# The debate over legalization of cannabis



## bostjan (Mar 1, 2017)

Spill over from multiple threads on the P&CE forum:

Keep this debate clean or mods will shut this down.

The topic is, basically pro's and con's for legalization of cannabis. Related topics include health risks, the potential for addiction, driving under the influence, regulations, etc.

To start off: Bostjan is pro-legalization. My stance here is that the government has a terrible track record accurately determining anything to do with the above. What people do at home is their personal business.

On the other hand, I believe that use in public is another matter, and DUI is a concern. The government owns the roadways, so their jurisdiction extends over keeping those safe.

The latest spill-over from the Trump thread was the debate of whether pot is addictive or not. My stance is in line with scientific data that suggest that pot is addictive, but far less addictive than other substances often used for recreational highs.

To expand into another topic- medicinal use. My stance is that pot seems to show promise as a remedy for several neurological diseases, but that there could be a lot more data on this to make a properly informed decision.

Ok. Go.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 1, 2017)

bostjan said:


> To start off: Bostjan is pro-legalization.



I've taken the possibly-unusual stance that I'm hesitant, but generally on the pro- side of legalization for any number of reasons. But- at the same time I'm against the idea of regular use, in the same way that I don't think people should drink every day.

I made a comment a couple of times on this forum that I feel like people don't have the same sort of respect for weed that they have for alcohol. Obviously it doesn't apply to everyone, and I'm not going to deny the ability for people to be perfectly functional and regular users at the same time, but a lot of the regular users I've encountered were a lot more willing to deny the effects it had on them than most alcoholics I've encountered who were often well aware of what they were doing (even high-functioning alcoholics). That's all just anecdotal of course, and could be pretty far off from reality maybe, but it's how I see it.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 1, 2017)

TedEH said:


> I've taken the possibly-unusual stance that I'm hesitant, but generally on the pro- side of legalization for any number of reasons. But- at the same time I'm against the idea of regular use, in the same way that I don't think people should drink every day.
> 
> I made a comment a couple of times on this forum that I feel like people don't have the same sort of respect for weed that they have for alcohol. Obviously it doesn't apply to everyone, and I'm not going to deny the ability for people to be perfectly functional and regular users at the same time, but a lot of the regular users I've encountered were a lot more willing to deny the effects it had on them than most alcoholics I've encountered who were often well aware of what they were doing (even high-functioning alcoholics). That's all just anecdotal of course, and could be pretty far off from reality maybe, but it's how I see it.



I've had the same experience. I think that a great deal of my experience with pot users is specific to the cultures I've been around. Spending most of my life in Michigan and Vermont, two places with some cultural similarities - anecdotally:

I've worked with many many people who had no qualms with getting high and then coming to work a shift. Some of these folks were reckless individuals. That led me to associate pot use with people who are generally irresponsible. Upon deeper afterthought, I think it might have been much more the other way around - I worked with some irresponsible people whose lifestyle reflected their habits, and the conclusion of causalities may have been false.

The people with whom I currently work are quite conservative, although my contacts through the music scene here are the polar opposite of that. I've noticed that both sides of the political fence here are pretty comfortable with pot and with alcohol.

I was once a pretty heavy drinker. In fact, that could be the understatement of the new millennium. But I went completely dry for about nine years, and I'm at the point now where I am comfortable enjoying 1-2 beers in a social situation for toasting. I've never smoked cigarettes. I watched people on my father's side of the family smoke their lungs out.

I think it's better not to have any vices than to have vices, and I think that people with addictive personalities are more prone to fall into vices, and have a more difficult time getting away from them. But I also think some vices are more dangerous than others. Honestly, I think pot could ruin a person's life if it were abused to that level, but I also think that on the list of things that ruin people's lives, pot is extremely low on the list - lower than cigarettes, lower than hard booze, lower than "hard drugs," and lower than gambling.

I also think that there is a ton of misinformation on both sides of the debate. Probably a lot of it is true on the fringes, but taken to extreme. Probably smoking way too much pot will give you cancer, but I highly doubt one dose would have any statistically significant impact. I believe that smoking way too much pot can make a person develop schizophrenia, but again, I don't think there is really much danger of this from moderate intake. On the other hand, I don't think that pot makes people any better at pondering philosophical issues or makes anyone more artistic. I think that's just a perception based upon the slightly altered reality users experience and the boost in confidence precipitated out of that.

Ultimately, I think relaxed regulations will win out in the USA. I don't think Trump's time as president will see fast progress toward that end, though.


----------



## JSanta (Mar 1, 2017)

I'm pro-legalization, but there has to be a quick mechanism to tell if someone is under the influence, i.e. a breathalyzer test for alcohol.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 1, 2017)

One of the state legislators here suggested a sobriety test with electronic accelerometers. I do not think that will gain traction. We had discussed in another thread how the influence of THC is more aimed at higher functions than motor coordination.


----------



## tedtan (Mar 1, 2017)

I tend to agree with Bostjan on this, and my experiences, though anecdotal, mirror his.

I tend to favor legalization, even though I don't personally partake. It makes sense for economic reasons, for law enforcement reasons, for reducing crime, for increasing tax revenues, etc. It just needs to be regulated similarly to alcohol (age restrictions, usage restrictions (e.g., driving) and so forth).

I know two people that smoked who went on to be successful in life; one became a medical doctor and the other a programmer for Microsoft. Everyone else I personally have know that smoked regularly has had limited success in life at best, though like in the OP, I'm not sure that that's because they smoked. It could well be that they would never have been successful anyway due to their personality, work ethic, irresponsibility or whatever and the weed is coincidental.

Interestingly, I live in Texas, one of the most conservative states, if not THE most conservative state, in the US. We have always prosecuted marijuana offenses as felonies (outside Austin). But I heard on the news this morning that the Harris County District Attorney (think Houston, the third most populous city in the US) will no longer prosecute marijuana offenses if they are a first time offense. The new approach will be to require first time offenders to take a $150 class on decision making and keep a clean record. People who fail to take the class in the allotted time period, or people with multiple offenses, will still be prosecuted.

Its not legalization, but its a huge step for such a conservative state. And if this can happen here, I suspect that legalization is around the corner nationwide (including the federal government) within the next decade or so.

The times, they are a changin'.


----------



## vilk (Mar 1, 2017)

(I know it's technically against the rules of this forum to discuss it ((I was even previously banned once)) but I don't see how we can have this topic without bringing up personal use, so please don't ban me, just delete this comment if you feel it is an infraction, but I'd like for it to not be considered an infraction)

It's very difficult for me to see marijuana as dangerous. I first used it when I was 13. I never got in [exceptional] trouble at school, I graduated with honors, I got a scholarship to go to the university that I wanted to go to. I continued to use it in university, continued doing well in school, I got a scholarship to go live abroad for a year all expenses paid (it ended up being more like half-expenses but I digress). Uh-oh, there's no pot in Japan. After years of daily use, I'm gonna go off it. Will I get cranky? Will I get restless? Will I spend all my time missing it and thinking about it? Turns out, no. None of that stuff. Not even a little.

My parents both smoke it. I didn't know about that and never smoked with them until I was 20. We had a nuclear family. Dad works, stay at home Mom who's involved in everything (PTA, soccer coach, you name it), me and my sister. I don't consider myself that smart despite doing well in school (which you do not need to be smart in order to do imo), but my sister _is really smart_. Like, valedictorian in high school and got her masters in Engineering in a year. So obviously my parents' habits didn't make us dumb or cause us to have a bad life growing up. They had/have a good relationship with each other, we all went on family vacations every year, we were a regular TV sitcom family. 

We can talk about how much it affects your ability to drive, but I literally do it almost every day. My friends and family do it, too. Of the people I'm imagining specifically, I can't think of a time that _any_ of them has gotten into so much as a fender bender, myself included._ I am not advocating that someone else should drive while impaired_. Maybe me and my kin all just genetically special. 

I understand this is all anecdotal, and not even remotely scientific. I'm just explaining why for me personally it's more difficult to see marijuana as any kind of threat. In my own life, it has not negatively impacted in any way:
my schooling
childhood
relationship with my family and friends
work performance or ability to get a job
health
love life
my finances

Yeah, I'm not a perfect person. And who knows, something bad might happen to me, yet. But as far as I'm concerned, my life is and has been dope, and way better than a lot of other [non-pot] people's lives, so how could it be that marijuana use is considered even remotely problematic?

Have I seen other potheads screw up their lives? You bet. But I simply don't believe that the fundamental cause is related to marijuana use. In a hypothetical reality where pot didn't exist, they would have still screwed themselves. At least, maybe you could understand why I myself might hypothesize in such a way? 

Needless to say, I look forward to the day that I can buy it at Walgreens. Honestly one of the woes in my otherwise stellar life is that my dealer lives in a bad neighborhood and I don't like going there. It's like they took potholes from all the other roads and built them together into a pothole road. No pun intended.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Mar 1, 2017)

Nowhere in there do you say anything like:

'MJ has imporved my life, or increased my potential.'
In many lines, you seem to be describing your "normalcy" IN SPITE of MJ.

As a libertarian, I say 'do as thou will...' but I think you are using a standard addict's mindset: 

'See, it doesn't ruin my life! (yet)'


----------



## bostjan (Mar 1, 2017)

I'm all for a plan that keeps prisons reserved for violent people, and non-violent drug offenders are pretty far from my idea of what a felon should look like. If you can follow me through time, there were not always prisons. People used to be punished publicly. If you messed up in life a little, you'd get thrown in the pillory for target practice from passers-by with past-its-prime produce. If you messed up really baldy, you'd be killed in nasty ways, we don't need to go into detail. Early prisons were for folks who fell somewhere in between, and it was not a very common practice - but the conditions were pretty dire. Modern prison was a up-dated idea for the 18th century, where folks could be separated from society without being put to death or publicly shamed - just to get them away from where they were dangerous.

But this, for me, all comes back to the purpose of government and the role of penalty in modern society. The purpose of government is to protect its citizens, their lives, their property, and their liberties. The role of penalty in modern society is to correct harmful behaviour.

If a citizen transgresses the law, there must be retribution or else there is no point in enforcing the law, and further, no point in writing the law in the first place. For property crimes, the penalty could be to repay the cost of the property against which the crime was perpetrated. For violent crime, the perpetrator must either be made non-violent somehow, or segregated from the innocent to prevent further violence against them. For all other crimes, it makes no real hard sense at all to impose more than a fine.

So, in that sense, I would move to release all non-violent drug offenders from prison, and have them sort out their own personal matters. If they committed a property crime, related to drugs or not, then they should pay, financially, their victims, plus a fine. Obviously, these folks will be unable to pay anything to anyone if they are incarcerated. If they are fully dependent upon their drug addiction, they'll also be unable to pay, but this would at least give them a chance to do so and be consistent with the general philosophy of the role of the penal system within the larger general role of the government.

I think I read something like one in for Americans uses pot (or maybe used, past tense), but it's certainly a very common substance. It is never surprising when pot users succeed in life or fail in life, seeing as how they are a pretty spread out cross section of demographics. I've known people who used harder drugs than that and been quite financially successful in their careers and their personal lives. I don't know how much this argument means, though, since there have been serial killers who made six figure salaries...

Arguing for legalization from the ground up, to me, is a strong approach. I think anyone responding that the argument is fallible because his personal beliefs are contrary is simply in a weak rhetorical position.

There are plenty of other perspectives out there, though.

From a high level, with plenty of empirical appeal, there are plenty of people who went to jail for pot-related crime in the 1980's and 1990's and into the 2000's, and I think it is safe to say that a) locking those folks up marginally, at most, affected the safety of the streets, and b) the prison system was becoming increasingly overcrowded, and the prosecution of pot users was a contributing factor.


----------



## narad (Mar 1, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> Nowhere in there do you say anything like:
> 
> 'MJ has imporved my life, or increased my potential.'
> In many lines, you seem to be describing your "normalcy" IN SPITE of MJ.
> ...




What do you do for recreation that increases your potential? 

I watched movies, I played guitar, I played some video games, I lifted some weights, I went running, I crocheted a scarf, I painted a mountain, I drank some booze, I played with the dog, I ate at a new restaurant, I read Jurassic Park, I went to the beach, I argued with people online, etc. 

