So much for MJ decriminalization

[Dudde]

I tried replying this morning, but my internet was being controlled by communists...

 

That would be decided by the market. Depending on how legal it became, we are talking about a weed that anyone can grow, virtually anywhere. How much does homemade wine and beer cost?

 

That's true, and I agree, but I would predict a lot more people growing this at home than making alcohol - as well as trying to sell it as a living. Which is fine I guess, I just don't want people pushing it at me or making it easier for underage people to obtain by selling it all over the street. Whether they're going to or not, we can at least try to put SOME measure of difficulty in there

 

The hypocrisy angle is the weakest one to me, and the one that has the least chance of changing opinions. Hypocrites don't see their actions as being hypocritical, and alcohol-only imbibers usually see everything else as only "drugs".

Is this some roundabout way of saying people against it are hypocrites? That's what I took out of it, and I disagree again, for the same reasons cited above. Just because you can do X and Y, it is not automatically assumed that Z should be legal too. That would be a bad way to regulate

 

Is this a sarcastic "right"?

~~

And why is non-THC hemp illegal? All the arguments about it's being mistaken have been debunked.

 

No, this was actually me agreeing, I just don't like when people leave out parts of my argument that I think are valid, so I return the courtesy even if I agree

 

Many people who would benefit from it's affects won't take it because of the stigma associated with it being illegal for everyone else.

I don't agree with this point. I know a lot of people waiting to jump on the opportunity for this to become legalized, but either

A) Don't do it because it's illegal now

or

B) Do it anyway

 

When it becomes legal medicinally, I doubt there'll be much more resistance to taking it than any other medicines.

 

 

I agree. The list of cons for legalizing MJ are ridiculous.

Don't play with my words - I was referring specifically to the list quoted by Mr. Skeptic. It was and was meant to be ridiculous to downplay the opposing side. Personally, I don't see the action as a move to bring down crime in the U.S nor to bring people away from other illegal substances, it'll probably just drive the drug market deeper somewhere else.

 

This is probably the best compromise. If making medical MJ available everywhere went hand in hand with removing it as a felony offense so we could get some otherwise decent folks out of jail, I WOULD STAND BEHIND THAT 100%.

 

No, that isn't what I meant. My point was to legalize it for medicinal use only, start small, and go from there. Not to decriminalize it entirely. I doubt everyone in jail for MJ possession/use/distribution was only taken in for that charge, although I'll concede there are a good many. This goes back to what I said previously - I doubt legalizing will bring down crime by a significant factor

 

I think maybe if we could get some regulations and enforcement in place for illegal movements into and out of the country - weapons, LSD, or otherwise, it might be the time to consider legalizing it. Making something legal just to make it easier to deal with is politically and morally irresponsible and shows great weakness in leadership - we need to get a handle on what we have before we add more. (this might go back to the previous statement that we should lessen our plate before adding more?)

 

 

 

waitforufo

Legalize marijuana and the profit motive for this drug deal would have collapsed

What? No it wouldn't have - I don't know if you know expensive the other drugs listed actually are.

 

And again, if we legalize and bring the MJ market under control, drug cartels are going to find something else to push at us, I don't know we're giving them enough credit here...

[ParanoiA]

Dudde, I think it would be wise to consider the intensity of intoxication from THC. It's not argued alot, and I have no idea why. Marijuana cannot "knock you out" and leave a teenage girl helpless to the party animals. Alcohol can, and does. Marijuana does not effect your sense of balance, take over your judgement and get you running down your street naked. It doesn't take you over. All of the other fun drugs, do. You'll see a couch of lazy stoners, some of which are "passed out", but you won't see a staggering, drooling fool that can't control himself, or find the floor.

 

Marijuana is a mild intoxication, by comparison. It's effects are felt almost instantaneous. Unlike alcohol, and the other entertainment drugs, which take so long to take effect you can very easily consume too much before you realize how it's going to hit you - and then it's too late. Even iNow will pray to the porcelain god after way too many drinks...

[Daecon]

Naturalistic fallacy, where do you think cocaine comes from, or opium. It makes no difference if the source of the drug is a plant, or synthesized in a lab...it's all natural.

