|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 8, 2011 1:37:54 GMT -5
Personally I'd like to see pot legalised. I'm not a regular smoker or anything though I'll happily admit I would try it a few times or so if it were legal. Primarily for me it's the economic argument with the added benefit of the profits going to legitimate corporations instead of drug cartels and other criminal fuckwits. I know the money saved is not much, but it's still money saved nevertheless, which can only be a good thing. Add to that a few health benefits in the way of the inevitable safety and quality standards and it seems like a pretty good argument to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Jul 8, 2011 2:40:07 GMT -5
One of the benefits of pot in a cancer patient is it increases appetite, which tends to be rather low in cancer patients. Low appetite sucks balls because your body tells you to stop eating and can get rather... vehement if you keep going.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Jul 8, 2011 5:14:28 GMT -5
To sum up the arguments:
Saving the economy - Maybe it won't fix everything, but it will relieve some of the budget stress, which is better than nothing. Just because flushing $10 down the toilet won't necessarily bankrupt you, doesn't make it a good idea.
hemp/medical - The argument is weak only because they don't always logically lead to full legalization, but the war on drugs does hinder progress in these areas.
It's healthy - Weapons grade fail.
Less dangerous than legal drugs - It may not be a good direct argument for legalization, but it does point out the hypocrisy of the drug laws.
Nonaddictive - Just another aspect of the "less dangerous" argument.
They may be weak arguments, but not as weak as arguments for keeping it illegal. Prohibition has created far more problems than it has solved.
|
|
|
|
Post by dietcokewithlemon on Jul 8, 2011 6:19:19 GMT -5
I believe that with modern technology, attempting to outlaw weed is pointless. It used to be hard to get hold of good weed from dealers, and growing was a pain without expensive equipment. However it is now possible to grow high quality stuff using off the shelf CFL bulbs. Using only a single 30Watt 6500K ( daylight ) bulb which can be bought online or in many high street shops you can grow plants 2 feet tall in under 6 weeks. It is possible to grow a couple of ounces every 10/12 weeks from a grow area the size of a large suitcase.
The interesting thing is that the European Union has outlawed incandescant light bulbs above 60 Watts and is forcing us to switch to CFL as they are 5 times more energy efficient.
Sodium and halogen lights give off heat and burn lots of power making it easy for the cops. If your energy bills shoot up 500% overnight expect a visit. CFL bulbs use 20% the power of a standard light bulb. In theory a decent grow box of 4 lights and a pc fan connected to an old mobile phone charge will use less power that leaving your kitchen light on.
Don't waste your time trying to change the law. I wasted 20 years of my adult life on that pointless campaign. Meetings, marches, demos, blah blah blah.... If its going to happen, its going to happen. Make the law irrelevant. Laws don't tend to be repealed, they just fade away until someone realises they are still on the books.
"There is an engineering solution to every problem." Dilbert.
|
|
|
|
Post by dietcokewithlemon on Jul 8, 2011 6:31:27 GMT -5
I am not condoning drug use or growing weed. That would be illegal and immoral. But remember that it is the duty of every free person to stand up and defy unjust laws.
"I vas only followink orderz" didn't work for the Nazis ( Godwin - sorry ).
|
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Jul 8, 2011 11:04:22 GMT -5
One of the benefits of pot in a cancer patient is it increases appetite, which tends to be rather low in cancer patients. Low appetite sucks balls because your body tells you to stop eating and can get rather... vehement if you keep going. Which, in turn, hastens the shit out of your decline. When my mother was on Chemo, she couldn't even keep a Boost shake down. She spent more time in the hospital dealing with dehydration and malnutrition than she did for the actual cancer. I agree completely with the article. His point isn't that these arguments (with the exception of the demonstrably false ones) don't have some place in the discussion, but that if you hide behind those arguments to obfuscate the fact that you want to get stoned legally, you make your position look like you have to hide behind stuff to justify it. |
|
|
|
Post by askold on Jul 8, 2011 12:11:31 GMT -5
I am not condoning drug use or growing weed. That would be illegal and immoral. But remember that it is the duty of every free person to stand up and defy unjust laws. "I vas only followink orderz" didn't work for the Nazis ( Godwin - sorry ). So instead you are suggesting that someday the drug addicts will overthrow the goverment and punish all police officers who have arrested drug users? Will those who do not use drugs also be punished because "they supported the system" that opressed drug addicts? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Jul 8, 2011 14:05:30 GMT -5
We were talking at work last night about legalization. My first thought was for serious advocates to shave, get haircuts, and don charcoal gray suits. Arguments aside, I still think the best first step is to not look like the stereotype for whatever you are advocating. For example, when the NRA goes shopping for votes, they do not dress in their cammo or flannel shirts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 8, 2011 16:15:14 GMT -5
I thought there were a few studies done by the WHO showing that marijuanna might reduce the risk of cancer? I heard they got rats high and they found it reduced the size of cancerous tumours by up to 60 percent. Here it is in full where it contradicts you in the article: For instance, when various studies showed that THC might slow the growth of some tumors ( while making others grow faster), all of the studies pointed out that they got their results by injecting the chemical and not getting lab rats to smoke joints (a pretty major fucking difference). Yet, pot advocates immediately took those results and translated them into endless headlines asserting that smoking weed "cures cancer." Never mind that all of these studies on the positive side effects of TCH and other chemicals in cannabis go way the fuck out of their way to tell you that this does not mean that smoking weed will cure your cancer.Re: The Godwin argument- I've had that used so many times it isn't even funny. Against me, even. For now, the law says you can't have it. You need to follow that law if you aren't going to combat it publicly. I have had to deal with my pot-smoking uncle for a long time. Pot is all he cares about. I don't mind if people are going to smoke it safely and do things to contribute to society. But the moment you start slacking off on your responsibilities is when I get testy. I don't mind if it's legalized. But as has been mentioned many times before, you have to come up with a whole new set of regulations and people will still be arrested for it if they break those new regulations. |
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jul 8, 2011 17:59:03 GMT -5
@shane -- Why not simply take the current regs for alcohol and expand them to include cannabis (or whatever other substance you might want legalized, regulated, and taxed)?