None of these things increases your potential.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 1, 2017)

vilk said:


> We can talk about how much it affects your ability to drive, but I literally do it almost every day.



People's tolerances and reactions very wildly though. I don't smoke anything 99% of the time (cigarettes included), so the tiniest bit of weed hits me like a ton of bricks. I'd 100% be a danger to myself and anyone around me in that state, and it usually lasts until the next day. I still feel uncomfortable the next day driving to work even- feels like I shouldn't be doing it. But I can, and lots of other people do, drive after having a beer or two- and that doesn't make it ok to drink and drive.

Another thing that doesn't come up very often is that I have my doubts that anyone really knows what they're smoking and where it came from. Everyone just gets their recreational drugs from "some guy who got it from some other guy", and then spend all day arguing about whose is better or stronger. Who knows what's in that stuff. I certainly have no idea. I think it would be naive to just expect that people involved in drug traffic aren't going to cut corners or put who-knows-what in their product to either save money or keep people coming back to them. Everyone I know who smokes, their stuff has a different smell and a different effect, which is a lot of why I distrust it. I at least know what alcohol does and because it comes through proper channels, I can know roughly where it comes from, and there's some accountability.


----------



## bigfau91 (Mar 1, 2017)

Having lived extensively in Amsterdam/U.S. its clear that jailing people for pot use causes more problems than potential harm from abusing it. Potential tax revenue alone and new evidence from states where its legal should be enough at this point to convince most skeptics. It really is a surprise that this is still such a big deal, once it is legal people really just stop obsessing over the negative subculture surrounding it and you have to learn to use it responsibly. Its only a matter of time before full legalization occurs throughout the states.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Mar 1, 2017)

narad said:


> What do you do for recreation that increases your potential?
> 
> I watched movies, I played guitar, I played some video games, I lifted some weights, I went running, I crocheted a scarf, I painted a mountain, I drank some booze, I played with the dog, I ate at a new restaurant, I read Jurassic Park, I went to the beach, I argued with people online, etc.
> 
> None of these things increases your potential.



I think many of those things do increase your human potential... culturally, physically, mentally.

But hey, I'm not trying to convince anyone to self-improve. /s

My state (OR) has one of the lowest graduation and literacy rates in the country.

My country's voters just elected a narcissist weirdo.

Why would we want to self improve?


----------



## bostjan (Mar 1, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> Nowhere in there do you say anything like:
> 
> 'MJ has imporved my life, or increased my potential.'
> In many lines, you seem to be describing your "normalcy" IN SPITE of MJ.
> ...





narad said:


> What do you do for recreation that increases your potential?
> 
> I watched movies, I played guitar, I played some video games, I lifted some weights, I went running, I crocheted a scarf, I painted a mountain, I drank some booze, I played with the dog, I ate at a new restaurant, I read Jurassic Park, I went to the beach, etc.
> 
> None of these things increases your potential.



I think we all have habits. Habits could be playing with your dog, playing video games, brushing your teeth, eating a salad before dinner, washing your hands three times after touching a doorknob, or smoking...

Some habits are vices. Some habits are healthy. Some habits are just empty habits. Which classify as which, often times, is subjective.

Where we run into trouble is when someone sees a habit and calls it a vice and offends the person performing the habit. So, we can rely on our observations to determine if a habit is healthy or unhealthy or neither.

Pot smoking is not a healthy habit for the vast majority of people. I have concluded, from the polarization of the articles out there, that neither healthy nor unhealthy is probably not the correct of the three options. So that leads me to believe that pot smoking is unhealthy for most people, and potentially healthy for others (people with epilepsy, Parkinson's disease, and so forth). It has been shown to lead to schizophrenia when abused, etc.

Well, the same could be said about eating sugar. You don't need to eat refined sugar in your food, and, even if a little bit is harmless, a whole lot is very unhealthy. I don't disagree with that logic.

But I think the risks of pot are more serious than the risks of refined sugar. Certainly less, though than the risks of taking strong opioids or insuflation of refined stimulants. But...I also believe that these things could, for the sake of argument, have appropriate medicinal uses. Someone in chronic pain with an incurable disease? Give them opium. Why not? Maybe they'll become addicted, though, but what does it really matter? And I don't think people abuse a substance simply because it is there. There are tons of OTC medicines that could be abused, and sometimes they are...but usually not.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Mar 1, 2017)

Dozens of states have legislated against sugar...

http://www.kickthecan.info/legislative-campaigns


----------



## vilk (Mar 1, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> Nowhere in there do you say anything like:
> 
> 'MJ has imporved my life, or increased my potential.'
> In many lines, you seem to be describing your "normalcy" IN SPITE of MJ.
> ...



Usually that sort of stuff doesn't factor into the conversation of whether or not something ought to be legal. I feel like in the discussion of whether or not something should be legal, people tend to focus on the potentially negative aspects. 

But yes, I do feel that it both improves my life and increases my potential sometimes.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 1, 2017)

bigfau91 said:


> Having lived extensively in Amsterdam/U.S. its clear that jailing people for pot use causes more problems than potential harm from abusing it. Potential tax revenue alone and new evidence from states where its legal should be enough at this point to convince most skeptics. It really is a surprise that this is still such a big deal, once it is legal people really just stop obsessing over the negative subculture surrounding it and you have to learn to use it responsibly. Its only a matter of time before full legalization occurs throughout the states.



I think this is a very rational argument. Legalizing it gives it potential for taxation, regulation, etc. etc.

Criminalizing it just makes more criminals.

Look at prohibition in the USA. The temperance movement people had their way, and we tried it, and, well, it didn't work. In fact, it was a borderline disaster.

Too much salt is bad for you. I happen to love salt. It doesn't affect my blood pressure. It's something genetic, since everyone in my family is the same way. But, hey, salt is bad. Should we criminalize salt, because we know it can kill you? It's an absurd argument, right? Well, it is to me, because it's really not the government's business to tell me what to eat or not to eat. I have family and friends for that. 

I think we all have at least one unhealthy habit. I could be wrong, since that statement is really an blanket conjeture, but who doesn't do something that they probably shouldn't do? If we criminalized everything that was bad for us, I believe we would be a country of only criminals. On the other hand, if we focused on prosecuting crimes that have actual victims, like assault, buglary, robbery, murder, rape, etc., and not victimless crimes like drugs, peeing on a bush, consentual buggery, etc., then I really think this country would be at least marginally safer.


----------



## vilk (Mar 1, 2017)

bostjan said:


> But I think the risks of pot are more serious than the risks of refined sugar.



I wonder how a diabetic might respond to that.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 1, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> Dozens of states have legislated against sugar...
> 
> http://www.kickthecan.info/legislative-campaigns



Yeah, I live in one of those places. It's not criminalized, though. For me, at least, that's a pretty bold line to cross between a two cent sugary soda tax and having to go to court to defend myself against felony charges for getting pulled over with an empty soda can rolling around under the seat that a police dog sniffed out. 

But you raise a very good point. We are living in a strange time. Tobacco is all but criminalized at this point. Pot is just on the flip side of that line, I think. If we get to a point where it's criminal to smoke a cigarette and perfectly legal to light up a fatty in front of the day care building, then we might have taken things too far. 

I think society has taboos for things, and those should be respected to some extent. But the law should only exist to the end of protecting our people from harm, protecting our property, and protecting our liberties. Pot, honestly doesn't really play a part in that one way or the other, to me.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 1, 2017)

vilk said:


> I wonder how a diabetic might respond to that.



Or a severe asthmatic to smoke?


----------



## cwhitey2 (Mar 1, 2017)

vilk said:


> I wonder how a diabetic might respond to that.



Yeah....I just spoke with one!!!!


----------



## TedEH (Mar 1, 2017)

bostjan said:


> But I think the risks of pot are more serious than the risks of refined sugar.



I agree with you for the most part, except for maybe this bit. I think that excessive sugar intake will do more serious harm than excessive marijuana use. I say that as someone who used to be 300+lbs, has several family members struggling with diabetes and heart and liver problems, one who needed a bypass surgery recently, one who passes out from light exertion for reasons unknown (that may or may not be tied to dietary problems), etc.- all very serious issues that are at the very least linked in some way to improper sugar intake. I don't think I've ever heard of weed being linked to anything that severe. Edit: I guess I should say rarely, instead of never. Obviously smoking anything at all can't be good for your lungs or teeth.

Don't get me wrong though, it's still not an excuse. I wouldn't punch someone and say it's ok to do so because at least it was less harmful than shooting them.

Edit: Ninja'd I guess. Didn't mean to pile onto the sugar thing.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Mar 1, 2017)

Why are we forced to wear seatbelts? Elimination of personal risk.

Why are we forced to obey gun laws? Elimination of public risk.

With all of this life-managing legislation, why add a risk, with regards to legal MJ? Serious question.


----------



## vilk (Mar 1, 2017)

what risk was that again?


----------



## TedEH (Mar 1, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> With all of this life-managing legislation, why add a risk, with regards to legal MJ? Serious question.



It's allowing a small risk in place of much bigger risks. Risks of criminal records, risk involved in dealing with sketchy dealers, risk involved in not really knowing what's in the product you're smoking, risk getting into confrontations with law enforcement- you get the idea.

The trick is, just like anything else, if people want it, they're going to get it. You can't keep people from it, so instead it's best to just make sure that getting it and using it is safe.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 1, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> Why are we forced to wear seatbelts? Elimination of personal risk.



The idea is that the government builds the roads, and you are driving on them, so you have to obey their arbitrary sets of rules. "My house, my rules." Personally, I think people ought to wear seatbelts, but should not be pulled over for not wearing them. Same goes for motorcycle helmets.



CapnForsaggio said:


> Why are we forced to obey gun laws? Elimination of public risk.



Not much too specific to which to respond here. I am not a "gun guy," but again, the federal government is often overstepping their bounds here. We could easily make this into the gun control debate thread, but I think it's safe to leave it that there is a huge range of differing opinion on this topic.



CapnForsaggio said:


> With all of this life-managing legislation, why add a risk, with regards to legal MJ? Serious question.



This is a good point. We've legislated tobacco to the point where it is only a little bit more legal than pot. I find some irony in that, and I think I even saw a parody video on it where the government legalizes pot, and a bunch of potheads come out of their apartments into the daylight for the first time, and inspirational music is playing, then one of them tries to light up outside and *record scratch* a bunch of police are shaking their heads "no" 

That's what we get from our hodge-podge of a government, where states and feds are differing in their opinions; where legislators and judges try to execute laws, where executives and judges try to write laws; and where executives and legislators try to judge the law...getting back to basics could benefit us all in this country, but don't hold your breath that it'll happen soon.

Anyway, assuming that there is a risk, what is the cost/benefit? Maybe the risk is lower than tobacco use (I think there is a good case that it is), so there is precedent that something riskier is already legally okay. What about benefits - taxation, regulation, less crowded prisons, etc., all potentially positive things...

And then there is the analysis of how much risk - which is certainly debatable enough to have this thread.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 1, 2017)

bostjan said:


> That's what we get from our hodge-podge of a government, where states and feds are differing in their opinions;



I think this is more a hodge-podge of a population, more than a government thing specifically. For every person advocating to legalize their preferred past time, there's also someone writing to their representatives in an attempt to tighten cigarette laws because they can't enjoy a night out if someone is smoking nearby.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Mar 1, 2017)

I totally agree that govt overreach is the issue.... most can see my small government slant 

In today's US, we are either in the business of controlling lives, or we aren't. Every OTHER law has been sold to us as "making life better" for us. 

MJ legalization flies in the face of that. It is acceptable because modern voters don't have any foresight, and they want to toke up.

We have no direction. We have no goals. We elect idiots. Then we burn down our cities because we elected an idiot. 

Let's throw a new legal intoxicant on that fire. That'll fix it.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 1, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> Let's throw a new legal intoxicant on that fire. That'll fix it.



Nobody is claiming that legalization is going to "fix the country". It'll do some positive things, not EVERY positive thing. I don't refuse to go to the doctor because they're not also going to fix my car and get my work done on time.