But don't they have to be artificially extracted from the source, and processed/refined by people? As in, you have to work to create those things from the naturally occurring plants instead of just taking the leaves and burning them...?

[ParanoiA]

You don't burn the leaves. Well, more accurately, you harvest the bud by destroying the plant and cutting away everything, including the leaves. The THC content is highest in the flower of the plant. Leaves just get you woozy.

 

So, there's a bit of refinement, but not much more than any other vegetable or fruit.

[Dudde]

Dudde, I think it would be wise to consider the intensity of intoxication from THC. It's not argued alot, and I have no idea why. Marijuana cannot "knock you out" and leave a teenage girl helpless to the party animals. Alcohol can, and does. Marijuana does not effect your sense of balance, take over your judgement and get you running down your street naked. It doesn't take you over. All of the other fun drugs, do. You'll see a couch of lazy stoners, some of which are "passed out", but you won't see a staggering, drooling fool that can't control himself, or find the floor.

 

Marijuana is a mild intoxication, by comparison. It's effects are felt almost instantaneous. Unlike alcohol, and the other entertainment drugs, which take so long to take effect you can very easily consume too much before you realize how it's going to hit you - and then it's too late. Even iNow will pray to the porcelain god after way too many drinks...

 

Which is a good point that I overlooked - you're definitely right that it doesn't get argued a lot, it totally slipped by what I was thinking. Marijuana isn't as harmless as all that however - and is also extremely easy to slip substances into without notice. I've known a lot of people who had something laced into what they were smoking - it's just as easy both ways

 

Don't get me wrong, alcohol can definitely leave you rendered unconscious to the same degree without having anything slipped into it, but dear lord you'd have to be drinking a lot what I drink (190 P everclear) in order to need to be knocked out quite that cold. Usually when I mess with sleeping drunk people, they wake up to some extent. And trust me, I do it a lot.

[Moontanman]

Alcohol can kill you out right, many people are treated for alcohol poisoning every year. MJ cannot kill you out right, it can cause you to have bad judgment and do something stupid but alcohol is much worse at that than MJ. I honestly cannot see how anyone could say alcohol and tobacco should be legal and MJ should be illegal.

[Dudde]

Alcohol can kill you out right, many people are treated for alcohol poisoning every year.

 

So your argument, is that when used right, Marijuana doesn't kill people. But when alcohol is abused, it does kill people?

Alcohol does (and probably will) happen to a greater degree, but it's a shame how many of you keep touting MJ as completely safe to all degrees - I understand it's important to press your points good sides to the best effect, but denying anything dangerous about this particular drug is pretty uncool.

 

And even if it couldn't be developed or used in a dangerous way, people who are addicted to Marijuana have proven pretty outright that they'll go to much more dangerous, and societally...or societically? I dunno - disturbing means to get to it.

[iNow]

The basic premise is that the "it's dangerous" argument is disingenuous, hypocritical, and doesn't hold water.

 

We tend to pick and choose which "dangerous" substances we allow, there is a large population that partakes of it anyway, and on top of all that... MJ is relatively harmless, ESPECIALLY when compared relative to alcohol and tobacco.

[Moontanman]

So your argument, is that when used right, Marijuana doesn't kill people. But when alcohol is abused, it does kill people?

Alcohol does (and probably will) happen to a greater degree, but it's a shame how many of you keep touting MJ as completely safe to all degrees - I understand it's important to press your points good sides to the best effect, but denying anything dangerous about this particular drug is pretty uncool.

 

No what i am saying is no matter how you use it MJ cannot kill you, there is no OD level. Both alcohol and tobacco has and does kill people by simply using too much of it. Children are especially vulnerable to tobacco.

 

And even if it couldn't be developed or used in a dangerous way, people who are addicted to Marijuana have proven pretty outright that they'll go to much more dangerous, and societally...or societically? I dunno - disturbing means to get to it.

 

Now this is totally wrong, no studies have ever shown that MJ users are more likely to commit violent crimes due to their use of MJ. If anything the studies show the opposite. Categorizing a MJ user as an addict is an extreme if not totally false use of that term. MJ users have never been shown to commit crimes due to the influence if MJ or the lack of it.

