BF2S Forums A question for non-cannabis users

Turquoise wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

The historical quirk that for some reason caffeine, nicotine and alcohol are socially acceptable but cannabis, opiates and cocaine are not.
I find it hard to believe America, Canada, Europe, Russia, China etc all outlawed cannabis just to 'keep the black man down'.
I suspect the societies have learned the three mentioned are too socially damaging to be legal.

You're assuming that they "learned it's too socially damaging" rather than looking at the corporate connections of alcohol.  Breweries have always been big business.  Pot never has been, so it doesn't have the same power to lobby for legalization as alcohol does.

Again, this isn't about protection.  It's about special interests.  Do you really put that much faith in government?

I don't know about "socially damaging" as Dilbert says... But on the other hand, why hasn't pot ever been a big business? It certainly has the massive market for it to be as big as booze and cigs. Same with all drugs really.

My guess is that nicotine and caffeine's effects are of a very different nature - such that gave no reason for a ban at least in the early and ignorant years - thus allowing for the market to grow. As for alcohol, yes the nature of its effects is more similar to cannabis etc but who in the right mind would ever consider a ban on wine?

God I love this discussion, especially with you guys, really interesting stuff...
I would like to respond to some stuff, specifically by Dilbert

I think we would save society money if people didn't go to jail for a plant.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cannabis is clearly implicated in schizophrenia, from anecdotal evidence I have first hand its not something I would want to see widespread. It causes personality changes for the worse.

There have been studies about this, and the people that turned schizophrenic were prone to schizophrenia anyway (they were bound to have it later on)
Besides, it isn't something widespread, its not like you hear about somebody from your old High School getting schizophrenia from smoking cannabis.
Shit, if a drug for depression was released and they had a few cases of schizophrenia out of a test group of thousands upon thousands, I bet the FDA would still pass it. 

Dilbert_X wrote:

Looking at the stats ecstacy is the least harmful drug there is, I don't see that being legalised any time soon.

Actually LSD is the least harmful drug. Unless your talking about MDMA (Pure active ingredient in Ecstacy) and I'm not sure and don't have the time to look of you can OD on MDMA very easy so somebody tell me about that
Ecstasy tabs, if you are referring to pills, can be spiked with crazy stuff. Just check a site like this out

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If people want to use a substance that they enjoy but it harms them in the process, that's ok.  That's their business.

Its societies business, since society pays some of the cost.

Pot is less harmful to society than alcohol and tobacco, no matter what Dilbert says.

According to you, not as I see it.

Dilbert, I really don't see where that cost would come from. Don't you think that if they stopped arresting people for crimes related to Cannabis (Like possession) that it would dramatically reduce all the costs from arrest to imprisonment?

How you use them is what's important.

Depends as much on the drug as how you use it.

When were talking Cannabis, volume isn't a problem. Unless you can smoke your bodyweight in Cannabis in 24 hours when 3 grams makes you pass out

Godfather wrote:

There have been studies about this, and the people that turned schizophrenic were prone to schizophrenia anyway (they were bound to have it later on)

But cannabis tips them over the edge, although predisposed they might not have developed it all.

Actually LSD is the least harmful drug.

You're joking? Enough people have wound up brain-fucked from that its not funny.
And yes I mean MDMA, not what some numbnut has mixed up with his home chemistry set, although the long-term effect of regular MDMA use
are severe - short term effects and occasional use don't seem a problem.

Dilbert, I really don't see where that cost would come from. Don't you think that if they stopped arresting people for crimes related to Cannabis (Like possession) that it would dramatically reduce all the costs from arrest to imprisonment?

Again, costs to society besides money.
Treating the proportion who do smoke themselves stupid, dealing with the ones who end up really off the wall, and those who withdraw from society and sit at home on the dole smoking - because doing weed is the most awesome thing they can think of.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-07-28 03:12:44)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Pubic wrote:

There have been studies about this, and the people that turned schizophrenic were prone to schizophrenia anyway (they were bound to have it later on)

I think you'll find it wasn't me who wrote that.

ghettoperson wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I have no problems with legalizing, regulating, and taxing the ever-loving shit out of pot. That's just the libertarian in me, I guess.

