would not be allowed if they were invented tomorrow.x2
I very much doubt the USA would allow every citizen to own a military level assault weapon, for example, if it hadn't crept through in the last 200 years. Muskets maybe, AK47s and .50s probably not.
Given the vote tomorrow on Stinger missiles and landmines pretty sure I know which way they would vote.
Gasoline powered cars - You want to put 100kg of flammable and explosive material in a flimsy metal box, along with four people and a 10,000V electrical system and send it whizzing down the road at 90mph under the control of someone with average eyesight and 10 hours training? I think not buddy.
Try making an apples-to-apples comparison.
As far as the car argument goes, you might be right about that in certain countries. I don't think this would apply to America though, since we're far less nanny statish than most other countries -- like Australia.
Addiction is one thing, personality change is another.Turquoise wrote:
You've obviously never met an alcoholic then. You've also obviously never met someone hopelessly addicted to cigarettes either.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Alcoholism definitely changes a person's personality. I can tell you from personal experience that chain smokers are often quite different in personality when they can't get their fix either.Dilbert_X wrote:
Addiction is one thing, personality change is another.Turquoise wrote:
You've obviously never met an alcoholic then. You've also obviously never met someone hopelessly addicted to cigarettes either.
Thats addiction.chain smokers are often quite different in personality when they can't get their fix either
I'm talking about general personality, I've noticed changes in people who take up smoking cannabis that I've not noticed in drinkers, maybe because I go drinking with them, not sure.
I've seen too many dope smokers just drop out of life and settle for mediocrity for it to be coincidence, as have other people I've discussed it with.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
I don't doubt that you have, but do you really see it as the government's business to make people's decisions for them? We could outlaw alcohol and probably decrease alcoholism somewhat, but is it really right to do that?Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats addiction.chain smokers are often quite different in personality when they can't get their fix either
I'm talking about general personality, I've noticed changes in people who take up smoking cannabis that I've not noticed in drinkers, maybe because I go drinking with them, not sure.
I've seen too many dope smokers just drop out of life and settle for mediocrity for it to be coincidence, as have other people I've discussed it with.
Think about it... For all those people that can't handle pot, there are plenty of others that can. I smoked a good amount of weed in college, and I didn't get addicted or become a different person. Why should the government treat me like I can't handle it even though I've already proven I can?
I just find the illegality of pot to be a very invasive nanny state policy.
Last edited by Turquoise (2009-01-11 22:51:54)
Govt makes lots of decisions for you, they've decided heroin, methamphetamine, morphine, cannabis etc should remain controlled drugs, that ~30% of your income should be taken from you to spend on roads, the military and more govt.Turquoise wrote:
but do you really see it as the government's business to make people's decisions for them
Don't like it either campaign, and if you fail its because society presumably doesn't agree with you, or find another country.
Because they need to protect those who can't, and also protect the rest of society, including you, from those who can't, so unfortunately you have to give up a bit of freedom.Turquoise wrote:
Why should the government treat me like I can't handle it even though I've already proven I can?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Dude, you talking about this graph???¦TØP¦ Rommel1l wrote:
That graph is absolutely incorrect.Dilbert_X wrote:
So cannabis is level with amphetamines for dependence, and ecstacy for physical harm.
Doesn't sound like the wonder safe addictionless drug everyone says it is.
I don't have the time to find you the graphs/and #'s I have seen (I've seen alot that prove otherwise trust me) but cannabis ranks much lower in the areas of dependence, physical harm, withdrawal, and toxicity level below that of alcohol, nicotine, amphetamine, cocaine, and ecstasy. Ecstasy/Alcohol ranked the worse for physcial harm, nicotine/heroin ranked the worse for withdrawal, Cocaine had the highest toxicity level.
Marijuana was barely even ranked compared to these drugs. Ask anyone or do spend very little time researching it and you will see for yourself.
That graph is bs.
If so, look again.N00bkilla55404 wrote:
Just thought id bring this up
(And, from one toker to another - weed and debating don't go together - it makes you type arse).