Edit: And legalization isn't going to make people smoke more. The people who want to do it are already doing it. The difference is whether or not we call them criminals.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Mar 1, 2017)

TedEH said:


> Nobody is claiming that legalization is going to "fix the country". It'll do some positive things, not EVERY positive thing. I don't refuse to go to the doctor because they're not also going to fix my car and get my work done on time.
> 
> Edit: And legalization isn't going to make people smoke more. The people who want to do it are already doing it. The difference is whether or not we call them criminals.



So your "positive outcome" is hooking the state up to a revenue stream that potentially hurts the poorest people.

How is the state lottery system working out? 

Here in OR, our state makes bank on our lottery (almost entirely from the poorest classes, and addicts). Sound like familiar territory to MJ?

Now we tax payers are on the hook for providing treatment for "problem gambling." 

The state makes money from both ends. No person is "healthier" because of state lottery, or state MJ.


----------



## vilk (Mar 1, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> a revenue stream that potentially hurts the poorest people.


more than our prison system??


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Mar 1, 2017)

vilk said:


> more than our prison system??



Here there are significant amounts of legally addicted gamblers that are "regressively taxed" due to state lottery.

In the exact same way we have many addicted MJ smokers that are "regressively taxed" due to state MJ.

Neither were part of the prison system. We were not incarcerating MJ users in any number.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Mar 1, 2017)

i'm for legalizing weed, also want to decriminalize harder drugs, but that more comes from the desire to non-violently end South American drug cartels. 

i find it funny, i used to think the biggest roadblock to allowing legal marijuana would be Big Pharma... until i found out they've already patented several chemicals in the plant. 

turns out one of the biggest opponents is the prison guard's unions. if you let more people walk, they are out of a job. the irony is i know several penitentiary guards who are black, but their union advocates for laws that put their own community down. 

so sad.


----------



## will_shred (Mar 1, 2017)

Weed needs to be legalized for the reasons already stated, and psychedelics such as LSD, Psilocybe, DMT, ect, also need to be made legal for the same reasons. Sure DMT destroys your sense of self and all sense of reality, but physiologically speaking its safer then asprin.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Mar 1, 2017)

The war on drugs has never been an issue of public health. If that were the case we wouldn't have a prescription opioid epidemic. The war on drugs is and has always been a political war meant to delegitimize different faction. Pot and LSD for the hippies, heroin and crack for blacks.


----------



## Keel (Mar 1, 2017)

Anybody trying to bring up how bogus drug tests are? MJ stays in your system for months but heroin is out in 2 to 7 days. Same with cocaine. same with methamphetamine. So drug tests to get a job are specifically out to get MJ users, but the drugs that will actually ruin your life and or kill you are easy to work around. Make sense? of course not. Hopefully, when legalized, all these "lazy stoners that don't get jobs" that anti-MJ advocates complain about will actually be able to get a job.
Also saying +1 on the prison argument and +1 on ending drug trafficking.


----------



## mongey (Mar 1, 2017)

as an ex big smoker now very occasional smoker I say no. I prefer decriminalization .


not for an reason related to weed and smoking it but all it will do is let the government tax the hell out of it and big business will eat it up and probably ruin it.I don't want my weed branded by Marlbro 


let people grow a few plants and smoke in their own homes . keep the government out of it


----------



## vilk (Mar 1, 2017)

Real question: is it illegal to grow your own tobacco? It's usually legal to make your own beer, idk about wine... I think you need a license for a still? That's precedent enough. Even if you can grab some Camel light filter joints at the jooney mart, anyone who wants to make the effort could grow their own.


----------



## mongey (Mar 1, 2017)

vilk said:


> Real question: is it illegal to grow your own tobacco? It's usually legal to make your own beer, idk about wine... I think you need a license for a still? That's precedent enough. Even if you can grab some Camel light filter joints at the jooney mart, anyone who wants to make the effort could grow their own.



can only speak on Australia . But it isn't illegal to grow tobacco here as long as its for your self use . but it is really hard to grow it here far as I know 

beer- I make homebrew. legally you arn't supposed to make more the 23 liters at a time . thats why most kits are usually 23 liters 

spirits I think is technically illegal here still ( no pun) but most home brew shops sell spirit making supplies so its not policed


----------



## Humbuck (Mar 2, 2017)

Legalize it.


----------



## Petar Bogdanov (Mar 2, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> Why are we forced to wear seatbelts? Elimination of personal risk.
> 
> Why are we forced to obey gun laws? Elimination of public risk.
> 
> With all of this life-managing legislation, why add a risk, with regards to legal MJ? Serious question.



The risk of death is comparable to the risk of... short-term memory loss? Should we be locking up everyone with Alzheimer's? Serious question.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 2, 2017)

Petar Bogdanov said:


> The risk of death is comparable to the risk of... short-term memory loss? Should we be locking up everyone with Alzheimer's? Serious question.



I know your question was not directed toward me, and that my views are not consistent with the person to whom it was directed, but let me offer a point and counterpoint anyway:

There is a statistic for lethal crashes related to drug use. As others pointed out, the case for cannabis related crashes is unclear, because of the way the metabolites remain in a person's system so long, and how other drugs are often also present.

Some studies have claimed that there are increased risks of testicular cancer, lung disease, and even liver disease, but there are also studies that say the opposite.

The entire situation regarding the health risks of consuming this substance is very convoluted and unclear, and no one seems to want to agree upon anything there.

But what's the point? Say there is a risk of cancer as bad as the worst-case studies have said; say there is a risk of lung disease; say that it affects your liver; say that it makes you crash your car - cigarettes are legal and booze is legal (most places), so regardless of conceding these points or not, there is precedent in place that the government allows such things.

Back to your point. "Should we lock up people with Alzheimers?" Yes, in some cases, but not how you are probably trying to get at your point. I think people with advanced Alzheimer's disease are essentially unable to provide themselves with the most basic self-protection. If a person is prone to wander out into traffic, walk for days without ever realizing where they are going, become dehydrated simply from not knowing to drink water, etc., they need to be looked after.

Honestly, I feel for anyone who needs a caretaker just to keep from self-destructing on a daily basis, but I feel even more for that person's loved ones. Patients with Alzheimers, or similar brain wasting genetic disorders, or even mad cow disease, really didn't do anything abnormal to put themselves into that situation. A heavy pot smoker who damages his ability to move memories from short term to long term from too high a THC concentration in the brain (which has been shown clinically to happen, and which I've seen happen to a friend of mine), is culpable for taking part in risky behaviours that led to the situation. Just like drinking 4L of soda a day is risky, just like smoking two packs of cigarettes a day is risky, just like driving around without a seatbelt is risky. I really think those folks should have the full expectation that they will have to deal solely with the consequences of their own actions. Maybe that's what Cap'n was getting at. If you bake your brains out, then people like him don't want to see their taxes go toward government programs to support you.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 2, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> So your "positive outcome" is hooking the state up to a revenue stream that potentially hurts the poorest people.



How does drug legalization hurt anyone? As already stated, the people who want to use these things are already doing it, and already paying for it. They are "hurting themselves" one way or another anyway. I'd rather that revenue go to the state, or to legal sellers/growers, than go towards funding whatever sketchy place these drugs might be currently coming from. There's zero oversight or accountability involved in the current process of getting high.

Like what this guy said:


> also want to decriminalize harder drugs, but that more comes from the desire to non-violently end South American drug cartels.


----------



## JSanta (Mar 2, 2017)

TedEH said:


> How does drug legalization hurt anyone? As already stated, the people who want to use these things are already doing it, and already paying for it. They are "hurting themselves" one way or another anyway. I'd rather that revenue go to the state, or to legal sellers/growers, than go towards funding whatever sketchy place these drugs might be currently coming from. There's zero oversight or accountability involved in the current process of getting high.



I think this perspective is short sighted. Alcohol and tobacco do hurt millions each year - and those are legal. And it's not just the person taking the drugs, it's those around them (second hand smoke and alcohol related car fatalities) as well as the strain on the healthcare system. The reality is our actions (legal or otherwise) have ramifications on a wide range of systems and individuals.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Mar 2, 2017)

TedEH said:


> How does drug legalization hurt anyone? As already stated, the people who want to use these things are already doing it, and already paying for it. They are "hurting themselves" one way or another anyway.



You are right, but then the liberal state legislatures convince tax payers to finance the recovery of the gambling addicts, or drug addicts, or welfare addicts that the state created in the first place.

It's a fracking con game. Based on the addiction of the poorest and dumbest. 

If you support the state acting in this manner, you are worse than any "racist" or "classist" or "1%".... You willingly sell out your own kind.


----------



## vilk (Mar 2, 2017)

Worse on what scale?

How many more Anthony Weiners is someone who approves of government subsidized drugs as compared with a Grand Cyclops?


----------



## Mordacain (Mar 2, 2017)

Feel like there needs to be a bit of information added to this discussion (sources listed throughout):

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Economics#sthash.W5Wdfukt.dpbs

The most important standout by far there is this section:

*(Estimated Savings and Added Revenue from Drug Legalization)* "This report estimates that legalizing drugs would save roughly $41.3 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. Of these savings, $25.7 billion would accrue to state and local governments, while $15.6 billion would accrue to the federal government. Approximately $8.7 billion of the savings would result from legalization of marijuana and $32.6 billion from legalization of other drugs.
"The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $46.7 billion annually, assuming legal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. Approximately $8.7 billion of this revenue would result from legalization of marijuana and $38.0 billion from legalization of other drugs."

So even if we just focus on the financial aspect, we should do it. Much like getting off the oil standard would cut the legs out from under global terrorism, legalizing drugs would cut off the revenue stream to the cartels.

But mainly we should legalize drugs because this is f'n America and we should either let adults make their own f'n decisions and not foster a nanny state.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 2, 2017)

JSanta said:


> I think this perspective is short sighted. Alcohol and tobacco do hurt millions each year - and those are legal. And it's not just the person taking the drugs, it's those around them (second hand smoke and alcohol related car fatalities) as well as the strain on the healthcare system. The reality is our actions (legal or otherwise) have ramifications on a wide range of systems and individuals.



I'm not saying that peoples vices are harmless, I'm saying that they're going to do those things regardless of the law. Making it legal won't make people do it more (it might even make people do it less).


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Mar 2, 2017)

TedEH said:


> I'm not saying that peoples vices are harmless, I'm saying that they're going to do those things regardless of the law. Making it legal won't make people do it more (it might even make people do it less).



At which point you will start to see commercials on telelvision encouraging legal MJ use (paid for by tax dollars, by the state making income on MJ).

Are the new users, brought in by this advertising, not "new" users that may have their life negatively impacted? For the sake of tax revenue?


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Mar 2, 2017)

vilk said:


> Worse on what scale?
> 
> How many more Anthony Weiners is someone who approves of government subsidized drugs as compared with a Grand Cyclops?



I think this is uncalled for.

Just because you don't understand or agree with the idea that "regressive taxes" in all forms hurt the poor, doesn't give you the right to derail the thread because I used Anthony Weiner as a death blow to your "we should have had hillary" whining in another thread.


----------



## tedtan (Mar 2, 2017)

bostjan said:


> It is never surprising when pot users succeed in life or fail in life, seeing as how they are a pretty spread out cross section of demographics. I've known people who used harder drugs than that and been quite financially successful in their careers and their personal lives.



My point in mentioning the success (or the lack thereof) of weed smokers was in relation to ambition and the willingness to commit to long term goals and do what is necessary to make them a reality. We've all heard that pot heads are lazy, unmotivated slackers and my anecdotal experience seems to verify that claim. However, I suspect that those folks were slackers to begin with and would not have accomplished anything of note anyway; their smoking was not causative but coincidental.


----------



## tedtan (Mar 2, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> Just because you don't understand or agree with the idea that "regressive taxes" in all forms hurt the poor



Regressive taxes are bad for the poor when they are placed on necessities, but when implemented in the form of a usage tax on recreational weed such that each individual in all income areas has the option to abstain from using weed (and from paying the tax thereon) talk of regressive taxes doesn't hold as much water.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Mar 2, 2017)

tedtan said:


> My point in mentioning the success (or the lack thereof) of weed smokers was in relation to ambition and the willingness to commit to long term goals and do what is necessary to make them a reality. We've all heard that pot heads are lazy, unmotivated slackers and my anecdotal experience seems to verify that claim. However, I suspect that those folks were slackers to begin with and would not have accomplished anything of note anyway; their smoking was not causative but coincidental.



