|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jul 10, 2011 14:26:38 GMT -5
Oh, look at this direct answer:
Or, for a summarized version: There are NOT regulations for "cigarrettes & alcohol," there are regulations for cigarettes, & there are regulations for alcohol. Two different sets of regulations. Because they have differing effects & risks. Pot has different qualities than both of these drugs, so it follows that you can't just pick one of these sets of laws & apply it to pot, you have to work out the specifics of the law.
But, Shane, I am confused on one point: Would you complain if you broke the hypothetical speeding law, or not? Because it being a much more ridiculous law has little to do with whether or not you agree to "not complain if you break it," on principle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jul 10, 2011 14:37:02 GMT -5
...Like I said. Anyone who actually READS Shane's posts...
But alas, WMDKitty has proven she doesn't ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Jul 10, 2011 14:50:45 GMT -5
Why not simply take the current regs for alcohol and expand them to include cannabis? I can chime in on that a little. 1. The current regs for alcohol are specific for a substance that is a beverage. When one drinks a beverage, those around you are in no way required to also imbibe. Pot would require regs more akin to those that apply to cigarettes (and you will note that many states and municipalities are restricting or outright banning smoking in public spaces). 2. The current regs for alcohol are specific for a substance that is produced and distributed by well-established, mostly huge corporations with long-standing and predictable presences in the business community. Pot, on the other hand, is generally a product of either small independent, generally anti-government operators or massive, often foreign, criminal syndicates. Neither of those are simply going to pony up to the government regulatory bar and sign on. 3. Alcohol is, generally, a non-controversial substance. The science concerning its effects, the pros & cons of usage, and quantity & manner of usage are well-established and generally not questioned by any reasonable or responsible group. Pot, on the other hand (as the original article at the start of this thread soundly established), is awash with more junk science and Oh-How-I-Wish-It-Were-True bullshit justifications and emotional opinions than the Kansas State Science Curriculum Advisory Board. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 10, 2011 18:26:27 GMT -5
But, Shane, I am confused on one point: Would you complain if you broke the hypothetical speeding law, or not? Because it being a much more ridiculous law has little to do with whether or not you agree to "not complain if you break it," on principle. Hm? Oh, I guess I'll answer. I'd probably moan about it (if this miraculous little hypothetical law EVER passed anywhere) but at least I wouldn't continue to bitch and moan and whine and instead use my anger at the law and work to get it changed. I've said it multiple times before when it comes to other things. You're angry? Cool. It's awesome. I don't care. What I care about is when you don't even move to change the laws. You'd rather sit at home and gripe. Which I guess is cool too but there's a point where it gets to be highly annoying and ridiculous. And people start not taking you seriously much at all. Also, if you ask my parents I already follow this law when I drive. >_> Also, Sandman and Lithp grabbed my other 'direct question'. Hell, Lithp said everything i was going to. Because I already had. >_> |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jul 10, 2011 18:52:52 GMT -5
Ah, I see.
Does this mean I triggered a time paradox?
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 10, 2011 19:04:14 GMT -5
Yes. Congratulations. Wibbly wobbly timey wimey.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jul 10, 2011 19:29:36 GMT -5
Causality is nothing before the might of Lithp! Fear me!
|
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Jul 10, 2011 19:45:44 GMT -5
2. The current regs for alcohol are specific for a substance that is produced and distributed by well-established, mostly huge corporations with long-standing and predictable presences in the business community. Pot, on the other hand, is generally a product of either small independent, generally anti-government operators or massive, often foreign, criminal syndicates. Neither of those are simply going to pony up to the government regulatory bar and sign on. I think you would be surprised how rapidly farmers would sign on and start producing if the USDA provided guidelines for them. It really is just another crop. The real issue is what happens after it is harvested. Somehow I suspect that the tobacco industry would fill that void very quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jul 10, 2011 22:34:49 GMT -5
And the question still has not been answered.
We have sensible regulations and rules in place governing the purchase and consumption of age-restricted products.
These rules and regulations have, over time, been proven to work fairly well. They're not perfect, but they work.
What Shane has yet to explain is WHY we "can't" regulate cannabis in the same manner we regulate alcohol and tobacco. Her answers really were little more than, "It can't work," and blathering on about the Drug Schedule, as if the current (bogus) status of cannabis as a "Schedule I" drug actually meant anything. Schedule I drugs are those that are highly addictive and easily fatal. Morphine, for example, would be one.
Cannabis, on the other hand, is virtually risk free. It's not addictive (except, perhaps, to a certain subset of the population that would get addicted to anything they found pleasurable, from Pokemon to Heroin to collecting stamps). There are no known fatalities that can be directly attributed to the deceased's use of cannabis.
You are more likely to end up in hospital after boozing it up just once (alcohol is a known toxin) than you are to end up in hospital from cannabis use, even over a lifetime of use.
I agree that regulations are necessary. I'm not saying that, hey, everyone should just go walking down the street toking up. (Okay, that would kind of be awesome to see, but... yeah.)
So, Shane, it "can't work"? Even after a handful of people have explained how and why it CAN and WILL work?