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2009-01-12 02:19:31)
That's a slippery slope. By that logic, we should ban cars, since more people die from car accidents than any drug.Dilbert_X wrote:
Govt makes lots of decisions for you, they've decided heroin, methamphetamine, morphine, cannabis etc should remain controlled drugs, that ~30% of your income should be taken from you to spend on roads, the military and more govt.Turquoise wrote:
but do you really see it as the government's business to make people's decisions for them
Don't like it either campaign, and if you fail its because society presumably doesn't agree with you, or find another country.Because they need to protect those who can't, and also protect the rest of society, including you, from those who can't, so unfortunately you have to give up a bit of freedom.Turquoise wrote:
Why should the government treat me like I can't handle it even though I've already proven I can?
I know the system works the way you're saying, but there's even evidence to suggest that the public is slowly warming up to the idea of legalizing pot. It's not really a matter of the public wanting to keep pot illegal so much as it is special interest groups (the DEA and criminals who profit from the high prices created by illegality) that want it to remain illegal.
First off: the switch to public transport should be made. The USA is lagging way behind on that, and considering the amount of money you guys spend on other things, you'd have thought that there would be some to spare for how you get around town. (@Turq's elimination of drivers)
Second: Why not ban alcohol and tobacco? We're removing them slowly from our societies anyway, and in the US you have to be 21 before you can even have a beer, whereas you can go run people over starting at 15 (providing someone's helping you ). How can people still be talking about legalizing Marijuana when we are trying so hard to get rid of other drugs like alcohol and tobacco? Isn't THAT hypocritical?
-kon
Second: Why not ban alcohol and tobacco? We're removing them slowly from our societies anyway, and in the US you have to be 21 before you can even have a beer, whereas you can go run people over starting at 15 (providing someone's helping you ). How can people still be talking about legalizing Marijuana when we are trying so hard to get rid of other drugs like alcohol and tobacco? Isn't THAT hypocritical?
-kon
We're not removing alcohol from Aus. That's for damn sure.konfusion wrote:
Second: Why not ban alcohol and tobacco? We're removing them slowly from our societies anyway,
Uh... that would be known as moving towards a nanny state. That pretty much contradicts the very principle of living in a free society.konfusion wrote:
First off: the switch to public transport should be made. The USA is lagging way behind on that, and considering the amount of money you guys spend on other things, you'd have thought that there would be some to spare for how you get around town. (@Turq's elimination of drivers)
Second: Why not ban alcohol and tobacco? We're removing them slowly from our societies anyway, and in the US you have to be 21 before you can even have a beer, whereas you can go run people over starting at 15 (providing someone's helping you ). How can people still be talking about legalizing Marijuana when we are trying so hard to get rid of other drugs like alcohol and tobacco? Isn't THAT hypocritical?
-kon
Protecting others is one thing, but this is basically government making most of your decisions for you.
It will NEVER happen in America (at least I really fucking hope it doesn't).
As for public transport, that's feasible, but that only makes sense in dense, urban areas. We're still far too spread out for public transport to be of much use in many areas.
We've removed it from large parts, on and off.Reaper wrote:
We're not removing alcohol from Aus. That's for damn sure.
We're removing petrol too, here and there.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Maybe, then, I don't want everyone to have all the freedoms they want. There needs to be some limits to what people can or cannot do - as people can quite obviously not limit themselves. The one good thing that comes from dictatorships is radical change. You don't get fast change without a temporary infringement of civil liberties (unless you're willing to wait for a couple of decades)Turquoise wrote:
Uh... that would be known as moving towards a nanny state. That pretty much contradicts the very principle of living in a free society.
Protecting others is one thing, but this is basically government making most of your decisions for you.
It will NEVER happen in America (at least I really fucking hope it doesn't).
As for public transport, that's feasible, but that only makes sense in dense, urban areas. We're still far too spread out for public transport to be of much use in many areas.
Public transport: it should be possible in most American cities, but it's either too dangerous to go on the existing public transport, or the system isn't refined enough for proper use.
-kon
http://www.change.org/ideas?order=top#listSection
Marijuana has a 2000 vote lead on any other idea being voted on.
Did anyone else go vote yes on this topic from these forums? I'm just curious.
Marijuana has a 2000 vote lead on any other idea being voted on.
Did anyone else go vote yes on this topic from these forums? I'm just curious.
