|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jul 9, 2011 14:04:51 GMT -5
Here's my opinion:
If you are willing to break the law, regardless of whether it's a bad law or not, you must be willing to deal with the consequences. Dealing with the consequence is a responsible, mature thing to do. Whining because you got caught breaking the law and are being punished for breaking the law even though you knew that's what would happen if you broke the law and you got caught is just immature. (Did that sentence make sense to anyone else?)
Being responsible when being caught for breaking the law = responsible weed smokers = Better public opinion = More people who rally behind you = More chance of weed being eventually legalized.
|
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jul 9, 2011 20:19:34 GMT -5
Haha. You amuse me. Really, you do. You're deliberately taking my argument and making a ridiculous rebuttal. And I like how you didn't (or can't) even go after the other parts. Just the one part you dislike, the following of the law or at the very least doing your part in changing it. If you like your ridiculous little speed limit argument, I could break the speed limit by going 10 over. I knew the speed limit, I knew I'd probably get caught at some point, and I can't really bitch and moan when I get my $100 fine if I knew I was doing it. Yeah I'd probably gripe about the time taken to get the ticket, but I'd also know that that speed limit is there for a reason. (FYI: speed limits vs drug laws are kind of an awkward thing to compare) You're not being very reasonable and I'm not going to change my mind that even if pot were to be legalized tomorrow there would still be a lot of work needed so that people stay safe: friends, users, and those who enforce the regulations. Nor the fact that pot has ever destroyed families, lives, and will continue to do so. But you're right, that's no reason not to add a third dangerous thing to the legalized substance list. But first, we should probably work at decriminalizing then try to go at LEGALIZING. Giant leaps are bad. We've been over this before, and I am sure we'll go over it again. Imprisonment is a punishment completely out of proportion to possession of pot, so my argument is not as ridiculous as you make it out to be. Not to mention, going to fucking jail is going to mess with the lives of those around a pot smoker far more than just the smoking of pot. Yeah, lets ruin his life much more than pot alone could have possibly done! That's a great idea! Also, for all your overinflated stories of people's lives being ruined by pot, I have yet to see anyone really get messed up by it. You'd *really* have to try. I know quite a few pot smokers, and none of their lives are centered around pot. And while we're speaking about refusing to address arguments, how about the fact that prohibition is what props up the whole black market for drugs in the first place? Or that it prevents any meaningful regulations on the strength and purity of drugs, leading to overdoses or poisoning. Or that it's treating a health issue as a criminal one. What about the fact that rehab is far more effective per dollar than imprisonment in reducing drug use? While we're at it, there's also the issue of uneven enforcement, where poor/minorities are imprisoned at a higher rate. If you're going to bitch about the negative effects of drugs, you can't just ignore the negative effects of prohibition, and pretend with a wave of the hand that prohibition will make drugs just magically dissappear. Good luck, Haseen, she'll just stick her fingers in her ears and go "BUT MY BROTHER IS A MORON WHO THINKS ITS A GOOD IDEA TO RUN INTO TRAFFIC AND I BLAME WEEEED SO WEED IS EEEEEBIL!" |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jul 9, 2011 20:41:08 GMT -5
Imprisonment is a punishment completely out of proportion to possession of pot, so my argument is not as ridiculous as you make it out to be. Not to mention, going to fucking jail is going to mess with the lives of those around a pot smoker far more than just the smoking of pot. Yeah, lets ruin his life much more than pot alone could have possibly done! That's a great idea! Also, for all your overinflated stories of people's lives being ruined by pot, I have yet to see anyone really get messed up by it. You'd *really* have to try. I know quite a few pot smokers, and none of their lives are centered around pot. And while we're speaking about refusing to address arguments, how about the fact that prohibition is what props up the whole black market for drugs in the first place? Or that it prevents any meaningful regulations on the strength and purity of drugs, leading to overdoses or poisoning. Or that it's treating a health issue as a criminal one. What about the fact that rehab is far more effective per dollar than imprisonment in reducing drug use? While we're at it, there's also the issue of uneven enforcement, where poor/minorities are imprisoned at a higher rate. If you're going to bitch about the negative effects of drugs, you can't just ignore the negative effects of prohibition, and pretend with a wave of the hand that prohibition will make drugs just magically dissappear. Good luck, Haseen, she'll just stick her fingers in her ears and go "BUT MY BROTHER IS A MORON WHO THINKS ITS A GOOD IDEA TO RUN INTO TRAFFIC AND I BLAME WEEEED SO WEED IS EEEEEBIL!" And as anyone who actually READS her posts can tell you, that isn't what she's saying. |