How many troubled individuals in our prison system do you think DID NOT smoke pot when they were in highschool?


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Mar 2, 2017)

tedtan said:


> Regressive taxes are bad for the poor when they are placed on necessities, but when implemented in the form of a usage tax on recreational weed such that each individual in all income areas has the option to abstain from using weed (and from paying the tax thereon) talk of regressive taxes doesn't hold as much water.



A tax isn't denoted as "regressive" when it is implemented.

A tax becomes regressive when it creates an undue burden on the poor. Like legal lottery, gambling, cigarette taxes.


----------



## JSanta (Mar 2, 2017)

TedEH said:


> I'm not saying that peoples vices are harmless, I'm saying that they're going to do those things regardless of the law. Making it legal won't make people do it more (it might even make people do it less).



That hasn't been in seen in CO where the use of marijuana is now legalized for recreational use:

"Relying on data from the national drug use survey, Colorado reported that nearly a third of Coloradans 18 to 25 in 2014 had used pot in the last 30 days, a rise of about 5 percent from the year before recreational pot was legalized.

The survey showed a similar spike in adults over 26. Past 30-day marijuana use went from 7.6 percent in 2012 to 12.4 percent in 2014 (Gurman & Wyatt, 2016)".

"Traffic safety data related to legalization was limited, mostly because Colorado didn't collect data on marijuana-impaired driving before 2012. The number of Colorado State Patrol summons issued for driving under the influence of marijuana dropped slightly from 674 in 2014 to 655 in 2015. Traffic fatalities in which a driver tested positive for marijuana's psychoactive chemical, THC, increased 44 percent in the first two years of legalization (Gurman & Wyatt, 2016)".

There are ramifications for legalization. I am in the boat of letting people do it legally, but there are tangible risks associated with allowing the legal purchase of drugs. 

*I realize that I did not cite a peer reviewed journal, but I found that the parameters for legitimizing the use of the survey to be significant enough to use the AP article as a source*

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...ot-report-more-adults-using-drug-but-not-kids


----------



## bostjan (Mar 2, 2017)

Mordacain said:


> But mainly we should legalize drugs because this is f'n America and we should either let adults make their own f'n decisions and not foster a nanny state.



The facts and figures are all great. Practically speaking, though, the quoted argument, IMO, is the strongest for legalization. We want to go around flaunting how we are the most free, most democratic nation in the universe, by which all other nations should have their level of liberty judged, and then we have arbitrary "don't do this, it's bad for you" laws.

----------------

The lottery, cigarette taxes, etc., are well within state's rights to tax, and no one is forced to pay it. If somebody is starving because they spend their entire welfare check on scratch-offs, they should simply desist from spending money on gambling. In the spirit of the above argument, the state should not be responsible for each individual's personal choices.


----------



## tedtan (Mar 2, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> How many troubled individuals in our prison system do you think DID NOT smoke pot when they were in highschool?



I don't have statistics, but I doubt there is causation between smoking weed and criminal activity (aside from the fact that it is currently a crime to smoke and distribute weed).


----------



## tedtan (Mar 2, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> A tax isn't denoted as "regressive" when it is implemented.
> 
> A tax becomes regressive when it creates an undue burden on the poor. Like legal lottery, gambling, cigarette taxes.



I didn't argue that a tax on weed wouldn't be regressive in nature, I simply stated that it doesn't mater in this case. Why not? Because unlike income tax, capital gains tax, sales tax on your clothes, you are not required to pay this tax. Each and every person, regardless of income, is free to avoid paying a tax on legalized weed by simply not using weed.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 2, 2017)

JSanta said:


> That hasn't been in seen in CO where the use of marijuana is now legalized for recreational use:
> 
> "Relying on data from the national drug use survey, Colorado reported that nearly a third of Coloradans 18 to 25 in 2014 had used pot in the last 30 days, a rise of about 5 percent from the year before recreational pot was legalized.
> 
> ...



It's hard to judge statistics on illegal, or once illegal, drugs though. I've smoked numerous times over the course of my life, on and off, and anytime a doctor, survey, or whatever asks me if I smoke marijuana the answer I give is always no because the illegality of it leaves me a bit paranoid to their intentions (I don't even talk about it). Once it's legal to do I'd have no issue answering honestly. I don't lie on cigarette, alcohol, gambling, etc. surveys when I come across them because those activities are legal. I do think the illegal nature likely skews the results at least a little bit.

Even if it turns out more adults are doing it than before chances are that they wanted to, but seeing a shifty dealer kept them from going often or at all. There are definite periods in my life where I stopped smoking because I didn't have any sources that I trusted. I can also see that people likely answer no on such surveys when they currently aren't smokers even though you might judge them as pot heads if you looked over the entire course of their lives. 



tedtan said:


> I don't have statistics, but I doubt there is causation between smoking weed and criminal activity (aside from the fact that it is currently a crime to smoke and distribute weed).



It's definitely no more relevant than whether or not criminals drink, smoke cigarettes, drive, go to strip clubs, etc. That's definitely a correlation /= causation scenario.


---


On a separate note, assuming the black market doesn't completely dry up after legalization I'd still probably by from a dealer instead. You have to get a license to purchase it and that license becomes a part of your record. It also prevents you from being able to purchase firearms, and given the negative social stigma still heavily present, having it so out in the open seems like an awful idea.

I also don't approve of the DEA raids on state legal shops either. I think that's bull.....


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Mar 2, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> How many troubled individuals in our prison system do you think DID NOT smoke pot when they were in highschool?



Strawman argument of the day.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Mar 2, 2017)

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> Strawman argument of the day.



I'm done with this. The quoted line was in response to 50x stories about "how I knew a guy that smoked and he's a lawyer..."

The argument I presented was an equatable statement from the other direction.

We all know potheads that are successful.

Do you think it is a COINCIDENT that nearly 100% of incarcerated individuals used MJ when they were young?

If you can't see the relevance, and think it is a bogus "strawman," 

well, I'm done anyway.


----------



## vilk (Mar 2, 2017)

Also, nearly 100% of incarcerated individuals drank apple juice

Coincident? I think not.

These people drink their AJ until they get diabetes, and then the gov't wants to regressivly tax me, they might as well join the KKK or the 1%ers


----------



## JSanta (Mar 2, 2017)

flint757 said:


> It's hard to judge statistics on illegal, or once illegal, drugs though. I've smoked numerous times over the course of my life, on and off, and anytime a doctor, survey, or whatever asks me if I smoke marijuana the answer I give is always no because the illegality of it leaves me a bit paranoid to their intentions (I don't even talk about it). Once it's legal to do I'd have no issue answering honestly. I don't lie on cigarette, alcohol, gambling, etc. surveys when I come across them because those activities are legal. I do think the illegal nature likely skews the results at least a little bit.
> 
> Even if it turns out more adults are doing it than before chances are that they wanted to, but seeing a shifty dealer kept them from going often or at all. There are definite periods in my life where I stopped smoking because I didn't have any sources that I trusted. I can also see that people likely answer no on such surveys when they currently aren't smokers even though you might judge them as pot heads if you looked over the entire course of their lives.
> 
> ...



All survey's are flawed because they require individuals to be honest in their responses. The parameters of the research were left out in terms of how they segmented the population and gained access to the individuals that actually responded. As a researcher, we have different mechanisms to ensure anonymity, and I've never felt uncomfortable answering questions if personal information other than the basis like age, race, and gender were needed. 

Quantitative analysis is essential for gaining true insight into what is happening within any given segment. You don't necessarily need to believe the numbers, but given that this particular report found increased numbers of users because of legality, it does not appear that respondents were reluctant to answer truthfully. To your point, the numbers could be even higher (pun intended).


----------



## TedEH (Mar 2, 2017)

The bit about that data that makes me doubt it's usefulness in the conversation is the "last 30 days" part because that means that people who smoke occasionally, but just not lately are being excluded, but people who are trying it now that it's legal but might never try it again are being included. The level of honesty also probably factors into it. Maybe it's just me, but 5% doesn't sound like a significant difference given the 30-days thing. The way the question is formed tells us very little about actual usage patterns, IMO. There's no distinction being made between people who smoke every day, and someone who's just curious now that it's an ok thing to do.


----------



## JSanta (Mar 2, 2017)

TedEH said:


> The bit about that data that makes me doubt it's usefulness in the conversation is the "last 30 days" part because that means that people who smoke occasionally, but just not lately are being excluded, but people who are trying it now that it's legal but might never try it again are being included. The level of honesty also probably factors into it. Maybe it's just me, but 5% doesn't sound like a significant difference given the 30-days thing. The way the question is formed tells us very little about actual usage patterns, IMO. There's no distinction being made between people who smoke every day, and someone who's just curious now that it's an ok thing to do.



Fair point - but that was not part of what their research parameters appeared to be. My initial response was because someone said people would not be more likely to use if illicit substances were made legal; the article demonstrated a counterpoint to that assertion. The question was not would people be more likely to become long term users, just if they would try drugs (in this case marijuana) should its legality change. 

Without being able to see their numbers, it's difficult to discern if their 5% number has statistical significance, but the point remains there still are a lot of unknowns regarding what happens when/if certain drugs are made available for recreational use.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 3, 2017)

^ I think that's fair. My gut reaction is that actual long-term usage would change very little.

I also feel like it's important to make distinctions between patterns of use, which doesn't always happen in these kinds of conversations. It doesn't seem meaningful to me to ask the question "is x dangerous" without the context of how you use it. Just look at that conversation we had on another thread about whether or not certain foods are dangerous- you can find patterns of use that are dangerous for just about anything, but without defining what constitutes normal use, it's not really useful to issue a blanket statement of "x is dangerous if you use it at all". It's weird to be told in one thread that a glass of milk is bad for me, but in another thread, we're talking about how it's ok to do drugs.

I do definitely think there are "dangerous" usage patterns- like I've seen people use weed as a crutch to avoid dealing with their problems, or people who just smoke waaaaaaay to much and embody that unproductive stoner stereotype, but I also know people who use it the same way someone might have a beer on a Friday after work to start off the weekend. But other substances have similarly "bad" usage patterns that people fall into all the time without being labeled a criminal for it.


----------



## JSanta (Mar 3, 2017)

TedEH said:


> ^ I think that's fair. My gut reaction is that actual long-term usage would change very little.
> 
> I also feel like it's important to make distinctions between patterns of use, which doesn't always happen in these kinds of conversations. It doesn't seem meaningful to me to ask the question "is x dangerous" without the context of how you use it. Just look at that conversation we had on another thread about whether or not certain foods are dangerous- you can find patterns of use that are dangerous for just about anything, but without defining what constitutes normal use, it's not really useful to issue a blanket statement of "x is dangerous if you use it at all". It's weird to be told in one thread that a glass of milk is bad for me, but in another thread, we're talking about how it's ok to do drugs.
> 
> I do definitely think there are "dangerous" usage patterns- like I've seen people use weed as a crutch to avoid dealing with their problems, or people who just smoke waaaaaaay to much and embody that unproductive stoner stereotype, but I also know people who use it the same way someone might have a beer on a Friday after work to start off the weekend. But other substances have similarly "bad" usage patterns that people fall into all the time without being labeled a criminal for it.



Right - you need to contextualize information. But one study can really only focus on limited spaces because of the amount of time it takes to do a study. It's important for us not necessarily to fault what the research didn't do, but allow that research to be a stepping stone into other research.


----------



## Randy (Apr 3, 2017)




----------



## bostjan (Apr 3, 2017)

VT bill won't even get debated.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 3, 2017)

https://www.texasobserver.org/marijuana-decriminalization-bill-advances-past-committee-gop-support/

Not quite medical use or legalization per se, but they're talking about reducing the penalty to a simple fine with a 3-strike ruling that _can_ raise it to a Class C misdemeanor. That's a huge improvement from what is currently in place. Currently, the lowest penalty for outright marijuana possession in Texas is a Class B misdemeanor, assuming your lawyer can't do some magic to get the penalty reduced. I imagine repeat offenses under current law increase the penalty as well.