Though I would like to see marijuana at least decriminalized our economy can't handle it right now. Too many people are employed fighting it. From the police on the street to the groups that fight to make sure nobody can smoke it legally to the groups that fight to make it legal to the companies that research use prevention even the drug companies that make drug test kits for marijuana.
Right now our economy is too fragile to make any large scale social reform that would put some people out of work.
Right now our economy is too fragile to make any large scale social reform that would put some people out of work.
I'm sure there would still be more than enough crime to keep cops busy, and plenty of harder drugs for the prevention/test kit manufacturers to focus on.uevjHEYFFQ wrote:
Though I would like to see marijuana at least decriminalized our economy can't handle it right now. Too many people are employed fighting it. From the police on the street to the groups that fight to make sure nobody can smoke it legally to the groups that fight to make it legal to the companies that research use prevention even the drug companies that make drug test kits for marijuana.
Right now our economy is too fragile to make any large scale social reform that would put some people out of work.
Sure there will be other crimes to focus on but enforcing marijuana laws are pretty easy for police and are a good excuse to stop people on the streets to try and find out more information on them or others who have committed crimes. I'm sure drug kit manufactures wouldn't like very much to have to slow down their most profitable and highest selling kits in order to specialize in others ones where they would only be regionally effective. Such as Meth in white areas and crack in black areas.Pubic wrote:
I'm sure there would still be more than enough crime to keep cops busy, and plenty of harder drugs for the prevention/test kit manufacturers to focus on.uevjHEYFFQ wrote:
Though I would like to see marijuana at least decriminalized our economy can't handle it right now. Too many people are employed fighting it. From the police on the street to the groups that fight to make sure nobody can smoke it legally to the groups that fight to make it legal to the companies that research use prevention even the drug companies that make drug test kits for marijuana.
Right now our economy is too fragile to make any large scale social reform that would put some people out of work.
It can be argued there is plenty of crime for the Police to deal with, they aren't suddenly going to be unemployed.
Legalisation would free them up to focus on harder drugs.
The drug kits test for many drugs, not just cannabis, they aren't going away either, companies would probably still prevent their employees abusing same as they do with alcohol.
In practise its often the Police pushing to keep it illegal, its so much easier writing out tickets for stoners than taking down meth-heads.
Legalisation would free them up to focus on harder drugs.
The drug kits test for many drugs, not just cannabis, they aren't going away either, companies would probably still prevent their employees abusing same as they do with alcohol.
In practise its often the Police pushing to keep it illegal, its so much easier writing out tickets for stoners than taking down meth-heads.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Sure maybe. In theory it would work out but in actual reality there would be some sort of problems somewhere and it'll all end up being a big mess.Dilbert_X wrote:
It can be argued there is plenty of crime for the Police to deal with, they aren't suddenly going to be unemployed.
Legalisation would free them up to focus on harder drugs.
The drug kits test for many drugs, not just cannabis, they aren't going away either, companies would probably still prevent their employees abusing same as they do with alcohol.
In practise its often the Police pushing to keep it illegal, its so much easier writing out tickets for stoners than taking down meth-heads.
Then again I could be totally wrong.
But my earlier point still stands. The economy can't handle wide spread social reform right now. There are too many issues which the country needs to come together right now to fix and doing anything that will piss off or alienate social conservatives isn't a very smart move.
How are we removing them slowly from our societies? Really? There's supposed to be a binge drink "epidemic" or whatever buzz words the labour government are using right now. I think we should hold up and taking yet more freedoms away and outlawing anything remotely fun...konfusion wrote:
First off: the switch to public transport should be made. The USA is lagging way behind on that, and considering the amount of money you guys spend on other things, you'd have thought that there would be some to spare for how you get around town. (@Turq's elimination of drivers)
Second: Why not ban alcohol and tobacco? We're removing them slowly from our societies anyway, and in the US you have to be 21 before you can even have a beer, whereas you can go run people over starting at 15 (providing someone's helping you ). How can people still be talking about legalizing Marijuana when we are trying so hard to get rid of other drugs like alcohol and tobacco? Isn't THAT hypocritical?
-kon
alcohol will leave this island over my dead body
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Banning alcohol would fail badly. History has proven it.