[ParanoiA]

Excellent points Moontanman.

 

Dudde, just so you know, it's good having you in here. There's not alot of anti-MJ folks in here, which is telling, I might add.

 

You seem to have fallen somewhat prey to the propaganda surrounding this narcotic. It's also kind of validating, anecdotally anyway, what I've always suspected about the anti-drug crowd - they seem to rely on exaggeration and ignorance to keep you that way.

 

Pot is no harmless drug by any stretch of the imagination. It's twice as hard on your lungs, causes memory loss, and like Pangloss has pointed out numerous times, it's the great de-motivator.

 

But, like all drugs, including alcohol, those points are about chronic abuse. Just like Tequilla, none of that is an issue if you're a casual user.

 

That's why we act so incredulous about it. When we compare alcohol and other drugs to MJ, we're always comparing worst case scenarios by pointing out all of the ill effects. And to us, it's clear that marijuana hurts the abusers the least.

 

And in terms of casual use...well, everything is on the table. And MJ is still the mildest of all of them.

[bascule]

So your argument, is that when used right, Marijuana doesn't kill people. But when alcohol is abused, it does kill people?

 

Marijuana does kill people: law enforcement officers, drug traffickers, growers, etc. If it were legal these people would not be getting killed over it.

 

It is a rather silly thing for people to be getting killed over.

 

Yes marijuana has bad long term health effects. So does red meat. Red meat is far more likely to kill you than marijuana and alcohol combined.

[Moontanman]

ParanoiA, are you insinuating something?

[Pangloss]

That's a good observation, and I think it underscores part of the problem -- there are significant special interests in play against this issue. Some of the ones that are ostensibly "on the left" are interested in regulating and eliminating things that are detrimental to your health. Some of the ones that are ostensibly "on the right" are interested in eliminating things that they believe are detrimental to your moral health (just to grab a term of convenience).

 

What typically seems to happen in this country is that an issue is successful either because one of the political parties adopts it as part of its agenda or because the majority of both political parties come to support it. So if you want to decriminalize MJ, that's what you'd want to focus on.

 

Which, of course , is how a special interest group comes into being. I believe there are at least two significant MJ decriminalization lobbies located in Washington (MPP and NORML; there may be others I'm just not familiar with), and I believe both are located on or around K Street, which is an indication of their success at least in terms of becoming considered a "legitimate issue".

[Phi for All]

That's true, and I agree, but I would predict a lot more people growing this at home than making alcohol - as well as trying to sell it as a living. Which is fine I guess, I just don't want people pushing it at me or making it easier for underage people to obtain by selling it all over the street. Whether they're going to or not, we can at least try to put SOME measure of difficulty in there

It would be easiest to classify MJ the same way alcohol is classified. Develop a blood level verification, and let existing laws for alcohol govern MJ use and sales.

 

Is this some roundabout way of saying people against it are hypocrites? That's what I took out of it, and I disagree again, for the same reasons cited above. Just because you can do X and Y, it is not automatically assumed that Z should be legal too. That would be a bad way to regulate

Absolutely not. I'm saying that arguing that opponents are hypocrites because alcohol is legal and MJ is not is logical, but has the least chance of being effective in changing opponents minds. Opponents will not see themselves as being hypocritical. Hypocrisy is hard for ANYONE to spot in themselves, so it is almost always ineffective. It's just human nature.

 

No, this was actually me agreeing, I just don't like when people leave out parts of my argument that I think are valid, so I return the courtesy even if I agree

OK. I don't know what valid parts Mr Skeptic left out but I'm glad you agree that non-THC hemp should be legalized in the US since it poses no drug threat.

 

 

I don't agree with this point.

Then I think you misunderstood my point. See below.

I know a lot of people waiting to jump on the opportunity for this to become legalized, but either

A) Don't do it because it's illegal now

or

B) Do it anyway

I'm only talking about people who would be eligible to have medical MJ prescribed to them.

When it becomes legal medicinally, I doubt there'll be much more resistance to taking it than any other medicines.