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Jul 9, 2011 20:46:51 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? One stupid little issue that would have to get ironed out first. I know I'm going to take too long to say this, but bear with me. Alcohol stays in your system for a fairly short period of time. Basically, if they can detect it with a breathalizer, it is still effecting you. Pot, not so much. I can easily pack the bong Friday night after I get home from work and test positive Sunday morning despite not being even a little bit high. One might say the smell, as in I reek of weed as I get pulled over for speeding. Does that mean I am high? Not necessarily. I could be coming back from a party last night where I spent the night. But I sure don't want a DUI, and as of right now, I don't know a way to prove my innocence. So my concern is a reliable way of testing. Old school roadside sobriety tests. Obvious cases get charged using the video as evidence. Anyone who is iffy you take to the station for additional testing to see if they have concentrations above a certain level. It's just a matter of deciding what amount to male legal. (You'd actually test the obvious ones too just to bolster the case like they do now, but you get my drift) |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 9, 2011 21:25:38 GMT -5
While I agree that prohibition is largely making things worse, Shane does have a point -- legalization is going to have to be a gradual process, and a lot of activists are failing to present the ordered timetable & detailed list of proposed regulations needed to make that happen. Those that do try to present them are being drowned out by the shouting masses.
Additionally, society needs to educate itself on the effects & risks of recrational marijuana consumption. 60 years of propaganda have been about as effective at spreading knowledge as abstinence-only sex ed. is at teaching kids how to avoid pregnancy and STDs. As a result, the majority of people believe in all kinds of lies and half-truths, regardless of which side of the debate they're on. Even those who use it regularly are susceptible to ignorance. If nothing else, people deserve to know the truth, regardless of what its implications might be or whose agenda it supports -- ignorance is never a solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by booley on Jul 10, 2011 5:02:07 GMT -5
.... "There are, like, totally people suffering and stuff, man. Weed can help with, like, back pain and stress and stuff. Medical weed is, like, awesome, dude." ..... "Man, weed laws are sooooo restrictive. Hemp can be used to make paper, man. Like, they totally should. Make weed paper, I mean." One is an argument. The other is dodge. *this hypothetical quote may reflect the views, opinions, and experiences held by Norris. Exactly.Yeeeaaahhhh, naturally if one presents a group as stoned idiots, then it's harder to agree with their case. But the people he is talking about don't necessarily sound like that. IF we are going to assume that the most inarticulate among any group with a position is representative, then I can't see any position as being valid. |
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Jul 10, 2011 6:01:09 GMT -5
While I agree that prohibition is largely making things worse, Shane does have a point -- legalization is going to have to be a gradual process, and a lot of activists are failing to present the ordered timetable & detailed list of proposed regulations needed to make that happen. Those that do try to present them are being drowned out by the shouting masses. Additionally, society needs to educate itself on the effects & risks of recrational marijuana consumption. 60 years of propaganda have been about as effective at spreading knowledge as abstinence-only sex ed. is at teaching kids how to avoid pregnancy and STDs. As a result, the majority of people believe in all kinds of lies and half-truths, regardless of which side of the debate they're on. Even those who use it regularly are susceptible to ignorance. If nothing else, people deserve to know the truth, regardless of what its implications might be or whose agenda it supports -- ignorance is never a solution. I don't think anyone's arguing that it should go from illegal to "anything goes". That would be ridiculous. If it is legalized, you're not going to see the workplace coffee maker suddenly replaced with a gravity bong. Also, the sooner it's legalized, the better, because prohibition is not working. It's not like a policy would have to be absolutely perfect -- almost anything would be better than the current system. As far as info goes, www.erowid.org/ has info about all sorts of drugs, and links to both pro and con sites. |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 10, 2011 6:13:30 GMT -5
I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying that it would help if the majority of proponents weren't so disorganized, and both sides would drop the propaganda in favour of bare facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Jul 10, 2011 6:36:59 GMT -5
I was wondering when WMDKitty would arrive in this thread. I expected it to happen sooner.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Jul 10, 2011 6:43:40 GMT -5