----------



## russmuller (Apr 4, 2017)

Legalize it. Tax it. Regulate it. Research and medicalize it.

The fact that we haven't already done this in the USA is mind-boggling to me. I haven't heard a single counter-argument that makes any real sense. I think a lot of the problem is that the conservative movement, at least in the public discourse, is so entrenched in prohibition and shaming cannabis users that they're going to fight it to the very end.


----------



## vilk (Apr 4, 2017)

^using anecdotes and caricatures only. But as far as I can tell, in it's present state, the Right half of America has _absolutely no interest even superficially_ in data, statistics, scientific research, etc.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 4, 2017)

I would contend that both sides have a significant amount of confirmation bias. Of course, facebook is the worst place for any sort of logical debate, but I see an awful lot of pseudoscience on my feed from both sides. My pro-pot friends all think that I'm a narc and my anti-pot friends all think I'm a hippy, so I usually try not to post on facebook, no matter how much of an impulse I get to say something.


----------



## vilk (Apr 4, 2017)

here's a short list for the right
1. Denying either the human affect on global warming or simply denying global warming outright
2. equating validity of evolutionary theory and biblical creationism
3. Inflammatory travel bans that can only potentially increase security a fraction of an iota of a ten-thousandth of a percent
4. marijuana is too dangerous to be made publicly available; no medicinal value

What kind of list do we have for the Left? 
1. Ignoring that sometimes gun availability can lead to crime decrease
...but that's all I can come up with. Do we see other cases of the Left pushing ideas that fly in direct opposition of the world's amassed scientific understanding? I should think there are more so I want anyone to list them if they could.


Not to take it too far off topic. Even though I do believe confirmation bias permeates all sides of a political spectrum, I feel that in the United States the Right clearly takes comparatively _more_ anti-science positions, Marijuana prohibition being a prime example.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 4, 2017)

vilk said:


> here's a short list for the right
> 1. Denying either the human affect on global warming or simply denying global warming outright
> 2. equating validity of evolutionary theory and biblical creationism
> 3. Inflammatory travel bans that can only potentially increase security a fraction of an iota of a ten-thousandth of a percent
> ...



Naw, I meant specifically in regard to the marijuana debate. Things about cannabis curing cancer, versus cannabis getting people addicted to crack. Neither has an ounce of evidence.

Can it help people relax? Sure. Can it cure cancer? Nope.

Can it make people paranoid? Sure, probably only temporarily, though. Can it lead to harder drugs? Maybe, but only in cases where it's illegal (if a person is trying to score cannabis from a dealer and the dealer says "Nope, all out, here try this crack instead" - pretty far fetched, but it might get one person in a million to smoke crack).

----

Extending out to the politics debate and science denial in general, it's really the trademark of the fundamentalist christian right. Dare I say, though, that a majority of the right, and a majority of christians don't prescribe to that level of illogic.

However, I have seen plenty of cases where people used pseudoscience or a misinterpreted scientific study to further a political agenda for the left. Think of the New Age movement, for example. It appealed way more to the left than to the right.

But that's not the argument I was trying to make above, and it's really neither here nor there with respect to cannabis.

-----

Can anybody admit that there are studies both that suggest cannabis is potentially useful in medicine in some cases, and suggest that cannabis can be dangerous in other cases? 

Okay, well, either way, should it be an imprisonable offence to use cannabis? That's where the logic totally breaks down for me. What's the societal benefit to jailing cannabis users?!


----------



## vilk (Apr 4, 2017)

I've never heard of a study that shows cannabis use to be dangerous, unless it's taken to some kind of extreme and excessive degree (actually, I'm not even sure I've seen that). The problem with that logic is that anything and everything is dangerous when taken to an extremely excessive degree. Cheeseburgers, water, ibuprofen, downhill skiing... To say that smoking weed all day every day affects your cognitive function is redundant. Doing absolutely anything all day every day affects your cognitive function.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 4, 2017)

vilk said:


> I've never heard of a study that shows cannabis use to be dangerous, unless it's taken to some kind of extreme and excessive degree (actually, I'm not even sure I've seen that). The problem with that logic is that anything and everything is dangerous when taken to an extremely excessive degree. Cheeseburgers, water, ibuprofen, downhill skiing... To say that smoking weed all day every day affects your cognitive function is redundant. Doing absolutely anything all day every day affects your cognitive function.



Well, these sorts of studies are the most common. There are some articles that claim to link paranoia with cannabis use, as well.

We've already had the driving safety debate.

There should be plenty of willing subjects, though, so I don't see why we shouldn't finish a few more studies to nail this down better. If the substance can ease Parkinson's without too many side-effects, then why not?


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Apr 4, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Well, these sorts of studies are the most common. There are some articles that claim to link paranoia with cannabis use, as well.
> 
> We've already had the driving safety debate.
> 
> There should be plenty of willing subjects, though, so I don't see why we shouldn't finish a few more studies to nail this down better. If the substance can ease Parkinson's without too many side-effects, then why not?



See the thing about those studies is that alcohol also affects the brain development of teens. Not only that, but legalization has decreased the black market sales in states that have it which in turn makes it harder for young adults/teens to access. The guy on the street corner only cares if you have money.

I'm with Vilk here though. Marijuana use is less dangerous than inhaling car fumes during rush hour (if we're talking vaporization, ingesting orally)


----------



## russmuller (Apr 4, 2017)

vilk said:


> I've never heard of a study that shows cannabis use to be dangerous,



This is largely a result of its schedule 1 status (at least in the US anyway). 

I DO have to agree that there's a lot of confirmation bias, irrationality, and anecdotal evidence on both sides of the debate.

On the left you have the nutbars who think that cannabis cures everything and big pharma/big cancer is engaged in a conspiracy to prevent life-changing therapies from being developed to defend their profits. "ZOMG, THC kills all these things in a petri dish!" without realizing that bullets also kill cancer cells in a petri dish. That doesn't mean it's a viable treatment or cure for anything.

On the right, you have the reefer madness fear-mongers who insist that it is a moral crime and personal failing to use a particular plant. If you smoke marijuana, you're a bad person with no motivation, destined for failure in life. Like Ann Coulter's compelling tale about "I had a pool guy that smoked pot, and he was so bad/unreliable that I had to fire him."

The truth, of course, is in the middle. While it's not a cure-all, I do think the evidence is clear that there is real medical potential for many compounds found in cannabis. It's also clear that recreational use is nowhere near as dangerous and socially detrimental as prohibitionists claim.


----------



## mongey (Apr 4, 2017)

weed may or may not be dangerous.I think its risks are minimal . but I'm not a Dr or an expert . just a ex smoker guy who smoked allot of weed in his time 

I can say 100% that weed grown legally and safely is allot less dangerous than weed grown and sold in an illegal operation


----------



## bostjan (Apr 5, 2017)

No offence guys, and I'm not trying to undermine your movement, since I fundamentally agree with it, but you have to know how this looks to an outsider:

A: "Legalize weed! It's not bad for you!"
B: "But there is conflicting evidence, some say it might be bad for you!"
A: "No, it's not bad for you at all!"
B: "But these studies!" _Provides links_
A: "Well, whatever, I know it's not bad for you, despite studies that say otherwise."

I think that approach is going to ultimately slow the progress you make. Try, instead, to be less convinced and more convincing. Seriously, there are scientific studies that claim that cannabis is not as harmful as the government says it is. Start to get to know those studies and use them. Just saying "You're wrong, because I know better than you and I don't have to explain why," or "I use this, therefore I know more about it than everyone else," just doesn't get you anywhere in an argument.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin (Apr 5, 2017)

Some people are so misinformed about how decriminalization is working in states like where I live (Washington). Nobody is running television ads for cannabis. For the most part it's been an interesting transition to watch, at first people were excited to see it be legalized and were really irresponsible. Smoking it out in public way more than I used to see or smell. But that's died down. I voted for it, as someone who has done it off and on for years I know it to be a better recreational choice for me over beer.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Apr 5, 2017)

bostjan said:


> A: "Legalize weed! It's not bad for you!"
> B: "But there is conflicting evidence, some say it might be bad for you!"
> A: "No, it's not bad for you at all!"
> B: "But these studies!" _Provides links_
> ...


For some reason you have it in your head that's what people are saying when they say the support legalization, when in reality the legalization movement has never been based around it being completely harmless. I've never said it's completely harmless. I have said and will stand by the fact however that it's much less harmful to use than alcohol or tobacco, both of which are legal. So unless you're spearheading the criminalization of alcohol or tobacco, you're the one hindering our progress getting caught up on the semantics of the issue.

When people say it's not bad for you, they more often than not don't mean, "it's 100% safe, gluten-free vegan marijuana!", they're saying, "smoking a little pot isn't going to kill you or send you spiraling down a self-destructive path from which you'll never recover". 
Like Vilk said, compare it to eating fast food on a day to day basis. We know that eating McDonald's daily will shorten your life expectancy and give you health problems, but if someone offered you a Big Mac would you say, "no that's unsafe"?


----------



## mongey (Apr 5, 2017)

bostjan said:


> I know more about it than everyone else," just doesn't get you anywhere in an argument.



unless your the government, I guess


----------



## TedEH (Apr 6, 2017)

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> the legalization movement has never been based around it being completely harmless.



I dunno if this is a whole other can o' worms, but what exactly IS the movement about? And I don't mean "what are some good arguments to legalize", cause there are lots of those, and they've been discussed already, but I mean "what are the real reasons people are personally motivated to support legalization"? And the answer I would guess at, based only on personal experience and anecdotes, is that people just want their buzz. Granted I'm in Canada, so the situation is a bit different here, but I've met zero people who really care about the societal implications of legalization, they just want to smoke. I mean that in the sense that the strongest advocates for legalization that I encounter are also the ones suffering from what I consider to be the negative effects of it and denying it has impacted them. The people who have formed strong habits but claim they could "stop whenever they want", but then pull a 180 as soon as they're short on cash and decide to buy more weed instead of food for their kids, opting to bum food and gas money from family and friends instead. The people who use the drug to relieve themselves of the symptoms of their personal problems instead of dealing with them as adults.

I've had these kinds of conversations before:
"Why do you want this to be legal?"
"It can cure cancer! Or at least relieve some symptoms!"
"But you don't have cancer."
"..."
"And nobody you know who has had cancer smoked."
"..."
"And everyone you know who's had cancer already had viable treatment and relief options"
"..."
"..."
"I just want to smoke some weed, what's so wrong about that?"


----------



## vilk (Apr 6, 2017)

I feel that the movement to legalize is organized around these principles:

1. Originally prohibition was medically/scientifically foundation-less, and more than likely organized specifically to harm the opportunity of minorities and anti-war activists. The origins of marijuana prohibition is unarguably a unilateral attack against American citizens who did not support some specific agenda.












2. It's a mostly untapped industry, and has so far proven to create tons of tax revenue. Which we as a nation desperately, desperately need.

3. We know it's less physiologically harmful than many other substances which are wholly legal to consume, and especially if not used consistently. You can't even OD.

4. We know it does in fact have therapeutic value. 

5. Marijuana prohibition has been traditionally and is still presently used to line our prisons. The United States already has the highest ratio of imprisoned citizens as compared with any other nation on earth, developed or otherwise. Usually and most often disproportionately affecting darker-skinned people. 

------------------------------------

The War on Drugs is evidently just a tool of fascism, forced conformity of value. It's already illegal to sell unregulated products for human consumption. Human beings have been smoking, consuming intoxicants for recreation since before recorded history. One might even argue that it's more intrinsically connected to the human condition than is literature. I don't know who decided or why that getting f///ed up is some morally reprehensible action, but frankly the principle foundation of the United States of America says that WE the people should be able to decide how this place runs, and cannabis prohibition is a blatant, obvious representation of the will of the people being suppressed by autocracy. But now I'm rambling lol



TedEH said:


> "I just want to smoke some weed, what's so wrong about that?"