However, I have problems today with people smoking pot. It IS illegal. Until it isn't, people shouldn't be doing it. It's selfish and irresponsible IMO.

I don't understand this attitude of 'if the law says so, it's a terrible thing'. Come on, I'm sure you've broken the law loads of times in your life. You're telling me you have a problem with people smoking weed, but not doing an extra 5MPH over the speed limit?

Firstly, you've mischaracterized what I said. I didn't say "it's a terrible thing".

I said intentionally performing an illegal act for no reason other than your own pleasure is selfish and irresponsible. And yes, I've broken the law many times in my life for selfish and irresponsible reasons. And that doesn't make it OK.

Legalize it with the same restrictions as alcohol... and don't let the government control it...

fu menzo

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

You're assuming that they "learned it's too socially damaging" rather than looking at the corporate connections of alcohol.  Breweries have always been big business.  Pot never has been, so it doesn't have the same power to lobby for legalization as alcohol does.

Again, this isn't about protection.  It's about special interests.  Do you really put that much faith in government?

You say its big business and special interests, I say its based on the facts and 'facts on the ground' since before democracy was invented.

And I say that the facts on the ground are that special interests dominate nearly every society.  Before lobbyists, it was merchants.  Before merchants, it was nobles.  Before nobles, it was clergy.

If pot had become a massive industry like brewing, then there would be people with connections to make sure it remained legal.  If the majority of society indulged in pot (rather than subcultures), then it would still be legal.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I would guess the main reason it never became a big industry is because it is a crop that is very easy to grow.  The means of production cannot be easily controlled, so this is why industry and government don't tend to like it.

Thats the weakest argument yet.
People have produced their own alcohol very easily for millenia. Home brew kits are no more complex than growing or buying a few ingredients and a bottle and waiting.
Spirits can be home-produced without any real trouble at all, and yet the govt manages to control that pretty easily.

You do realize that brewing is still a lot more complicated than basic agriculture.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Big business didn't ignore cannabis because its too easy to grow.
Seems like a wonder crop really, especially compared with tobacco.

I didn't say it ignored pot.  I said it didn't focus on it.  Pot is also a lot less addictive than alcohol or tobacco, so ensuring that you'd have return customers was easier with those 2.

Turquoise wrote:

If pot had become a massive industry like brewing, then there would be people with connections to make sure it remained legal.

Opium was a massive industry, CFCs used to be a massive industry, landmines were a massive industry - things change, nothing is invulnerable.

You do realize that brewing is still a lot more complicated than basic agriculture.

And yet alcohol has been produced at the cottage industry level for millenia.

I didn't say it ignored pot.  I said it didn't focus on it.  Pot is also a lot less addictive than alcohol or tobacco, so ensuring that you'd have return customers was easier with those 2.

Sugar isn't really addictive, is fairly simple to produce, and yet there is a huge industry built up around it with lobby groups, political funding etc etc.

I'm just not buying your argument that cannabis is so easy to produce no one would have bothered to set up a company to do so, and then sought to influence govt to keep it legal.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-07-29 06:31:55)

Even if they don't legalize it, they should at least decriminalize it, so we aren't spending so much incarcerating people for it.

BigOrangeArmy wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

We should eventually legalize every substance, but this is a gradual process.  You can't expect a proper system to handle all substances to prop up overnight.  You start with softer stuff like weed.

By the way, heroin and cocaine used to be legal.

But at what point does legalizing every substance go too far? As far as I know, LSD has no good healthy after-effects. Same with smoking. I havn't studied much up on weed, so don't know much about that. But the point is---when the government sees people screwing theirselves up with drugs that have the potential to kill them:

      ----Should the government step in and say, "This drug is obviously harmful to society and the civilian, and steps should be taken to protect    them from a certain drug (a.k.a Mary Jane) or others?

All in the name of freedom--but drugs can be a freedom that enslaves . And in the name of saving money or personal rights, it can ruin countless lives. I should know---both my grandads died of drug overdoses.

On the flipside, how far do you let the government make decisions for you?

because in EU less people think with their rear?