Good luck, Haseen, she'll just stick her fingers in her ears and go "BUT MY BROTHER IS A MORON WHO THINKS ITS A GOOD IDEA TO RUN INTO TRAFFIC AND I BLAME WEEEED SO WEED IS EEEEEBIL!" Kitty, you need more hyperbole. Seriously, 9.6/10 isn't enough. CRANK IT TO ELEVEN! Then, we'll see the truth, and realize that it's all "because government." |
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Jul 10, 2011 7:05:37 GMT -5
You forgot to put man at the end of, "because government." Almost perfect, Rime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Jul 10, 2011 8:15:23 GMT -5
I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying that it would help if the majority of proponents weren't so disorganized, and both sides would drop the propaganda in favour of bare facts. That's like trying to herd cats. |
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jul 10, 2011 13:49:41 GMT -5
Kit Walker -- the reason we can't have hemp products is because our government, in its infinite "wisdom", has decided that, because they cannot visually distinguish between hippie hay and industrial hemp, NOBODY gets shit. (Never mind that hemp has a higher yield than an equal acreage of wood precisely because it grows so fucking fast that you can get, like, two harvests a year from an acre of hemp, but you have to wait twenty years for the trees to grow enough to be useful.) @m52 -- she has reacted in that exact manner before, and she has claimed that weed is baaaad because her brother did something suicidally stupid and her uncle had a bad reaction, so nobody should ever consume it. (That's paraphrased, by the way.) She refuses to acknowledge that Prohibition effectively forces people to become criminals in order to enjoy a substance that, let's face it, is nowhere near as dangerous as, say, Benadryl. She supports Prohibition for no other reason than "but it's illegal, so it must be a bad thing". And she never did answer my question, instead going off about Schedules and why we can't legalize it, and how it's soooo different (and dangerous) that our current regulations for alcohol just can't be adapted to cover it. (When, really, all we need is three things; an age limit (something we have in place for alcohol, and seems to work fairly well), "don't toke and drive" (existing DUI laws cover this), and some reasonable restrictions on public consumption (again, we have these in place already with limitations on alcohol and cigarettes, e.g. "no drinking in public, except for designated locations", and the "No smoking within 25 feet of a business entrance" law that, as far as I know, exists only in Washington.) We have existing rules that work. We could simply expand those rules to cover cannabis, and BAM! We're good. Cannabis shouldn't even be on the friggin' Schedule, man. I'd agree if, like, people were extracting pure cannabinoids out of the plant and, like, injecting themselves with fatal doses, but heh, even with cannabis, even with the super-high-quality medical shit, it's impossible* to OD. *There are no known cases of overdose on cannabis. It's not entirely impossible that someone, somewhere, has somehow managed to ingest enough THC in a short enough time period for it to be fatal. It's just so improbable, given what we actually know about cannabis, that it's fucking laughable. You'd pass out long before you even got near fatality levels of THC. I have also heard a few tales of ruptured lungs from holding the smoke in, but I've never been able to determine the truth value of those claims.
|
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jul 10, 2011 13:56:23 GMT -5
I was wondering when WMDKitty would arrive in this thread. I expected it to happen sooner. I only dropped in to ask a couple of questions. Those questions were handwaved and the "answers" pretty much amounted to a bunch of drivel over Schedule drugs, and some shit, but never actually answering. The question: Her ass-pull of an "answer": She never actually answered the question. I am invoking the Direct Question rule and asking one question. SHANE: Why not simply take the current regs for alcohol and expand them to include cannabis? |
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Jul 10, 2011 14:15:54 GMT -5
Ya know...I actually kinda agree with kitty a bit. I do think weed should be legalized. Perhaps not all at once, but over a period of time so people can adjust and we can see exactly where and how our current laws will need to be changed to reflect weed's new status.
Legalize, regulate, and tax. Sure, it won't save the economy like some people would believe, but, as Ben Franklin said, "a penny saved is a penny earned."
Sure, smoking ANYTHING is bad for you. The human lungs weren't meant to inhale smoke, which is why its dangerous to just stand up and walk around during a house fire. BUT, people are knowingly putting it into their systems, its their choice. Just like it is with alcohol and tobacco. If people want to be idiots and get addicted to something, let them. The least we can do is divert money that would be going to dickheads like Pablo Escobar to the government to work on schools, roads, and other such things, and to the businesses and companies that would produce and sell it.
If it were going to destroy our nation...it would've destroyed the Netherlands looooooooooong ago.
|
|