My point exactly. I think I phrased it badly the first time. I know people undergoing chemotherapy who would benefit from taking medical MJ but don't because, even though they might obtain it legally, it has the stigma of being an illegal, controversial drug most others.

 

Don't play with my words - I was referring specifically to the list quoted by Mr. Skeptic. It was and was meant to be ridiculous to downplay the opposing side. Personally, I don't see the action as a move to bring down crime in the U.S nor to bring people away from other illegal substances, it'll probably just drive the drug market deeper somewhere else.

While I admit to some facetiousness, I find it hard to look at a list of cons for legalizing MJ that isn't ridiculous for the most part. I'm not an advocate for decriminalization so I could get high legally. I don't consider it to be as bad as alcohol as an intoxicant. I think people in jail only for possession or for dealing in MJ don't belong there as felons and represent a huge drain on my taxes. I think a lot of people misunderstand MJ and dismiss it as a "criminal drug" in much the same way they think of much more dangerous drugs.

 

No, that isn't what I meant. My point was to legalize it for medicinal use only, start small, and go from there. Not to decriminalize it entirely. I doubt everyone in jail for MJ possession/use/distribution was only taken in for that charge, although I'll concede there are a good many. This goes back to what I said previously - I doubt legalizing will bring down crime by a significant factor

Actually, what I said was I'd like medical MJ to happen at the same time it was declassified as a felony, not legalized entirely. We're really on the same page here, baby steps, check it out slowly, see how much of an impact it will have on society. But drop it to a misdemeanor so our prisons aren't filled with folks just looking for a little happy.

[ParanoiA]

ParanoiA, are you insinuating something?

 

Who me? nah...

[Pangloss]

Absolutely not. I'm saying that arguing that opponents are hypocrites because alcohol is legal and MJ is not is logical, but has the least chance of being effective in changing opponents minds. Opponents will not see themselves as being hypocritical. Hypocrisy is hard for ANYONE to spot in themselves, so it is almost always ineffective. It's just human nature.

 

That's a good point, and I presume it's why formal special interest groups don't use arguments like that (or at least not very often). You want to win people over, not make them defensive.

[Mr Skeptic]

While I admit to some facetiousness, I find it hard to look at a list of cons for legalizing MJ that isn't ridiculous for the most part. I'm not an advocate for decriminalization so I could get high legally. I don't consider it to be as bad as alcohol as an intoxicant. I think people in jail only for possession or for dealing in MJ don't belong there as felons and represent a huge drain on my taxes. I think a lot of people misunderstand MJ and dismiss it as a "criminal drug" in much the same way they think of much more dangerous drugs.

 

To be fair, my list of cons for MJ legalization was intended to look ridiculous. I think the cons are ridiculous, but it was a bit unfair to write them that way on a list of cons. Maybe someone could make a better list of the cons to MJ legalization?

[Moontanman]

I'd like to see such a list, I doubt it would be as believable as the list of reasons to legalize it.

[Daecon]

Some of the ones that are ostensibly "on the right" are interested in eliminating things that they believe are detrimental to your moral health (just to grab a term of convenience).

You mean detrimental to THEIR "moral health".

[Phi for All]

I'd like to see such a list, I doubt it would be as believable as the list of reasons to legalize it.

All the best reasons to keep it illegal merely help the people who make the most money from it now. The secondary reasons are all speculative, like what drug dealers will do to combat the loss of profit, or that obesity may increase because more people will have the munchies.

 

That it will become too available is the one angle that holds any strength with me. Existing laws keep homemade wine and beer from getting out of hand but I think home growers would be capable of much production levels, and having your product grown outside means security from underage users would be a concern. I know there are existing laws to cover most of this but it could be a problem, having teens hop your fence instead of raid their folks' liquor cabinet.