Oh... right. You think "Reefer Madness" is a documentary...
|
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jul 10, 2011 22:46:37 GMT -5
...Like I said. Anyone who actually READS Shane's posts... But alas, WMDKitty has proven she doesn't ;D No, I did read her post. It was a bunch of flip-flopping about how regulations "can't" work, because they "won't" work, and blah blah blah. Need proof of her "response"? Here's a direct quote, even, bolding mine: 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. She simply claimed that it "can't work", and never explained WHY it "can't" work. Second Direct Question, Shane. You claim that regulation of cannabis "can't" work. The Netherlands has had legal weed for quite a while now. They have a system of regulations governing where, and to whom, you can sell, and where you are allowed to consume it. The Netherlands are, in fact, thriving. Keeping in mind that cannabis was wrongly placed on the Drug Schedule, and that most government-approved information is outright deliberate misinformation designed to scare people into opposing cannabis ("Reefer Madness"), and that this scare campaign has been going on since the early 20th century. Also, remember that we did, in fact, try to ban alcohol... quite unsuccessfully, really, as prohibition has the effect not of curbing or eliminating consumption, but of driving the consumer underground and forcing the consumer to deal with criminals. Why "can't" legalization and regulation work? Oh, and then there's the issue of all the jobs that would be created, in farming, packaging plants, distro, end retail seller.... not a bad thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jul 10, 2011 22:49:40 GMT -5
I believe what Shane said is that "Just make it legal" &/or "Just make the same laws as something else" couldn't work because that is quite stupid, & suggestive of magic.
Whereas, say, "Marijuana should be legal to sell by groups fitting these descriptions, to groups of this age, this is what should happen if Party A sells to minors or Party B buys from an illegal supplier, this is how public places & businesses are allowed to handle marijuana..." you get the idea, or don't, either way, I'm getting tired of typing. Point is, that would actually be getting somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Jul 10, 2011 22:53:41 GMT -5
Remember that people have been actively advocating for legalization for more than 4 decades now, and the government is really no more sympathetic to it then it was in the Sixties. It's not the aging hippie that got into politics and wound up in Washington, it's the little fucker who went and got his MBA while everyone else was grooving to Mama Cass and arguing whether Hendrix was God or just A God.
While there have been local and state governments who have looked upon the matter with kinder eyes, lowering penalties and even in some cases legalizing medicinal use in certain cases, the Federal government has never budged on its position. And don't forget that the whole concept of Nullification was, ahem, nullified a century and a half ago, so as long as the Feds frown on toking up, it's going to be a legal risk. When the FBI raided those medicinal marijuana shops in California, the arrests were legal and the prosecutions stuck. This is just the facts of life in the USA.
The odds of the Federal government making any moves towards legalization are slim to none. Politics in the USA are largely controlled by ambitious, connected, conservative (even in the Democratic Party if you are being completely honest), old, white men, and that particular focus group does not now, nor has it ever, looked upon marijuana use with approval. Their drug of choice has always been the socially acceptable, legal alcoholic adult beverage. Hell, if the Feds didn't loosen the noose under Smilin' Bill Clinton, then what are the odds of it happening under anyone else?
What you are left with is the harsh reality that if you want to smoke pot and get high you are risking arrest, prosecution, and incarceration. This is the current state and it's likely to remain like that for the long term. You know what you are risking if you smoke it. When you spark up you have to acknowledge that you are accepting that risk.
I for one am tired of all the sad, old excuses and justifications. When marijuana is legalized for medicinal use, we have discovered that the vast majority of legal users cite "chronic pain" of an unspecified nature as the reason they desperately need their pot, not cancer or aids or glaucoma or any of the various other conditions that might actually have a legitimate benefit from marijuana. (A 2006 study of medical marijuana use in San Diego revealed that only 2% of the patients were prescribed the drug for cancer, AIDS, or glaucoma. 98% of the patients were prescribed marijuana for non-specific pain, anxiety, insomnia, spasms, and headaches. ALL of which have safe, effective, non-marijuana treatments.)
It's not safer than alcohol. (And saying that it should be legal since it's really no more dangerous than alcohol is just a stupid argument. By that logic we should legalize EVERYTHING that can in any way be shown safer than alcohol.) It won't fix the economy. It won't create any significant numbers of jobs.
I just wish they would grow some fucking balls and just admit, "I want marijuana to be legal because I want to get high without the fear of arrest." That I can at least respect, even if I don't agree with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jul 10, 2011 23:11:26 GMT -5
Sandman, I live with chronic pain. Pain that, for the most part, has no identifiable "source", but it's pain. The pain is exacerbated by spasticity, something that kind of comes with the Cerebral Palsy package.
Cannabis helps to relieve the pain AND relax my muscles.
Pain is also a highly individual experience -- pain that I would classify as a "10" (yeah, I'm a wimp when it comes to pain), you might be able to brush off as a "5". Everyone has a different level of tolerance for pain.
What you're saying, pretty much, is that you think pain complaints are bogus, and those of us who use for pain control are "just looking to get high." And that, honestly, is offensive because it dismisses legitimate medical complaints as "excuses".
And another thing... BLASPHEMY! OZZY IS GOD! Hendrix was nothing more than a messenger. (j/k)
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Jul 10, 2011 23:17:49 GMT -5
Oh it is on bitch!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jul 10, 2011 23:47:11 GMT -5
And the question still has not been answered. |
|