That might be the butt of your joke, but in my opinion it is a crucial and on-point argument, as simple as it is.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 6, 2017)

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> For some reason you have it in your head that's what people are saying when they say the support legalization, when in reality the legalization movement has never been based around it being completely harmless. I've never said it's completely harmless. I have said and will stand by the fact however that it's much less harmful to use than alcohol or tobacco, both of which are legal. So unless you're spearheading the criminalization of alcohol or tobacco, you're the one hindering our progress getting caught up on the semantics of the issue.
> 
> When people say it's not bad for you, they more often than not don't mean, "it's 100% safe, gluten-free vegan marijuana!", they're saying, "smoking a little pot isn't going to kill you or send you spiraling down a self-destructive path from which you'll never recover".
> Like Vilk said, compare it to eating fast food on a day to day basis. We know that eating McDonald's daily will shorten your life expectancy and give you health problems, but if someone offered you a Big Mac would you say, "no that's unsafe"?



Well, that's not exactly what you said. You said it was safer than the car fumes inhaled by driving through rush hour traffic.

How am I hindering legalization?!

Also, alcohol is criminalized between the ages of 18-21.

As far as your hyperboles, I have honestly heard both of those arguments before. Even though most people on either side of the debate don't go that far, the ones who do go all the way into bizarre rationale seem to be the most willing to tell everyone about it. Kind of where we are in Vermont now, is that the state congress doesn't even want to have the debate anymore, since they tried it, and it simply acted as an open invitations for all of these whacky people on both sides to come out of the woodwork and get really fired up. The governor came out and said, plainly, that he thinks there will be a time for legalization, but there are just too many way more important things going on right now.



mongey said:


> unless your the government, I guess



Right, but the government has "authority." They make the rules. If they want to have something be illegal, then it is illegal. That's my whole point. If you want to convince the government to legalize pot, the argument that you know it's harmless, because you are doing it all of the time and you haven't died from it is not going to help you at all.



TedEH said:


> I dunno if this is a whole other can o' worms, but what exactly IS the movement about? And I don't mean "what are some good arguments to legalize", cause there are lots of those, and they've been discussed already, but I mean "what are the real reasons people are personally motivated to support legalization"? And the answer I would guess at, based only on personal experience and anecdotes, is that people just want their buzz. Granted I'm in Canada, so the situation is a bit different here, but I've met zero people who really care about the societal implications of legalization, they just want to smoke. I mean that in the sense that the strongest advocates for legalization that I encounter are also the ones suffering from what I consider to be the negative effects of it and denying it has impacted them. The people who have formed strong habits but claim they could "stop whenever they want", but then pull a 180 as soon as they're short on cash and decide to buy more weed instead of food for their kids, opting to bum food and gas money from family and friends instead. The people who use the drug to relieve themselves of the symptoms of their personal problems instead of dealing with them as adults.
> 
> I've had these kinds of conversations before:
> "Why do you want this to be legal?"
> ...



Same. I was hoping this thread would get the argument to branch out a little more than it has, so far.



vilk said:


> I feel that the movement to legalize is organized around these principles:
> 
> 1. Originally prohibition was medically/scientifically foundation-less, and more than likely organized specifically to harm the opportunity of minorities and anti-war activists. The origins of marijuana prohibition is unarguably a unilateral attack against American citizens who did not support some specific agenda.



Pretty on point. Hemp was a huge cash crop in early American history. Hemp rope is still some of the most effective, cost-appropriate rope available. Folks in the 17th and 18th centuries didn't really seem interested in smoking it, though, or if they did, no one seemed to really care that they did enough to make any record of it. 19th century legislation on cannabis was by state, and simply addressed it's medicinal use and went after dealers rather than users. It wasn't until the prohibition of alcohol that things really stepped up, probably because folks who wanted to get drunk, but couldn't easily obtain alcohol, realized that they could roll a joint instead, and that angered the temperance people.



vilk said:


> 2. It's a mostly untapped industry, and has so far proven to create tons of tax revenue. Which we as a nation desperately, desperately need.



Ok, I'm not going to disagree with you that it should be legalized and taxed, but taxation does not lead to prosperity. If it's taxed too much, the black market for it will simply continue. The key is in finding a balance that eliminates the black market entirely or almost entirely, but also generates revenue.



vilk said:


> 3. We know it's less physiologically harmful than many other substances which are wholly legal to consume, and especially if not used consistently. You can't even OD.



But we really don't know. That's my point. Claiming to know over and over again without any proof to back it up is just going to start to convince people not to listen to you. Can you find a scientific study comparing the long term health effects of cannabis use to the long term health effects of a sugary diet? Hint: you can't, because the first half of the study hasn't yet been done. Some small studies showing effects on cognition and memory have been mostly negative, but only slightly so, mostly because they are not terribly conclusive.



vilk said:


> 4. We know it does in fact have therapeutic value.



See above. A few anecdotes. Mostly people parroting the same conjecture-based arguments as fact. Data?



vilk said:


> 5. Marijuana prohibition has been traditionally and is still presently used to line our prisons. The United States already has the highest ratio of imprisoned citizens as compared with any other nation on earth, developed or otherwise. Usually and most often disproportionately affecting darker-skinned people.



Agreed. This is a stronger point. But why is it point #5 and not point #1?



vilk said:


> The War on Drugs is evidently just a tool of fascism, forced conformity of value.



Maybe it is or maybe there's more to it. I think this is a part of it, but I think there is strong evidence that there is more to it as well. I also think that making the statement of such without supporting evidence is an easy way to get caught up in a tangential argument that keeps both parties from resolving the bigger issue.



vilk said:


> It's already illegal to sell unregulated products for human consumption. Human beings have been smoking, consuming intoxicants for recreation since before recorded history.



What else were humans doing before recorded history? Murder, slavery, rape? What point does that prove?



vilk said:


> One might even argue that it's more intrinsically connected to the human condition than is literature.



Didn't you retract an identical statement before in another thread?



vilk said:


> I don't know who decided or why that getting f///ed up is some morally reprehensible action, but frankly the principle foundation of the United States of America says that WE the people should be able to decide how this place runs, and cannabis prohibition is a blatant, obvious representation of the will of the people being suppressed by autocracy. But now I'm rambling lol
> 
> 
> 
> That might be the butt of your joke, but in my opinion it is a crucial and on-point argument, as simple as it is.



Who decided were government authorities of the early 20th century. Why was because it was thought to have a negative effect on the productivity of society as a whole. Actually, that argument might have some truth to it, but I think it doesn't matter, because the role of government was never supposed to be in deciding what was good or bad for society. Starting in the 19th century and culminating in the first half of the 20th century, governments around the globe got involved in the day-to-day life of regular folks, and tried to completely supplant society and community. That's my biggest gripe with the way things are now - government's role has spilled over into the roles of society and community, which is why we have so little sense of society and community now. Cannabis is not a government issue - government has a specific role to keep people from killing each other, stealing from each other, and limiting each other's personal liberties. Cannabis falls within exactly zero of those roles.


----------



## TedEH (Apr 6, 2017)

vilk said:


> That might be the butt of your joke, but in my opinion it is a crucial and on-point argument, as simple as it is.



Don't get me wrong, I agree. I see it as simple as "if I can come home and get drunk if I want, why shouldn't I be allowed to get high instead?" I'd prefer that people do neither most of the time, but I fully support people's freedom to do so.

My point is more that the conversations dance around the point that people really just want to get high. Thoughtful discussion on forums aside, Joe Blow advocating for legalization is doing it because he wants to smoke, not because he cares about the societal impact. In my opinion, obviously.


----------



## vilk (Apr 6, 2017)

Some psychologists would argue that if you boil anything long and hot enough it reduces into self-interest or greed. I didn't donate money to the charity because I care about societal impact; I only did it to subconsciously give myself an ego boost. I didn't vote for environmental protection regulations because I care about societal impact; I'm really only thinking of my own health, and maybe my friends and family.


----------



## Randy (Apr 6, 2017)

TedEH said:


> "what are the real reasons people are personally motivated to support legalization"? And the answer I would guess at, based only on personal experience and anecdotes, is that people just want their buzz.



I'm in favor of the legalization or at least the de-criminalization and reclassification of cannabis, and I don't even smoke pot. I tried it twice when I was maybe 14 years old just because I was a kid, but ultimately decided, outside of the legal hurdles, I didn't want to smoke it for the same reason I don't smoke cigarettes.

It's kinda sad that people are only able to argue in favor of things based on their own self interests, or that the perception out there is that's the only reason.

Sometimes, things are just morally "right or wrong", and the right thing is to speak up for that reason and nothing else. I'm not gay or transgender but I see people mistreated or singled out negatively for identifying that way, so I speak out. I'm not a woman but I see women mistreated in the workplace, so I speak out, etc. 

And that's not just some SJW, "Captain Fedora to the rescue" BS. I've been singled out or had decisions I've made (even being a musician or having long hair) make me the target of harassment. It's not right to have certain things leveraged against you just for being who you are, because other people have a preconception.

Anyway, this is all a little OT but I think the same applies to cannabis. I've known people (do not currently interact with any) who socially or habitually smoke marijuana, and I had a negative opinion of it and of them at the time, so this new position isn't swayed at all by a personal interest in it or connection to anybody I know personally that wants it. 

Whew, I hope that prefaced thing sufficiently for y'all.

Objectively, I see the fact that it's been deemed suitable for treatment of specific diseases and afflictions in some states (that did due diligence in their research, to the extent it was possible). We live in a country with a broken healthcare system where the bureaucracy and the expense just to get insurance, go to a doctor, get pills, etc. is such a nightmare right now, and meanwhile, marijuana can treat SOME of those things, and it's essentially medicine you can grow yourself and comes right out of the ground ready to use. That's not to say it doesn't have it's minuses or that it's a cure-all, but the stuff you pay $400 a month, $50 a visit and another $50 per bottle to take are no greater guarantee of curing you and certainly no greater assurance against side-effects.

When you see things like marijuana being 'schedule 1' and cocaine being 'schedule 2', and the motivations of some of the people behind the war against marijuana in the beginning (did anybody watch the John Oliver clip I posted, or is everybody just speeding on past everything so they can just post their opinions..? ), I've gotta start thinking the outsized demonization of cannabis goes beyond just being done out of safety concerns for the people of this country. Even if that path doesn't end at full recreational legalization, I'd like to loosen things up enough to peel back the stigma some before we say the topic has been fully visited and we're still considering it poison.


----------



## Randy (Apr 6, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Same. I was hoping this thread would get the argument to branch out a little more than it has, so far.



Ho-hum. I don't want to make this personal but you've turned the volume up to the point, I'll admit I absolutely AM ignoring and skipping your posts because they've all got the trajectory of "Oh, I'm totally open minded on this, but you haven't done a good enough job convincing me yet" and then you put up straw men or passive aggressively take shots that are ABSOLUTELY frontloaded with bias. 

At this point, it just sounds like "bostjan takes on all comers", where this is like some kind of exhibition for you to show how nobody else's arguments or logic can stand up to your own. I won't say that everyone else has constructed airtight arguments but their posts are no more "I like pot, man" than yours are you just listening to yourself talk. This whole implication like you're objectively open to new ideas is a smoke screen.


----------



## TedEH (Apr 6, 2017)

vilk said:


> Some psychologists would argue that if you boil anything long and hot enough it reduces into self-interest or greed.



I kind of a agree with that philosophy, to a point. Or a version of it. But that's a whole other topic of discussion. 



Randy said:


> I'm in favor of the legalization or at least the de-criminalization and reclassification of cannabis, and I don't even smoke pot. I tried it twice when I was maybe 14 years old just because I was a kid, but ultimately decided, outside of the legal hurdles, I didn't want to smoke it for the same reason I don't smoke cigarettes.
> 
> It's kinda sad that people are only able to argue in favor of things based on their own self interests, or that the perception out there is that's the only reason.



I'm with you 100% on all of the above.