It seems to me that would be easier than cobbling together a whole new set of rules and regulations for each individual substance.
...crap. And I swore I wouldn't get involved in this thread. >.<
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 8, 2011 18:39:40 GMT -5
Because it won't work that way. It can't work that way. Not to mention you won't be able to get the right number of politicians to agree to just expand the regulations to others. That's why we have classes of pain meds in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 8, 2011 21:57:16 GMT -5
It would help if the government would stop spreading ridiculous propaganda about it, and actually look into the issue with an unbiased eye... assuming that eye wasn't distracted by all of the flying pigs, and the fact that mitts and toques were suddenly becoming fashionable in hell...
|
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jul 9, 2011 4:40:54 GMT -5
Shane, what I mean is, we have existing rules for distribution of alcohol and cigarettes. Buyer must be of a certain age, must have valid ID, (for intoxicants like alcohol) you can't drive under the influence, you can't provide them to minors, use allowed only in private or in designated areas (e.g. bars, "coffee houses").
Is there any practical reason these regulations can't be altered to cover, say, cannabis, as well as alcohol?
Or would the best case scenario be modeling cannabis regs after alcohol/tobacco regs?
|
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jul 9, 2011 4:43:12 GMT -5
It would help if the government would stop spreading ridiculous propaganda about it, and actually look into the issue with an unbiased eye... assuming that eye wasn't distracted by all of the flying pigs, and the fact that mitts and toques were suddenly becoming fashionable in hell... Yup -- keep in mind that "Reefer Madness" was fully intended to be taken seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 9, 2011 5:32:41 GMT -5
Shane, what I mean is, we have existing rules for distribution of alcohol and cigarettes. Buyer must be of a certain age, must have valid ID, (for intoxicants like alcohol) you can't drive under the influence, you can't provide them to minors, use allowed only in private or in designated areas (e.g. bars, "coffee houses"). Is there any practical reason these regulations can't be altered to cover, say, cannabis, as well as alcohol? Or would the best case scenario be modeling cannabis regs after alcohol/tobacco regs? Because it just isn't the user that you have to cobble together regulations for? Not to mention what I said earlier... classes of drugs. There's a reason we have them. We'd have to figure out which class to put pot in, what fines to impose (if they should be the same as say... selling vicodin to minors), not to mention I'm sure they would regulate the smoking thereof like they do of cigarettes. In many public places you can't smoke. INCLUDING bars. And besides, what's a good age for dealing with it? 18, 21? Higher, lower? Should Jackson over there get 5 years for selling to minors? Should he get a fine and his license taken away like they do for people who provide to minors? Which is better? Which is worse? What happens if Stan over there gets caught smoking it on his breaks? Should he just be let off as if he were smoking a cigarette? Does he get a fine? Is it solely on a case-by-case basis for his work? Being high on the job is a little bit worse than smoking a cigarette on his break. Workplaces don't like alcoholics and they don't like people who do drugs constantly. People would have to accept that and I don't see many people willing to accept that they have to man up and accept responsibility for things. Seriously, the argument of 'but there's cigarettes and alcohol and they're legal' is pretty damn weak. You have to go about things in a smart manner and not shove it down everyone else's throats. The harder you push when it comes to something like this the less likely someone will want to listen to you. You have to do it in a smart manner. You have to show that you are responsible. Yet so many proponents for it who do smoke pot are a horrible representation. Politicians want to see people who can handle themselves with pot and see that it doesn't make them difficult to be around. Screaming and wailing and stomping your feet don't give people a lot of confidence that it's a good idea to give the person the legality of pot. Seeing people who only care about pot doesn't give anyone the confidence that it's the right choice to give those who toke on the weekends and every other day ending in Y free rein over it. You simply cannot just expand regulations to fit every drug under the sun. It can't work that way. It's a case-by-case basis. |
|