[Moontanman]

When I was a teenager I made my own wine, it's not difficult. Legalization and growing your own doesn't mean it's legal for everyone. Only adults and I really don't see underage smokers jumping fences to get some pot in huge numbers. You can't just grab it up and smoke it to start with. It has to be dried and that takes several days. On top of that the possibility of the same punishment for smoking pot underage as you have for alcohol should prevent some from smoking. Loosing your drivers license or being unable to get one if caught until you are 21 can be a powerful incentive. Sadly it's not enforced for alcohol the way it should be either. Police have a tendency to let the kids be kids unless they are really out of hand. I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not. I drank when I was underage and the age was 18. I didn't get into trouble but a lot of kids did. My son is in Germany right now and he says the age of drinking is 15 for beer over there. They seem to survive the teenage drinkers, i wonder why we can't? Be that as it may, enforcing laws against teenage use is no harder nor is using it any worse than alcohol, I really don't see this as a deal breaker.

[Dudde]

To be honest, I'm not passionate enough about this to argue with a one-sided crowd. This issue is really just opinion for me - actually, in the 'anti MJ' crowd, I'm usually the one throwing all these points at them - the main thing that ticks me off is the availability to teens and underaged kids, who then start cutting things into and dying off. That, or it gives them this need for a 'greater high' - which I happen to know for myself, I've already labelled 'official studies' as propoganda in this thread.

 

This is all based on opinion, but I have reason to be fairly confident that my personal experiences are pretty commonplace.

 

On top of that the possibility of the same punishment for smoking pot underage as you have for alcohol should prevent some from smoking. Loosing your drivers license or being unable to get one if caught until you are 21 can be a powerful incentive. Sadly it's not enforced for alcohol the way it should be either.

 

And honestly, I was actually making that point, but I'm at work, got a call, hit 'preview post' and saw that you'd made it - I agree completely.

 

Absolutely not. I'm saying that arguing that opponents are hypocrites because alcohol is legal and MJ is not is logical, but has the least chance of being effective in changing opponents minds. Opponents will not see themselves as being hypocritical. Hypocrisy is hard for ANYONE to spot in themselves, so it is almost always ineffective. It's just human nature.

But you didn't answer the second part of that. If it's logical that Marijuana should legalized because it only damages the user personally, why are we stopping with something as harmless as MJ? Using the bases of this argument, I don't see why other, more hardcore drugs wouldn't be able to use the same argument

 

I really see the lack of responsibility and accountability in the U.S totally disturbing, and I think that's got an impact on my opinion as well.

[Moontanman]

To be honest, I'm not passionate enough about this to argue with a one-sided crowd. This issue is really just opinion for me - actually, in the 'anti MJ' crowd, I'm usually the one throwing all these points at them - the main thing that ticks me off is the availability to teens and underaged kids, who then start cutting things into and dying off. That, or it gives them this need for a 'greater high' - which I happen to know for myself, I've already labelled 'official studies' as propoganda in this thread.

 

Sadly most official studies are propaganda, one study came back with MJ not being enough of a problem to continue to be illegal and recommended it be legalized. The committee was fired and a new group hired who came back with the appropriate results. What exactly do you mean cutting things into it and dying off?

 

This is all based on opinion, but I have reason to be fairly confident that my personal experiences are pretty commonplace.

 

I personally know at least 100 people who have been smoking MJ for most of their lives. They lead good lives , have good jobs own houses have kids and good marriages. Out of all the people I know I have seen maybe five who quit using pot and claimed they couldn't handle it. all of them turned out to be alcoholics who were trying to blame the problem on pot. so i don't think that "most" people would agree with you.

 

 

 

 

But you didn't answer the second part of that. If it's logical that Marijuana should legalized because it only damages the user personally, why are we stopping with something as harmless as MJ? Using the bases of this argument, I don't see why other, more hardcore drugs wouldn't be able to use the same argument

 

You keep talking about how damaging and how addictive pot is, that is the government line of propaganda. Is it completely safe, of course not, but is it dangerous enough to put people in jail for using it, obviously not. I have never claimed it to be harmless, not many things are that are enjoyable but among the things people do for fun it is at the bottom of the danger list not near the top.

 

I really see the lack of responsibility and accountability in the U.S totally disturbing, and I think that's got an impact on my opinion as well.

 

 

What does this have to do with this problem? Putting people in jail for doing something so benign is responsible? I don't see your point.

[Daecon]

Just look at the cannabis-induced crime rates in places such as Amsterdam.

 

Oh, wait...

[The Bear's Key]

Common Transdecimal still waiting here.

 

Oh, wait...