I'm probably wrong about the idea of "most people" being motivated by their personal desire to get high. Anecdotally, those are the people I seem to run into in person though. Or maybe they're the loudest advocates I run into. I just like the idea of people being upfront about their motivations instead of reaching for lists of factoids that don't apply to them.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 6, 2017)

Randy said:


> Ho-hum. I don't want to make this personal but you've turned the volume up to the point, I'll admit I absolutely AM ignoring and skipping your posts because they've all got the trajectory of "Oh, I'm totally open minded on this, but you haven't done a good enough job convincing me yet" and then you put up straw men or passive aggressively take shots that are ABSOLUTELY frontloaded with bias.
> 
> At this point, it just sounds like "bostjan takes on all comers", where this is like some kind of exhibition for you to show how nobody else's arguments or logic can stand up to your own. I won't say that everyone else has constructed airtight arguments but their posts are no more "I like pot, man" than yours are you just listening to yourself talk. This whole implication like you're objectively open to new ideas is a smoke screen.



Randy, that's totally off my point.

1. Where did I claim to be open minded about this? I know which outcome I want, and it's congruent with yours.
2. What straw men?
3. What bias?
4. If you are not reading my posts, then how would you be aware of any of the above?

The only thing about your post I can agree with you on is that this thread seems like I like hearing myself talk, because no one is really listening.

But then, if this thread was just a bunch of "I like pot, man" posts, then what is the point of having a debate over legalization?

Since you are a board moderator, and I read that as you accusing me of taking personal shots at other users here, I take your post pretty seriously. If you wish to supply me with some specifics, I would appreciate it and reflect on those. And if there are no specifics, and you take some disciplinary action against me without basis, then, to me, it not only proves several of my points above, but it proves that we cannot even have a healthy debate over cannabis.


----------



## vilk (Apr 6, 2017)

bostjan said:


> What else were humans doing before recorded history? Murder, slavery, rape? What point does that prove?



The point I was aiming for is that modern people are taught DRUGS R BAD M'KAY and take that at face value. Even many people who eventually use drugs will subconsciously feel that they are doing a "bad thing". But this has no basis in perennial morality/humanism. Abusing your body is perhaps "bad", but then again it is _your_ body, and does drug use _always_ = abusing your body? There were times in history when using powerful, mind altering drugs was considered a religious experience, and people who used them were revered. 

DRUGS = BAD is a modern, fabricated _opinion_ that people shouldn't feel bound to agree with. That was my only point with regards to human history. 

I think there's a case to be made that certain chemical compounds shouldn't be consumed irrespective of them being intoxicants, but that is different than to say universally that getting high is a morally sinful action.


----------



## n4t (Apr 6, 2017)

Whether its pot or women's health the answer is simple:

It is not the governments business. Period.

In every case these 'laws' are set up due to lawmakers owning interest in the private sector that they are trying to protect, or they are trying to persecute a group of people. In no case are these laws instated due to public health and safety concerns. 

The reason they get away with it is because they exploit the narrow-minded, fearful, ignorant portion of the population (most of it). These are 'people' that think they should have the right to tell you how to live your life in any personal way they decide, because they are ultimately fearful that if everyone doesn't behave in their model (which they hypocritically fail to do themselves) that it will ultimately affect them negatively. 

Conservatives are innately fearful people (science has proven) who will gladly transgress any right or freedom of YOURS to assuage their numerous fears.

TLDR: Fear and Ignorance are a very bad mix.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 6, 2017)

vilk said:


> The point I was aiming for is that modern people are taught DRUGS R BAD M'KAY and take that at face value. Even many people who eventually use drugs will subconsciously feel that they are doing a "bad thing". But this has no basis in perennial morality/humanism. Abusing your body is perhaps "bad", but then again it is _your_ body, and does drug use _always_ = abusing your body? There were times in history when using powerful, mind altering drugs was considered a religious experience, and people who used them were revered.
> 
> DRUGS = BAD is a modern, fabricated _opinion_ that people shouldn't feel bound to agree with. That was my only point with regards to human history.
> 
> I think there's a case to be made that certain chemical compounds shouldn't be consumed irrespective of them being intoxicants, but that is different than to say universally that getting high is a morally sinful action.



These days DRUGS (on this list) = BAD; DRUGS (on this other list) = GOOD

You have a good point that the case against cannabis is essentially all hearsay. What makes it worse is that there were decades during which discussing the case against cannabis was taboo.

The whole idea of "this is a sinful action," is weird, to me. There are logical reasons why some things are bad: murder, theft, etc. From there, though, the line one draws in the sand is interpretive and probably subjective.

Does the Bible, the Talmud, the Koran, or the Vedas say anything about cannabis? In the cases where the answer is "no," why do those religions forbid its use?


----------



## vilk (Apr 6, 2017)

^I didn't mean sinful in a strictly religious sense; I was using floral language. But I know that cannabis is used in some certain Hindu celebration where it is drank. It's called bahng (idk how to spell it) and I think it's where we get the word "bong". I believe it's a Shiva worship?


----------



## n4t (Apr 6, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Does the Bible, the Talmud, the Koran, or the Vedas say anything about cannabis? In the cases where the answer is "no," why do those religions forbid its use?



I believe the bible classifies drug use as 'Sorcery' which falls into the whole 'thou shalt have no other God' thing.

Just to clarify.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 6, 2017)

n4t said:


> I believe the bible classifies drug use as 'Sorcery' which falls into the whole 'thou shalt have no other God' thing.
> 
> Just to clarify.



I'd like to see the verse, if you have a reference to it.



vilk said:


> ^I didn't mean sinful in a strictly religious sense; I was using floral language. But I know that cannabis is used in some certain Hindu celebration where it is drank. It's called bahng (idk how to spell it) and I think it's where we get the word "bong". I believe it's a Shiva worship?



Hmm, I didn't know it was from India. I thought the origin was Vietnamese.


----------



## Randy (Apr 6, 2017)

s


bostjan said:


> If you are not reading my posts, then how would you be aware of any of the above?



Those are observations made from when I was still paying attention, and from quotes of yours in posts I'm actually reading. Despite only posting in here a couple times, I've opened this thread every couple days just to see what's new. TedEH brought up a point I've seen before, and he seemed to be reflective enough in his delivery that I thought my alternative experiences might be of some value to him or this discussion, hence my decision to (temporarily) rejoin.

My lack of desire to engage you on every point or to jump in should work as a representation of how passionate I am about this topic (eh), and how interested I am in engaging you in it (double eh). 

I don't know where it fits into this discussion but as I said, I don't smoke pot and nobody I'm currently close friends openly share with me that they do (what they do behind closed doors, I have no idea). The only person I engage in this discussion with outside of this forum is someone who's my best friend for the last 25 years, our positions on almost everything are interchangeable with one another, but he hates marijuana, he openly states everyone he knows who's done it regularly "are dumb", he hates "smelling skunk on teenagers whenever he goes to the store", and he works in a doctors office where, whenever somebody comes in and mentions a history of long term cannabis use "they have other ailments, and they're stupid". 

I might be projecting my experience discussing this with my friend onto THIS debate too much, but I absolutely hear shades of this same, biased by personal anecdotal experience, rationale sprinkled into your (bostjan's) posts; and while worded somewhat eloquently, they sound no more objective than "I like pot, man". 

Perhaps some of my vitriol stems from that, I don't know.



bostjan said:


> Since you are a board moderator, and I read that as you accusing me of taking personal shots at other users here, I take your post pretty seriously. If you wish to supply me with some specifics, I would appreciate it and reflect on those. And if there are no specifics, and you take some disciplinary action against me without basis, then, to me, it not only proves several of my points above, but it proves that we cannot even have a healthy debate over cannabis.



Not worth digging to deep into that one. I ban very few people, and if/when it's been for 'name calling' in a debate, it's usually of the more 'school yard' variety. I absolutely think you're being disrespectful of other people's positions in the interest of feeding the narrative of you as some kind of pious judge on what's credible and not, right or wrong; but the repercussion of that are for other people to engage you or ignore you, and make you inconsequential. That's not the kind of thing I think I need to ban you or anybody else over.

As an aside, this is not a democracy and this is not a thickly judicious system either. I do my best to be fair but we're unpaid moderators (a very small bunch, at that) and dealing out punishment is absolutely at our discretion. You can point to the rules all you want but one reins supreme, and there's a reason it's last and bolded:



> 28. Anything not explicitly covered by these rules is handled at the discretion of the moderators and administrator. Questioning of mod/admin decisions in the public forums is subject to an automatic ban in accordance with existing rules.



...this is a tough job and if objectively I decide that you're skirting rules to still figure out a way to be a nuisance, I absolutely maintain the right to ban anybody. No, that's not directed at anybody in this debate or this thread but I think sometimes we need a reminder. This is not a court of law, there's no jury and there's no appeals. If you don't like it, post elsewhere or don't post at all.


----------



## n4t (Apr 6, 2017)

bostjan said:


> I'd like to see the verse, if you have a reference to it.



I don't, sorry. I recall it from a discussion with my Pastor long ago, and am not currently a supernaturalist. I do have one of those brains, so I'm fairly confident in my recall. 

Besides, it makes sense. Most oracles, soothsayers, witches, etc of the day were the main people known for using drugs. 

It still all comes down to some people trying to tell other people what to do because they are afraid. We really are simple little monkeys for the most part.


----------



## Randy (Apr 6, 2017)

n4t said:


> Besides, it makes sense. Most oracles, soothsayers, witches, etc of the day were the main people known for using drugs.



I used to be involved in a Bible study group (a couple, actually) and one of the topics that came up a couple of times were the references to "wine" in the bible, and how two different words were used in the original language to distinguish between "fermented" and "not fermented" (grape juice?), but the separation is lost in most translations. 

Anyway, contextually, you typically see the "non fermented" wording being used in benign situations and the "fermented" wording being used in more questionable situations. I'd have to brush up but essentially, there's an overall theme that doesn't outrightly condemn consuming alcohol in it's entirety, but the parables usually work out negatively for people who consume "fermented wine" and become intoxicated. 

I always took that to mean that "the bible", as a whole, was advising against any form of intoxication/voluntary impairment. YMMV


----------



## vilk (Apr 6, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Hmm, I didn't know it was from India. I thought the origin was Vietnamese.



Well, apparently "bong" is just the Thai language word for bong  

But bhang is still a real thing in India, used in Hindu celebrations since allegedly 2000 B.C.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhang


----------



## TedEH (Apr 6, 2017)

vilk said:


> DRUGS = BAD is a modern, fabricated _opinion_ that people shouldn't feel bound to agree with.



People shouldn't feel bound to disagree either though. I kinda do think recreational drugs are "bad" in the same sense that alcohol is "bad" and sugar is "bad" and having affairs is "bad" and cheating on your taxes is "bad", and pulling an all nighter is "bad". You can find ways to spin stuff to make all those things acceptable or not, moral or not, or to be safe or not, or to be responsible or not, but generally speaking, the majority of vices are not healthy for you on some level and I feel like THAT should be the lesson.

In other words, it's not that "drugs are evil" it's that "drugs are a vice, and vices should be handled with care". I also feel like lots of adults don't handle those vices in a mature way.


----------



## Randy (Apr 6, 2017)

I don't know about anyone else, but this thread is seriously harshing my mellow, bruh.


----------



## wedge_destroyer (Apr 6, 2017)

Well first on the biblical front, in the mandate to Adam, we are told to use and exploit, any flora or fauna, save two fruit bearing trees/bushes. We are then told later that our bodies are a temple and we are to keep it holy in substance and form. By that logic as long as we don't pollute with any substance to detrimental levels (as we were told as a race to utilize almost all plants) or unnaturally mark ourselves. Getting buzzed in any from is not really mentioned much other than intoxication to the point where you lose control of cognitive or motor function is bad, in the various parables as previously mentioned. That's what years of Lutheran school and many visits with the pastor gave me regarding intoxicants and christianity.

My thoughts on the whole deal:
Does cannabis need a full, intense, and unbiased study, to discern what ALL it does to us most certainly.

Is that likely to occur soon in this legal and political environment with enough neutrality to where people have no doubts? No, probably not.

Does the evidence of what has happened in society with people smoking pot mean anything? As the number of smokers or at least number being open about it has risen, and the taboo lessened on dicussion, the amount of anecdotal evidence rose as well, predominately reaching a generally similar consensus as to short term effects. Can that be taken as writ? No it's still hearsay perhaps truthful. But fewer truthful anecdotes have gotten men hung.

It obviously should no longer be a schedule 1, as multiple locations with due diligence have deemed it to have some medicinal properties. 

Is cannabis safer than straight from the ground natural tobacco, idk. Cigarettes artificially stacked with known carcinogens, yes. Booze does rot your liver and your brain, cannabis may rot your brain and your lungs, but normally doesn't directly kill you.

Is it currently being used to line prisons and pad the pockets of various ends of the policing/legal systems. Yup, and that's what keeps the federal government from looking at it more seriously. An entire agency has been built up to deal with the threat of drugs, and its that momentum political and monetary that will keep the environment soured for actual research and discourse.


----------



## mongey (Apr 6, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Right, but the government has "authority." They make the rules. If they want to have something be illegal, then it is illegal. That's my whole point. If you want to convince the government to legalize pot, the argument that you know it's harmless, because you are doing it all of the time and you haven't died from it is not going to help you at all.
> 
> 
> 
> .



agreed , thing is I don't think the majority of pot smokers feel compelled to convince the government of anything . weed is super easy to buy . its not like the government is stopping them from doing anything 

think I said in the original trump thread where this fist came up personally I don't want legalization . I support decriminalization . legalization comes with branding, and big business ,advertising and taxes.

a packet of 30 cigarettes here in Australia is currently $25 to $30 and its going up again soon . if weed is legalized and marketed and taxed its price will be ridiculous .

I just think if someone wants to grow a couple plants in their backyard its their business . I don't want or need to convince anyone of anything .

the reason you can smoke weed in Holland,and I was told this when I was there at the weed museum so guessing they know the deal , apologies if its incorrect , is that it is in their "Constitution" the government is not allowed to makes rules about anything that grows naturally in the ground. its not their business . hydroponic weed is actually illegal there but grown in the dirt its not.if you can grow it naturally then its your right to grow it 

there are still rules around it. you cant smoke weed on the street , you cant even buy or smoke it in the same place the serve alcohol , though hostels overlook this . 

its legal but no large corporations are allowed to package and sell .the cafes that are allowed to sell it have strict rules on how they present it . I support this model.

its not weed specifically that I support. its the idea that its not the government business to tell me what I can grow in the ground for my own use


----------



## russmuller (Apr 6, 2017)

WOW this thread has been busy since last night....

I guess I'm a little behind, but I wanted to make some points (which others have probably already made )



TedEH said:


> I mean that in the sense that the strongest advocates for legalization that I encounter are also the ones suffering from what I consider to be the negative effects of it and denying it has impacted them. The people who have formed strong habits but claim they could "stop whenever they want", but then pull a 180 as soon as they're short on cash and decide to buy more weed instead of food for their kids, opting to bum food and gas money from family and friends instead. The people who use the drug to relieve themselves of the symptoms of their personal problems instead of dealing with them as adults.


Wow... those sound like pretty scummy people. I've never met anyone who behaved that way, so we've had very different experiences (and I've had many friends who were drug dealers and addicts). However the personal failings of these people (who I would consider to be outliers among the general population of cannabis users) does nothing to justify making it illegal. If someone is an alcoholic and neglects their children, we don't jump to say that alcohol should be illegal. There are other, more reasonable and justifiable responses to the situation.



TedEH said:


> I've had these kinds of conversations before:
> "Why do you want this to be legal?"
> "It can cure cancer! Or at least relieve some symptoms!"
> "But you don't have cancer."
> ...


I have a friend who died from his cancer a year ago last weekend. His treatments were agonizing. He was constantly tired and sick throughout his 5 year struggle. I don't believe that he had viable relief. Sadly, it wasn't until the last few months of his life that he was willing to let go of the stigma of marijuana to get his medical card and even then he was afraid to try anything but CBD oil. While he might have had the option, the issue was so stigmatized in his conservative mind that he was unwilling to partake even when it was medically desirable to do so.

I don't need to be a cancer patient to want cancer patients and veterans to have better access to treatments, or to open the path for the research required to develop targeted treatments for specific conditions. I don't want it legalized so that I can smoke. I do that already, as do millions of other cannabis users. Rather I want it legalized so that I don't have to live with the threat of prison for an imaginary crime.

The view you're posing here is, I believe, equivalent to saying that women want to protect abortion so they can be promiscuous and irresponsible. Sure, there might be a few people who behave in a way that reinforces that idea, but that doesn't detract from the argument that a woman should have the right to choose what happens to her body. I know that's not the best comparison, but I think it's the same sort of shaming we see toward marijuana advocates.

*note: I want to be clear that I'm not attributing any of this to you, or saying that this is your view, or anything like that. I'm merely trying to talk about the viewpoint you're illustrating, regardless of your actual views. I don't want you to think I'm putting words in your mouth here.


----------



## russmuller (Apr 6, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Right, but the government has "authority." They make the rules. If they want to have something be illegal, then it is illegal. That's my whole point. If you want to convince the government to legalize pot, the argument that you know it's harmless, because you are doing it all of the time and you haven't died from it is not going to help you at all.


The "authority" of the government comes from the consent of the governed. When the governed are misinformed, they will support legislation that is misinformed. And if the people negatively affected are not vocal enough, the problem persists. And as long as there is stigma around marijuana, the vocal people will be dismissed and shamed, which will deter others from being vocal about it. So what we have in the public space is not an honest conversation about the merits and demerits of marijuana legalization and use.

That being said, your last sentence in this paragraph is quite true. Espousing a lack of harm from extended personal use does not stand up to the mountain of anecdotal propaganda insisting cannabis is bad. It's unfortunate that people are so irrational and blindly judgemental.

I honestly believe that there is no possible evidence you could show Jeff Sessions that would convince him to change his mind. In fact, I think that's true of most of the noisy opponents to decriminalization. And THAT is the real problem.


----------



## russmuller (Apr 6, 2017)

mongey said:


> agreed , thing is I don't think the majority of pot smokers feel compelled to convince the government of anything .



I don't think the majority of pot smokers feel that it's possible to convince the government in the current state of affairs. Scientists are not able to study it. Those who try to do so have monstrous hurdles to overcome. That's like telling detectives that they can't investigate a crime, but the onus is on them to win a conviction in court.

Also the government was "convinced" to enact these laws with very bad evidence. When corrupt people use lies to get laws on the books, prevent the people from building a proper case, and shame advocates as lazy degenerates, you've got a stacked deck. Government does not listen to reason, it listens to money (and sometimes votes).


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Apr 6, 2017)

Randy said:


> I don't know about anyone else, but this thread is seriously harshing my mellow, bruh.



For real. I don't care enough to read these ridiculously long posts to argue semantics or hypothetical situations with people who also claim to be pro-legalization. This entire thing is like a game show of, "who has the best hyperbole?!" with an Explorer wannabe and his long-winded posts. 

Prohibition was a political move, never one out of public safety. More dangerous drugs are currently legal. Tax money can go to helpful things while simultaneously police forces spend less. That's the movement.

Edit: 
Bostjan you should really smoke a pinner man, you seem stressed.


----------



## TedEH (Apr 7, 2017)

russmuller said:


> Wow... those sound like pretty scummy people. I've never met anyone who behaved that way, so we've had very different experiences (and I've had many friends who were drug dealers and addicts). However the personal failings of these people (who I would consider to be outliers among the general population of cannabis users) does nothing to justify making it illegal.



I wasn't trying to justify making it illegal. I'm more-or-less for the legalization. But yeah, for every "everyday-functional-smoker" I know just as many of these scummy types of people, just like for every responsible one-beer-on-friday-after-work kind of drinker, I can point out an alcoholic. My point was that, in my experience, the strongest advocates for weed I've encountered are usually the scummy types- seemingly because the scummy types are the ones succumbing to the vice irresponsibly in the first place, and therefor the legality issue hangs over them constantly. This forum has been a great example of level minded people having conversations about responsible use, but outside the forum, maybe 80-90% of people I know who smoke every day are affected in some negative way and flat out deny it. And if you ask them why they want legalization, they can spout all the same info about medical benefits and social benefits, etc.- but realistically that's not what motivates them to want to legalize. Which was my point about:



russmuller said:


> I have a friend who [...]



There are legit cases, and there as good a reason to legalize as any. But if I ask stoner-buddy-from-down-the-street why HE wants it to be legal, he'll say "cause look at the benefits maaaaan" when realistically he just wants to smoke. The rest is just a talking point and has no bearing on his motivation.




....I suppose a lot of my opinions about weed are influenced by how a lot of the heavy smokers I know are scummy people to begin with, I won't deny that. Obviously the drug doesn't *make* people scummy, but lots of scummy people seem drawn to it.

It just drives me up the wall when people flat out deny when their vices are having negative effects on them, be it weed, or alcohol, or playing too many video games, or whatever else. The examples I know where people buy weed instead of food, they're the ones who will make exactly those terrible choices, while lecturing you about how they're perfectly good examples of how you can smoke and be a fully functional adult at the same time- they're NOT fully functional adults at all. Same as how some people who play games 12hrs a day and never exercise will be the ones arguing that I'm "body shaming" them for not being in good shape and sharing articles about the "12 ways gamers are smarter than everyone else". I know I play too many games, and I fully admit the impact it has on my life. I know lots of alcoholics who admit it and work towards fixing it. I know zero regular weed smokers (in person) who will admit any less-than-favorable effects.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 7, 2017)

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> For real. I don't care enough to read these ridiculously long posts to argue semantics or hypothetical situations with people who also claim to be pro-legalization. This entire thing is like a game show of, "who has the best hyperbole?!" with an Explorer wannabe and his long-winded posts.
> 
> *Prohibition was a political move, never one out of public safety. More dangerous drugs are currently legal. Tax money can go to helpful things while simultaneously police forces spend less. That's the movement.*
> 
> ...



Honestly, the reason I'm trying to play devil's advocate in the debate is because I truly believe that the movement is _close_ to success (in the USA), and, IMO (which no one cares about, anyway) being able to convince a decent portion of the moderate base would make the change happen faster than just waiting around. 

Take that however you will, but I consider myself a moderate, and I consider myself someone who accepted your cause after hearing some good arguments for it many years ago.


----------



## tedtan (Apr 7, 2017)

russmuller said:


> The "authority" of the government comes from the consent of the governed.



In theory.

In practice, the government already has the power at this point and only cares about the desires of the masses when those elected to advocate on our behalf feel they're close to losing that cush job to which we elected them. At times other than an election, they have their own agenda that takes precedence over what the masses want.


----------



## Tortellini (Apr 22, 2017)

Where is the victim? Who are the pigs helping by throwing users in jail?


----------



## flint757 (Apr 22, 2017)

Tortellini said:


> Where is the victim? Who are the pigs helping by throwing users in jail?



It's definitely an oxymoron. Throwing people in jail for hurting themselves to then only hurt them more by taking away their freedom/rights and making them unhireable for the foreseeable future. Especially considering rich business men get busted all the times for drugs, but can pay their way out of trouble. It's class warfare at this point IMO.


----------



## Tortellini (Apr 22, 2017)

flint757 said:


> It's definitely an oxymoron. Throwing people in jail for hurting themselves to then only hurt them more by taking away their freedom/rights and making them unhireable for the foreseeable future. Especially considering rich business men get busted all the times for drugs, but can pay their way out of trouble. It's class warfare at this point IMO.


Exactly why I decided against being a State Trooper and went into EMS. I actually feel like I help people while the cops stand around with their thumbs up there asses trying to find someone to bother. Don't even get me started on asset forfeiture. Legal theft by the government because of drugs.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Apr 22, 2017)

flint757 said:


> It's class warfare at this point IMO.



It's always been class/racial warfare. 

'You want to know what this was really all about, Ehrlichman, who died in 1999, said, referring to Nixons declaration of war on drugs. The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what Im saying. We knew we couldnt make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.' 
http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2016...gs-was-policy-tool-go-after-anti-war-proteste


----------



## flint757 (Apr 22, 2017)

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> It's always been class/racial warfare.
> 
> 'You want to know what this was really all about, Ehrlichman, who died in 1999, said, referring to Nixons declaration of war on drugs. The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what Im saying. We knew we couldnt make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.'
> http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2016...gs-was-policy-tool-go-after-anti-war-proteste



I agree.


----------

